Distinguishing Perceptions of Control From Self-Efficacy:

Predicting Consumption of a Low-Fat Diet Using the

Theory of Planned Behavior'

J. ARM IT AGE^
CHRLSTOPHER MARKCONNER
University of Essex University of Lee&
Colchester, Uniied Kingdom Lee&. United Kingdom

The aims of the present study are fourfold: to apply the theory of planned behavior
(TPB) to eating a low-fat diet; to consider differences between self-efficacy and per-
ceived control over behavior (PCB); to examine self-identity as a potential addition to
the model; and to identify beliefs which may provide useful targets for interventions.
Findings support the efficacy of the TPB as a predictor of low-fat diet. Evidence for
the distinction between self-efficacy and PCB was provided by principal components
analysis, patterns in prediction of intention, and the control beliefs associated with the
two consbucts. Self-identity was found to independently predict intention and may
prove a useful addition to the TPB. Finally, specific beliefs distinguished intenders
from nonintenders, providing potential targets for health interventions. The findings
are discussed in the context of previous TPB research and the need for multimethod
assessments of behavior.

Extensive research has suggested a link between fat consumption and can-
cer and coronary heart disease (e.g., Greenwald, Sondik, & Lynch, 1986;
Keys, 1980; Turpeinen, 1979). These conditions represent the leading causes
of death in most industrialized countries, prompting several governments to
introduce specific targets aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality. For
example, in the United Kingdom, government recommendations are that no
more than 35% of food energy should be derived from fat. Over the past 20
years, changes in lifestyle (e.g., reduction in total energy intake) have not
resulted in a reduction in fat intake: The average proportion of total energy
derived from fat has remained stable (42% in 1970, 43% in 1980, 40% in
1992; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, 1992). This is despite a
number of high-profile health campaigns. However, it is rare for such cam-
paigns to be theoretically based, and models of social cognition may prove
useful for intervening in health behaviors (e.g., Conner & Norman, 1996). By
'The authors wish to thank Paul Sparks for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
2Correspondenceconcerning this article should be addressed to Christopher J. Armitage, Depart-
ment of Psychology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom. e-
mail: chrisja@essex.ac.uk.

72

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1999, 29, 1, pp. 72-90.

Copyright 0 1999 by V. H. Winston 8 Son, Inc. All rights reserved.
 PREDICTING LOW-FAT DIET 73

understanding the cognitions underlying health behaviors, it should be possi-

ble to change the behavior in question.
Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior (TPB) has been shown to be a
useful predictor of a number of health behaviors (e.g., Conner & Sparks,
1996; Godin & Kok, 1996). At the most specific level of analysis are underly-
ing beliefs. These beliefs relate to outcomes (behavioral beliefs), social pres-
sures (normative beliefs), and inhibiting/facilitating factors (control beliefs)
associated with a given behavior. Behavioral beliefs are calculated by multi-
plying the perceived probability of a particular outcome by the value attached
to that outcome. Normative beliefs take into account both the perceived social
pressure from individual referents and one’s motivation to comply with those
referents. Multiplication of the perceived likelihood of inhibiting/faciIitating
factors occurring by their power to inhibit or facilitate behavior provides con-
trol belief scales. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) argue that such beliefs are
important for interventions: By targeting underlying beliefs, it should be pos-
sible to change global attitudes, intentions, and hence behavior. For the pur-
pose of the present study, these beliefs are related to eating a low-fat diet.
The specific beliefs underlie global measures of attitude, social pressure,
and perceptions of control. Behavioral beliefs are related to attitude; norma-
tive beliefs to subjective norm; and control beliefs to perceived behavioral
control. Attitudes are the overall positive or negative evaluation of the behav-
ior; subjective norms are general perceptions of social pressure to perform or
not to perform the behavior; perceived behavioral control is a more general
perception of control over the behavior. These components are posited to
determine intentions, the main predictor of behavior. However, reviews of
the TPB suggest that the subjective norm component rarely contributes to the
prediction of intention over and above the effects of attitude and perceived
behavioral control (e.g., Godin & Kok, 1996; Van den Putte, 1991). Poor
measurement or overly narrow conceptualization of the subjective norm com-
ponent may account for its lack of predictive validity. The present study
includes both an internally reliable measure of subjective norm and a mea-
sure of self-identity in order to improve the predictive power of the normative
component. Several researchers have provided support for the inclusion of
self-identity within the TPB. For example, Sparks and Shepherd (1992)
found that self-identity independently predicted intention to consume
organically produced vegetables (for a review, see Conner & Armitage,
1998). For the purpose of the present study, self-identity may be defined as
the salient part of the actor’s self which relates to a particular behavior. It
may be regarded as the extent to which the actor sees him or herself as fulfill-
ing the criteria for a particular societal role.
Within the original conceptualization of the TPB, intentions are deter-
mined by attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen
74 ARMITAGE AND CONNER

& Madden, 1986). In turn, intention is posited to represent the motivation

required to engage in a given behavior. The stronger the intention to engage in
the behavior, the more likely should be its performance. Perceived behavioral
control has been proposed as a second determinant of behavior; to the extent
that perceptions of control reflect actual control, they should directly influ-
ence behavior. Ajzen (1991) considers the perceived behavioral control com-
ponent of the TPB to be synonymous with Bandura’s (1986) self-efficacy
beliefs. However, several researchers have presented evidence supporting a
distinction between the two (e.g., Dzewaltowski, Noble, & Shaw, 1990; Terry
& O’Leary, 1995; White, Terry, & Hogg, 1994). For example, Terry and
O’Leary found that self-efficacy predicted exercise intentions (but not behav-
ior), while perceived behavioral control predicted behavior (but not inten-
tions). White et al. reported similar findings for condom use and discussion of
condom use with partners. In contrast, Sparks, Guthrie, and Shepherd (1997)
distinguished between perceived difficulty and perceived control (after Chan
& Fishbein, 1993), arguing that difficulty measures may be more meaningful
to participants and that perceived difficulty is closer to Ajzen’s (199 1) con-
ceptualization of perceived behavioral control. In Study 1 (reducing consump-
tion of red meat), Sparks et al. found differences in the pattern of
intercorrelations between their two measures, but neither perceived difficulty
nor perceived control predicted intention. In Study 2 (reducing consumption
of French fries) perceived difficulty independently predicted intention, but
perceived control did not. These findings were interpreted as being evidence
in support of measures of perceived difficulty as opposed to perceived control.
There are a number of issues regarding the Sparks et al. (1997) paper
which we would like to raise. At the root is the issue of asking individuals
about the ease or difficulty of performing a particular behavior. Sparks et al.
(1997) argue that this fits more closely with Ajzen’s (1991) conceptualization
of perceived behavioral control. However, this conceptualization does not
allow discrimination between ease or difficulty in relation to external (e.g.,
availability) and internal (e.g., motivation) factors. This makes such easy/
difficult items nonspecific and renders the perceived behavioral control con-
struct vaguely defined. Thus, contrasting perceived control with perceived
difficulty is invalid: the Sparks et al. perceived control construct relates to
external control, while the perceived difficulty construct may relate either to
internal or external control. One implication is that the Sparks et al. study
cannot rule out the possibility that perceived difficulty predicted intention
better because their participants perceived difficulty in terms of internal (self-
efficacy) factors. Further, the basis of Terry and colleagues’ (Terry &
O’Leary, 1995; White et al., 1994) distinction between self-efficacy and per-
ceptions of external control is based on differential effects in prediction of
intention and behavior. One weakness of the Sparks et al. study is the cross-
 PREDICTING LOW-FAT DIET 75

sectional design, with no data to support an effect on future behavior. By

comparing Terry and O’Leary’s (1995) findings with the Sparks et al. data, it
is not surprising that the Sparks et al. perceived control measure did not pre-
dict intention. First, Terry and O’Leary reported that perceptions of external
control predicted behavior, not intention. Second, Sparks et al.’s finding that
perceived diffrculty predicted intention may match Terry and O’Leary’s find-
ing that self-efficacy independently predicted intention, depending on the
extent to which Sparks et al.’s participants regarded ease (or difficulty) as
being related to self-efficacy. As such, perceived difficulty measures may
confound internal and external control factors.
In terms of the present study, we distinguish between self-effrcacy and what
we call perceptions of control over the behavior (PCB). We define self-efficacy
as confidence in one’s own ability to carry out a behavior. This explicitly
relates to internal resources (e.g., motivation). In contrast, our PCB measure is
concerned with the extent to which people perceive control over more external
factors (e.g., availability). This differs slightly from the work of Terry and col-
leagues, in so far as it presents a tighter definition of the constructs. For exam-
ple, Terry and O’Leary’s (1995) self-efficacy scale included an item that
assessed the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior, allowing participants
to decide whether ease/dificulty related to internal or external control factors.
The present study also considers food choice behavior. Previous TPB
food-choice studies (e.g., Dennison & Shepherd, 1995; Lloyd, Paisley, &
Mela, 1993; Sparks et al., 1997) have employed cross-sectional designs and
failed to measure behavior prospectively. It is easy to see why there have
been few studies in this area which have measured actual food-choice behav-
ior. Not only is food choice a complex behavior, but it is susceptible to influ-
ence from self-reporting biases (e.g., Hebert, Clemow, Pbert, Ockene, &
Ockene, 1995). This is likely to be of particular concern in the present low-fat
diet study. For example, the stigma attached to overweight people (e.g.,
Ryckman, Robbins, Kaczor, & Gold, 1989), a desire to attain “ideal” body
shapes (e.g., Fallon & Rozin, 1985), and unrealistic optimism in the face of
serious health risks (e.g., Weinstein, 1987) may all lead to underreporting of
fat intake. In order to account for these influences, two measures of behavior
were taken and compared: first, a validated food frequency questionnaire
(Margetts, Cade, & Osmond, 1989); and second, a standard measure of
perception of having eaten a low-fat diet. The food frequency questionnaire
(FFQ) is likely to be relatively more objective. In order to attempt deception,
it would be necessary to have detailed knowledge of the fat content of foods.
The present study seeks evidence for discriminant validity between self-
efficacy and PCB. Attitude, subjective norm, self-efficacy, PCB, and self-
identity are all expected to independently predict intention to eat a low-fat diet.
Intention is expected to be the dominant predictor of behavior, and to the extent
76 ARMITAGE AND CONNER

to which eating a low-fat diet is a nonvolitional behavior (or PCB is accurate),

PCB will independently predict actual behavior. In terms of measurement, TPB
variables should account for significantly more of the variance in self-percep-
tions of behavior than FFQ measures. The latter prediction is based on the
rationale that the FFQ is likely to be a more objective measure of diet, whereas
the self-perception of behavior measure will be more open to reporting biases.
Finally, there should be clear patterns of beliefs that differentiate those who do
from those who do not intend to eat a low-fat diet, as well as individual beliefs
that independently predict global attitudes and perceptions of control.

