Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The Theory of Reasoned Action, which posits that behavior is a function of behavioral intentions, attitudes, and subjective norms. The authors suggest focusing on the specific antecedents of behaviors and the link between attitudes and behavior through behavioral intentions. The document also explores the ability of the reasoned action approach to predict health behaviors, its limitations, and its potential use in designing behavioral interventions. Meta-analyses and reviews have shown the reasoned action approach to be a relatively successful predictor of health intentions and behavior, explaining 15-41% of the variance in behavior.
What you will learn
Typology: Study notes
1 / 17
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
The Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior: Examining the Reasoned Action Approach to Prediction and Change of Health Behaviors Christina Nisson Allison Earl University of Michigan To appear in K. Sweeny & M. Robbins (Eds). The Wiley Encyclopedia of Health Psychology
The ability to understand the fundamental causes of public health problems and develop interventions to address those problems is important to a range of researchers involved in the study of health psychology. Two of the most widely tested models of this nature are the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fisbein, 1980, 2005). The Theory of Reasoned Action posits that behavior is a function of behavioral intentions that are, in turn, a function of attitudes and subjective norms (see Figure 1). The Theory of Planned Behavior took the components of the Theory of Reasoned Action, but added perceived behavioral control as an additional factor predicting both behavioral intentions and behavior (see Figure 2). In recent years, these models have been collapsed under the umbrella of the Reasoned Action Approach (see Figure 3). Description of the Models Both the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior developed out of a theoretical tradition that considered attitudes as a major influence on human behavior (Smith, 1932; Stagner, 1942; Thurstone & Chave, 1929). However, other contradictory research emerged suggesting the link between attitudes and behavior was tenuous at best (Corey, 1937; La Piere, 1934; Vroom, 1964), with some researchers even calling for abandonment of the attitude construct altogether (Wicker, 1969). However, Fishbein and Ajzen (1974) noted that the inconsistency between attitudes and behaviors could be improved by measuring attitudes and behaviors at the same level of specificity. Thus, rather than using global attitudes (e.g., attitudes toward religion) to predict specific behaviors (e.g., church attendance the following Sunday), Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) posited that researchers should focus on the specific antecedents of specific behaviors (e.g., attitudes toward church attendance the following Sunday predicting church attendance the following Sunday). Furthermore, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) posited that
one should engage in the behavior), and perceived behavioral control (e.g., beliefs regarding how easy or difficult performing the behavior is likely to be). In this context, perceived behavioral control reflects both external factors (e.g., availability of time or money, social support) as well as internal factors (e.g., ability, skill information). In other words, low perceived behavioral control exists in situations in which performance of the target behavior is dependent upon a number of other factors, which may or may not be within an individual’s control. For example, one may experience low perceived behavioral control for the target behavior of eating healthy if constraints such as time, affordability, access, and temptation are viewed as obstacles to engage in the behavior despite high intentions. As a result, the higher the perceived behavioral control for a target behavior, the higher the predictive power of behavioral intentions for that behavior. In recent years, the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior have fallen under the umbrella of the reasoned action approach (Ajzen & Albarracín, 2007 ; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). As seen in Figure 3, the reasoned action approach encompasses all of the components proposed by earlier models (e.g., attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and intentions), while also including additional factors such as actual control , defined as skills, abilities, and environmental factors that influence one’s ability to enact a target behavior. As such, the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior will be referred to jointly as the reasoned action approach throughout. Ability to Predict Health Intentions and Behaviors A series of meta-analyses and reviews examining the application of the reasoned action approach to health behaviors have now been published, including those focusing on multiple health domains (Armitage & Connor, 2001; Conner & Sparks, 2005; Godin & Kok, 1996;
McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011; Webb, Joseph, Yardley, & Michie, 2010) and those focusing on specific behaviors (e.g., exercise: Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Biddle, 2002; condom use: Albarracín, Johnson, Fishbein, & Muellerleile, 2001). Such reviews have shown the reasoned action approach to be a relatively successful predictor of health intentions and behavior, explaining 32- 44 % of the variance in intentions and 15- 41 % of the variance in behavior. One important moderator of the predictive ability of the reasoned action approach is behavior type. For instance, the reasoned action approach appears to be relatively more successful in the prediction of diet and exercise behaviors, as well as condom use. In a recent comprehensive meta-analysis, McEachan and colleagues (2011) found that the reasoned action approach was able to explain 21% and 24% of the variance in dietary and exercise behaviors respectively. At the same time, the reasoned action approach appears to be less successful at explaining the variance in addictive and clinical screening/detection behaviors. The same meta- analysis revealed that the reasoned action approach was able to explain only 15% and 14% of the variance in such behaviors respectively. It is not surprising that the reasoned action approach is better at predicting some behaviors than others. Looking at the categories in which the reasoned action approach is more versus less successful in predicting behavior, it follows that the model is less predictive of addictive and clinical screening behaviors, as these behaviors are likely to be low in perceived and actual behavior control, affected not only by personal motivation and desire but also other factors (e.g., biological aspects of addiction, access to treatment and health services, financial resources to engage in screening behaviors). Along with behavior type, there are also two important methodological moderators to consider when examining the ability of the reasoned action approach to predict health behavior: length of follow-up and method of measurement (objective vs. self-report). The amount of time
the tendency to over-report desirable behavior and under-report undesirable behavior (Edwards, 1953 ; Schroder, Carey, & Vanable, 2003). This may be particularly problematic for the prediction of health behavior given the tendency for many health behaviors to be viewed as either desirable (e.g., healthy eating, exercise, condom use) or undesirable (e.g., drug and alcohol use). Given the prominent role of attitudes in the reasoned action approach, individuals’ inclination to maintain attitudinal and behavioral consistency (Hessing, Elffers, & Weigel, 1998; Kiesler, 1971) is also of particular concern. Thus, the model may overstate the intention-behavior relation due to individual’s desire to maintain consistency in their reported intentions and behaviors. Two large meta-analyses support this concern. Armitage and Conner ( 1999 ) found that reasoned action approach explained 31% of the variance in self-reported behavior but only 20% of the variance when behavior was directly observed. Specific to health behavior, McEachan and colleagues (2011) found that reasoned action approach variables explained 26% of the variance in self-reported physical activity but only 12% of the variance in objectively measured physical activity. Although the reasoned action approach is able to predict a significant amount of variance in behavior regardless of length of follow-up or method of measurement, it consistently shows greater efficacy in situations with short follow-up and self-reported measurement of behavior. Interventions to Change Behavior Although the reasoned action approach was originally presented as a tool to ‘understand’ and ‘predict’ behavior (Ajzen & Fisbein, 1980), there is growing interest in the theory’s possible utility in designing behavioral interventions. Ajzen and Fishbein (2005) agree that successful modification of predictors specified by the reasoned action approach should lead to a corresponding change in behavior. McEachan and colleagues (2011) found encouraging
evidence for the model’s ability to identify important targets for interventions to change health behaviors. Although their meta-analysis of health behaviors found that past behavior exhibited the strongest correlation with current behavior (mean ρ = 0.50)^2 , intention was also a strong predictor of behavior (mean ρ = 0.43) and remained so after controlling for past behavior. From a behavioral intervention perspective, intentions are more relevant than past behavior as they are susceptible to change while past behavior is not. As a result, it is encouraging that intentions remain a strong predictor of behavior even when controlling for past behavior (McEachan et al., 2011). In 2002, Hardeman and colleagues published a review of behavior change interventions using the reasoned action approach (Hardeman, Johnston, Johnston, Bonetti, Wareham, & Kinmonth, 2002). The review identified twenty-one interventions targeting health-related behaviors, including smoking cessation, exercise, and testicular self-examination. Of the twenty- one interventions identified, only ten actually used the reasoned action approach to develop the intervention; the remaining eleven interventions simply used the reasoned action approach for measurement and therefore should not be considered a valid assessment of the theory’s ability to help change behavior. It is important to note that even for the ten interventions that used the theory to develop the intervention, the interventions often focused on selected reasoned action approach components only. Furthermore, the descriptions of the interventions were limited and it was often difficult to assess the specific manner in which the reasoned action approach informed the intervention design. Among the ten theory-driven interventions, four (40%) reported a positive change in behavioral intentions as a result of the intervention, three (30%) reported no difference in behavioral intentions, and three (30%) did not measure intentions. In terms of (^2) McEachan et al. (2011) used mean true score correlations corrected for sampling and measurement error (mean ρ).
