When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:actualControl

Attitude is defined as a latent disposition or tendency to respond with some degree of favorableness or unfavorableness to the target behavior. It consists of two sub-constructs: dct:experientialAttitude_73dnt5z5 and dct:instrumentalAttitude_73dnt5zb.

Attitude consists of two sub-constructs, and is measured by measuring those: dct:experientialAttitude_73dnt5z5 and dct:instrumentalAttitude_73dnt5zb.

Attitude consists of two sub-constructs, and is measured by measuring those: dct:experientialAttitude_73dnt5z5 and dct:instrumentalAttitude_73dnt5zb.

These instructions still have to be extracted from pages 336-359 of the book.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:attitude_73dnt5zc

Any global evaluation of the target behavior as a whole. Note that evaluations of specific aspects or consequences of the behavior relate to aspects of underlying constructs, not of attitude itself. Also make sure to check the coding instructions for the two sub-constructs that attitude consists of: dct:experientialAttitude_73dnt5z5 and dct:instrumentalAttitude_73dnt5zb.

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:autonomy_73dnt5zx

Not specified

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:autonomy_belCom_73dnt5zw

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:autonomy_belief_73dnt5zt

The perceived power of a condition refers to the perceived impact the presence of a condition has on one’s autonomy. This impact can be perceived to be anywhere from very negative (if the condition is a barrier), through zero if the condition is perceived to have no impact on one’s autonomy regardless of whether it is perceived to be present, to very positive (if the condition is a facilitator). Note that the perception as to whether the condition is present or not is its perceived presence (dct:autonomy_conditionPresence_73dnt5zr).

According to the Reasoned Action Approach, perceptions about the power of conditions combine multiplicatively with perceptions about the presence of conditions (see dct:autonomy_conditionPresence_73dnt5zr) into autonomy beliefs (see dct:autonomy_belief_73dnt5zt).

Examples of the perceived power of a condition are the perception that having to ask for condoms at the counter obstructs buying them; the perception that rain obstructs going for a run; the perception that if food is expensive, that is a barrier to buying it; the perception that paying for STI tests is a barrier to get tested; and the perception that if anticonception is not widely available, it cannot be obtained and used.

The perceived power of a condition is measured by asking the extent to which a condition facilitates or impedes performance of a behavior. As the same condition can be facilitating for some people and impeding for others, this also implies that use of bidimensional scales is required. However, if one of the two dimensions can be excluded a priori, a unidimensional scale suffices.

For bidimensional scales, the items are formulated as ‘If I want to TARGET BEHAVIOR, (whether) [CONDITION] …’ with anchors ‘Much harder’ and ‘Much easier’. For example, ‘If I want to go for a run, rainy weather makes it [Much harder|Much easier].’

For unidimensional scales, which are only used if one of the dimensions can be excluded a priori, the way the items are formulated depends on whether they concern a barrier or a facilitator. For facilitators, use ‘If I want to TARGET BEHAVIOR, whether [CONDITION]…’ with anchors ‘Doesn’t matter’ and ‘Makes it much easier’, and for barriers, ‘If I want to TARGET BEHAVIOR, whether [CONDITION]…’ with anchors ‘Doesn’t matter’ and ‘Makes it much harder’.

For example, ‘If I want to use anticonception, whether it is widely available…’ with anchors ‘Doesn’t matter’ to ‘Makes it much easier’.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:autonomy_conditionPower_73dnt5zs

The perceived presence of a condition refers to the perceived probability that a condition will be present that may have some power to facilitate or obstruct successfully accomplishing the target behavior. Such conditions are perceived to be external to the individuals direct control (though they may in reality be internal conditions; for example, addicts may perceive their craving to be irresistible, and as such, a condition they have no control over and that negatively impacts their autonomy). Facilitating or obstructing factors that are perceived to be internal (i.e. that an individual can learn over time) are subskills (see dct:capacity_subskillPresence_73dnt5zy).

Each perceived presence of a condition concerns the absence or presence of one condition. The perceived nature of the condition (i.e. whether it facilitates or obstructs the target behavior), i.e. the perceived power of that condition, is covered in dct:autonomy_conditionPower_73dnt5zs.

According to the Reasoned Action Approach, perceptions about the presence of conditions combine multiplicatively with perceptions about the power of conditions (see dct:autonomy_conditionPower_73dnt5zs) into autonomy beliefs (see dct:autonomy_belief_73dnt5zt).

Examples of perceived presence of a condition are the perception that to buy condoms, one will have to ask for them at the counter (which may obstruct buying condoms); the perception that it is raining (which may obstruct going for a run); the perception that healthy food is very expensive (which may obstruct buying healthy food); the perception that testing for STIs is free (which may facilitate getting tested for STIs); and the perception that anticonception is widely available (which may facilitate using anticonception).

The perceived presence of a condition is measured by asking the perceived probability that a condition will be present. A unidimensional scale is required. The items are formulated as ‘How likely do you think it is that [CONDITION]?’ with anchors ‘Very unlikely’ and ‘Very likely’.

For example, ‘How likely do you think it is that it will rain?’ and ‘How likely do you think it is that anticonception will be widely available?’, both with anchors ‘Very unlikely’ and ‘Very likely’.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:autonomy_conditionPresence_73dnt5zr

The target behavior is the behavior to explain using determinants. A behavior is defined as …

Depending on the nature of the target behavior, engagement in that behavior can be conceived as binary (i.e. one either does or does not engage in the target behavior, e.g. getting tested for STIs every six months), a matter of frequency (i.e. one engages in the target behavior with a frequency from zero up to a given feasible maximum frequency in a given timespan, e.g. the frequency with which one washes their hands conform the guidelines), a matter of intensity (i.e. one engages in the target behavior to a degree from zero up to a given feasible maximum intensity, e.g. the amount of kilocalories one consumed in a meal), or a combination of these (i.e. one engages in the target behavior with a given frequency and with a given intensity, e.g. how frequently one drinks alcohol, and how many grams of alcohol one consumes when one does).

Not specified

Not specified

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:behavior_73dnt605

People’s perceptions of their ability to perform a behavior; that is, the degree to which they believe they can, are able to, or are capable of performing the behavior.

Use Likert scales that measure the degree to which participants believe the target behavior to be something they are capable of performing successfully. The items suggested in the book are: ‘I am confident that if I want to, I can TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘No confidence at all’ vs ‘A lot of confidence’ and ‘If I really wanted to, I could TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Unlikely’ vs ‘Likely’. Note that questions about how easy or difficult participants perceive a target behavior to be fall outside of the constructs of Perceived Behavioral Control, Autonomy, and Capacity as defined in the 2010 RAA book.