Method

Procedure and Participants

The study was conducted as part of an undergraduate laboratory session.

Students (n = 73) were instructed to collect data from 4 individuals, resulting
in a sample of 221 participants, 49.8% ( n = 110) of whom were male and
50.2% (n = 11 1) female.3 The mean age was 23 years, with a range of 17 to 55
years. Ninety-four (42.5%)4 of these respondents were successfully contacted
again 1 month later and prospective measures of behavior were obtained.
Seventy-three undergraduate students from the University of Leeds par-
ticipated in group discussions in order to elicit modally salient beliefs for
inclusion in the questionnaire. They were asked to consider the advantages
and disadvantages of eating a low-fat diet, people who may influence their
eating a low-fat diet, and those things which might facilitate or inhibit the
behavior. These represented behavioral, normative, and control beliefs,
respectively. In particular, they were asked to consider the internal and exter-
nal factors which may make it easy or difficult to eat a low-fat diet. The elic-
ited beliefs were content-analyzed, with those occurring most frequently
included in the questionnaire.

Measures

Intention. Intention to eat a low-fat diet was assessed using three items,
each on a 7-point bipolar (-3 to +3) scale. These were: “I intend to eat a low-
fat diet over the next month (definitely do noddefinitely do),” “I plan to eat a
3Note that of the 292 potential respondents, 20 questionnaires were not completed and 51 were
not distributed
4Because of the relatively low response rate, analyses were canied out on responders versus non-
responders. No significant differences were found when regressions on intention were carried out for
responders and nonresponders separately. The implication is that responders at Time 2 did not differ
systematically from nonresponders.
 PREDICTING LOW-FAT DIET 77

low-fat diet over the next month (definitely do notidefinitely do),” and “I
want to eat a low-fat diet over the next month (definitely do not/definitely
do).” The mean of these items produced a composite scale with a Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient of 3 6 .
Attitude. Both direct and indirect measures of attitude were taken. The
direct measure of attitude was assessed using a semantic differential scale.
Respondents were presented with the sentence, “My eating a low-fat diet in
the next month is . . .” Six pairs of adjectives were rated, each on a 7-point
bipolar (-3 to +3) scale: bad/good, harmfulheneficial, unpleasant/pleasant,
unenjoyable/enjoyable, foolish/wise, and unnecessarylnecessary. The mean
of the six scales was taken as a composite score, with a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .75.
The indirect measure of attitude was derived from the product of the per-
ceived likelihood of modal outcomes and the evaluation of those outcomes.
Both likelihood and outcome were measured on bipolar (-3 to +3) scales,
anchored by unlikelyAike1y and bad/good, respectively. Phrased with respect
to eating a low-fat diet, these beliefs are presented in Table 1. Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient of the summed scale was .63.
Subjective norm. A global measure of subjective norm was measured with a
composite score, derived from four items: “People who are important to me
think I (should not eat a low-fat diet/should eat a low-fat diet),” “People who are
important to me would (disapprove of my eating a low-fat dietlapprove of my
eating a low-fat diet),” “People who are important to me want me to eat a low-fat
diet (strongly disagreehtrongly agree),” and “I feel under social pressure to eat a
low-fat diet (strongly disagreehtrongly agree).” All were measured on 7-point
unipolar (+1 to +7) scales. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was .76.
The specific measure of normative pressure was assessed by statements
related to the extent to which individuals perceived social pressure from six ref-
erents (health experts, friends, parents, people who report in the media, partner,
and family), multiplied by the motivation to comply with those individuals. For
example, “Health experts think I (should not eat a low-fat diet/should eat a low-
fat diet)” was multiplied by “With regard to eating a low-fat diet, how much do
you want to do what health experts think you should? (not at all/very much).”
The mean of these items provided a measure of normative beliefs (Cronbach’s
a = .74). Both components were measured on 7-point (+1 to +7) Likert scales.
Self-eficucy/PCB. Direct measures of perceptions of control were derived
from a review of the TPB literature. The seven items chosen to reflect our
definitions of self-efficacy and PCB were assessed on 7-point unipolar scales
and are presented in Table 2. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation produced two factors, which accounted for 66.8% of the variance
(Table 2). This analysis provided evidence for discriminant validity between
78 ARMITAGE AND CONNER

