Table 3

Testing the proposed hypotheses

RelationshipsCoefficientsConclusion
Indirect effectsConfidence intervals 95%p-values 
Goal intention → IP → FWR0.004 ÷ 0.042p < 0.05H1: Supported
Habit strength → IP → FWR−0.147 ÷ −0.013p < 0.05H2b: Supported
Impulsiveness → IP → FWR−0.083 ÷ −0.005p < 0.05H3: Supported
Impulsiveness → Goal intention → FWR−0.057 ÷ −0.002p < 0.05H4: Supported
Impulsiveness → Habit strength → FWR−0.321 ÷ −0.143p < 0.01H5: Supported
Direct effectsStd. estimatet-value 
Goal intention → IP0.112.21*H1a: Supported
IP → FWR0.142.54*H1b: Supported
Habit strength → FWR−0.47−7.28**H2a: Supported
Habit strength → IP−0.52−9.39**H2c: Supported
Impulsiveness → IP−0.24−4.47**H3a: Supported
Impulsiveness → Goal intention−0.24−4.23**H4a: Supported
Goal intention → FWR0.092.09*H4b: Supported
Impulsiveness → Habit strength0.487.95**H5a: Supported
Impulsiveness → FWR−0.06−1.09nsH6: Not supported

Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ns: non-significant; R2 (FWR) = 39.8%; IP: Implementation planning; indirect effects were estimated using bootstrapping procedure in AMOS 24.0

[ViewLarge]
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal