This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
The media ing ole o cons uc s ep esen ing easoned-ac ion and au oma ic p ocesses
on he pas beha io - u u e beha io ela ionship
© 2020 Else ie
Accep ed e sion (Final d a )
B own, D. J.; Hagge , M. S.; Hamil on, K.
B own, D. J., Hagge , M. S., & Hamil on, K. (2020). The media ing ole o cons uc s ep esen ing
easoned-ac ion and au oma ic p ocesses on he pas beha io - u u e beha io ela ionship.
Social Science and Medicine, 258, A icle 113085.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113085
2020
Jou nal P e-p oo
The Media ing Role o Reasoned-Ac ion and Au oma ic P ocesses om Pas - o-
Fu u e Beha io
Daniel J. B own, Ma in S. Hagge , Ky a Hamil on
PII: S0277-9536(20)30304-X
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113085
Re e ence: SSM 113085
To appea in: Social Science & Medicine
Re ised Da e: 18 Feb ua y 2020
Accep ed Da e: 22 May 2020
Please ci e his a icle as: B own, D.J., Hagge , M.S., Hamil on, K., The Media ing Role o Reasoned-
Ac ion and Au oma ic P ocesses om Pas - o-Fu u e Beha io , Social Science & Medicine, h ps://
doi.o g/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113085.
This is a PDF ile o an a icle ha has unde gone enhancemen s a e accep ance, such as he addi ion
o a co e page and me ada a, and o ma ing o eadabili y, bu i is no ye he de ini i e e sion o
eco d. This e sion will unde go addi ional copyedi ing, ypese ing and e iew be o e i is published
in i s inal o m, bu we a e p o iding his e sion o gi e ea ly isibili y o he a icle. Please no e ha ,
du ing he p oduc ion p ocess, e o s may be disco e ed which could a ec he con en , and all legal
disclaime s ha apply o he jou nal pe ain.
© 2020 Published by Else ie L d.
The Media ing Role o Reasoned-Ac ion and Au oma ic P ocesses om Pas - o-
Fu u e Beha io
Daniel J. B own
G i i h Uni e si y
Ma in S. Hagge
Uni e si y o Cali o nia, Me ced and Uni e si y o Jy äskylä
Ky a Hamil on
G i i h Uni e si y
Au ho No e
Daniel J. B own, School o Applied Psychology, Menzies Heal h Ins i u e Queensland,
G i i h Uni e si y, B isbane, Queensland, Aus alia; Ma in S. Hagge , Psychological
Sciences, Uni e si y o Cali o nia, Me ced, USA and Facul y o Spo and Heal h Sciences,
Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä, Finland; Ky a Hamil on, School o Applied Psychology,
Menzies Heal h Ins i u e Queensland, G i i h Uni e si y, B isbane, Queensland, Aus alia.
Funding: This esea ch did no ecei e any speci ic g an om unding agencies in he public,
comme cial, o no - o -p o i sec o s. This p ojec was suppo ed by he Aus alian
Go e nmen Resea ch T aining P og am.
Ma in S. Hagge ’s con ibu ion was suppo ed by a
Finland Dis inguished P o esso (FiDiP o) ellowship om Tekes, he Finnish unding
agency o inno a ion.
*Co espondence conce ning his a icle should be add essed o Daniel B own, Heal h and
Psychology Inno ai ons (HaPI) Resea ch Lab, School o Applied Psychology, G i i h
Uni e si y, 176 Messines Ridge Road, M G a a , QLD 4122.
Email: [email p o ec ed]
Figu e 1. Rela ions among p oposed model cons uc s including s anda dized pa ame e es ima es. Es ima es on he uppe , cen e , and
lowe lines a e es ima es o he binge d inking, lossing, and sun sa e y beha io s, espec i ely. E ec s o age, gende , and educa ion
on each model cons uc ha e been omi ed o cla i y.
In en ion
T2
Au oma ici y
Beha io
T1
Au oma ici y
Pe cei ed
Beha io al
Con ol
A i ude
Subjec i e
No ms
F equency
.344
***
.426***
.719***
.105
.263***
.135
.111
.094
-.164*
Recency
Rou ine
Pas
Beha io
.601
***
.530***
.364***
.391
***
.249***
-.050
.203
**
.081
-.015
.917
.967
.919
.328
***
.345***
.363***
.670
***
.899***
.710***
.420
***
.424***
.466***
.454
***
.301***
.369***
.104
.147*
.089
.158
*
.205**
-.087
.366
***
.526***
.428***
.204
**
.514***
.383***
.902
.941
.933
.884
.897
.938
Table 1
Model Fi and Quali y Indices o S uc u al Equa ion Models o Binge D inking, Flossing, and
Sun Sa e y
Index Binge
d inking
Flossing Sun sa e y
GoF .575 .678 .592
AR
2
.382
***
.518
***
.382
***
APC .164
**
.187
**
.201
**
AVIF 1.272 1.601 1.342
No e.