Table 1

Analysis of the Association Between Beliefs and Attitudes, and Means and
Standard Deviations of Behavioral Belief Components
Means (standard deviations)
Outcome belief Evaluation
Non- Non-
Behavioral beliefs SP Intenders intenders Intenders intenders
Eating a low-fat diet makes me .12* 1.53** -0.24 2.59 2.40
feel good about myself (1.29) (2.01) (0.81) (1.14)
Eating a low-fat diet means .04 -0.87** -0.01 -2.14 -2.27
eating boring food (1.70) (1.91) (1.18) (1.17)
By eating a low-fat die: I will .10 2.29 2.12 2.77 2.63
reduce the risk of heart (0.93) ( I . 13) (0.68) (0.92)
disease
Food which is low in fat does -.06 -1.08** -0.39 -2.17** -2.51
not taste nice (1.61) (1.82) (1.03) (0.79)
Eating a low-fat diet makes me .06 1.95** 0.59 2.61 2.43
feel healthier (1.16) (1.75) (0.76) (0.98)
Eating a low-fat diet reduces .25** -0.59** 0.21 -2.21 -2.48
my enjoyment of food (1.78) (1.86) (1.07) (0.89)
Eating a low-fat diet helps to .15** 1.93** 1.27 1.88** 0.67
maintain lower weight (1.28) (1.65) (1.36) (2.04)
Not eating a low-fat diet would -.1 1* -0.24** -0.24 -1.97 -2.07
make me feel guilty (1.97) (1.97) (1.24) (1.40)
Note. SP = semipartial correlation coefficient of outcome belief multiplied by evaluation compo-
nents on attitude. Intenders, n = 122; nonintenden, n = 96.
*p< . 0 5 . * * p < . OI .

the two conceptualizations of control. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for self-

efficacy and PCB were .83 and .71, respectively.
Indirect measures of seven control beliefs were measured on Likert scales
by assessing respondents’ perceptions of the frequency of occurrence of fac-
tors that would either facilitate or inhibit behavior (anchored by never and
ji-equentb). These were multiplied by the perceived power of these factors to
facilitate or inhibit behavior (anchored by less likely and more likely). These
beliefs reflected both internal and external factors: time, cost, resisting high-
fat foods, motivation required to eat a low-fat diet, convenience of high-fat
foods, knowledge, and availability. Principal components analysis produced
a scale with low internal reliability (Cronbach’s a = . 5 8 ) . Therefore, a
 PREDICTING LOW-FAT DIET 79

Table 2

Distinguishing Self-Eflcacy From PCB: Rotated Factor Matrixfor

Principal Components Analysis
Factor loadings
Self-
Items efficacy PCB
Whether or not I eat a low-fat diet in the next month is
entirely up to me. (strongly disagree/strongly agree) -.15 .79
How much personal control do you feel you have over
eating a low-fat diet in the next month? (very little
controllcompletecontrol) .37 .75
How much do you feel that whether you eat a low-fat diet
in the next month is beyond your control? (not at alVvery
much so) .23 .79
I believe I have the ability to eat a low-fat diet in the next
month. (definitely do noddefinitely do) .79 .I7
To what extent do you see yourself as being capable of
eating a low-fat diet in the next month? (very unlikely to
eat a low-fat dietkery likely to eat a low-fat diet) .78 .03
How confident are you that you will be able to eat a low-
fat diet in the next month? (very unsure/very sure) .87 .07
If it were entirely up to me, I am confident that I would be
able to eat a low-fat diet in the next month (strongly
disagreelstrongly agree) .77 .18
Percentage of variance explained 45.40 21.30

summed control belief scale was not utilized in further analyses (see Table 3
for analysis of individual control beliefs).
SeFidentiv. Self-identity was measured in our study as it was by Sparks
and Shepherd (1 992), with respect to eating healthily. The four self-identity
items were: “I think of myself as a healthy eater”; “I think of myself as some-
one who is concerned with healthy. eating”; “I think of myself as someone
who is concerned with the health consequences of what I eat”; and “I think of
myself as someone who enjoys the pleasures of eating.” All were measured
on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .66.
Behavior. Two behavior measures were included in a second question-
naire to assess the extent to which eating a low-fat diet may be susceptible to
reporting biases. The first was a two-item self-perception of behavior
80 ARMITAGE AND CONNER

Table 3

Analysis of the Association Between Control Beliefs and Perceived Control

with Means and Standard Deviations of Control Belief Components
Means (standard deviations)
SP Frequency belief Power
Non- Non-
Control beliefs SE PCB Intenders intenders Intenders intenders
~

Eating a low-fat diet .12 .05 3.44 3.67 -0.22 -0.52

takes too much time (1.71) (1.69) (1.17) (1.20)
Eating a low-fat diet .12 .I2 3.73* 4.19 -0.27 -0.46
costs too much money (1.74) (1.67) (1.15) (1.26)
I find it hard to resist .20** .09 4.53 4.88 -0.50** -1.15
foods which are high (1.70) (1.79) (1.35) (1.40)
in fat
To eat a low-fat diet .27** -.05 4.86 5.20 0.47** -0.15
requires strong (1.61) (1.66) (1 S O ) (1.77)
motivation
High-fat foods are .08 -.11 5.22 5.38 -0.64 -0.99
convenient (1.47) (1.59) (1.37) (1.61)
I don’t always know .04 .04 3.30** 4.05 0.80** -0.24
which foods are low in (1.65) (1.78) (1.21) (1.38)
fat
High-fat foods are more -.03 .18** 4.67 5.04 -0.60 -0.64
widely available than (1.55) (1.41) (1.25) (1.43)
low-fat foods
Note. SE = self-efficacy; SP = semipartial correlation coefficient of frequency belief multiplied
by power components on perceived control. Intenders, n = 122; Nonintenders, n = 96.
* p < .05. * p < .01.

measure: “I have eaten a low-fat diet in the last month (strongly disagree1
strongly agree),” and “HOWoften did you eat a low-fat diet in the last month?
(never/@equently).”The correlations between the two items was r = .95. The
second behavior measure was a validated FFQ (Cade & Margetts, 1988;
Margetts et al., 1989), which was regarded as a relatively more objective
measure of dietary intake than the simple self-perception measure which is
typically used in TPB studies. From analysis of the FFQ, participants were
found to derive a mean of 36.22% (SD = 6.01%) of food energy from fat in
the diet (Table 4).
Table 4

