This study is grounded in a comprehensive theoretical framework that integrates perspectives from personality psychology, cognitive processing theories, social influence frameworks, and health behavior models to explain the formation of attitudes, behavioral intentions, and subsequent health outcomes. By combining these complementary perspectives, the research captures the multi-level mechanisms through which individual, cognitive, and social factors jointly influence behavior.

At the individual level, personality traits provide a fundamental basis for understanding how individuals interpret and evaluate external information. The Big Five Personality Framework ( John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1997) suggests that stable personality characteristics influence cognitive styles, emotional responses, and evaluative tendencies. These traits shape how individuals form attitudes by influencing their perception and interpretation of stimuli. In addition, mindfulness theory highlights the role of conscious awareness and reflective processing in shaping evaluations (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Individuals with higher mindfulness are more likely to engage in deliberate and non-reactive thinking, leading to more stable and well-informed attitudes.

Complementing these perspectives, Cognitive Processing Theory further insight into how individuals form attitudes. Dual-Process Theory (DPT) distinguishes between intuitive (System 1) and analytical (System 2) processing (Stanovich & West, 2000; Kahneman, 2011). Individuals relying more on intuitive processing are more susceptible to superficial or ambiguous information, whereas analytical processing promotes critical evaluation. This distinction is particularly relevant for understanding bullshit receptivity, which reflects a tendency to accept pseudo-profound statements without scrutiny (Pennycook et al., 2015). In addition, Motivated Reasoning Theory suggests that individuals selectively process information in ways that align with their pre-existing beliefs and values, further shaping attitude formation (Kunda, 1990). Religious–spiritual factors further contribute to attitude formation by providing value-based frameworks that guide individual evaluations. Religiosity influences beliefs, moral judgments, and behavioral preferences, shaping how individuals evaluate behaviors and social issues (Graafland, 2017).

At the social level, this study incorporates Social Influence Theory to explain how external environments shape attitudes. The NIT suggests that individuals adjust their attitudes and behaviors to conform to perceived expectations from others (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). This study distinguishes between perceived societal norms, subjective norms, and social norms to capture multi-level effects. Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) further explains that individuals learn attitudes and behaviors by observing others.

The transition from attitudes to behavioral intention is explained through Expectancy–Value Frameworks (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Attitudes serve as a key cognitive mechanism linking beliefs to intentions, with stronger attitudes leading to stronger intentions (Holland et al., 2002). To explain how intentions translate into behavior, this study draws on Health Behavior Theories. The Health Belief Model (HBM) (Rosenstock, 1974), SCT (Bandura, 1986), and the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983) collectively support the role of intention as a proximal determinant of behavior. Finally, health promotion frameworks explain the link between health behaviors and outcomes. The Health Promotion Model (HPM) (Pender, 2011) and SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000) highlight that sustained health behaviors lead to improved well-being and long-term health outcomes.

This study makes several important theoretical contributions to the literature by integrating multiple psychological and behavioral perspectives into a unified framework. First, it adopts a multi-level theoretical integration approach, combining personality, cognition, social influence, and health behavior theories into a comprehensive model. This provides a more holistic explanation of behavior compared to single-theory approaches. Second, it incorporates cognitive processing perspectives, including DPT and motivated reasoning, highlighting the role of information processing in attitude formation. Third, it refines the conceptualization of social influence by distinguishing between societal, subjective, and social norms, offering a more nuanced understanding of normative effects. Fourth, it bridges attitude and health behavior theories, linking psychological evaluations to actual health outcomes through established health models. Finally, it provides a process-oriented framework that explains the full pathway from individual traits to health outcomes, enhancing theoretical clarity and explanatory power. Overall, this study advances theory by offering a comprehensive and integrated explanation of health-related decision-making and behavior.

2.2.1 The influence of individual factors on attitude toward healthy behavior

Self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s belief in their capability to perform a task, has been widely recognized as a key determinant of attitudinal formation. Rooted in SCT (Bandura, 1986, 1997), self-efficacy influences how individuals evaluate their ability to engage in a behavior, thereby shaping both cognitive and affective responses. Individuals with higher self-efficacy are more likely to perceive tasks as manageable, controllable, and less effortful, which in turn fosters more favorable attitudes.

From a theoretical perspective, self-efficacy enhances individuals’ sense of control and reduces perceived uncertainty, leading to greater confidence and intrinsic motivation (Bandura, 1997). When individuals believe they possess sufficient capability, they tend to approach tasks with persistence, lower anxiety, and higher engagement. These positive psychological states contribute to more favorable evaluations of the focal behavior or system. Conversely, individuals with low self-efficacy are more likely to experience hesitation and perceived difficulty, which may result in less favorable attitudes.