needed to systematically examine the effectiveness of well-designed reasoned action approach- based interventions.
References Adams, S. A., Matthews, C. E., Ebbeling, C. B., Moore, C. G., Cunningham, J. E., Fulton, J., & Hebert, J. R. (2005). The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. American Journal of Epidemiology , 161 (4), 389-398. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intention to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Bechmann (Eds), Action Control: From Cognitions to Behavior, pp. 11-39. New York: Springer-Verlag. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 - 211. Ajzen, I., & Albarracín, D. (2007). Predicting and changing behavior: A reasoned action approach. In I. Ajzen, D. Albarracín, & R. Hornik (Eds), Prediction and change of health behavior: Applying the reasoned action approach , pp. 3-21, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B.T. Johnson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds), The Handbook of Attitudes, pp. 173-222, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22 , 453-474. Albarracín, D., Gillette, J., earl, A., Glasman, L.R., Durantini, M.R., & Ho, MlH. (2005). A test of major assumptions about behavior change: A comprehensive look at HIV prevention interventions since the beginning of the epidemic. Psychological Bulletin, 131 , 856-897.
Hagger, M.S., Chatzisarantis, N.L.D., & Biddle, S.J.H. (2002). A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: Predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 3 - 32. Hardeman, W., Johnston, M., Johnston, D., Bonetti, D., Wareham, N., & Kinmonth, A.L. (2002). Application of the theory of planned behavior in behavior change interventions: A systematic review. Psychology & health, 17, 123 - 158. Hebert, J. R., Ma, Y., Clemow, L., Ockene, I. S., Saperia, G., Stanek, E. J., ... & Ockene, J. K. (1997). Gender differences in social desirability and social approval bias in dietary self- report. American Journal of Epidemiology , 146 (12), 1046-1055. Hessing, D. J., Elffers, H., & Weigel, R. H. (1988). Exploring the limits of self-reports and reasoned action: An investigation of the psychology of tax evasion behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 405 - 413. Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment: Experiments linking behavior to belief. New York, NY: Academic Press. LaPiere, R.T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13, 230 - 237. McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review , 5 (2), 97-144. Randall, D. M., & Wolff, J. A. (1994). The time interval in the intention-behaviour relationship: Meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33 (4), 405-418. Schroder, K.E.E., Carey, M.P., & Vanable, P.A. (2003). Methodological challenges in research on sexual risk behavior: II. Accuracy of self-reports. Ann Behav Med, 26, 104 - 123.
Smith, H.N. (1932). A scale for measuring attitudes about prohibition. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 26, 429 - 437. Stagner, R. (1942). Some factors related to attitude toward war, 1938. Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 131 - 142. Thurstone, L.L., & Chave, E.J. (1929). The measurement of attitude: A psychophysical method and some experiments with a scale for measuring attitude toward the church. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Webb, T.L., Joseph, J., Yardley, L., & Michie, S. (2010). Using the internet to promote health behavior change: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10 ; 12(1): e4. Wicker, A.W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41 - 78. Zenilman, J. M., Weisman, C. S., Rompalo, A. M., Ellish, N., Upchurch, D. M., Hook III, E. W., & Celentano, D. (1995). Condom use to prevent incident STDs: the validity of self- reported condom use. Sexually transmitted diseases , 22 (1), 15-21.