*
p < .05
**
p < .01
***
p < .001

1
In oduc ion
To de elop e ec i e in e en ions in o de o modi y people’s beha io one needs o
i s isola e he mechanisms ha guide he beha io and hen es he ex en o which he
mechanisms magni y o diminish beha io al engagemen . P e ious esea ch has o en u ned
o heo ies o social cogni ion o guide in es iga ions aimed a iden i ying he de e minan s
o heal h beha io s and, impo an ly, he p ocesses by which hese de e minan s ela e o
each o he and he beha io . A close examina ion o he majo heo ies ha ha e been applied
o he unde s anding o heal h beha io assumes ha beha io is de e mined by a easoned,
in en ional p ocess in which an indi idual in es s e o in o de o pu sue an ac ion. The
heo y o planned beha io (TPB: Ajzen, 1991), gi en in en ion is cen al o he model, is
pe haps he mos widely used social–cogni i e heo y o beha io . Acco ding o he model,
in en ion is he mos p oximal p edic o o beha io , wi h in en ion de e mined by h ee
social–cogni i e a iables: a i ude (o e all e alua ions o pe o ming he beha io ),
subjec i e no m (social p essu e om impo an o he s o pe o m he beha io ), and
pe cei ed beha io al con ol (pe cei ed amoun o con ol o e beha io al pe o mance; also
mo e ecen ly heo ized as mode a ing he in en ion-beha io ela ionship; Ajzen, 1991).
Me a-analy ic s udies suppo he use o he TPB in p edic ing heal h- ela ed beha io s (e.g.,
McEachan e al., 2011; Rich e al., 2015)
Social cogni ion heo ies such as he TPB end o ocus on a ela i ely na ow se o
de e minan s ha include cons uc s ha ep esen easoned, in en ional de e minan s o
ac ion. Such app oaches end no o explici ly accoun o he pe asi e e ec s o pas
beha io on key cons uc s o psychological heo ies and hei ela ions wi h heal h beha io s
(e.g., Alba acín e al., 2001; Conne e al., 1999; Hagge e al., 2018). Howe e , esea ch has
demons a ed ha including pas beha io in hese heo ies accoun s o subs an i e
addi ional a iance in subsequen ly measu ed ( u u e) beha io h ough he esidual e ec o
2
pas beha io on u u e beha io . Inclusion o pas beha io has also been shown o a enua e
he size o he e ec s o in en ion and o he social-cogni ion cons uc s on u u e beha io .
Some a gue ha hese esidual e ec s a e likely an a i ac o assessing pas beha io and
u u e beha io using he same measu e, leading o sha ed me hod a iance (Ajzen, 1991,
2002). Howe e , esea ch using di e en measu es o pas and u u e beha io has e ealed
esidual e ec s (B own e al., 2018; Ve planken, 2006). O he s, he e o e, a gue ha he
esidual e ec s a o ded by pas beha io may model non-conscious p ocesses including
habi s and decisions based on implici cogni ion o beha io al ‘sc ip s’ (Hagge , 2020;
Hagge & Cha zisa an is, 2014; S ack & Deu sch, 2004; T iandis, 1977).
In seeking o unde s and he e ec s o pas beha io in social-cogni i e heo ies,
Ouelle e and Wood (1998) p oposed wo pa hways by which pas beha io ela es o u u e
beha io : a di ec pa hway and an indi ec pa hway. The di ec e ec is said o model an
au oma ic p ocess, simila o ha p oposed in dual-p ocess heo ies (S ack & Deu sch,
2004). The second, indi ec pa hway, in which pas beha io a ec s u u e beha io ia
conscious, in en ional p ocesses, such as hose cha ac e ized in social-cogni ion heo ies
(Ajzen, 1991). Ouelle e and Wood (1998) hypo hesized ha well-p ac iced beha io s,
occu ing in consis en con ex s likely e lec habi ual pa e ns ha a e expec ed o be
au oma ically epea ed in he u u e. These au oma ic beha io s can be in en ional and goal-
dependen o be pe cei ed as non- oli ional and coun e -in en ional (i.e., ou side o an
indi idual’s awa eness/con ol o in opposi ion o an indi idual’s in en ion; Ga dne e al.,
2015; Ji & Wood, 2007). Con e sely, he au ho s desc ibe how no el o less p ac iced
beha io s a e likely go e ned by conscious, in en ional p ocesses. While pas beha io has
been shown o a enua e he e ec s o social cogni i e a iables (B own e al., 2018), s udies
sugges ha hei cons uc s s ill accoun o unique a iance in beha io and media e, a leas
pa ially, he e ec s o pas beha io on u u e beha io (Hagge e al., 2018).
3
Al hough p e ious esea ch has demons a ed suppo o he di ec and indi ec
e ec s o pas beha io on u u e beha io in social cogni ion heo ies models (Ouelle e &
Wood, 1998), ew s udies ha e es ed he e ec s o o he cons uc s ha e lec non-
conscious decision making, such as habi s, on beha io alongside pas beha io (Bambe g e
al., 2003; an B ee e al., 2015; Ve planken, 2006). I indi ec e ec s o pas beha io on
u u e beha io model au oma ic, spon aneous p ocesses o beha io al enac men as p oposed
in dual p ocess heo ies (S ack & Deu sch, 2004) and, hus, cap u e he au oma ici y
componen o habi hey would be expec ed o media e he e ec o pas beha io on
subsequen beha io . We aimed o examine hese p oposi ions in he p esen s udy by es ing
he TPB in a ange o heal h beha io s and included measu es o pas beha io and
beha io al au oma ici y ac oss wo ime-poin s.
An addi ional issue wi h esea ch examining he ole o pas beha io in social
cogni ion heo ies is he la ge a ia ion in a bi a y ime ames used o measu e pas
beha io . Fo example s udies ha e measu ed pas beha io o e one week (Mullan e al.,
2015), ou weeks (Caudwell e al., 2019), and six mon hs (Luszczynska & Cieslak, 2009).
Measu ing pas beha io o e a bi a y ime ames may miss pa e ns o beha io al
engagemen ha could po en ially be in o ma i e on he mechanisms and p ocesses ha
de e mine subsequen heal h beha io . Fo example, engagemen in sun sa e y beha io s is
likely o be highly seasonal in ha hey a e pe o med equen ly in he summe mon hs and
seldom in win e mon hs (Sun e al., 2014; Xiang e al., 2015). A measu e o pas beha io
ha e e s o sun sa e y beha io s in close p oximi y o subsequen beha io is likely o lead
o s onge pas beha io e ec s han i he ime ame o he pas beha io measu e ex ended
beyond he cu en season. Fu he mo e, Ouelle e and Wood (1998) sugges ed ha a
di e en pa e n o pas beha io e ec s will occu o in equen ly compa ed o egula ly
pe o med beha io s. I would seem easonable o accoun o bo h long- e m (i.e., dis al) and
4
sho - e m (i.e., ecen ) enac men s o pas beha io as well as he equency wi h which he
beha io is measu ed. Pe ugini and Bagozzi (2001) p oposed di e en ia ing be ween long-
e m (up o 1 yea ) and mo e ecen (wi hin he las mon h) measu es o pas beha io .
Simila ly, o he s ha e used i ems ela ing he ex en o which he beha io is ou inized o
u he cap u e he egula i y o daily beha io al pe o mance (Ve planken & O bell, 2003).
Ex ending his esea ch, he p esen s udy es ed e ec s o pas beha io using mul iple
me hods ha accoun o he equency, ecency, and ou iniza ion o beha io s. Speci ically,
he measu e included i ems assessing long- e m (las yea ), sho - e m (las mon h), and
ou ine pa e ns o beha io , p oposing ha hese would indica e a mul i-componen measu e
o pas beha io ha would cap u e he essence o indi iduals pas pe o mance o heal h
beha io s.
The Cu en S udy and Hypo heses
Based on Ouelle e and Wood’s (1998) p oposi ions, we p opose a se o key
hypo heses ela ing o he e ec s o easoned, in en ional pa hways and non-conscious,
au oma ic pa hways o ac ion o h ee heal h beha io s in h ee independen samples: binge
d inking in uni e si y s uden s, den al lossing in communi y-dwelling adul s, and pa en al
sun sa e y beha io s o hei 2 o 5 yea -old child en. The p oposed model is p esen ed in
Figu e 1. In he p esen model, he easoned, in en ional p ocesses a e ep esen ed by he
e ec s o he social-cogni ion cons uc s om he TPB. Speci ically, a i ude, subjec i e
no m, and pe cei ed beha io al con ol a e expec ed o signi ican ly and di ec ly p edic
in en ions and in en ions and pe cei ed beha io al con ol a e expec ed o signi ican ly and
di ec ly p edic he a ge beha io s. We also expec he e ec s o he TPB cons uc s on
beha io would be media ed by in en ions (Ajzen, 1991).