Empirical evidence across a wide range of contexts consistently supports the positive relationship between self-efficacy and attitude. Prior studies in technology usage, online learning, and consumer behavior have demonstrated that individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy tend to exhibit more positive evaluations toward the target activity or system (Laganà et al., 2011; Zheng et al., 2010; Lee & Hsieh, 2009). This relationship has been observed across diverse samples, including students, general consumers, and technology users (Yoong et al., 2018; Kavgaci, 2022). Additional studies further confirm the robustness of this relationship across different settings and populations (Torkzadeh & Van Dyke, 2002; Nicolaidou & Philippou, 2003; Wu & Tsai, 2006). Although contextual variations exist, the direction of the relationship remains consistently positive (Durndell & Haag, 2002; Zhang & Espinoza, 1998). Therefore, this study posits that higher levels of self-efficacy will lead to more favorable attitudes.

SDT provides a robust theoretical foundation for understanding how intrinsic motivation shapes individuals’ attitudes toward behaviors. SDT posits that when individuals experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness, they develop stronger internalized motivations, which in turn foster more favorable cognitive and affective evaluations of a given behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci et al., 2017). In consumption contexts, particularly those involving ethical or sustainable choices, self-determined motivation plays a critical role in forming positive attitudes, as individuals perceive their actions as aligned with personal values and self-identity.

From a theoretical perspective, SDT suggests that attitudes are not merely formed through external pressures or utilitarian considerations but are deeply rooted in intrinsic psychological needs. When consumers feel that engaging in a behavior reflects their own volition and personal beliefs, they are more likely to develop a favorable attitude toward that behavior. This internalization process enhances the stability and persistence of attitudes, making them less susceptible to external fluctuations (Deci et al., 2017).

Empirically, prior studies provide consistent support for the positive relationship between self-determination and attitude. For instance, Al-Jubari et al. (2019) reported a positive association between self-determined motivation and attitude formation. Similarly, Hagger et al. (2012) found a relatively strong positive effect, demonstrating that autonomous motivation significantly enhances favorable attitudes across behavioral domains. Chung et al. (2017) and Tsai et al. (2021) also documented positive relationships, reinforcing the robustness of this linkage across different samples and contexts.

Further supporting evidence is provided by Su and Chen (2022), who identified a positive predictive effect, suggesting that self-determination not only correlates with but also predicts attitudes. Although Williams et al. (2019) reported a negligible or slightly negative relationship, this finding may be context-specific and does not outweigh the broader empirical consensus. Overall, the accumulated evidence indicates a predominantly positive and meaningful relationship between self-determined motivation and attitude. Therefore, it is reasonable to propose that:

Neuroticism, a fundamental dimension of personality, reflects individuals’ tendency to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, worry, and emotional instability. According to personality theory and affect-based evaluation perspectives, individuals high in neuroticism are more likely to process information through a negative emotional lens, which in turn influences their attitudinal formation. From the perspective of the AAIT (Clore & Schnall, 2018), emotional states serve as informational cues in judgment formation, implying that individuals with higher neurotic tendencies may develop attitudes that are more emotionally driven and potentially less stable.

Empirical findings on the relationship between neuroticism and attitude (AT) provide mixed but meaningful evidence. Holmström (2015) reported a positive association (r = 0.18), suggesting that individuals with higher neuroticism may exhibit stronger attitudinal responses due to heightened emotional sensitivity. Similarly, Pavlicek et al. (2021) found a relatively stronger positive relationship (r = 0.283), indicating that neurotic individuals may form more pronounced attitudes, possibly because they are more engaged in evaluative processing. Gornik-Durose and Boroń (2018) also identified a positive correlation (r = 0.12), further supporting the role of neuroticism in shaping attitudes.

However, some studies indicate a negative or negligible relationship. Stănescu and Romașcanu (2024) found a slightly negative association, while Francis and Lester (1997) reported a weak negative relationship, suggesting that neuroticism may lead to unfavorable or inconsistent attitudes depending on contextual conditions. Hepler and Albarracín (2013) observed a modest positive relationship, and Al-Gharibah and Mahfod (2022) reported a positive association, reinforcing the notion that neuroticism still exerts influence, albeit with variability across contexts.

The inconsistencies in prior findings may stem from differences in research settings, cultural backgrounds, and types of attitudinal objects being evaluated. Despite these variations, the overall pattern suggests that neuroticism plays a significant role in shaping attitudes by influencing emotional processing and evaluative judgment mechanisms. Individuals high in neuroticism tend to exhibit stronger emotional reactions, which can intensify their attitudes, whether positive or negative.

Based on the theoretical arguments and empirical evidence, neuroticism is expected to significantly influence individuals’ attitudes.

Extraversion, one of the core dimensions of the Big Five personality traits, reflects an individual’s tendency toward sociability, assertiveness, and positive emotionality. The conceptual foundation of the Big Five Model can be traced to the lexical and factor-analytic work of Tupes and Christal (1992) and later formalized by Goldberg (1992) and McCrae and Costa (1987, 1999). Individuals high in extraversion are typically outgoing, energetic, and more likely to engage actively with their social environment. These characteristics play a critical role in shaping how individuals evaluate stimuli and form attitudes.

From a theoretical perspective, attitude formation has been widely discussed in classical and contemporary social psychology. Allport (1935) defined attitudes as learned predispositions that influence responses toward objects and situations. Building on this foundation, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) proposed the Theory of Reasoned Action, suggesting that attitudes are formed through beliefs and evaluations, which subsequently guide behavioral intentions. Furthermore, Eagly and Chaiken (1993) emphasized that attitudes arise from both cognitive and affective processes, indicating that emotional tendencies—such as those associated with extraversion—play a crucial role in shaping evaluative judgments.

Extraversion is strongly linked to positive affectivity and approach-oriented behavior, which are central to affect-based attitude formation. Individuals with high levels of extraversion tend to experience more positive emotions and are more responsive to rewarding stimuli, thereby increasing the likelihood of forming favorable attitudes. This aligns with the argument that personality traits serve as enduring predispositions influencing both cognitive evaluations and emotional responses (McCrae & Costa, 1999).

Empirical studies further support this relationship. Tang and Lam (2017) found that extraversion significantly enhances consumers’ attitudes toward green hotels. Similarly, Sun et al. (2018) demonstrated that extraversion positively influences attitudes toward green products. In addition, Bowling et al. (2024) reported that extraversion predicts more favorable attitudes in social interaction contexts. Although some studies (e.g., Francis & Lester, 1997) suggest that the strength of this relationship may vary depending on situational factors, the direction of the effect remains consistently positive. Moreover, Hepler and Albarracín (2013) argued that attitudes can be partly dispositional, further reinforcing the role of personality traits in shaping evaluative tendencies.

In light of these theoretical foundations and empirical findings, individuals with higher levels of extraversion are more likely to develop positive attitudes due to their optimistic, expressive, and socially engaged nature. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

2.2.2 The influence of psychological factors on attitude toward healthy behavior

Mindfulness has been widely conceptualized as a state of present-centered awareness characterized by attention, clarity, and non-judgmental acceptance (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Within the attitude formation literature, mindfulness can be interpreted as a cognitive–affective regulatory mechanism that influences how individuals process information and evaluate stimuli. According to dual-process perspectives such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), individuals who engage in more deliberate and attentive processing are more likely to form stable and favorable attitudes. Mindfulness enhances such elaborative processing by increasing awareness and reducing automatic, habitual responses, thereby facilitating more reflective and coherent attitudinal judgments.

From a theoretical standpoint, mindfulness also aligns with self-regulation and awareness-based models, which suggest that individuals with higher levels of awareness are better able to integrate internal states (e.g., emotions, values) with external information when forming attitudes. This process reduces cognitive bias and impulsivity, allowing individuals to construct more consistent and meaningful evaluations. Consequently, mindfulness is expected to positively influence attitude formation by promoting deeper cognitive engagement and balanced affective responses.

Empirical evidence generally supports this relationship. For instance, Li et al. (2019) demonstrated that mindfulness is positively associated with favorable attitudes, suggesting that mindful individuals are more capable of forming constructive evaluations. Similarly, Jansen et al. (2024) found that mindfulness significantly enhances sustainable attitudes, indicating that heightened awareness encourages value-consistent judgments. In addition, Haddock et al. (2017) showed that mindfulness reduces attitudinal ambivalence, leading to more stable and positive evaluations.

However, not all findings are uniformly strong. Siebertz et al. (2022) reported a weaker relationship between mindfulness and attitudes toward vegetarian and vegan consumption. This inconsistency may stem from contextual factors such as entrenched habits, identity-related preferences, or cultural influences that may override the effect of mindfulness. Despite this, the overall pattern of findings suggests that mindfulness contributes to more deliberate processing and coherent evaluations, which are essential components of positive attitude formation.

As a summary, both theoretical perspectives and empirical findings indicate that mindfulness enhances individuals’ ability to process information reflectively and form stable, favorable evaluations. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that higher levels of mindfulness will lead to more positive attitudes.