Questions or questionnaires that measure the perceived degree to which target behavior or [contrast behavior] is something [target population] are confident they can successfully perform. If perceived control over the behavior is also measured, code this as dct:perceivedBehavioralControl_71w8sfdk. For example, the items suggested in the book are: ‘I am confident that if I want to, I can TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘No confidence at all’ vs ‘A lot of confidence’ and ‘If I really wanted to, I could TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Unlikely’ vs ‘Likely’.

These instructions still have to be extracted from pages 336-359 of the book.

Not specified

Conduct a qualitative study where participants are interviewed, and the interviews are either recorded and transcribed, or notes are kept. These sources are then coded using the instruction for aspect coding. In this qualitative study, use these two questions. ‘Please list any factors or circumstances that would make it easy or enable you to target behavior.’ and ‘Please list any factors or circumstances that would make it difficult or prevent you from target behavior.’

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:capacity_73dnt602

Expressions that demonstrate or imply the presence or absence of confidence about one’s ability to perform the target behavior. Expressions that refer to explicit control over the target behavior (or lack thereof), for example because of a barrier, obstacle, or facilitating condition or circumstance, it should be coded as dct:perceivedBehavioralControl_autonomy_73bg9sq6. Expressions that refer to confidence in general (not in one’s ability), should be coded as dct:perceivedBehavioralControl_71w8sfdk.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:capacity_belCom_73dnt601

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:capacity_belief_73dnt600

The perceived importance of a subskill refers to how important possessing the subskill is to successfully accomplishing the target behavior. A subskill can be perceived to anything from completely irrelevant to crucial. Note that the perception of whether one possesses a subskills is its perceived presence (dct:capacity_subskillPresence_73dnt5zy).

According to the Reasoned Action Approach, perceptions about the importance of subskills combine multiplicatively with perceptions about the presence of subskills (see dct:capacity_subskillPresence_73dnt5zy) into capacity beliefs (see dct:capacity_belief_73dnt600).

Examples of perceived subskill importance are the perception that to successfully buy condoms, it is vital one possesses the skill to ask for condoms at the counter; the perception that to successfully moderate one’s alcohol intake, it doesn’t really matter whether one possesses the skill to decline an alcoholic drink when it is offered; the perception that to successfully run 5 kilometers, it is a prerequisite that one is able to run 5 kilometers; the perception that to protect one’s hearing from loud sounds, it helps if one is able to insert earplugs into one’s ear canal properly; and the perception that to prevent skin cancer in one’s child, it doesn’t matter whether one knows how to apply sunscreen on a child.

The perceived importance of a subskill is measured by asking the extent to which possessing the subskill is relevant to performance of the behavior. The items are formulated as ‘For me to successfully [BEHAVIOR], being able to [SUBSKILL] is…’ with ‘Not at all important’ and ‘extremely important’ as anchors.

For example, ‘For me to successfully use condoms, being able to ask for condoms at the counter is [not at all important|extremely important],’ ‘For me to successfully moderate my alcohol intake, being able to decline an alcoholic drink when it is offered is [not at all important|extremely important].’

Not specified

Not specified

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:capacity_subskillImportance_73dnt5zz

The perceived presence of a subskill refers to the perceived probability that a person has a certain skill that is required to successfully accomplishing the target behavior (hence ‘subskill’). Such subskills are perceived to be under the individual’s direct control (though they may in reality not be; for example, it is possible that it is not realistic for somebody to learn how to cook five star meals, yet they might believe that they can acquire the necessary subskills). Facilitating or obstructing factors that are perceived to be external to the individual’s control (i.e. that impact an individual’s autonomy) are perceived conditions (see dct:autonomy_conditionPresence_73dnt5zr).

Each perceived presence of a subskill concerns the absence or presence of one subskill. The perceived importance of the subskill to successfully accomplishing the target behavior (i.e. whether the subskill is crucial or merely facilitates the target behavior), i.e. the perceived subskill importance, is covered in dct:capacity_subskillImportance_73dnt5zz.

According to the Reasoned Action Approach, perceptions about the presence of subskills combine multiplicatively with perceptions about the importance subskills (see dct:capacity_subskillImportance_73dnt5zz) into capacity beliefs (see dct:capacity_belief_73dnt600).

Examples of perceived subskill presence are the perception that one possesses the skill to ask for condoms at the counter; the perception that one possesses the skill to decline an alcoholic drink when it is offered; the perception that one is able to run 5 kilometers; the perception that one can use earplugs properly; and the perception that one knows how to one can apply sunscreen on a child.

The perceived presence of a subskill is measured by asking the perceived probability that a person has a certain skill that is required to successfully accomplish the target behavior. It is important that the item stem explicitly describes a scenario where not successfully accomplishing the relevant sub-behavior (that corresponds to the relevant subskill) can only be the consequence of insufficiently possessing that subskill.

In the item stem, start with a word that establishes that the question concerns a regular situation. Then, if the subskill pertains to a specific scenario, insert that condition. Then continue with ‘are you able to TARGET BEHAVIOR’. For subskills that do not pertain to specific scenarios, the item stem then becomes ‘Typically, are you able to TARGET BEHAVIOR’, and for subskills that do pertain to a specific scenario, the item stem becomes ‘Typically, if [SCENARIO], are you able to TARGET BEHAVIOR’.

As anchors, use ‘Absolutely unable’ to ‘Absolutely able’ (this is a unidimensional scale).

For example, ‘Typically, are you able to ask for condoms at the counter?’ and ‘Typically, if an alcoholic drink is offered, are you able to decline?’, both with anchors ‘Absolutely unable’ and ‘Absolutely able’.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:capacity_subskillPresence_73dnt5zy

Not specified

Use likert scales that measure perceived behavior of important social referents in general. It is important that no specific individuals are referenced, but that the items do refer to individuals that are similar, important or seen as important to follow. Note that the behavior in these items must always be the target behavior. The example items in the 2010 RAA book are ‘Most people I respect and admire will TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Unlikely’ vs ‘Likely’; and ‘How many people like you TARGET BEHAVIOR?’ with anchors ‘Nobody’ vs ‘Everybody’.

Not specified

These instructions still have to be extracted from pages 336-359 of the book.

