Our preliminary covariate analyses showed that participant demographics (age, gender, income, occupational status, education) and the presence of a residential back yard space were not associated with these action control categories (all p > 0.25). Dog breed size, however, was significantly different across the action control framework [χ 2 (4) = 13.18; p < .01), with small breeds more likely to be present in the non-intender and unsuccessful intender categories and larger breed dogs more likely to be present in the successful intender category. Thus, dog breed size was carried forward to the main analyses. The main discriminant analysis identified one discriminant function that significantly distinguished among the three groups [χ 2 (18) = 75.31, p < 0.01; canonical r = 0.49]. Affective judgements (r = 0.33), automaticity (r = 0.38), behavioral regulation (r = 0.33) identity (r = 0.22) and dog breed size (r = 0.28) had meaningful correlations with the discriminant function (see Table 2). Follow-up tests showed that affective judgments, automaticity, and behavioral regulation differentiated non-intenders, unsuccessful intenders, and successful intenders with consecutively larger values in each predictor variable (d > 0.30). Identity and dog breed size, however, discriminated between unsuccessful and successful intenders (d > 0.30), but not between non-intenders and unsuccessful intenders.Table 2Prediction of daily dog walking intention-behavior profiles using multi-process action control variables and dog sizeIntention-Behavior ProfilesCorrelation with Discriminant FunctionUnivariate Follow-Up F2,218 Post HocsNon-intenders(n = 59)Unsuccessful Intenders(n = 75)Successful Intenders(n = 91)Dog Breed Size2.05 (0.87)1.89 (0.86)2.34 (0.77).286.33*NI,UI < SIOutcome Expectations (Human)3.98 (0.77)3.92 (0.83)4.28 (0.78).14NANAOutcome Expectation (Canine)4.60 (0.52)4.65 (0.47)4.81 (0.40).07NANAAffective Judgements4.10 (0.82)4.35 (0.59)4.69 (0.41).3318.43*NI < UI < SIPerceived Capability4.48 (0.98)4.73 (0.52)4.76 (0.61)-.03NANAPerceived Opportunity4.27 (0.84)4.54 (0.61)4.62 (0.67).03NANABehavioral Regulation2.73 (0.93)3.04 (0.93)3.42 (0.92).3310.27*NI < UI < SIAutomaticity3.00 (1.02)3.63 (1.09)3.96 (0.98).3815.65*NI < UI < SIIdentity3.33 (1.01)3.49 (0.85)4.07 (0.63).2217.53*NI,UI < SINote: * = p < 0.01. NI = non-intenders, UI = unsuccessful intenders, SI = successful intenders. NA = not applicable. Post hoc tests interpreted as p < 0.05 and d > 0.30 based on the recommended minimum effect size for social science data (Ferguson ; Cohen )