Social Cognitive Theory

1
Social Cognitive Theory

• Caroline McNaughton Tittel
• Nutrition Education
• May 22, 2000

2
Social Cognitive Theory Mischel Bandura

• SCT addresses
• Psychosocial dynamics influencing health behavior
• Methods of promoting behavior change
• Self-efficacy, self-confidence, and outcome
  expectations
• Reciprocal determinism
• Behavior, personal factors environment all
  interact

3
Reciprocal DeterminismBandura

• Person
• Environment Behavior

4
Relevance of SCT to Health Education

• Comprehensive
• Cognitive, emotional behavioral explanations of
  behavior ?
• Constructs provide avenues for behavioral
  research health education practice
• Application of theoretical ideas developed in
  other areas of psychology to health behaviors
  behavior ?

5
Constructs of SCTMischel Bandura

• Environment
• Situation
• Behavioral capability
• Expectations
• Expectancies
• Self-control

• Observational learning
• Reinforcements
• Self-efficacy
• Emotional coping responses
• Reciprocal determinism

6
Use of SCT in Nutrition

• Predicting Influences
• Social cognitive model of fruit and vegetable
  consumption in elementary school children
  -Resnicow K et al
• Social-cognitive predictors of fruit and
  vegetable intake in children -Reynolds KD et al
• Examination of specific nutrition/health
  behaviors using a social cognitive model -Lewis
  CJ et al
• Interventions
• Gimme 5 fruit, juice, and vegetables for fun and
  health Outcome evaluation -Baranowski T et al
• Development and evaluation of an intervention
  program Control on campus -Wdowik MJ et al
• Changing fruit and vegetable consumption among
  children The 5-a-Day Power Plus program in St.
  Paul, Minnesota -Perry CL et al

7
Beverage Consumption

• Extent to which milk soda consumption behaviors
  are influenced by SC variables has not been
  examined
• Justification
• Current health concerns
• consumption behaviors can be measured accurately
• comparisons b/t whole/low-fat/skim regular/diet
  soda

Lewis et al (1989) J Am Diet Assoc 89194-202
8
Study DesignLewis et al

• Written questionnaire mailed in 2 phases
• Phase 1 39 items frequency of consumption,
  knowledge, attitudes behavior as well as demog
• Phase 2 59 items differential association,
  social and non-social reinforcement, behavior
  modeling
• 457 adults mean age of 47 y, 58 female
• 709 college students mean age 21 y, 50 female

9
Model for Food Frequency Consumption
Behavior modeling
Frequency of food consumption behavior
Differential Association
Evaluative Definitions
Non-social reinforcement
Social Reinforcement
Lewis et al
10
SCT VariablesLewis et al

• Differential association
• perceptions of family, friends, health experts,
  media
• Attitude
• milk is important soda is acceptable
• Social reinforcement
• positive feelings, belonging, pleasing others
• Nutrition knowledge
• true false dont know

11
SCT VariablesLewis et al

• Behavior modeling
• frequency by mother, father, other adult,
  significant other, friend, favorite media star
• Behavioral commitment
• selection of beverages low in fat sugar
• Taste enjoyment
• not at all (1) to very much (5)

12
ResultsLewis et al

• For both groups and for all 4 beverages, neither
  social reinforcement nor behavior modeling
  directly influence FOBC
• Milk
• taste enjoyment, commitment, attitudes toward
  importance directly related to FOBC for both
  groups both whole low-fat/skim
• taste enjoyment related to commitment attitude
• media, student, whole versus family, adult, whole

13
ResultsLewis et al

• Soda
• more variable than milk for consumption b/t
  groups type of beverage
• taste enjoyment commitment were directly
  related to FOBC for both groups both regular
  diet

14
ConclusionsLewis et al

• Best predictor of behavior is the persons
  intention to perform the behavior
• Nutrition knowledge . . . may help to create an
  intervening variable, behavioral intention,
  which in turn leads to the actual behavior
• . . . social beverages . . . more variable
  easily changed . . . healthful beverages. . .
  steady deeply rooted

15
Gimme 5!

• Multi-component randomized school intervention in
  4th and 5th graders to ? FJV consumption
• Levels of FJV consumption in children range from
  1.9 to 2.5 servings
• ? thru the elementary school years
• Focus groups conducted to determine
  environmental, personal behavioral factors

Baranowski et al (2000) Health Education
Behavior 27(1)96-111
16
Gimme 5!Baranowski et al

• 8 matched elementary school pairs
• 6-week intervention (12 sessions)
• conducted by trained teacher
• transparencies, handouts, worksheets, posters
  weekly newsletters
• Taste testing of snacks prepared by FSP
• MTV-like video
• Role-playing skits
• Point-of-Purchase education

17
SCT VariablesBaranowski et al

• Environment
• ? availability accessibility
• Behavioral capability
• asking skills, FaSST recipes
• Outcome expectancies
• ? performance w/o ? acceptance by peers
• Self-control
• Goals for FJV at meals snacks

18
SCT VariablesBaranowski et al

• Observational Learning
• teacher, parents (?)
• Reinforcement
• prizing for completing assignments,
  congratulations
• Self-efficacy
• Role-play to bolster asking shopping skills
• Reciprocal determinism

19
ResultsBaranowski et al

• 1,172 students provided 7-d food records for 3 y
• 15 African American, 85 Euro-American
• Curriculum implementation was 47 for all
  activities, w/ only 22 of crucial activities
  performed
• ? participation in video POP education
  activities
• Effect size of 0.2 servings comparable to other
  interventions
• ?s in weekday FJV consumption
• impacting home consumption is elusive

20
ResultsBaranowski et al
21
Future DirectionsBaranowski et al

• Better understanding of food choice
• More effectively impact mediating variables
  processes
• Explorations of alternatives channels
• Teacher training which results in higher
  curriculum fidelity
• Higher dose of several intervention components

22
Control on Campus
Abstract from Wdowik et al (2000) Diabetes Educ
26(1) 95-104

• Based on SCT and EHBM
• Type I Diabetes knowledge, attitudes behaviors
  assessed pre-, post- at follow-up
• 3 intervention cohorts, 1 control
• Reporting of HbA1C knowledge ? significantly
  for intervention groups
• More support on campus, overcame fears associated
  with BG testing, ? frequency of BG testing, ?
  testing when BG felt to be low

23
Limitations of SCT

• Too many constructs
• Limited in its ability to predict behavior
• No significant behavior ? seen in large
  intervention studies
• Applied to a single behavior or not
• Additional influences
• Fails to address nonlinearities

24
References

• Baranowski T et al. (2000) Health Education and
  Behavior 27(1)96-111.
• Elder JP. Motivating Health Behavior. New York
  Delmar, 1994.
• Glanz K. Health Behavior and Health Education
  Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco
  Jossey-Bass, 1997.
• Lewis CJ et al. (1989) J Am Diet Assoc
  89194-202.
• Perry CL et al. (1998) Am J Pub Health
  88(4)603-609.
• Resnicow K et al. (1997) Health Psychology
  16(3)272-276.
• Reynolds KD et al. J of Nutr Edu 31(1)23-30.
• Wdowik MJ et al. (2000) Diabetes Educ
  26(1)95-104.