↓ Skip to main content

Non-conscious processes in changing health-related behaviour: a conceptual analysis and framework

Overview of attention for article published in Health Psychology Review, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 217)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
62 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
Title
Non-conscious processes in changing health-related behaviour: a conceptual analysis and framework
Published in
Health Psychology Review, February 2016
DOI 10.1080/17437199.2015.1138093
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gareth J. Hollands, Theresa M. Marteau, Paul C. Fletcher

Abstract

Much of the global burden of non-communicable disease is caused by unhealthy behaviours that individuals enact even when informed of their health-harming consequences. A key insight is that these behaviours are not predominantly driven by deliberative conscious decisions, but occur directly in response to environmental cues and without necessary representation of their consequences. Consequently, interventions that target non-conscious rather than conscious processes to change health behaviour may have significant potential, but this important premise remains largely untested. This is in part due to the lack of a practicable conceptual framework that can be applied to better describe and assess these interventions. We propose a framework for describing or categorising interventions to change health behaviour by the degree to which their effects may be considered non-conscious. Potential practical issues with applying such a framework are discussed, as are the implications for further research to inform the testing and development of interventions. A pragmatic means of conceptualising interventions targeted at non-conscious processes is a necessary prelude to testing the potency of such interventions. This can ultimately inform the development of interventions with the potential to shape healthier behaviours across populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 131 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 25%
Student > Master 25 19%
Researcher 19 14%
Unspecified 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 53 40%
Unspecified 24 18%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Other 26 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#487,822
of 13,628,470 outputs
Outputs from Health Psychology Review
#38
of 217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,470
of 361,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Psychology Review
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,628,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.