DEVELOPING A MODEL OF HEALTH BEHAVIOR INTENTIONS AND ACTUAL HEALTH BEHAVIORS OF KOREAN MALE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
1Associate Professor, Department of Sports & Leisure Studies, Shingyeong University, Hwaseong-si, Republic of Korea
2Assistant Professor, Sports & Leisure Studies, Art and Health Department, Myongji College, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3Full Professor, Sports and Health Care Major, College of Humanities and Arts, Korea National University of Transportation, Chungju-si, Republic of Korea
DOI: 10.15586/jomh.v16i1.163 Vol.16,Issue 1,January 2020 pp.1-9
Published: 09 January 2020
† These authors contributed equally.
Background and objective
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between health behavior intentions and actual health behaviors by applying the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to Korean male university students.
Material and methods
The participants of this study were students at Kyung Hee University Global Campus in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, the Republic of Korea. The students of this university are high-achieving, motivated students, and the school was ranked within the top 50 Asia-Pacific universities in 2019 as per an assess-ment carried out by “Times Higher Education,” a university assessment organization in United Kingdom. Questionnaires were distributed to 278 male students from Kyung Hee University in January of 2019. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to predict health behavior intentions and actual health behaviors in this population. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
Results show that attitudes toward health in Korean male university students was correlated with their health behavior intentions (β=0.463, p=0.005). In addition, subjective norms about health in Korean male university students did not significantly affect health behavior intentions (β=0.073, p=0.619). Perceived behavior control regarding health in the participants was correlated with health behavior intentions (β=0.542, p<0.001) and actual health behaviors (β=0.745, p<0.001). Health behavior inten-tions in Korean male university students did not significantly affect actual health behaviors (β=0.151, p=0.108).
TPB provides an advantageous theoretical model to predict health behavior intentions and actual health behaviors in Korean male university students. Physical activity and classes related to health education may increase the impact of perceived behavior controls. Such classes should be provid-ed to effectively improve health behavior intentions and actual health behaviors of Korean male university students.
theory of planned behavior; Korean male college students; health behaviors
Sung-Un Park,Hyunkyun Ahn,Wi-Young So. DEVELOPING A MODEL OF HEALTH BEHAVIOR INTENTIONS AND ACTUAL HEALTH BEHAVIORS OF KOREAN MALE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS. Journal of Men's Health. 2020. 16(1);1-9.
1. Alvinius A. Gender differences in different con-texts. Croatia: IntechOpen; 2017.
2. World Health Organization. World health statis-tics 2016: monitoring health for the SDGs, sus-tainable development goals. Ginebra: World Health Organization; 2017.
3. Craig G, Anthony I, Timothy ER. A review of men's health and masculinity. Am J Lifestyle Med 2008;2(6):474–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/155982 7608323213
4. Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Korea Health Statistics 2017: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES VII-2) (in Korean). Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2018.
5. Bassuk SS, Manson JE. Epidemiological evidence for the role of physical activity in reducing risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. J Appl Physiol 2005;99(3):1193–204. https://doi.org/10. 1152/japplphysiol.00160.2005
6. Kohrt WM, Bloomfield SA, Little KD, et al. Physical activity and bone health. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004;36(11):1985–96. https://doi.org/10. 1249/01.MSS.0000142662.21767.58
7. Leith LM. Foundations of exercise and mental health. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology; 2010.
8. Sigal RJ, Kenny GP, Wasserman DH, et al. Physical activity/exercise and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006;29(6):1433–8. https://doi. org/10.2337/dc06-9910
9. American College Health Association. American College Health Association—National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Data Report Spring 2010. Linthicum, MD: American College Health Association; 2010.
10. Kim YB, Park CM, Kim HH, et al. Health behavior and utilization of university health clinics. J Korean Soc School Commun Health Educ 2010;11:79–91.
11. Korean Educational Development Institute & Korea Ministry of Education. Korea Basic Statistics of Education 2018 (in Korean). Korean Educational Development Institute & Korean Ministry of Education; 2018.
12. Kim B, Cheon SH. Relationship between collegiate student exercise intention and leisure-time physical activity: the mediating role of action and coping planning. Korean J Phys Educ 2019;58(1):217–28.
