Changing beliefs about health led to small-to-medium changes in what people did.
HelpedThe short version
Across 90 experiments (29,520 people), helping people feel more sure of a habit led to more of it.

- 90
- studies pooled
- 29,520
- people in studies of health habits
The review
Who took part
The review pooled 204 experiments from 155 studies, with college students, the general public, workers and school pupils. The paper does not give one total number of people.
What they did
In each experiment, one group was helped to change its beliefs about a health habit. The beliefs were about the habit's outcomes, what others did, or how sure people felt they could manage it. The other group got nothing special, or a different treatment.
What happened
Helping people feel surer of a habit led to the biggest change in what they did. Changing attitudes or what people thought others did led to smaller changes, and changing more than one belief at once added nothing. The experiments showed about half the size of effect that the correlation studies had shown.
What the review found
- Helped
Across 90 experiments (29,520 people), helping people feel more sure of a habit led to more of it.
Pooled analysis of 90 studies with 29,520 people · vs the other groups · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- Helped
In 67 experiments (31,328 people), changing what people expected from a habit led to more of it.
Pooled analysis of 67 studies with 31,328 people · vs the other groups · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- Helped
In 17 experiments (9,337 people), changing what people thought others did led to more of the habit.
Pooled analysis of 17 studies with 9,337 people · vs the other groups · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
How solid is this?
- Large group
- Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
Source
The Impact of Changing Attitudes, Norms, and Self-Efficacy on Health-Related Intentions and Behavior: A Meta-Analysis (2016)
DOI: 10.1037/hea0000387 (opens in a new tab)