Perceived stress reflects an individual’s subjective evaluation of environmental demands exceeding their coping resources, which in turn shapes cognitive processing and attitudinal responses. Drawing upon CAT and the stress–coping framework, individuals under high levels of perceived stress tend to allocate greater psychological resources toward managing threats rather than forming deliberate evaluations, thereby influencing their attitudes toward objects, behaviors, or decisions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In behavioral and consumer research, stress has been shown to alter information processing patterns, often leading to simplified evaluations and less stable attitudinal judgments.

From an attitude formation perspective, perceived stress can disrupt both the cognitive and affective components of attitude construction. Under stressful conditions, individuals typically experience reduced cognitive capacity, which limits their ability to process information systematically and encourages reliance on heuristic cues (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). At the same time, heightened emotional arousal associated with stress may bias judgments, resulting in more negative or inconsistent attitudes. This perspective is consistent with dual-process theories, which suggest that individuals under psychological strain are less likely to engage in central processing and more likely to rely on peripheral cues when forming attitudes.

Empirical evidence provides consistent support for the relationship between perceived stress and attitude. Prior studies have demonstrated that perceived stress significantly influences individuals’ evaluative judgments across various contexts. For instance, Martin et al. (1995) found that perceived stress was positively associated with dysfunctional attitudes among adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Similarly, Sandler (2000) reported that perceived stress significantly shaped students’ attitudes within a structural model of persistence. In clinical settings, Pedrelli et al. (2008) further showed that perceived stress significantly predicted dysfunctional attitudes among individuals with chronic depression. Additional evidence suggests that the direction of this relationship may vary depending on contextual and psychological conditions. For example, Kahraman et al. (2020) identified a negative association between perceived stress and attitudes toward life satisfaction, indicating that higher stress levels may reduce favorable attitudinal evaluations. In contrast, Sheu et al. (2002) found that perceived stress significantly influenced attitudinal responses among nursing students during their initial clinical practice.

In summary, both theoretical perspectives and empirical findings suggest that perceived stress plays a critical role in shaping attitudes by influencing cognitive processing and emotional responses. Individuals experiencing higher levels of stress are more likely to form attitudes that are less stable and potentially more negative due to constrained cognitive resources and heightened emotional reactivity. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that perceived stress significantly affects attitude formation.

Emotion regulation, particularly in terms of positive affect, refers to individuals’ ability to influence the experience and expression of positive emotional states, which plays a crucial role in shaping cognitive evaluations and attitudinal responses. Drawing upon AAIT, individuals often rely on their emotional states as informational cues when forming judgments and attitudes (Clore & Schnall, 2018). Positive affect, in particular, facilitates more favorable evaluations by signaling a benign environment, thereby encouraging approach-oriented cognition and more positive attitudinal outcomes.

From an attitude formation perspective, emotion regulation influences both the affective and cognitive components of attitudes. Individuals who effectively regulate positive emotions are more likely to experience enhanced mood states, which broaden cognitive processes and promote flexible thinking, leading to more favorable evaluations (Hepler & Albarracín, 2013). This aligns with the Broaden-and-Build Theory (BBT) (Fredrickson, 2001), which suggests that positive emotions expand individuals’ cognitive and behavioral repertoires, thereby influencing how attitudes are formed and maintained. Furthermore, positive affect can serve as a heuristic cue in judgment formation, especially under conditions of limited cognitive resources, reinforcing the role of emotional regulation in shaping attitudes.

Empirical evidence provides substantial support for the relationship between emotion regulation and attitude. Prior studies have shown that positive affect is significantly associated with more favorable attitudinal responses. For instance, Clore and Schnall (2018) demonstrated that affective states play a central role in shaping attitudes by serving as informational inputs in evaluative processes. Similarly, Hepler and Albarracín (2013) found that dispositional tendencies toward positive affect are strongly related to general attitudinal orientations. In cross-cultural contexts, Deng et al. (2019) further confirmed that emotion regulation is significantly associated with both implicit and explicit attitudes. Additional evidence suggests that the relationship between emotion regulation and attitude may vary depending on situational and individual factors. For example, Cancino-Montecinos et al. (2018) showed that attitude change is closely linked to positive emotional experiences during dissonance reduction processes, highlighting the regulatory function of emotions in shaping attitudes. In contrast, some studies have reported weaker or even negative associations under specific conditions. Bissing-Olson et al. (2013) found that daily affect may not always translate into consistent attitudinal outcomes, depending on contextual moderators such as environmental behavior at work. Similarly, Donker et al. (2020) suggested that the effectiveness of emotion regulation strategies may influence attitudinal responses differently depending on individual differences and psychological states. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that emotion regulation significantly affects attitude formation.