13. Sheeran P, Webb TL. The intention behavior gap. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 2016;10:503–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265
14. Godin G, Kok G. The theory of planned behav-ior: a review of its applications in health-related behaviors. Am J Health Promot 1996;11:87–98. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-11.2.87
15. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley; 1975.
16. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: from cognition to behavior. Heidelberg: Springer; 1985.
17. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec Process 1991;50(2):179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
18. Conner M, Sparks P. Theory of planned behaviour and health behaviour. Predict Health Behav 2005;2:170–222.
19. Park SU, Kim HY. World taekwondo hanmadang participation intention and actual participation behavior of college students applying the theory of planned behavior. Taekwondo J Kukkiwon, 2018;9(4):161–76. https://doi.org/10.24881/tjk. 2018.9.4.161
20. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a compari-son of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 1989; 53(8):982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35. 8.982
21. Engel JF, Blackwell RD. Consumer behavior (4th ed.). New York: The Dryden Press; 1982.
22. Nunnally JC, Berstein IH. Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
23. Hair Jr JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2010.
24. Byrne BM. Testing for the factorial validity, repli-cation, and invariance of a measurement instru-ment: a paradigmatic application based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multivariate Behav Res 1994;29:289–311. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1 5327906mbr2903_5
25. Hu LT, Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 1999;6: 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
26. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equations models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993.
27. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and measure-ment error. J Market Res 1981;18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
28. Kline RB. Principle and practice of structural equa-tion modeling. New York: The Guilford Press; 1998.
29. West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ. Structural equa-tion models with non-normal variables: problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applica-tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995.
30. Derek MG. An intersectional approach to men's health. J Men's Health 2012;9(2):106–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jomh.2012.03.003
31. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.
32. Culos-Reed SN, Gyurcsik NC, Brawley LR. Using theories of motivated behavior to under-stand physical activity: perspectives on their influ-ence. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenbles, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2001.
33. Rivis A, Sheeran P. Descriptive norms as an addi-tional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Curr Psychol 2003;22(3):218–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-003-1018-2
34. Perugini M, Bagozzi R. The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed behaviours: broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. Br J Soc Psychol 2001;40:79–98. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164704
35. Mohiyeddini C, Pauli R, Bauer S. The role of emotion in bridging the intention-behaviour gap: the case of sports participation. Psychol Sport Exerc 2009;10:226–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. psychsport.2008.08.005
36. Webb TL, Sheeran P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull 2006;132:249–68. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
37. Pfeffer I, Strobach T. Behavioural automaticity moderates and mediates the relationship of trait self-control and physical activity behaviour. J Psychol Health 2017;33:925–40. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08870446.2018.1436176
38. Rhodes RE, de Bruijn GJ. What predicts inten-tion–behavior discordance? A review of the action control framework. Exerc Sports Sci Rev 2013;41(4):201–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/JES. 0b013e3182a4e6ed
39. Sheeran P. Intention-behaviour relations: a con-ceptual and empirical review, In M. Hewstone &
W. Strobe (Eds.), European review of social psy-chology (vol. 12, pp. 1–36). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
40. Armitage CJ. Can the theory of planned behavior predict the maintenance of physical activity. Health Psychol 2005;24:235–45. https://doi. org/10.1037/0278-6184.108.40.206
Science Citation Index Expanded Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.
Social Sciences Citation Index Social Sciences Citation Index contains over 3,400 journals across 58 social sciences disciplines, as well as selected items from 3,500 of the world’s leading scientific and technical journals. More than 9.37 million records and 122 million cited references date back from 1900 to present.
Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in the social and behavioral sciences.
Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.
SCOPUS Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.
DOAJ DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.
CrossRef Crossref makes research outputs easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. Crossref committed to open scholarly infrastructure and collaboration, this is now announcing a very deliberate path.
Portico Portico is a community-supported preservation archive that safeguards access to e-journals, e-books, and digital collections. Our unique, trusted process ensures that the content we preserve will remain accessible and usable for researchers, scholars, and students in the future.