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Measured Variables

TPB variable A1 A2 B C D E F G H M SD
~~ ~

A 1. Behavior - 3.86 1.82

A2. Behavior -.37** - 36.22 6.01
B. Intention .62** -.41** - 0.07 1.68
C. Attitude .57** -.37** .68** - 0.90 1.01
D. Subjectivenorm .41** -.21* .43** .43** - 4.20 1.15
E. Self-efficacy .43** -.31** .59** .45** . l l - 4.53 1.45
F. PCB .10 -.14 .08 .09 -.13* .42** - 5.40 1.19 -u
A
G. Behavioralbeliefs .52** -.38** .38** .53** .lS** .36** .24** - 2.65 2.46 rn
0
H. Normative beliefs .27* -.23 .42** .45** .63** .07 -.21* .21* -
17.30 7.25 2z
I. Self-identity .50** -.32** .57** .41** .22** .48** .12* .37** .32** 4.86 1.17 0

Note. A1 = self-perception of behavior measures; A2 = FFQ measure (% fat). 6

*p < .05. **p < .01. 3
20
rn
-I
82 ARMITAGE AND CONNER

Results

Overall Findings

The correlations presented in Table 4 are the zero-order correlations

between TPB components. The strength of the correlations compares favor-
ably with previous TPB studies. in particular, there are strong correlations
between intention and behavior (r = .62,p< .01,for the perception of behav-
ior measure) and between intention and its direct antecedents (rs = .43 to .68,
all ps < .01).These data imply that eating a low-fat diet is a behavior that is
particularly well assessed by the TPB. However, the two measures of behav-
ior correlate only moderately (r = -.37,p< .Ol), an issue we return to later. Of
hrther note is evidence for discriminant validity between PCB and self-effi-
cacy. There are significant correlations between self-efficacy and all of the
other TPB constructs, with the exception of measures of social pressure.
Although PCB correlates with self-efficacy, it fails to correlate with the
majority of the other measures. These data provide some evidence for the
proposed distinction between self-efficacy and PCB.
The regression analyses presented in Table 5 show that intention is the only
significant predictor of eating a low-fat diet, whether the behavior is measured
using self-perception or FFQ. This implies either that the behavior is relatively
volitional or that perceptions of control are inaccurate. There is a considerable
difference between using FFQ and perception of behavior measures. Using FFQ
data, it was possible to account for 18% of the variance in behavior (P= .18,R =
.42),F(3,88)= 6.31, p < .001,whereas 39% of the variance was explained using
the perception of behavior measure (R2= .39,R = .62),F(3, 88) = 18.52,p <
.0001. It was therefore possible to account for an additional 21 % of the variance
in behavior when a behavioral self-perception measure was used. The difference
in the size of the intention-behavior correlations was significant (Cohen’s
[1977], qs = .28,p< .01). Intentions predict self-reported behavior better than
they predict behavior measured by FFQ. Ajzen (1 99 1) argues that perceived con-
trol should be a moderator of the intention-behavior relationship. However
entering Self-Efficacy x Intention and PCB x Intention terms into the regression
equations added nothing to the prediction of either measure of behavior.
From Table 6, our expanded TPB variables strongly (and independently)
predicted intention to eat a low-fat diet, accounting for 60% of the variance
(R2= .60,R = .78),F(5,207)= 76.23,~ < .OOOl.5 Moreover, including self-

SNote that PCB is not correlated with intention ( r = .08,ns) and alone adds only 1% to the per-
centage of variance explained in intention (R’ change = .01, p < .05). The correlation between PCB
and self-efficacy (r = .42, p < .01) suggests a suppressor effect (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989, for a
discussion of suppressor effects).
 PREDICTING LOW-FAT DIET 83

Table 5

Regression Analysis Predicting Fat Consumption, Comparing Two Behavior

Measures
TPB variable B SEB Final p
FFQ behavior measure
Intention -1.31 0.46 -0.35**
Self-efficacy -0.32 0.56 -0.08
PCB -0.22 0.52 -0.05
Perception of behavior measure
Intention 0.60 0.12 0.54***
Self-efficacy -0.04 0.14 0.13
PCB 0.15 0.14 -0.03
Note. The negative for the prediction of the FFQ behavior measure. from intention reflects the
fact that percentage of fat is measured in absolute terms. Therefore, if one intends to eat a low-fat
diet, one would expect the proportion of fat to be lower, resulting in a negative association.
* p < .01. ***p < .001.

identity in the regression equation significantly increased the percentage of

explained variance. Overall, it was possible to account for 65% of the vari-
ance in intention. The dominant predictors of intention were attitude and self-
efficacy, so it is these constructs which may prove to be the most useful tar-
gets for low-fat diet interventions.

Intenders Versus Nonintenders

Intention was the only significant predictor of behavior and represents

potentially the most efficacious target for intervention. Fishbein and Ajzen
(1975) provide several useful strategies for applying the TPB to interven-
tions, in particular targeting the beliefs that best predict attitudes and those
which differentiate intenders and nonintenders.6 Given that attitude and self-
efficacy were the dominant predictors of intention, changing the beliefs
underlying these variables should produce a greater impact on intentions. The
rationale is that if underlying beliefs are changed, this should precipitate
change in attitudes, intention, and ultimately behavior. The data were ana-
lyzed using a combination of regression and MANOVA.