Resilience refers to an individual’s capacity to adapt positively and recover from stress, adversity, or challenging life circumstances, which plays a crucial role in shaping cognitive evaluations and attitudinal responses. Drawing upon positive psychology and the stress-adaptation framework, resilient individuals are better equipped to regulate negative emotions and maintain psychological stability, thereby facilitating more constructive and favorable evaluations of situations and objects. Based on Resilience Theory (Rutter, 1987) enables individuals to reinterpret adverse experiences in a more positive manner, which in turn influences their attitudes toward various domains, including work, consumption, and life outcomes.

From an attitude formation perspective, resilience contributes to both the cognitive and affective components of attitude development. Individuals with higher levels of resilience tend to exhibit greater emotional stability and adaptive coping strategies, allowing them to process information more effectively and maintain balanced evaluations even under stressful conditions. This aligns with the BBT, which suggests that positive psychological resources, such as resilience, expand individuals’ cognitive flexibility and promote more favorable attitudes. Furthermore, resilient individuals are more likely to engage in proactive coping and optimistic appraisal, which enhances their ability to form stable and positive attitudes over time.

Empirical evidence provides strong support for the relationship between resilience and attitude. Prior studies have consistently shown that resilience is positively associated with favorable attitudinal outcomes across different contexts. For instance, Yu (2020) demonstrated that psychological resilience significantly influences consumers’ attitudes in the context of hotel guest retention. Similarly, Rew and Cha (2021) found that resilience plays an important role in shaping consumer attitudes in corporate social responsibility contexts. In educational settings, Kim & Kim (2019) reported that resilience is significantly associated with students’ attitudes, while Kavgaci (2022) further confirmed that resilience positively influences teachers’ attitudes toward the teaching profession. Additional evidence across diverse domains further reinforces this relationship. Jahanshahi et al. (2020) found that resilience contributes to employees’ positive work attitudes, while Izydorczyk et al. (2018) demonstrated its association with body-related attitudes across different life stages. In healthcare and psychological contexts, Wang et al. (2024) and Park and Park (2021) showed that resilience significantly influences attitudes toward death and professional roles. Moreover, Marliyah (2023) highlighted the positive role of resilience in shaping entrepreneurial attitudes among university students, while Pourkord et al. (2020) and Li et al. (2022) further supported the role of resilience in influencing attitudes in educational and occupational settings.

Although the majority of studies indicate a positive relationship, some evidence suggests that this relationship may vary under specific conditions. For example, Hezarian et al. (2021) reported a non-significant or weak relationship between resilience and attitudes toward certain risk behaviors, indicating that contextual and individual factors may moderate this relationship. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that resilience significantly affects attitude formation.

2.2.3 The Influence of Religious-Spiritual Factors on Attitude toward Healthy Behavior

Religiosity refers to the extent to which individuals adhere to religious beliefs, values, and practices, which significantly shape their cognitive frameworks and evaluative judgments. Drawing upon Value-Belief Theory and NIT, religiosity provides individuals with a structured system of moral principles and ethical guidelines that influence their perceptions and attitudes toward various objects and behaviors (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). Religious teachings often emphasize moral responsibility, ethical conduct, and prosocial values, which serve as internalized standards guiding individuals’ attitudinal responses (Allport & Ross, 1967).

From an attitude formation perspective, religiosity influences both the cognitive and affective components of attitudes. Cognitively, religious beliefs offer a framework through which individuals interpret information and evaluate situations in alignment with moral doctrines. Affectively, religiosity fosters emotional attachment to values such as compassion, responsibility, and fairness, which in turn shape favorable or unfavorable attitudes depending on the context. This perspective is consistent with Social Identity Theory, which suggests that individuals derive part of their identity from their religious affiliation, thereby influencing their attitudes to align with group norms and values (Turner et al., 1979). In addition, religiosity functions as a guiding belief system that directs individuals’ evaluative processes and behavioral intentions, reinforcing its role in shaping attitude formation (Ajzen, 1991).

Empirical evidence provides mixed but generally supportive findings regarding the relationship between religiosity and attitude. Prior studies have shown that religiosity plays a significant role in shaping individuals’ attitudes across different domains. For instance, Abd Rahman et al. (2015) found that religiosity significantly influences consumers’ attitudes toward halal cosmetic products, highlighting the role of religious beliefs in shaping consumption-related evaluations. Similarly, Kum-Lung and Teck-Chai (2010) reported that religiosity is positively associated with attitudes toward business ethics, while Vitell et al. (2007) also demonstrated that religiosity contributes to shaping consumers’ ethical attitudes. Additional evidence further supports the influence of religiosity on attitudes in various contexts. Aghababaei (2018) found that religiosity is associated with individuals’ attitudes toward science and well-being, suggesting that religious beliefs influence broader evaluative orientations. Graafland (2017) and Mazereeuw-van der Duijn Schouten et al. (2014) also examined the relationship between religiosity and attitudes toward socially responsible behavior, indicating that religiosity may shape attitudes related to corporate social responsibility and ethical consumption. However, some studies suggest that the relationship may vary depending on context and cultural factors. For example, Patwardhan et al. (2012) reported that religiosity may have a less consistent or even negative association with certain business-related attitudes, highlighting the complexity of this relationship.