11
suppo ing cons uc alidi y o he ac o s. Impo an ly, he second-o de ac o loadings o
he equency, ecency, and ou ine indica o s o he pas beha io la en a iable we e la ge
(>.884) and s a is ically signi ican (p < .001) o all beha io s. Composi e (ρ) eliabili y
coe icien s, AVE, and in e co ela ions o model a iables a e p esen ed in Appendix C
(supplemen al ma e ials). Reliabili y coe icien s exceeded he .700 c i e ion, and AVE
alues exceeded he ecommended .500 c i e ion. Co ela ions among he la en a iables
also indica ed no p oblems wi h disc iminan alidi y. Missing alues analysis using Li le’s
(1988) missing comple ely a andom (MCAR) es e ealed a signi ican alue o he
lossing beha io sample (χ
2
= 437.599, d = 357, p = .002), bu no o he binge d inking
beha io (χ
2
= 431.810, d = 416, p = .286) o pa en sun sa e y beha io s (χ
2
= 296.450, d =
385, p = 1.000) samples.
Model E ec s
S anda dized pa ame e es ima es o he hypo hesized ela ions among ac o s a e
p esen ed in Figu e 1 and as a able in Appendix D (supplemen al ma e ials). O e all, he
model accoun ed o 68.8%, 65.3%, and 61.6% o he a iance in in en ion o binge d ink,
loss, and adop sa e sun beha io s, espec i ely, and 39.4%, 78.8%, and 27.9% o he
a iance in he binge d inking, lossing, and sun-sa e beha io s, espec i ely. Resul s
e ealed s a is ically signi ican e ec s o a i udes on in en ions o engage in binge d inking
and lossing, bu no o sun sa e y beha io s. The e was a s a is ically signi ican e ec o
subjec i e no ms on in en ions o lossing, bu no o he o he beha io s. Pe cei ed
beha io con ol signi ican ly p edic ed in en ion o binge d inking and lossing bu no o
sun sa e y beha io s. In en ion s a is ically p edic ed lossing, bu no e ec was ound o
binge d inking and sun sa e y beha io s. The e was a s a is ically signi ican e ec o
pe cei ed beha io al con ol on beha io o sun sa e y beha io s, bu no o he o he
beha io s. Au oma ici y a T1 p edic ed au oma ici y 6-weeks la e (T2), and au oma ici y a

12
T2 p edic ed beha io , o each o he h ee beha io s. S a is ically signi ican e ec s we e
ound om pas beha io on a i ude, subjec i e no ms, pe cei ed beha io al con ol,
in en ions, and au oma ici y a T1 and T2 o all beha io s. The e was a s a is ically
signi ican e ec o pas beha io on beha io o binge d inking, bu no o lossing o sun
sa e y beha io s.
Focusing on he indi ec e ec s, we ound a s a is ically signi ican indi ec e ec o
a i udes on beha io media ed by in en ion o lossing beha io , bu no o he indi ec e ec s
o he model a iables on beha io media ed by in en ion. We also ound indi ec e ec s o
T1 au oma ici y on beha io media ed by T2 au oma ici y o all beha io s. We ound no
indi ec e ec s o pas beha io on beha io h ough a i udes, subjec i e no ms, pe cei ed
beha io al con ol, and in en ion in each o he models. The e was, howe e , a s a is ically
signi ican indi ec e ec o pas beha io on beha io ia T1 au oma ici y, and ia T2
au oma ici y o all beha io s.
Mul i-g oup analyses iden i ied a ew di e ences in e ec s ac oss he h ee samples,
al hough he di e ences e lec ed he ela i e size o he e ec s ac oss samples, a he han
di e ences e lec ing e ec s ha we e di e en om ze o and hose ha we e
indis inguishable om ze o. E ec s o a i udes and pe cei ed beha io al con ol on
in en ions, and in en ions on beha io , we e signi ican ly smalle in he sun sa e y sample
ela i e o he binge d inking and lossing samples. E ec s o pe cei ed beha io al con ol on
in en ion and beha io we e signi ican ly la ge in he sun sa e y sample ela i e o he binge
d inking and lossing sample. The e ec o pas beha io on a i ude was signi ican ly la ge
in he binge d inking sample han he sun sa e y sample. Simila ly, he e ec o pas beha io
on subjec i e no ms was signi ican ly g ea e in he binge d inking sample han he lossing
sample. The e ec s o pas beha io on T1 and T2 au oma ici y we e signi ican ly g ea e in
he lossing sample compa ed o he binge d inking sample. The e ec o pas beha io on
13
in en ion was signi ican ly smalle in he binge d inking and lossing samples ela i e o he
sun sa e y sample. Rela i e o he sun sa e y sample, he e ec o pas beha io on beha io
was la ge in he binge d inking sample
Fo comple ion, we compa ed model e ec s wi hou impu a ion o missing alues,
using lis wise dele ion o da a wi h missing cases ins ead. The model es ima ed wi h lis wise-
dele ed da a did no esul in subs an i e di e ences in he pa e n o e ec s ac oss he
samples. Full esul s o hese analyses a e p esen ed in Appendix D (supplemen al ma e ials).
Discussion
Social cogni ion heo ies end o ocus on a na ow ange o de e minan s o heal h
beha io s. As a consequence, hey may no accoun o e ec s o o he a iables ha could
be po en ially in o ma i e when i comes o p edic ing heal h beha io s. One po en ial
a iable whose e ec s wi hin social cogni ion models may p o ide impo an in o ma ion on
he de e minan s o beha io is pas beha io . The e is al eady a subs an i e body o esea ch
examining pas beha io e ec s wi hin social cogni ion heo ies. S udies including equency
o pas beha io wi hin hese heo ies ha e consis en ly shown ha pas beha io a enua es
e ec s o in en ion and o he social cogni ion cons uc s on subsequen ly measu ed ( u u e)
beha io . Howe e , he e is some deba e o e wha such e ec s ep esen . Some esea che s
ha e a gued ha pas beha io may model non-conscious and au oma ic p ocesses, such as
habi (Ouelle e & Wood, 1998). O he s ha e a gued ha pas beha io e ec s should be
media ed by cons uc s om social cogni ion heo ies i he heo y is o be conside ed
su icien as an accoun o u he beha io (Ajzen, 1991, 2002). D awing on Ouelle e and
Wood’s (1998) p oposi ions, we es ed a se o key hypo heses ela ed o easoned ac ion and
au oma ic p ocesses in a social cogni ion model including pas beha io in h ee heal h
beha io s, wi h h ee, independen samples: binge d inking in uni e si y s uden s, den al
lossing in communi y-dwelling adul s, and sun sa e y beha io s by pa en s o hei 2 o 5
14
yea -old child en. Fu he mo e, we adop ed a comp ehensi e measu e o pas beha io ,
which encompassed equency, ecency, and ou ine pa e ns o p e ious beha io .
Resul s e ealed a consis en pa e n o e ec s o he p oposed model in he binge
d inking and den al lossing beha io samples consis en wi h he TPB. These indings
sugges ha indi iduals a e mo e likely o engage in hese beha io s when hey ha e posi i e
a i udes owa d pe o ming he beha io in u u e and belie e doing so is wi hin hei
con ol. Subjec i e no ms did no p edic any o he beha io s, sugges ing a lesse ole o he
pe cei ed in luence o signi ican o he s o hese beha io s. Impo an ly, beha io was also
p edic ed by au oma ici y in all h ee samples, sugges ing, ha he e y leas , all h ee
beha io s we e somewha de e mined by habi s o ou ine. These indings sugges ha
cons uc s ep esen ing bo h easoned and au oma ic p ocesses de e mine beha io
simul aneously. A possible in e p e a ion o his pa e n o e ec s, p o ided by Hagge e al.
(2016), is ha hese beha io s a e de e mined by cons uc s ep esen ing one o he o he o
he p ocesses o g oups o pa icipan s wi hin he sample, each wi h su icien s eng h so as
o be p esen ed as s a is ically signi ican o e all. The key challenge o u u e esea ch is o
iden i y he mode a o a iables ha de e mine when each pa e n o e ec pe ades.
In con as wi h p e ious s udies (Hamil on, Ki kpa ick, Reba , & Hagge , 2017),
none o he TPB a iables p edic ed pa en s’ in en ions, and in en ions did no p edic
beha io o pa en al sun sa e y beha io s. One possible eason o his pa e n o e ec s may
be ha hese beha io s a e highly ou inized and habi ual, pa icula ly in an Aus alian
con ex whe e exposu e o he sun is bo h likely and egula . A means o es his hypo hesis
would be o examine e ec s o he cons uc s ep esen ing he easoned p ocess p edic
beha io when e ec s o cons uc s ep esen ing he au oma ic p ocess a e emo ed. We
he e o e e-es ima ed he model emo ing e ec s o au oma ici y in he model o his
beha io . As p edic ed, esul s e ealed in en ions p edic ed pa en al sun sa e y beha io (β =
15
.227, p < .01). This a enua ion e ec has been obse ed consis en ly in p e ious s udies (see
Hagge e al., 2016, 2018), and sugges s au oma ici y is he pe ading de e minan o
beha io in his con ex .