Not specified

Conduct a qualitative study where participants are interviewed, and the interviews are either recorded and transcribed, or notes are kept. These sources are then coded using the instruction for aspect coding. In this qualitative study, use the introduction ‘Sometimes, when we are not sure what to do, we look to see what others are doing.’, and then ask these questions: ‘Please list the individuals or groups who are most likely to TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ and ‘Please list the individuals or groups who are least likely to TARGET BEHAVIOR.’.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:descriptiveNorms_73dnt5zp

Expressions of perceived behavior of others, i.e. whether others perform the target behavior or not. Note that exressions of perceived approval or disapproval should be coded as dct:perceivedNorm_injunctive_73bg2wm7, and expressions of perceived norms where it is unclear whether they concern perceived (dis)approval or perceived approval should be coded as dct:perceivedNorm_71w98kk2.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:descrNorms_belCom_73dnt5zn

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:descrNorms_belief_73dnt5zm

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:expAttitude_belCom_73dnt5z4

Beliefs are defined as the subjective probability that an object has a certain attribute, where ‘object’ and ‘attribute’ are used in the generic sense, and refer to any discriminable aspect of an individual’s world. Conform the expectancy-value model of attitude, beliefs are the product of the expectation that engaging in a behavior will have a given consequence and the evaluation of that consequence as (very) negative or (very) positive. Experiential attitude beliefs concern beliefs about consequences of engaging in the behavior that influence one’s experiences, for example by causing pleasure or pain.

Experiential attitude beliefs are measured by measuring both of the component constructs: dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1 and dct:expAttitude_evaluation_73dnt5z2.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:expAttitude_belief_73dnt5z3

An experiential attitude belief evaluation is the evaluation as positive or negative (i.e. desirable or undesirable) of one specific experiential potential consequence of a behavior. The experiential nature of this evaluation means that this concerns mostly expected experiences and sensations, such as pleasure or pain. Consequences that render the target behavior less or more instrumental given more long-term goals are captured in instrumental attitude and the underlying beliefs (see dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1 and dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6 for more details about this distinction).

According to the Reasoned Action Approach, experiential attitude belief evaluations combine multiplicatively with experiential attitude belief expectations (see dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1) into experiential attitude beliefs (see dct:expAttitude_belief_73dnt5z3).

Examples of experiential attitude belief evaluations are (note that the examples provided for the experiential attitude belief expectations should probably be read first, see dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1): the degree to which one finds it pleasant to sit down during a bus journey to the city centre; the evaluation of watching the scenery as desirable; one’s evaluation of a pizza’s taste as nice; one appraising a relaxed feeling as pleasant; one enjoying the sensation of sex without a condom.

Experiential attitude belief evaluations are measured using questions in a questionnaire that are referred to as ‘items’. Experiential attitude belief evaluation always relate to specific experiential attitude belief expectations, so the first step is to identify the expectation for which the evaluation should be measured (e.g. ‘Drinking alcohol makes me feel … [much more relaxed|much more excited]’). Evaluations of expectations are always measured on a bidimensional scale.

As item stem, use ‘I prefer …’, and as anchors, include the scale extremes used when measuring the expectation. For example, an item could be ‘I prefer … [being much more relaxed|being much more excited]’. Make sure to formulate the item stem such that it makes clear that you are asking people about their evaluation (not what they think holds more generally). Use a seven-point response scale and try to always be consistent in the scale valence; in languages that are read from left to right, always place the most passive/low/less/weak/unlikely scale extreme (anchor) on the left, and the most active/high/more/strong/likely scale extreme (anchor) on the right. Do not reverse this order for one or more items.

The item or set of items should be accompanied by an instruction that makes clear that you are asking people about their evaluation (not what they think holds more generally).

Experiential attitude belief evaluations are measured using questions in a questionnaire (these are referred to as ‘items’). Items can be coded as measuring an experiential attitude belief evaluation if they measure participants’ evaluation of one specific experiential potential consequence of a behavior as positive or negative (i.e. desirable or undesirable).

The experiential nature of this evaluation means that this concerns mostly expected experiences and sensations, such as pleasure or pain.

The question should include, either in its stem or in its anchors, the specific dimension of which the evaluation is being measured (e.g. whether people prefer feeling relaxed or feeling excited, or whether people evaluate being excited as positive or negative).

Note that evaluations of consequences that render the target behavior less or more instrumental given more long-term goals are captured in instrumental attitude and the underlying beliefs. (see dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1 and dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6 for more details about this distinction, and see dct:instrAttitude_evaluation_73dnt5z7 for the coding instruction for instrumental attitude belief evaluations).

Conduct a qualitative study where participants are interviewed, and the interviews are either recorded and transcribed, or notes are kept. These sources (i.e. transcripts or notes) are then coded using the instruction for aspect coding. In this qualitative study, use these questions: ‘What do you see as the advantages of you engaging in target behavior?’, ‘What do you see as the disadvantages of you engaging in target behavior?’, and ‘What else comes to mind when you think about target behavior?’.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:expAttitude_evaluation_73dnt5z2

Expressions of one’s evaluations as positive or negative (i.e. desirable or undesirable) of experiential potential consequences of a behavior. The experiential nature of this evaluation means that this these evaluations concern mostly expected experiences and sensations, such as pleasure or pain.

Note that expressions of evaluations of consequences that render the target behavior less or more instrumental given more long-term goals are captured in instrumental attitude and the underlying beliefs (see dct:instrAttitude_evaluation_73dnt5z7).

One’s actual expectation (i.e. whether a consequence is likely or unlikely) should be coded as dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1.

An experiential attitude belief expectation is the expectation of how probable (i.e. unlikely versus likely) it is that engaging in the target behavior will cause one specific experiential potential consequence to come about. The experiential nature of this expectation means that these expected consequences must concern experiences and sensations, such as pleasure or pain.

Each experiential attitude belief expectation covers one specific acute hedonic expectation, disconnected from potential long-term consequences the target behavior may have. Experiential attitude belief expectations always refer to immediately experienced consequences of a behavior. Expectations about consequences that render the target behavior less or more desirable without the immediate experiential effects of the behavior playing a role are captured in instrumental attitude belief expectations (see dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6).

According to the Reasoned Action Approach, experiential attitude belief expectations combine multiplicatively with experiential attitude belief evaluations (see dct:expAttitude_evaluation_73dnt5z2) into experiental attitude beliefs (see dct:expAttitude_belief_73dnt5z3).

Examples of experiential attitude belief expectations are: the expectation that taking the bus to the city centre will allow one to sit down during the journey, which one finds a pleasant feeling; the expectation that walking to the city centre will allow one to watch the scenery, which one enjoys; the expectation that eating a pizza will taste nice; the expectation that going for a run will feel relaxing; and the expectation that having sex without a condom will feel more pleasant than having sex with a condom.