%tenders (n = 122) were defined as those who scored above 0 on the intention scale; those
defined as nonintenders (n = 96) scored I0 on the scale. Three respondents failed to provide corn-
plete intention measures.
84 ARMITAGE AND CONNER

Table 6

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Intentions to Eat a Low-Fat Dier

~ ~~

Increment
Step Predictor R RZ to RZ F for change Final p
1 Attitude .36***
Subjectivenorm .70 .49 .49 99.16*** .16***
2 Self-efficacy .33***
PCB .78 .60 .12 31.34*** -.14**
3 Self-identity .80 .65 .04 25.50*** .24***
* p < .Ol.-*p < .MI.

Behavioral beliefs. Table 1 presents the semipartial correlations between

behavioral beliefs and attitude, as well as the means and standard deviations
of the behavioral belief components between intenders and nonintenders.
Regression analysis indicated that the eight behavioral belief items accounted
for 41% of the variance in attitude (R = .64). Across all participants, beliefs
regarding avoidance of guilt, enjoyment of food, “feeling good,” and main-
taining lower weight, independently predicted global attitude. These four
beliefs each accounted for between 1 and 6% of unique variance in attitude,
after controlling for the other beliefs. In terms of changing attitudes, these
may represent useful targets for interventions, although, with the exception of
reducing weight, these are all beliefs associated with the emotional outcomes
of eating a low-fat diet, which may require intensive intervention. However,
multiplied constructs are difficult to interpret (e.g., Evans, 1991), and may
prove even more difficult to change.
Using MANOVA, there were differences between intenders and nonin-
tenders in terms of outcome beliefs, F(8, 207) = 11.OO, p < -001. Univariate
F tests revealed that most of the outcome beliefs differed, with positive out-
comes rated as being more likely by intenders, significant Fs(1, 214) = 8.77
to 6 1.63, all ps < .O1. The one exception was “reducing the risk of heart dis-
ease”: Both intenders and nonintenders regard low-fat diet as likely to
reduce the risk of heart disease. MANOVA showed a significant difference
between intenders and nonintenders’ outcome evaluations, F(8,206) = 5.69,
p < $001.However, only beliefs regarding taste, F( 1, 213) = 6.93, p < .01,
and lower weight, F ( l , 213) = 27.18, p < .01, differed significantly. These
differences suggest that those who intend to eat a low-fat diet do not evaluate
poorer food taste as negatively as do nonintenders, and evaluate maintaining
a lower weight more positively. In general, any attempt to change such
 PREDICTING LOW-FAT DIET 85

beliefs would most usefully focus on changing individuals’ perceptions of

the likelihood of outcomes and evaluations that differed between intenders
and nonintenders.
Control beliefs. Table 3 presents data from the regression of control beliefs
on self-efficacy and PCB. The seven control beliefs accounted for 27% (R =
S2) and 8% (R = .28)of the variance in self-efficacy and PCB, respectively.
In support of our proposed internal-external distinction, internal control
beliefs (motivation and resisting high-fat foods) were the only significant pre-
dictors of self-efficacy, while availability (an external control belief) pre-
dicted PCB. MANOVA indicated a marginally nonsignificant difference
between intenders and nonintenders’ perceptions of the frequency of facilitat-
indinhibiting factors, F(7, 208) = 2.04,p = .052.Univariate analyses indi-
cated differences between intenders and nonintenders in terms of time,
F(1,214) = 3.87,~ C .05, and knowledge, F(1,214) = 10.26,~ < .01.Intend-
ers therefore tend to believe that they have more time and knowledge concern-
ing the eating of a low-fat diet. In contrast, the perceived power of facilitating/
inhibiting factors to influence diet differed significantly between intenders
and nonintenders, F(7, 207) = 6.28,p < .001. In particular, nonintenders
believe that resisting high-fat foods, F(1, 213) = 11.83,p < .001; motivation,
F(1,213) = 7.76,~ < .01; and knowledge, F(1,213) = 34.78,~ < .001;were
the most powerful contributors to their lack of control over their eating of a
low-fat diet. Interventions would therefore need to challenge the belief that
eating a low-fat diet is likely to take a long time and increase individuals’
knowledge. Further, the belief that motivation and resisting high-fat foods are
powerful determinants of eating a low-fat diet needs to be challenged.

Discussion

The aims of the present study were fourfold: to apply the TPB to low-fat
eating intentions and a measure of future behavior; to consider evidence for a
distinction between self-efficacy and PCB; to examine self-identity as a
potential addition to the model; and to identify beliefs which may provide
usefkl targets for interventions. Findings from the present study indicate that
the TPB usefully predicts both low-fat eating intentions and behavior. The
present study also compares favorably with Godin and Kok’s ( 1996) meta-
analysis of health-related TPB studies, accounting for a similar amount of the
variance in behavior (34% vs. 39%, in the present study, for self-perception
of behavior) and considerably more in intention (41% vs. 60% in the present
study). Specifically in terms of eating behavior, no previous studies have
looked at actual behavior, but the correlations with intention were consider-
ably stronger (e.g., R = .57vs. .78in the present study). Low-fat diet is there-
fore a behavior which is particularly suited to assessment by the TPB.
86 ARMITAGE AND CONNER