Overall, both theoretical perspectives and empirical findings indicate that religiosity plays an important role in shaping attitudes by influencing moral reasoning, value systems, and emotional orientations. Although the strength and direction of the relationship may vary across contexts, religiosity remains a significant psychological and social factor in attitude formation. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that religiosity significantly affects attitude.

Bullshit receptivity (BSR) refers to the tendency of individuals to perceive vague, pseudo-profound, or scientifically unfounded statements as meaningful and credible. Conceptually, BSR is rooted in dual-process theories of cognition, particularly the distinction between intuitive (System 1) and analytical (System 2) thinking (Kahneman, 2011). Individuals high in BSR tend to rely more on intuitive processing and are less likely to engage in critical evaluation of information, making them more susceptible to persuasive but misleading messages (Pennycook et al., 2015). Within the context of religious–spiritual factors, such cognitive tendencies may reinforce acceptance of abstract or symbolic narratives, thereby shaping individuals’ attitudes toward related beliefs, products, or social issues.

From a theoretical perspective, attitude formation models suggest that beliefs derived from information processing—whether accurate or not—serve as foundational inputs for attitude development (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). When individuals exhibit higher levels of BSR, they are more inclined to accept superficially plausible claims without scrutinizing their validity. This tendency may lead to the formation of more favorable attitudes toward objects that are framed using emotionally appealing, ambiguous, or spiritually resonant messages. Furthermore, research on motivated reasoning indicates that individuals may selectively accept information that aligns with their existing worldview, including religious or spiritual beliefs, further amplifying the impact of BSR on attitude formation.

Empirical evidence provides support for the relationship between BSR and attitudes. For instance, Van Prooijen et al. (2022) demonstrated that individuals with higher bullshit receptivity are more likely to accept misinformation and exhibit stronger attitudinal alignment with populist and conspiratorial narratives. Similarly, Iacobucci et al. (2021) found that BSR influences individuals’ responses to digitally manipulated content, affecting their attitudes and behavioral intentions in online environments. Evans et al. (2020) further highlighted that individuals who are more receptive to pseudo-scientific statements tend to display systematic differences in belief acceptance, which subsequently influence their evaluative judgments. In addition, Torlak et al. (2013) suggested that susceptibility to symbolic and religious cues can shape attitudes toward religiously framed brands, indicating that cognitive receptivity to ambiguous meanings plays a role in attitude formation.

Taken together, both theoretical arguments and empirical findings suggest that individuals with higher levels of bullshit receptivity are more likely to form attitudes based on uncritical acceptance of information, particularly when such information is framed in a religious or spiritual context. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

2.2.4 The influence of social factors on attitude toward healthy behavior

Perceived societal norms (PSN) refer to individuals’ perceptions of the expectations, beliefs, and behaviors that are socially approved or disapproved within a given social context. This construct is grounded in the TPB, which posits that social norms play a crucial role in shaping individual attitudes and behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991). According to this theory, individuals are influenced not only by their personal evaluations but also by the perceived expectations of important referent groups, such as family, peers, and society at large. When individuals perceive that a behavior is socially endorsed, they are more likely to develop favorable attitudes toward that behavior.

From a theoretical perspective, Social Influence Theory further explains that individuals tend to conform to societal expectations to gain social acceptance and avoid social sanctions (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Normative pressures can shape cognitive evaluations by signaling what is considered appropriate or desirable within a social system. In particular, subjective norms serve as informational cues that guide individuals’ attitude formation, especially in situations involving uncertainty or complex decision-making contexts. Thus, perceived societal norms function as a powerful external driver that can shape individuals’ evaluative judgments and attitudes.