Experiential attitude belief expectations are measured using questions in a questionnaire that are referred to as ‘items’. To measure an experiential attitude belief expectation, first, identify exactly which potential experiential consequence of the target behavior (e.g. a specific experience or sensation) you want to measure. Then, establish whether accurately describing the spectrum of possibilities regarding this experiential consequence requires a unidimensional scale or a bidimensional scale. Most potential consequences of a target behavior can be perceived either to increase or decrease upon performance of the target behavior, requiring a bidimensional scale. For example, some people might expect they will feel less relaxed if they drink alcohol, while others might expect they will feel more relaxed. However, in rare cases, one of the two dimensions can be excluded a priori, in which case a unidimensional scale suffices. For example, the degree to which people will expect they will feel less hungry may vary; but it is excessively unlikely that somebody might expect that if they eat a whole pizza, they will then feel more hungry. Therefore, in that case, one might want to choose a unidimensional scale. In general, a rule of thumb is that if the ‘default state’ of this experiential consequence resembles absence of the experience, and therefore, engaging in the target behavior can only have an effect in one direction, a unidimensional scale can be used. However, when engaging in the target behavior can conceivably increase or decrease this experiential consequence, a bidimensional scale is required.

Once it is clear whether a bidimensional or unidimensional scale should be used, the construction of the item stem and the two anchors can start. Make sure to formulate the item stem such that it makes clear that you are asking people about their expectation (not what they think holds more generally).

For unidimensional scales, create an item stem that explicitly lists the single dimension that expresses the experiential consequence (e.g. feeling full after eating a pizza). As anchors, always use ‘Very unlikely’ and ‘Very likely’. An example item would be: ‘If I eat a whole pizza at once, it is … that it will make me feel full. [Very unlikely|Very likely]’. However, as explained above, unidimensional scales can rarely be used in most circumstances, so bidimensional scales are usually required.

For bidimensional scales, the item stem cannot explicitly list only one of the two dimensions (e.g. ‘feeling much less relaxed’ or ‘feeling much more relaxed’). This is because this would create a unidimensional or ambiguous response scale. People who would score low on the unidimensional scale might mean either that they don’t think that consequence will occur, or that they think that the opposite consequence will occur. For example, when creating an item ‘If I drink a glass of alcohol, I will feel much more relaxed. [Very unlikely|Very likely]’, people who respond ‘Very unlikely’ can mean either that they expect to feel much less relaxed, or that they expect that drinking a glass of alcohol will have no effect on how relaxed they will feel.

Therefore, capturing the full potential breadth of the beliefs of your target population requires asking what they expect exactly. To do this, create an item stem that contains the target behavior, and anchors that express the extremes of the bidimensional scale. For example, ‘Drinking alcohol makes me feel … [much less relaxed|much more relaxed]’. Sometimes, the two extremes of the dimension you want to measure can be expressed in two antonyms, such as ‘Drinking alcohol makes me feel … [much more relaxed|much more excited]’.

Once the item stem and the two anchors have been determined, decide which response scale to use. For bidimensional scales, seven-point scales are preferred, as these leave three degrees of expression in each dimension (the mid-point representing the expectation that the behavior does not have a consequence regarding this specific experiential attitude belief). For unidimensional scales, five-point scales suffice. Try to always be consistent in the scale valence; in languages that are read from left to right, always place the most passive/low/less/weak/unlikely scale extreme (anchor) on the left, and the most active/high/more/strong/likely scale extreme (anchor) on the right. Do not reverse this order for one or more items.

When combining multiple items in one measurement instrument, if both evaluations of unidimensional consequences and evaluations of bidimensional consequences are measured, either use two matrices or combine them in one that uses seven-point scales for all items.

The item or set of items should be accompanied by an instruction that makes clear that you are asking people about their expectation (not what they think holds more generally).

Experiential attitude belief expectations are measured using questions in a questionnaire (these are referred to as ‘items’). Items can be coded as measuring an experiential attitude belief expectation if they measure participants’ expectation of how probable (i.e. unlikely versus likely) it is that engaging in the target behavior will cause one specific experiential potential consequence to come about. The experiential nature of this expectation means that these expected consequences must concern experiences and sensations, such as pleasure or pain.

These experiential attitude belief expectations cover acute hedonic expectations, disconnected from potential long-term consequences the target behavior may have. Experiential attitude belief expectations always refer to immediately experienced consequences of a behavior.

The question should include, either in its stem or in its anchors, the specific expectation being measured.

Note that items concerning consequences that render the target behavior less or more desirable without the immediate experiential effects of the behavior playing a role are captured in instrumental attitude belief expectations (see dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6).

Conduct a qualitative study where participants are interviewed, and the interviews are either recorded and transcribed, or notes are kept. These sources (i.e. transcripts or notes) are then coded using the instruction for aspect coding. In this qualitative study, use these questions: ‘What do you see as the advantages of you engaging in target behavior?’, ‘What do you see as the disadvantages of you engaging in target behavior?’, and ‘What else comes to mind when you think about target behavior?’.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1

Expressions of expectations of how probable (i.e. unlikely versus likely) it is that engaging in the target behavior will cause an experiential potential consequence to come about. The experiential nature of this expectation means that these expected consequences must concern experiences and sensations, such as pleasure or pain. These experiential attitude belief expectations cover acute hedonic expectations, disconnected from potential long-term consequences the target behavior may have. Experiential attitude belief expectations always refer to immediately experienced consequences of a behavior.

Note that expressions of expectations of consequences that render the target behavior less or more desirable without the immediate experiential effects of the behavior playing a role are captured in instrumental attitude belief expectations (see dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6).

One’s evaluation in terms of valence (i.e. positive versus negative) of the consequence should be coded as dct:expAttitude_evaluation_73dnt5z2.

A latent disposition or tendency to respond with some degree of favorableness or unfavorableness to the target behavior based on what one expects to experience if engaing in the target behavior.

Use semantic differentials with root ‘For me, TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ and a bidimensional scale where the right-most anchor expresses a pleasant affective state and the left-most anchor expresses the opposite unpleasant affective state (e.g. ‘unpleasant’ versus ‘pleasant’). The example items in the 2010 RAA book are ‘For me, TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ with anchors ‘Bad’ vs ‘Good’; ‘For me, TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ with anchors ‘Unpleasant’ vs ‘Pleasant’; ‘For me, TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ with anchors ‘Harmful’ vs ‘Beneficial’; and ‘For me, TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ with anchors ‘Boring’ vs ‘Interesting’.

Operationalisations that measure affective aspects of the latent disposition or tendency to respond favourably versus unfavourably to target behavior, for example using the semantic differentials ‘pleasant’ vs ‘unpleasant’ or ‘fun’ vs ‘boring’.