Resea ch has sugges ed ha pas beha io - u u e beha io ela ions e ec i ely
ep esen habi s (Hagge , 2019; Hagge e al., 2016, 2018; Ouelle e & Wood, 1998). We
easoned ha i his was he case, esidual e ec s o pas beha io on u u e beha io should
be media ed by au oma ici y, o he ex en ha indi idual’s e lec ions on au oma ici y
su icien ly cap u e a key componen o habi . Consis en wi h p e ious esea ch ( an B ee e
al., 2015), ou esul s e ealed consis en indi ec e ec s o pas beha io on u u e beha io
h ough au oma ici y a bo h ime poin s. This esul subs an ia es one o he p oposi ions se
by Ouelle e and Wood (1998), ha e ec s o pas beha io model habi ual o au oma ic
ac ions.
Howe e , con a y o p e ious esea ch (Hagge e al., 2016, 2018) and he p oposals
by Ouelle e and Wood, e ec s o pas beha io we e no ound o be media ed by he social
cogni ion cons uc s in he cu en model. Ajzen (2002) sugges ed ha he TPB cons uc s
should accoun o he e ec s o pas beha io i i is o p o ide a su icien accoun o
beha io . He sugges ed ha indi ec e ec s may e lec ha ing made simila decisions in he
pas o he e ec o pas expe ience in in o ming belie s ega ding u u e pe o mance o he
beha io . Howe e , i seems ha o he cu en se o beha io s, belie s ega ding u u e
pa icipa ion jn beha io a e no based on pas expe ience. One possible in e p e a ion is ha
a mino i y o indi iduals in hese samples pe haps ha e low le els o p e ious expe ience
and, hus, hei belie s owa d pe o ming he beha io s in u u e a e no based on hei pas
expe ience. Howe e , o he majo i y, hese beha io s a e likely de e mined by habi s. Fo
example, i is well documen ed ha uni e si y s uden s equen ly engage in haza dous binge
d inking (Da o en e al., 2015), e en compa ed o hei non-s uden pee s (Kyp i e al.,
16
2005). Simila ly, sun sa e y p ac ices is a ele an beha io o mos pa en s in an Aus alian
con ex (Hamil on e al., 2016; Hamil on, Ki kpa ick, Reba , Whi e, e al., 2017). I is
he e o e likely ha he beha io s a e likely hose ha a e la gely habi ually de e mined.
Unlike o he p oposed models ha include delibe a i e and au oma ic pa hways
(Caudwell e al., 2019; Hamil on, Ki kpa ick, Reba , & Hagge , 2017; an B ee e al., 2015),
a no el aspec o he cu en esea ch is he measu emen o au oma ici y o e wo ime
poin s, his may ha e con ibu ed o he ull media ion o pas beha io e ec s by
au oma ici y o he den al lossing and pa en al sun sa e y beha io samples. A esidual
e ec o pas beha io was s ill obse ed in he binge-d inking sample, which sugges ha
au oma ici y may no ully accoun o e ec s o au oma ic, non-conscious beha io s. Fo
example, i could sugges ha indi iduals sel - epo o au oma ici y o binge d inking may
no be en i ely p ecise because hey do no ake in o accoun o ‘in- he-momen ’ decision
making. O he cons uc s ha e lec au oma ic e alua ions o binge d inking beha io such
as implici a i udes owa d alcohol, impulsi i y, and implici alcohol iden i y may be u he
impo an media o s o pas beha io e ec s (Caudwell & Hagge , 2014; Houben & Wie s,
2009).
An inno a i e con ibu ion o he cu en s udy is he use o a second-o de la en
a iable o pas beha io ha included long- e m equency o pe o mance, ecen
pe o mance (up o 1 mon h), and ou ine pe o mance o he a ge beha io . Typically, pas
beha io is measu ed using an a bi a y ime ame, such as 1 week. Such measu es may miss
p e ious pa e ns o beha io ha may be impo an in he de e mina ion o u u e beha io .