Intentions were the only predictor of behavior, suggesting that this type of
behavior is relatively volitional and that intention may prove to be a useful
target for intervention. Contrary to expectations, there were no interactions
between intention and either of the perceived control items. Although this lat-
ter finding is supported by the majority of previous research (Terry &
O’Leary, 1995), it apparently contradicts Terry and O’Leary’s assertion that
previous lack of evidence for perceived-behavioral-control-intention interac-
tions is a h c t i o n of the confound between internal and external perceptions
of control. However, given that the present study found no direct effect of
control on behavior, and the behavior may be regarded as relatively voli-
tional, lack of interaction might be expected. Self-efficacy and attitude were
the main predictors of intention to eat a low-fat diet, and when self-identity
was added to the model, it explained significantly more of the variance in
intention, suggesting that self-identity may be a useful addition to the TPB.
The present study fiuther supports the work of Terry and colleagues (e.g.,
Terry & O’Leary, 1995) by providing evidence for a distinction between self-
efficacy and PCB. First, the principal components analysis of the global con-
trol items produced separate self-efficacy and PCB factors. Second, the
regression of control beliefs on self-efficacy and PCB suggested that this dis-
tinction extended to the underlying beliefs associated with each construct.
Third, self-efficacy and PCB differed in terms of their influence on intention
and their intercorrelations with other TPB variables. We therefore concur
with the need for separate measures of internal and external perceptions of
control. In terms of Sparks et al.’s (1997) argument for use of perceived diffi-
culty and perceived control, our findings are not incongruent: their partici-
pants may have interpreted the perceived difficulty measures as relating to
internal control factors. In addition, the present study furthers the work of
Terry and colleagues by providing a tighter definition of self-efficacy and
avoiding the ambiguity of ease/difficulty items. However, neither PCB nor
self-efficacy were significantly associated with behavior. The implication is
that either low-fat dietary behavior in the United Kingdom is under volitional
control, or that perceptions of control (particularly over external factors) may
be inaccurate. Further study of behaviors that differ in volitional control, or
experimental manipulations of perceived control should provide further evi-
dence for the proposed distinction between self-efficacy and PCB.
Behavioral and control beliefs were identified which may provide useful
bases for interventions. However, with the exception of availability, the
dominant predictors of attitude, self-efficacy, and PCB were those beliefs
associated with emotions (e.g., resisting, guilt) or weight loss, all of which
are only amenable to intensive intervention. Further, these beliefs are multi-
plicative terms, which are notoriously difficult to interpret (Evans, 1991).
Those beliefs which discriminated intenders from nonintenders may prove
 PREDICTING LOW-FAT DIET 87

the most usehl for future intervention studies. From the present study, these
beliefs included perceptions of having to eat a “boring” diet and feelings of
health. However, more research is required to assess the efficacy of the TPB
as a tool for intervening in behavior. To date, research has provided only lim-
ited support for use of the TPB in interventions (e.g., Brubaker & Fowler,
1990; Parker, Stradling, & Manstead, 1996), but there is much scope for
future research. The present study has highlighted target beliefs which could
potentially be strengthened or challenged in those who do not intend to eat a
low-fat diet. In particular, these data are encouraging for health promotion
researchers. There are no differences in perception of likelihood or evaluation
of eating a low-fat diet with regard to reducing the risk of heart disease. This
implies that both intenders and nonintenders recognize and accept the link
between fat consumption and heart disease (the outcome is seen as likely and
evaluated positively). However, it also suggests that attempting to change
people’s behavior by referring to the risks of coronary heart disease may not
provide an effective target for such interventions.
The self-perception behavior measure was better predicted by TPB vari-
ables than the FFQ. Given that comparison of the FFQ measure with 24-hr
diet records suggests adequate validity and reliability (Margetts et al., 1989),
there are a number of implications that require hrther investigation. First, it
may be that the self-perception of behavior measure actually assessed the
extent to which participants tried to perform the behavior. As such, the self-
perception measure may represent attempts to eat a low-fat diet, whereas the
FFQ data reveal the extent to which these attempts have actually paid off.
This links to the work of Bagozzi (e.g., Bagozzi, 1992; Bagozzi & Edwards,
in press), who argues that intention predicts trying rather than actual behav-
ior. Our data are congruent with this idea: The correlation between intention
and self-perception of behavior was significantly greater than the prediction
of diet from the FFQ measure. Therefore, the implication is that intention can
predict trying to a greater extent than actual behavior. Second, unrealistic
optimism (Weinstein, 1987) may represent the difference between the FFQ
and self-perception measures of behavior. Participants may have overesti-
mated the extent to which they had eaten a low-fat diet, in the face of serious
health risks, such as coronary heart disease or cancer. Therefore, to the extent
that the FFQ is a more objective measure of diet, the data show a trend
toward unrealistic optimism in eating a low-fat diet.
More generally, the problems of self-report data are well documented (e.g.,
Nederhof, 1985). The self-report measures are a clear limitation of the present
study, which suggests that the TPB is weaker at predicting relatively objective
behavior, as opposed to self-perceptionsof behavior. Predicting large amounts
of variance in objective behavior from verbal reports of cognitions (e.g., inten-
tions and attitudes) is clearly the ideal. However, individuals’ perceptions of
88 ARMITAGE AND CONNER

their own behavior may actually be more important for study, given the ten-
dency for individuals to selectively process attitude-relevant information (e.g.,
Fazio & Williams, 1986). The difference between objective and self-perceived
behavior represents devices such as unrealistic optimism (Weinstein, 1987) or
behavioral attempts (trying; Bagozzi, 1992). Further direct comparisons of
objective and subjective measures are required, both to aid understanding of the
cognitions underlying behavior and to acknowledge that multiple measurement
of behavior represents good research practice (e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
In summary, the present study found support for the use of the TPB to pre-
dict intentions and behavior with regard to eating a low-fat diet. There was con-
siderable evidence for the distinction between self-efficacy and PCB from
principal components analysis; patterns of intercorrelations and prediction of
intention; and the control beliefs associated with the two constructs. Regres-
sions on intention support Sparks and Shepherd’s (1 992) argument that the self-
identity construct may prove to be a useful addition to the TPB. Analysis of
individual beliefs highlighted those which distinguished intenders from nonin-
tenders and may represent useful targets for interventions. However, problems
of self-report require that more studies consider multiple measures of behavior.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-2 1 1.
Ajzen, I., 8c Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Atti-
tudes, intentions and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimen-
tal Social Psychology, 22,453-474.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1 992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behav-
ior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 178-204.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, E. A. (in press). Goal setting and goal pursuit in
the regulation of body weight. Psychology and Health.
Bandura, A. (1 986). Social foundations of thought and action: A cognitive
social theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Brubaker, R. G., 8c Fowler, C. (1990). Encouraging college males to perform
testicular self-examination: Evaluation of a persuasive message based on
the revised theory of reasoned action. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 20, 1411-1422.
Cade, J. E., 8c Margetts, B. M. (1 988). Nutrient sources in the English diet:
Quantitative data from three English towns. International Journal of Epi-
demiology, 17, 844-848.
Chan, D.-K., & Fishbein, M. (1993). Determinants of college women’s inten-
tions to tell their partners to use condoms. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
C ~ O ~ 23,O ~1455-1470.
Y,
 PREDICTING LOW-FAT DIET 89

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysisfor the behavioral sciences. New

York, N Y : Academic.
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned
behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 28, 1429- 1464.
Conner, M., & Norman, P. (Eds.). (1996). Predicting health behaviour.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (1996). The theory of planned behaviour and health
behaviours. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behav-
iour (pp. 12 1-162). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Dennison, C. M., & Shepherd, R. (1995). Adolescent food choice: An appli-
cation of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Human Nutrition
and Dietetics, 8, 9-23.
Dzewaltowski, D. A., Noble, J. M., & Shaw, J. M. (1990). Physical activity
participation-social cognitive theory versus the theories of reasoned
action and planned behavior. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
12,388-405.
Evans, M. G. (1991). The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites:
Interactions revisited. American Psychologist, 46, 6- 15.
Fallon, A. E., & Rozin, P. (1985). Sex differences in perceptions of desirable
body shape. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 94, 102-105.
Fazio, R. H., & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator
of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An investiga-
tion of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51,505-514.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). BelieJ attitude, intention, and behavior.
New York, W :John Wiley & Sons.
Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: A review of its
applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Pro-
motion, 11, 87-98.
Greenwald, P., Sondik, E., & Lynch, B. S. (1986). Diet and chemoprevention
in NCI’s research strategy to achieve national cancer control objectives.
Annual Review ofpublic Health, 14,515-543.
Hebert, J. R., Clemow, L., Pbert, L., Ockene, I. S., & Ockene, J. K. (1995).
Social desirability bias in dietary self-report may compromise the validity
of dietary intake measures. International Journal of Epidemiology, 24,
389-398.
Keys, A. (1 980). Seven countries: A multivariate analysis of death and coro-
n a y heart disease. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lloyd, H. M., Paisley, C. M., & Mela, D. J. (1993). Changing to a low fat
diet: Attitudes and beliefs of UK consumers. European Journal of Clini-
cal Nutrition, 47,361-373.
90 ARMITAGE AND CONNER

Margetts, B. M., Cade, J. E., & Osmond, C. (1989). Comparison of a food

frequency questionnaire with a diet record. International Journal of Epi-
demiology, 18,868-873.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food. (1992). Manual of nutrition.
London, UK: HMSO.
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A
review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15,263-280.
Parker, D., Stradling, S. G., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1996). Modifying beliefs
and attitudes to exceeding the speed limit: An intervention study based on
the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26,
1-19.
Ryckman, R. M., Robbins, M.A., Kaczor, L. M., & Gold, J. A. (1989). Male
and female raters' stereotyping of male and female physiques. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15,244-25 1.
Sparks, P., Guthrie, C. A., & Shepherd, R. (1997). The dimensional structure
of the perceived behavioral control construct. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 27,418-438.
Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned
behavior-assessing the role of identification with green consumerism.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 55,388-399.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New
York, N Y : Harper Collins.
Terry, D. J., & O'Leary, J. E. (1995). The theory of planned behaviour: The
effects of perceived behavioural control and self-efficacy. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 34, 199-220.
Turpeinen, 0. (1979). Effects of cholesterol-lowering diet on mortality from
coronary heart disease and other causes. Circulation, 59, 1-7.
Van den Putte, B. (1991). Twenty years of the theory of reasoned action of
Fishbein and Ajzen: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Univer-
sity of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health
problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 10,481-500.
White, K. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1994). Safer sex behavior: The
role of attitudes, norms, and control factors. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 24,2 164-2192.