Experiential attitude is defined as a construct that is the consequence of a person’s evaluation of the experiential attitude belief composite.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:experientialAttitude_73dnt5z5

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:injNorms_belCom_73dnt5zh

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:injNorms_belief_73dnt5zg

Injunctive norm Def

Use likert scales that measure both perceived social approval and perceived behavior of important social referents in general. It is important that no specific individuals are referenced, but that the items do refer to individuals that are similar, important or seen as important to follow. Note that the behavior in these items must always be the target behavior. The example items in the 2010 RAA book are ‘Most people who are important to me think I should TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘False’ vs ‘True’; ‘Most people whose opinions I value would … of my TARGET BEHAVIOR’ with anchors ‘Disapprove’ vs ‘Approve’; ‘Most people I respect and admire will TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Unlikely’ vs ‘Likely’; and ‘How many people like you TARGET BEHAVIOR?’ with anchors ‘Nobody’ vs ‘Everybody’.

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:injunctiveNorms_73dnt5zj

Not specified

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:instrAttitude_belCom_73dnt5z9

Beliefs are defined as the subjective probability that an object has a certain attribute, where ‘object’ and ‘attribute’ are used in the generic sense, and refer to any discriminable aspect of an individual’s world. Conform the expectancy-value model of attitude, beliefs are the product of the expectation that engaging in a behavior will have a given consequence and the evaluation of that consequence as (very) negative or (very) positive. Instrumental attitude beliefs concern beliefs about consequences of engaging in the behavior for achieving one’s goals.

Not specified

Not specified

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:instrAttitude_belief_73dnt5z8

An instrumental attitude belief evaluation is the evaluation as positive or negative (i.e. desirable or undesirable) of one specific instrumental potential consequence of a behavior. The instrumental nature of this evaluation means that this these evaluations contain information about people’s longer term goals. Consequences that concern experiences and sensations, such as pleasure or pain, are captured in experiential attitude and the underlying beliefs (see dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6 and dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1 for more details about this distinction).

According to the Reasoned Action Approach, instrumental attitude belief evaluations combine multiplicatively with instrumental attitude belief expectations (see dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6) into instrumental attitude beliefs (see dct:instrAttitude_belief_73dnt5z8).

Examples of instrumental attitude belief evaluations are (note that the examples provided for the instrumental attitude belief expectations should probably be read first, see dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6): the degree to which one evaluates the expectation that one saves time by taking the bus to the city center as positive; the extent to which one considers it desirable that exercising will contribute to one’s goal of being healthy (assuming one holds that expectation, which is captured by dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6); whether somebody likes to prevent starving, a goal that eating a pizza contributes to; one’s evaluation of burning calories (an expectation one may have of the behavior going for a run); and whether somebody wants to produce offspring.

Instrumental attitude belief evaluations are measured using questions in a questionnaire that are referred to as ‘items’. Instrumental attitude belief evaluation always relate to specific instrumental attitude belief expectations, so the first step is to identify the expectation for which the evaluation should be measured (e.g. ‘Drinking four cups of coffee every day leads to me being … [much less healthy|much more healthy]’ or ‘Drinking four cups of coffee makes me … [very idle|very productive]’). Evaluations of expectations are always measured on a bidimensional scale.

As item stem, use ‘I prefer …’, and as anchors, include the scale extremes used when measuring the expectation. For example, an item could be ‘I prefer … [being much less healthy|being much more healthy]’, and another items can be ‘I prefer … [being very idle|being very productive]’. Make sure to formulate the item stem such that it makes clear that you are asking people about their evaluation (not what they think holds more generally). Use a seven-point response scale and try to always be consistent in the scale valence; in languages that are read from left to right, always place the most passive/low/less/weak/unlikely scale extreme (anchor) on the left, and the most active/high/more/strong/likely scale extreme (anchor) on the right. Do not reverse this order for one or more items.

The item or set of items should be accompanied by an instruction that makes clear that you are asking people about their evaluation (not what they think holds more generally).

Instrumental attitude belief evaluations are measured using questions in a questionnaire (these are referred to as ‘items’). Items can be coded as measuring an instrumental attitude belief evaluation if they measure participants’ evaluation of one specific instrumental potential consequence of a behavior as positive or negative (i.e. desirable or undesirable).

The instrumental nature of this evaluation means that this these evaluations contain information about people’s longer term goals.

The question should include, either in its stem or in its anchors, the specific dimension of which the evaluation is being measured (e.g. whether people prefer being unhealthy versus healthy, or whether people evaluate being healthy as positive or negative).

Note that evaluations of consequences that concern experiences and sensations, such as pleasure or pain, are captured in experiential attitude and the underlying beliefs (see dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6 and dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1 for more details about this distinction, and see [[dct::expAttitude_evaluation_73dnt5z2]] for the coding instruction for experiential attitude belief evaluations).

Conduct a qualitative study where participants are interviewed, and the interviews are either recorded and transcribed, or notes are kept. These sources (i.e. transcripts or notes) are then coded using the instruction for aspect coding. In this qualitative study, use these questions: ‘What do you see as the advantages of you engaging in target behavior?’, ‘What do you see as the disadvantages of you engaging in target behavior?’, and ‘What else comes to mind when you think about target behavior?’.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:instrAttitude_evaluation_73dnt5z7

Expressions of one’s evaluations as positive or negative (i.e. desirable or undesirable) of instrumental potential consequences of a behavior. The instrumental nature of this evaluation means that this these evaluations contain information about people’s longer term goals.

Note that expressions of evaluations of consequences that concern experiences and sensations, such as pleasure or pain, are captured in experiential attitude and the underlying beliefs (see dct:expAttitude_evaluation_73dnt5z2).

One’s actual expectation (i.e. whether a consequence is likely or unlikely) should be coded as dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6.

An instrumental attitude belief expectation is the expectation of how probable (i.e. unlikely versus likely) it is that engaging in the target behavior will cause one specific instrumental potential consequence to come about. The instrumental nature of this consequence denotes that instrumental attitude belief expectations must concern consequences that facilitate or hinder achieving one or more longer term goals.

Each instrumental attitude belief expectation covers one specific long-term consequence, disconnected from acute hedonic consequences the target behavior may have. Instrumental attitude belief expectations always refer to consequences that cause a behavior to contribute more or less to goals an individual has. Expectations about experiencing the consequences of a behavior, for example expectations relating to experiences and sensations, are captured in experiential attitude belief expectations (see dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1).

According to the Reasoned Action Approach, instrumental attitude belief expectations combine multiplicatively with instrumental attitude belief evaluations (see dct:instrAttitude_evaluation_73dnt5z7) into instrumental attitude beliefs (see dct:instrAttitude_belief_73dnt5z8).

Examples of instrumental attitude belief expectations are: the expectation that taking the bus to the city centre will save time, which contributes to the goal of being punctual; the expectation that walking to the city centre will allow one to exercise, which contributes to the goal of being healthy; the expectation that eating a pizza will prevent one from starving, which contributes to the goal of surviving; the expectation that going for a run will burn calories, which contributes to one’s goal of losing weight; and the expectation that having sex without a condom is more likely to lead to conception, which is required to achieve one’s goal of producing offspring.

Instrumental attitude belief expectations are measured using questions in a questionnaire that are referred to as ‘items’. To measure an instrumental attitude belief expectation, first, identify exactly which potential instrumental consequence of the target behavior (e.g. a specific benefit or advantage) you want to measure. Then, establish whether accurately describing the spectrum of possibilities regarding this instrumental consequence requires a unidimensional scale or a bidimensional scale. Most potential consequences of a target behavior can be perceived either to increase or decrease upon performance of the target behavior, requiring a bidimensional scale. For example, some people might expect that drinking four cups of coffee every day contributes to their goal of being healthy, whether others might expect that that is unhealthy instead, expecting that not consuming any coffee at all is more healthy. However, in rare cases, one of the two dimensions can be excluded a priori, in which case a unidimensional scale suffices. For example, the degree to which people will expect that exercising regularly for a month will increase their health may vary; but is it excessively unlikely that somebody might expect that if they exercise regularly for a month, their health will decrease. Therefore, in that case, one might want to choose a unidimensional scale. In general, a rule of thumb is that if the ‘default state’ of this instrumental consequence resembles absence of the potential consequence, and therefore, engaging in the target behavior can only have an effect in one direction, a unidimensional scale can be used. However, when engaging in the target behavior can conceivably increase or decrease this instrumental consequence, a bidimensional scale is required.

Once it is clear whether a bidimensional or unidimensional scale should be used, the construction of the item stem and the two anchors can start. Make sure to formulate the item stem such that it makes clear that you are asking people about their expectation (not what they think holds more generally).

For unidimensional scales, create an item stem that explicitly lists the single dimension that expresses the instrumental consequence (e.g. exercising regularly for a month leading to increased health). As anchors, always use ‘Very unlikely’ and ‘Very likely’. An example item would be: ‘If I exercise regularly for a month, it is … that my health will increase. [Very unlikely|Very likely]’. However, as explained above, unidimensional scales can rarely be used in most circumstances, so bidimensional scales are usually required.

For bidimensional scales, the item stem cannot explicitly list only one of the two dimensions (e.g. ‘become much less healthy’ or ‘become much more healthy’). This is because this would create a unidimensional or ambiguous response scale. People who would score low on the unidimensional scale might mean either that they don’t think that consequence will occur, or that they think that the opposite consequence will occur. For example, when creating an item ‘If I drink four cups of coffee every day, I will become much more healthy. [Very unlikely|Very likely]’, people who respond ‘Very unlikely’ can mean either that they expect to feel much less healthy, or that they expect that drinking four cups of coffee every day will have no effect on their health.

Therefore, capturing the full potential breadth of the beliefs of your target population requires asking what they expect exactly. To do this, create an item stem that contains the target behavior, and anchors that express the extremes of the bidimensional scale. For example, ‘Drinking four cups of coffee every day leads to me being … [much less healthy|much more healthy]’. Sometimes, the two extremes of the dimension you want to measure can be expressed in two antonyms, such as ‘Drinking four cups of coffee makes me … [very idle|very productive]’.

Once the item stem and the two anchors have been determined, decide which response scale to use. For bidimensional scales, seven-point scales are preferred, as these leave three degrees of expression in each dimension (the mid-point representing the expectation that the behavior does not have a consequence regarding this specific instrumental attitude belief). For unidimensional scales, five-point scales suffice. Try to always be consistent in the scale valence; in languages that are read from left to right, always place the most passive/low/less/weak/unlikely scale extreme (anchor) on the left, and the most active/high/more/strong/likely scale extreme (anchor) on the right. Do not reverse this order for one or more items.

When combining multiple items in one measurement instrument, if both evaluations of unidimensional consequences and evaluations of bidimensional consequences are measured, either use two matrices or combine them in one that uses seven-point scales for all items.

The item or set of items should be accompanied by an instruction that makes clear that you are asking people about their expectation (not what they think holds more generally).

Instrumental attitude belief expectations are measured using questions in a questionnaire (these are referred to as ‘items’). Items can be coded as measuring an instrumental attitude belief expectation if they measure participants’ expectation of how probable (i.e. unlikely versus likely) it is that engaging in the target behavior will cause one specific instrumental potential consequence to come about. The instrumental nature of this consequence denotes that instrumental attitude belief expectations must concern consequences that facilitate or hinder achieving one or more longer term goals.

These instrumental attitude belief expectations cover long-term consequences, disconnected from acute hedonic consequences the target behavior may have. Instrumental attitude belief expectations always refer to consequences that cause a behavior to contribute more or less to goals an individual has.

The question should include, either in its stem or in its anchors, the specific expectation being measured.

Note that items concerning experiencing the consequences of a behavior, for example expectations relating to experiences and sensations, are captured in experiential attitude belief expectations (see dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1).

Conduct a qualitative study where participants are interviewed, and the interviews are either recorded and transcribed, or notes are kept. These sources (i.e. transcripts or notes) are then coded using the instruction for aspect coding. In this qualitative study, use these questions: ‘What do you see as the advantages of you engaging in target behavior?’, ‘What do you see as the disadvantages of you engaging in target behavior?’, and ‘What else comes to mind when you think about target behavior?’.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:instrAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z6

Expressions of expectations of how probable (i.e. unlikely versus likely) it is that engaging in the target behavior will cause an instrumental potential consequence to come about. The instrumental nature of this expectation means that these expected consequences must concern facilitation or obstruction of achieving one or more longer term goals. These instrumental attitude belief expectations cover expectations of potential long-term consequences, disconnected from acute hedonic consequences the target behavior may have. Instrumental attitude belief expectations always refer to assumed benefits or costs of a behavior.

Note that expressions of expectations of consequences that render the target behavior less or more desirable where the immediate experiential effects of the behavior play a role are captured in experiential attitude belief expectations (see dct:expAttitude_expectation_73dnt5z1).

One’s evaluation in terms of valence (i.e. positive versus negative) of the consequence should be coded as dct:instrAttitude_evaluation_73dnt5z7.

A latent disposition or tendency to respond with some degree of favorableness or unfavorableness to the target behavior based on the perceived usefulness of engaging in that target behavior to achieving one’s goals.