Bagozzi and Wa saw (1990) in hei heo y o ying, and la e Pe ugini and Bagozzi (2001)
in hei model o goal-di ec ed beha io s, a gued ha pas beha io should be sepa a ed in o
long- e m and ecen componen s. They a gued ha while he wo componen s may be
ela ed, hey a e concep ually di e en and he e o e add impo an independen in o ma ion

17
in he p edic ion o beha io . Fo example, an indi idual may ha e only ecen ly aken up an
ac i i y (e.g., lossing a e ad ice om hei den is ), o could ha e egula ly engaged in an
ac i i y o e a long pe iod, bu has no been able o ecen ly (e.g., an indi idual who usually
binge d inks each weekend bu has ecen ly educed spending o sa e o hei uni e si y ex -
books). Pe ugini and Bagozzi (2001) p oposed ha ecency o beha io al engagemen may
in luence u u e beha io by ancho ing biases ha may ca y implici in o ma ion abou
in en ions o a deg ee highe han by wha is consciously a ailable. Fu he mo e, consis en
wi h Ouelle e and Wood’s (1998) p emise, hey sugges ha long- e m equency o
beha io al engagemen likely maps o habi ual occu ences o he beha io . Despi e hese
p emises, we ound ha hese concep ually dis inc componen s o pas beha io we e highly
co ela ed and se ed as indica o s o a second-o de pas beha io la en a iable. These
indings sugges ha all h ee componen s a e cap u ed by an o e all pas beha io cons uc .
Measu es o he di e en pas beha io componen s end o con e ge in la ge samples, and
sepa a ion o he di e en componen s do no o e addi ional in o ma ion in e ms o he
p edic ion o u u e beha io . In ac , sepa a ion o he di e en componen s would likely
con ound analyses due o mul i-collinea i y due o he high in e co ela ions. Ne e heless,
jus i ica ion o sepa a ing pas beha io in o sepa a e componen s may be jus i ied when
s udying pas beha io e ec s o in equen ly pe o med beha io s, like blood dona ion, o
new beha io s ha ha e only jus been ini ia ed.
The pe asi e e ec s o habi on he heal h beha io s in he cu en s udy ha e
impo an implica ions o p ac i ione s and clinicians. Findings sugges ha once an
indi idual has adop ed a heal h-beha io , such as applying sun-sa e p ac ices o hei child en
o lossing, hey should ocus hei e o s on building beha io al au oma ici y o main ain he
heal h-beha io . S a egies ha p omo e habi s such as inc easing beha io al pe o mance in
he p esence o a cue could he e o e be adop ed. Fu he mo e, p e ious esea ch has
18
demons a ed ha habi o ma ion ollows an asymp o ic cu e; au oma ici y g ows as es in
he ini ial weeks o habi o ma ion, and hen pla eaus (Lally e al., 2010). This pa e n may
mean ha while i can ake se e al mon hs o a habi o ully o m (Lally e al., 2010), he
mo e in ensi e wo k o build he habi (e.g., ocusing on building a esponse o a s able and
applicable cue) can be pe o med in he ini ial ew weeks o an in e en ion be o e su icien
sel - egula o y ac ions (e.g., de elopmen o sel -moni o ing cha s) could enable pe sis en
epe i ion o he habi ual ac ion. In addi ion, in e en ions may need o ocus on building he
awa eness o when an unheal hy habi is being cued. The ocus o in e en ions may be o
b eak o swap a habi ual esponse, o example, i an indi idual egula ly begins binge-
d inking a e wo k on a F iday, hey may change hei esponse o he cue (i.e., ‘ inishing
wo k on a F iday) wi h some hing mo e heal hy (e.g., ea ing a a es au an ha does no
se e alcohol o by engaging in physical exe cise). This wo k equi es e o ul, conscious
e lec ion and decisions, and he e o e u u e in e en ions may also need o use echniques
ha ocus on he social–cogni i e aspec o he cu en model (i.e., ocus on building
pe cei ed beha io al con ol and posi i e a i udes o change).
S eng hs, Limi a ions, and Resea ch Di ec ions
The cu en s udy has a numbe o s eng hs, including a comp ehensi e es o a
model ha included cons uc s ep esen ing easoned and au oma ic p ocesses in h ee
dis inc beha io s: den al lossing, binge d inking, and pa en s’ sun sa e y beha io s o hei
child en. Impo an ly, his is he i s s udy, o he au ho s’ knowledge, o use a measu e o
h ee dis inc componen s o pas -beha io : equency, ecency, and ou ine. The esea ch is
also inno a i e as i explo es he ex en o which e ec s o he pas beha io ac o on u u e
beha io we e accoun ed o by measu es o beha io al au oma ici y, a key componen o
habi . Also unique was he measu emen o au oma ici y a wo poin s in ime, which akes
he empo al s abili y o his cons uc in o accoun .
19
Howe e , his s udy is no wi hou limi a ions, which we ou line nex along wi h
di ec ions o u u e esea ch. The cu en s udy used a p ospec i e co ela ional design, so
he di ec ion o ela ions can only be in e ed om he p oposed ela ionships ou lined in he
ele an heo ies. C oss-lagged panel and expe imen al designs a e needed o con i m he
di ec ion o causali y (Chan e al., 2020; Liska, 1984). The cu en s udy p ima ily ec ui ed
ela i ely homogenous samples o pa icipan s ha was low on di e si y, which places limi s
on he gene alizabili y o he esul s (Hen ich e al., 2010). Ano he limi a ion is he eliance
on sel - epo measu es o beha io . Gi en one o he beha io s could be socially undesi able
(i.e., binge d inking), and ano he could be seen as an e alua ion o posi i e pa en ing
p ac ices (i.e., he use o sun sa e y beha io s on you child), social desi abili y e ec s ha e
unduly in la ed epo s o hese beha io s. Fu u e s udies should ocus on collec ing
beha io al da a ha does no ely on sel - epo s which may ob ia e hese biases (Bulle &
Bo land, 1999). In addi ion, he pa en al sun sa e y beha io was de ined as a collec ion o
beha io s, which may ha e had unin ended consequences in he way some pa icipan s
e lec ed on he au oma ici y o he beha io . Fo example, i is plausible ha di e en sun
sa e y beha io s may a y in hei deg ee o au oma ici y, which may ha e made i
p oblema ic o pa icipan s o espond o he measu e. Howe e , gi en each o hese
beha io s a e likely cued in he same way (e.g., going ou side du ing he day) and ha he
collec ion o beha io s ha e been ad oca ed o occu oge he in a long-s anding public
heal h campaign in Aus alia (Mon ague e al., 2001), i is likely ha each has a simila le el
o au oma ici y. Las , au oma ic p ocesses in he cu en model we e ep esen ed by sel -
epo ed au oma ici y alone. Fu u e esea ch should conside including o he measu es ha
ap in o hese p ocesses, such as coun e -in en ional habi s (Ga dne e al., 2015) and implici
belie s (Hagge & Cha zisa an is, 2014; S ack & Deu sch, 2004). These addi ional cons uc s
may play an impo an ole in accoun ing o e ec s o pas beha io (Hagge e al., 2017).
20
Conclusions
The cu en s udy es ed a social cogni ion model ha encompassed cons uc s
ep esen ing easoned ac ion and au oma ic p ocesses o p edic h ee heal h beha io s in
h ee sepa a e samples: binge d inking in uni e si y s uden s, den al lossing in communi y-
dwelling adul s, and pa en al sun sa e y beha io s o hei 2 o 5 yea -old child en. Resul s
indica ed ha cons uc s ep esen ing he easoned ac ion and au oma ic p ocesses
signi ican ly p edic ed lossing, whe eas binge d inking and sun sa e y beha io s we e
gene ally p edic ed by cons uc s ep esen ing au oma ic beha io s. The cu en in es iga ion
also ound suppo o he media ion o he pas beha io - u u e beha io ela ionship by
au oma ici y. The cu en s udy ills a knowledge gap in he cu en li e a u e on he mul iple
p ocesses ha guide beha io and p o ide u he e idence ha cons uc s ha ep esen
au oma ic p ocesses play a key ole. Fu u e esea ch should ocus on explo ing he ole o
o he cons uc s ha ep esen au oma ic p ocesses such as coun e -in en ional habi s and
implici belie s.
27
Ve planken, B. (2006). Beyond equency: Habi as men al cons uc . B i ish Jou nal o
Social Psychology, 45(3), 639–656. h ps://doi.o g/10.1348/014466605X49122
Ve planken, B., & O bell, S. (2003). Re lec ions on pas beha io : A sel ‐ epo index o
habi s eng h. Jou nal o Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1313–1330.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003. b01951.x
Xiang, F., Ha ison, S., Nowak, M., Kimlin, M., Van de Mei, I., Neale, R. E., Sinclai , C., &
Lucas, R. M. (2015). Weekend pe sonal ul a iole adia ion exposu e in ou ci ies in
Aus alia: In luence o empe a u e, humidi y and ambien ul a iole adia ion.
Jou nal o Pho ochemis y and Pho obiology B: Biology, 143, 74–81.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jpho obiol.2014.12.029

S udy Highligh s
• Cons uc s ep esen ing easoned ac ion and au oma ic p ocesses p edic ed heal h
beha io s
• Cons uc s ep esen ing au oma ic p ocesses media ed he pas - u u e beha io
ela ionship
• The s udy used a no el mul i-componen measu e o pas beha io
C edi au ho s a emen
Daniel J. B own: concep ualiza ion, me hodology, da a colle ion, o mal analysis, w i ing –
o iginal d a and edi s. Ma in S. Hagge : concep ualiza ion, me hodology, w i ing – edi s,
supe ision. Ky a Hamil on: concep ualiza ion, me hodology, w i ing – edi s, supe ision.