Empirical evidence consistently supports the significant role of perceived societal norms in shaping attitudes. For example, Leeuw et al. (2011) found that perceived social norms significantly influence individuals’ attitudes toward fair-trade products, suggesting that socially endorsed ethical consumption practices can foster more favorable evaluations. Similarly, Lui et al. (2015) demonstrated that perceived social norms are strong predictors of parents’ attitudes toward inclusive education, indicating that social expectations can shape individuals’ acceptance of socially beneficial initiatives. In addition, Torgbenu et al. (2021) showed that perceived societal norms influence parental attitudes toward inclusive education in Nigeria, further confirming the cross-cultural robustness of normative influences on attitude formation. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Subjective norms (SBN) capture the extent to which individuals perceive that important others, such as family members, peers, or colleagues, expect them to engage in a particular behavior. Unlike broader societal norms, subjective norms emphasize interpersonal influence arising from close social networks. Within the framework of the TPB, subjective norms represent a key determinant of individual cognition, reflecting the role of perceived social expectations in shaping evaluative processes (Ajzen, 1991). Individuals often rely on these proximal social cues when forming attitudes, particularly in contexts where social approval or disapproval carries meaningful consequences.

From a theoretical standpoint, the mechanism underlying subjective norms can be explained through normative conformity, whereby individuals adjust their evaluations to align with the expectations of significant referent groups (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Rather than being driven solely by internal beliefs, attitudes may be partially constructed through social interaction and the desire to maintain harmonious relationships. This suggests that subjective norms influence attitude formation by providing socially endorsed standards that individuals incorporate into their own judgments. Such effects are especially pronounced when individuals identify strongly with their reference groups or when the behavior is socially visible.

Empirical studies consistently demonstrate the significant impact of subjective norms on attitude formation. For instance, Kashif et al. (2018) found that subjective norms significantly influence managers’ attitudes toward ethical behavior, indicating that social expectations can shape evaluative judgments in organizational contexts. Similarly, Tarkiainen and Sundqvist (2005) showed that subjective norms are important determinants of consumers’ attitudes toward organic food consumption, highlighting the role of social influence in ethical purchasing decisions. More recently, Irimia-Diéguez et al. (2023) confirmed that subjective norms significantly affect attitudes toward FinTech innovation adoption, suggesting that social endorsement can enhance individuals’ acceptance of new technologies. In addition, Hamilton et al. (2016) demonstrated that subjective norms influence parents’ attitudes toward limiting children’s screen time, further supporting the role of social pressure in shaping attitudes across different behavioral domains. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Social norms (SON) refer to shared expectations and commonly accepted behavioral standards within a social group that guide individuals’ perceptions of appropriate conduct. Unlike subjective norms, which emphasize pressure from close referents, and perceived societal norms, which reflect broader societal expectations, social norms capture collectively shared rules that emerge from group-level interactions and cultural practices. Within the TPB, normative influences are recognized as important determinants of individual cognition and evaluation, highlighting the role of socially constructed standards in shaping attitudes (Ajzen, 1991).

From a theoretical perspective, social norms operate through processes of social learning and internalization. Individuals observe the behaviors and attitudes of others within their social environment and gradually adopt these as reference points for their own evaluations. This mechanism is supported by social learning theory, which posits that individuals learn appropriate attitudes and behaviors by observing others and interpreting social cues (Bandura, 1977). Furthermore, descriptive and injunctive norms provide informational signals about what is commonly done and what is socially approved, respectively, thereby influencing individuals’ cognitive judgments and shaping their attitudes toward specific behaviors.

Empirical evidence supports the significant influence of social norms on attitude formation across various contexts. For example, social norms have been shown to significantly shape consumer attitudes toward sustainable clothing, indicating that shared environmental expectations can foster favorable evaluations (Banytė et al., 2023). Similarly, social norms have been found to influence individuals’ attitudes toward entrepreneurial intentions, suggesting that group-level expectations can guide personal evaluations in decision-making processes (Abid, 2021). However, some studies report weaker effects depending on context; for instance, the influence of social norms on attitudes toward driving behavior has been found to be relatively limited in certain situations (Fruhen & Flin, 2015). These mixed findings suggest that while social norms generally play an important role, their impact may vary across behavioral domains. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

2.2.5 The influence of attitude on behavior intention

Attitude (AT) represents an individual’s overall positive or negative evaluation of a behavior. Prior research suggests that such evaluations play a key role in shaping behavioral intention, as individuals tend to form intentions that are consistent with their favorable or unfavorable judgments (Ajzen, 1991). When individuals perceive a behavior positively, they are more likely to develop a stronger intention to engage in it.

From a theoretical perspective, expectancy–value theory explains that individuals form intentions based on their assessment of expected outcomes and their desirability (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Positive attitudes increase the perceived benefits associated with a behavior, thereby enhancing the likelihood of forming behavioral intentions. In addition, studies on attitude strength indicate that attitudes that are well-formed and accessible are more likely to guide intention and decision-making processes (Holland et al., 2002). This highlights the role of attitude as a cognitive mechanism linking evaluation to intention.