Use semantic differentials with root ‘For me, TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ and a bidimensional scale where the right-most anchor expresses a generally desirable instrumental state/goal and the left-most anchor expresses the opposite undesirable state/goal (e.g. ‘unwise’ versus ‘wise’ and ‘bad’ versus ‘good’). The example items in the 2010 RAA book are ‘For me, TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ with anchors ‘Bad’ vs ‘Good’; ‘For me, TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ with anchors ‘Unpleasant’ vs ‘Pleasant’; ‘For me, TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ with anchors ‘Harmful’ vs ‘Beneficial’; and ‘For me, TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ with anchors ‘Boring’ vs ‘Interesting’.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:instrumentalAttitude_73dnt5zb

The readiness to engage in the behavior, incorporating concepts such as willingness, behavioral expectation, and trying.

Use a likert scale to ask participants to what degree they intend to, are willing to, or plan to perform the target behavior. The items suggested in the 2010 RAA book are: ‘I intend to TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Definitely do not’ vs ‘Definitely do’; ‘I will TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Unlikely’ vs ‘Likely’; ‘I am willing to TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘False’ vs ‘True’; and ‘I plan to TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Absolutely not’ vs ‘Absolutely’.

Operationalisations that measure the degree to which a target population member has a deliberate (reasoned) plan/intention to engage in TARGET BEHAVIOR. For example, the items suggested in the book are: ‘I intend to TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Definitely do not’ vs ‘Definitely do’; ‘I will TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Unlikely’ vs ‘Likely’; ‘I am willing to TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘False’ vs ‘True’; and ‘I plan to TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Absolutely not’ vs ‘Absolutely’.

These instructions still have to be extracted from pages 336-359 of the book.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:intention_73dnt604

Any expressions that somebody has the intention, goal, or plan to perform a target behavior.

Motivation to comply with a specific social referent refers to an individual’s motivation to behave in a way that is most approved of by that social referent. Note that motivation to comply is separate from the approval or disapproval itself, which is captured in dct:referentApproval_73dnt5zd.

A social referent can be a specific individual, a group of distinct individuals (e.g. one’s siblings), or a more generically defined group (e.g. the residents of my city).

The motivation to comply with a given social referent combines multiplicatively with the perceived approval of that referent (dct:referentApproval_73dnt5zd) into an injunctive norm belief (dct:injNorms_belief_73dnt5zg).

To measure the motivation to comply with a given social referent, measure how much people want to do what the relevant social referents think they should do with regard to the target behavior.

In most behaviors and populations, unidimensional scales can be used. As item stem, use ‘When it comes to TARGET BEHAVIOR, I want to do what [SOCIAL REFERENT] think(s) I should do.’, and as anchors, ‘Not at all’ and ‘Very much’. For example, ‘When it comes to whether I avoid meat during dinner, I want to do what my partner thinks I should do. [’Not at all’|’Very much’]’ or ‘When it comes to my coffee consumption, I want to do what my colleagues think I should do. [’Not at all’|’Very much’]’.

However, for some behaviors and some populations, it’s not only possible that individuals want to do what a social referent thinks they should do to a certain degree, but it’s also possible that the individual actively wants to do what that social referent would disapprove of. For example, people may strongly want to clearly demonstrate distancing themselves from members of a perceived outgroup (e.g. adolescents may want to disobey middle-aged people).

In such situations, you can use a bidimensional scale to account for this variation. Use item stem ‘When it comes to TARGET BEHAVIOR, I want to do what [SOCIAL REFERENT]…’ with anchors ‘Do(es)n’t want me to do’ and ‘Want(s) me to do’. For example, ‘When it comes to condom use with a partner, I want to do what other adolescents… [Don’t want me to do|Want me to do]’, or ‘When it comes to how late I go to bed, I want to do what my older sibling … [Doesn’t want me to do|Wants me to do]’

Not specified

Not specified

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:motivationToComply_73dnt5zf

People’s perceptions of the degree to which they are capable of, or have control over, performing a given behavior.

Use Likert scales that measure the degree to which participants believe the target behavior to be under their control and something they are capable of performing successfully, for example by measuring their perceived capacity and perceived autonomy to perform the target behavior. The items suggested in the 2010 RAA book are: ‘I am confident that if I want to, I can TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘No confidence at all’ vs ‘A lot of confidence’; ‘Whether I TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ with anchors ‘Not up to me’ vs ‘Completely up to me’; ‘If I really wanted to, I could TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Unlikely’ vs ‘Likely’; and ‘For me to TARGET BEHAVIOR is under my control.’ with anchors ‘Not at all’ vs ‘Completely’. If only the first and third of these items are measured, the ‘Capacity’ construct is measured instead. If only the second and fourth items are measured, the ‘Autonomy’ construct is measured instead. Note that questions about how easy or difficult participants perceive a target behavior to be fall outside of the constructs of Perceived Behavioral Control, Autonomy, and Capacity as defined in the 2010 RAA book (see also the discussion on page 164).

Questions or questionnaires that measure the perceived degree to which the target behavior or the contrast behavior is both under the control of the target population individual and something they are confident they can successfully perform. If only one aspect is measured (i.e. only control or only confidence), code this as the ‘Autonomy’ or ‘Capacity’ constructs. For example, the items suggested in the book are: ‘I am confident that if I want to, I can TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘No confidence at all’ vs ‘A lot of confidence’; ‘Whether I TARGET BEHAVIOR is …’ with anchors ‘Not up to me’ vs ‘Completely up to me’; ‘If I really wanted to, I could TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Unlikely’ vs ‘Likely’; and ‘For me to TARGET BEHAVIOR is under my control.’ with anchors ‘Not at all’ vs ‘Completely’. If only the first and third of these items are measured, the ‘Capacity’ construct should be coded instead. If only the second and fourth items are measured, the ‘Autonomy’ construct should be coded instead.

Conduct a qualitative study where participants are interviewed, and the interviews are either recorded and transcribed, or notes are kept. These sources are then coded using the instruction for aspect coding. In this qualitative study, use these questions: ‘Please list any factors or circumstances that would make it easy or enable you to target behavior.’ and ‘Please list any factors or circumstances that would make it difficult or prevent you from target behavior.’

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:perceivedBehavioralControl_73dnt603

Not specified

Perceived social pressure to perform (or not to perform) the target behavior.

Use likert scales that measure both perceived social approval and perceived behavior of important social referents in general. It is important that no specific individuals are referenced, but that the items do refer to individuals that are similar, important or seen as important to follow. Note that the behavior in these items must always be the target behavior. The example items in the 2010 RAA book are ‘Most people who are important to me think I should TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘False’ vs ‘True’; ‘Most people whose opinions I value would … of my TARGET BEHAVIOR’ with anchors ‘Disapprove’ vs ‘Approve’; ‘Most people I respect and admire will TARGET BEHAVIOR.’ with anchors ‘Unlikely’ vs ‘Likely’; and ‘How many people like you TARGET BEHAVIOR?’ with anchors ‘Nobody’ vs ‘Everybody’.

Questionnaires that measure both perceived social approval and perceived behavior of important social referents in general. It is important that no specific individuals are referenced, but that the items do refer to individuals that are similar, important or seen as important to follow. Note that the behavior in these items must always be the target behavior.

These instructions still have to be extracted from pages 336-359 of the book.

Not specified

Conduct a qualitative study where participants are interviewed, and the interviews are either recorded and transcribed, or notes are kept. These sources are then coded using the instruction for aspect coding. In this qualitative study, use the introduction ‘When it comes to TARGET BEHAVIOR, there might be individuals or groups who would think you should or should not perform this behavior.’, and then ask these questions: ‘Please list any individuals or groups who would approve or think you should TARGET BEHAVIOR.’; ‘Please list any individuals or groups who would disapprove or think you should not TARGET BEHAVIOR.’; ‘Sometimes, when we are not sure what to do, we look to see what others are doing. Please list the individuals or groups who are most likely to TARGET BEHAVIOR.’; and ‘Please list the individuals or groups who are least likely to TARGET BEHAVIOR.’.

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:perceivedNorms_73dnt5zq

Expressions that refer to social pressure in general. However, expressions about perceived behavior of others are coded as dct:perceivedNorm_descriptive_73bg61tx and expressions about perceived (dis)approval of others are coded as dct:perceivedNorm_injunctive_73bg2wm7.

The perceived approval or disapproval of a social referent refers to whether a given individual believes that social referent thinks that that given individual should engage in the target behavior. Note that this concerns whether the individual should engage in the target behavior, not whether the social referent themselves should engage in the target behavior. Also note that this is distinct from whether the social referent themselves does actually engage in the target behavior, which is captured in dct:referentBehavior_73dnt5zk.

A social referent can be a specific individual, a group of distinct individuals (e.g. one’s siblings), or a more generically defined group (e.g. the residents of my city).

The perceived approval for a given social referent combines multiplicatively with the motivation to comply with that referent (dct:motivationToComply_73dnt5zf) into an injunctive norm belief (dct:injNorms_belief_73dnt5zg).

Use item stems that list the target behavior and the social referent, and use disapproval and approval as anchors, in that order, with an intensifying adjective. Specifically, as item stem, use ‘If I were to (engage in) TARGET BEHAVIOR, [SOCIAL REFERENT] would…’ with anchors ‘strongly disapprove’ versus ‘strongly approve’. Note that the ‘engage in’ is optional, depending on the kind of behavior. For example, ‘If I were to engage in a demonstration, my neighbour would… [Strongly disapprove|Strongly approve]’

Because this is a bidimensional scale, the scale midpoint reflects neutrality (i.e. one does not think the relevant social referent disapproves or approves of this target behavior. This means that a seven-point response scale is slightly preferred over a five-point response scale to allow participants to express three degrees of perceived (dis)approval.

Not specified

Not specified

Page 135 of the RAA book

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:referentApproval_73dnt5zd

The perceived behavior of a social referent is a given individual’s perception of whether that person engages in the target behavior. Note that this perception only relates to the behavior of the social referent, not to what the social referent might believe. Perceptions of the social referent’s (dis)approval of whether the given individual engages in the target behavior is captured in dct:referentApproval_73dnt5zd.

A social referent can be a specific individual, a group of distinct individuals (e.g. one’s siblings), or a more generically defined group (e.g. the residents of my city).

Depending on the nature of the target behavior, engagement in that behavior can be conceived as binary (i.e. one either does or does not engage in the target behavior, e.g. getting tested for STIs every six months), a matter of frequency (i.e. one engages in the target behavior with a frequency from zero up to a given feasible maximum frequency in a given timespan, e.g. the frequency with which one washes their hands conform the guidelines), a matter of intensity (i.e. one engages in the target behavior to a degree from zero up to a given feasible maximum intensity, e.g. the amount of kilocalories one consumed in a meal), or a combination of these (i.e. one engages in the target behavior with a given frequency and with a given intensity, e.g. how frequently one drinks alcohol, and how many grams of alcohol one consumes when one does).

The perceived behavior of a given social referent combines multiplicatively with the identification with that social referent (dct:referentIdentification_73dnt5zl) into a descriptive norm belief (dct:descrNorms_belief_73dnt5zm).

To measure the perceptions individuals have of social referents’ behavior, measure the probability that they engage in that target behavior. Use an item stem listing both the target behavior and the social referent, and use anchors ‘improbable’ versus ‘probable’, with intensifying adjectives.

‘How likely do you think it is that [SOCIAL REFERENT] engage(s) in TARGET BEHAVIOR?’ with anchors ‘Very improbable’ and ‘Very probable’.

For example, ‘How likely do you think it is that your close family members engage in recycling? [Very improbable|Very probable]’

Not specified

Not specified

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:referentBehavior_73dnt5zk

Identification with a social referent is defined as the degree to which an individual wants to be like that social referent with regards to the target behavior.

A social referent can be a specific individual, a group of distinct individuals (e.g. one’s siblings), or a more generically defined group (e.g. the residents of my city).

The identification with a given social referent combines multiplicatively with the perceived behavior of that social referent (dct:referentBehavior_73dnt5zk) into a descriptive norm belief (dct:descrNorms_belief_73dnt5zm).

To measure the identification with a given social referent, measure how much people want to be like the relevant social referents with regard to the target behavior.

Note that for any given social referent, it’s possible that an individual wants to be like that referent, but it’s also possible that the individual actively wants to be unlike that social referent. For example, people may strongly want to distance themselves from (be unlike) members of a perceived outgroup (e.g. adolescents may want to be unlike middle-aged people).

Therefore, bidimensional scales are required to account for this variation. As item stem, use ‘Concerning [BEHAVIOR], I want to be like [SOCIAL REFERENT]…’, with anchors ‘as little as possible’ versus ‘as much as possible’. For example, ‘Concerning being able to speak in public, I want to be like a movie star… [As little as possible|As much as possible]’

Because this is a bidimensional scale, the scale midpoint reflects neutrality (i.e. the participant neither wants to identify with, nor distance themselves from, the relevant social referent regarding this target behavior). This means that a seven-point response scale is slightly preferred over a five-point response scale to allow participants to express three degrees of desire to be similar or dissimilar.

Not specified

Not specified

When coding aspects, use the following code: dct:referentIdentification_73dnt5zl