Empirical evidence consistently supports the positive relationship between attitude and behavioral intention across diverse contexts. For instance, attitude has been shown to significantly influence behavioral intentions in ethical and managerial decision-making settings (Kashif et al., 2018; Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2005). Similar findings are observed in health-related behaviors, where individuals’ attitudes toward an activity shape their intention to engage in it (Chatzisarantis et al., 2005; Hamilton et al., 2016). In the context of consumption behavior, favorable attitudes toward products or brands have been found to significantly enhance purchase intention (Chaudhary & Bisai, 2018; Chetioui et al., 2020; Banytė et al., 2023). Moreover, studies in technology adoption and entrepreneurship further confirm that attitude remains a strong predictor of behavioral intention (Irimia-Diéguez et al., 2023; Al-Jubari, 2019).

Building on these theoretical arguments and empirical findings, attitude plays a fundamental role in translating individual evaluations into behavioral intention. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

2.2.6 The influence of behavior intention on healthy behavior

Behavioral intention (BI) reflects an individual’s readiness and commitment to engage in a specific action. In the context of health-related behaviors, intention represents a key motivational factor that determines whether individuals translate their psychological readiness into actual behavior. Individuals who form strong intentions are more likely to initiate and sustain health-promoting actions.

From a theoretical perspective, the relationship between intention and behavior is well supported by health behavior theories. The HBM suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in health behaviors when they perceive benefits and develop a readiness to act, with intention serving as a crucial precursor to behavior (Rosenstock, 1974). Similarly, SCT emphasizes the role of self-regulation and goal-directed processes, where intention reflects individuals’ commitment to performing a behavior and guides subsequent action (Bandura, 1986). In addition, the Transtheoretical Model highlights that individual’s progress through stages of change, and intention represents a transition from contemplation to preparation and action (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983). These perspectives collectively indicate that behavioral intention functions as a proximal determinant of health-related actions.

Empirical evidence consistently supports the positive relationship between behavioral intention and health behaviors across diverse contexts. For example, behavioral intention has been shown to significantly predict the continuous use of healthcare technologies, indicating that individuals with stronger intentions are more likely to maintain health-related behaviors (Lee & Lee, 2020). Similarly, intention has been found to influence physical exercise behavior among college students, demonstrating that higher levels of intention lead to greater engagement in physical activity (Zhang et al., 2024). Intervention-based research further shows that behavioral intention significantly predicts health behaviors among women, both before and after intervention programs (Yarmohammadi et al., 2023). In adolescent populations, intention has also been identified as a significant predictor of weight-control behaviors (Park, 2011). Moreover, studies in physical activity and family health contexts confirm that stronger behavioral intentions are associated with higher levels of actual behavior (Chatzisarantis et al., 2005; Hamilton et al., 2016).

Base on the above discussions, behavioral intention serves as a critical mechanism that translates motivation into actual health-related actions. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

2.2.7 The influence of healthy behavior on healthy improvement

Health behaviors (HB) refer to actions undertaken by individuals to maintain or improve their physical and psychological well-being, such as engaging in physical activity, adopting healthy diets, and practicing preventive healthcare. These behaviors are widely recognized as fundamental determinants of health outcomes, as consistent engagement in positive health behaviors contributes directly to improved health status and quality of life.

From a theoretical perspective, health improvement can be explained through health promotion and behavioral change theories. The Health Promotion Model suggests that engaging in health-enhancing behaviors leads to improved well-being and overall health outcomes by reinforcing positive lifestyle patterns (Pender, 2011). Similarly, SDT emphasizes that individuals who adopt health behaviors based on intrinsic motivation are more likely to sustain these behaviors, resulting in long-term health improvement (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These frameworks highlight that health behaviors are not only immediate actions but also cumulative processes that contribute to sustained improvements in health over time.

Empirical evidence supports the positive relationship between health behaviors and health improvement. For instance, engagement in health-related behaviors has been shown to significantly enhance well-being and life satisfaction among health sciences students, indicating that healthier lifestyles contribute to improved psychological and physical outcomes (Rogowska et al., 2021). Similarly, studies on energy-saving and lifestyle-related behaviors suggest that consistent behavioral changes are associated with improvements in overall well-being (Webb et al., 2013). In addition, research in oral health contexts demonstrates that positive health behaviors contribute to better health outcomes, reinforcing the importance of behavior in achieving health improvement (Dumitrescu et al., 2011; Shirazi, 2007). These findings collectively indicate that individuals who actively engage in health-promoting behaviors tend to experience better health outcomes. Therefore, health behaviors play a critical role in enhancing individuals’ overall health status. Individuals who consistently adopt positive health behaviors are more likely to achieve significant improvements in their physical and psychological well-being. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis: