- ข้อความ
- ประวัติศาสตร์
แปลบทความวิจัยAbstractJump to secti
แปลบทความวิจัยAbstract
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
The seven articles in this issue, and the accompanying meta-analysis in Health Psychology Review [McEachan, R.R.C., Conner, M., Taylor, N., & Lawton, R.J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 97–144], illustrate the wide application of the theory of planned behaviour [Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211] in the health domain. In this editorial, Ajzen reflects on some of the issues raised by the different authors. Among the topics addressed are the nature of intentions and the limits of predictive validity; rationality, affect and emotions; past behaviour and habit; the prototype/willingness model; and the role of such background factors as the big five personality traits and social comparison tendency.
Keywords
theory of planned behaviour, review, future directions
Introduction
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
Since its introduction 26 years ago (Ajzen, 1985), the theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991, in press) has, by any objective measure, become one of the most frequently cited and influential models for the prediction of human social behaviour. Its popularity is revealed by conducting a Google Scholar search for the keyword ‘theory of planned behavior OR theory of planned behaviour.’ From 22 citations in 1985, the number of citations per year has grown steadily to a total of 4550 in 2010 (Figure 1). Relying on a variety of indices, Nosek et al. (2010) found that my programme of research ranks as having the highest scientific impact score among US and Canadian social psychologists.
Figure 1. Number of citations of the TPB in Google Scholar.
PowerPoint slideOriginal jpg (77.00KB)Display full size
Yet, for all its popularity, or perhaps because of it, the TPB has also been the target of much criticism and debate. Some researchers reject it outright as an adequate explanation of human social behaviour. These investigators tend to deny the importance of consciousness as a causal agent (Wegner, 2002; Wegner & Wheatley, 1999) and view much human social behaviour as driven by implicit attitudes (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) and other unconscious mental processes (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000; Bargh, 1989; Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Brandstätter, Lengfelder, & Gollwitzer, 2001; Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004). Most critics, however, accept the theory's basic reasoned action assumptions but question its sufficiency or inquire into its limiting conditions (for a discussion, see Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010 Chapter 9). The articles in the present issue, as well as the meta-analysis of TPB research published in Health Psychology Review (McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, in press), are largely in the latter vein and I will take this opportunity to try to clarify aspects of the theory and to engage with some of the critical issues raised by the different authors.
Limits of predictive validity
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
Even when all TPB constructs are carefully assessed, they contain random measurement error. Well-designed measures of attitude towards a behaviour of interest, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, intention and behaviour rarely exhibit reliabilities in excess of 0.75 or 0.80. It follows that, even with good measures, the most we can reasonably expect in terms of correlations among the theory's constructs are coefficients of about 0.60. Past syntheses of TPB research have shown that, even when studies with questionable measures are included in the meta-analysis, the observed mean correlations approach their theoretical limits. For example, in a synthesis of the results of several previous meta-analyses, Sheeran (2002) reported a mean overall correlation of 0.53 between intention and behaviour; the mean correlation between perceived behavioural control and intention was found to be 0.40 in a meta-analysis by Armitage and Conner (2001); and in meta-analytic reviews covering a broad range of different behaviours (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Cheung & Chan, 2000; Notani, 1998; Rivis & Sheeran, 2003; Schulze & Wittmann, 2003), attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control produced mean multiple correlations with intentions that ranged from 0.59 to 0.66.
Meta-analysis made by McEachan et al. (2011) produced comparable results. Correlations of attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of control with intentions ranged from 0.40 to 0.57, producing a multiple correlation of 0.67. The intention–behaviour correlation of 0.43 and the perceived control–behaviour correlation of 0.31 were somewhat lower than in previous meta-analysis, most likely due to the fact that the present synthesis was restricted to prospective studies that assessed behaviour at some time after administering the TPB survey.
The intention–behaviour correlation, though usually quite substantial, can vary considerably. The meta-analysis by McEachan et al. points to one moderator of this relation, the temporal distance between measurement of intention and observation of behaviour. It stands to reason that, as time passes, an increasing number of intervening events can change people's behavioural, normative or control beliefs, modify attitudes, subjective norms or perceptions of control, thus generating revised intentions. Changes of this kind will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions that were assessed before the changes took place. Consistent with this argument, shorter intervals between assessment of intentions and observation of behaviour (5 weeks or less) were associated with stronger correlations than longer time intervals. Direct evidence in support of the proposition that instability of intentions over time can reduce their predictive validity was provided by Sheeran, Orbell, and Trafimow (1999) and by Conner, Sheeran, Norman, and Armitage (2000).
However, intentions are sometimes found to be poor predictors of behaviour even over relatively short time periods, as illustrated in the study by Kor and Mullan (2011). Intentions were assessed with respect to three sleep-related behaviours in the coming week: making bedroom/sleep environment restful, avoiding going to bed feeling thirsty or hungry and avoiding anxiety and/or stress-provoking activities before bedtime. One week later, the participants reported how often they had performed each behaviour in the preceding week. Composite measures aggregated across the three behaviours showed a correlation of only 0.17 between intention and behaviour. (Perceived behavioural control predicted behaviour somewhat better, with a correlation of 0.25.) A possible reason for the low intention–behaviour correlation is revealed by the relatively strong effect of the participants’ general capacity to override or inhibit impulses. Ability to inhibit responses, as assessed by a visual Go/NoGo computer task, correlated 0.43 with behaviour. This finding suggests that performance of the three sleep-related behaviours requires the ability to self-regulate, an aspect of actual control over the behaviour. For example, many people find it difficult to put distressing thoughts out of their minds and may therefore be unable to avoid anxiety or stress-provoking activities before bedtime. In the TPB, lack of actual control over a behaviour will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions. The relatively low correlation between perceived behavioural control and behaviour suggests that perceptions of control were not sufficiently accurate to serve as a good proxy for actual control.
At its core, the TPB is concerned with the prediction of intentions. Behavioural, normative and control beliefs as well as attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of behavioural control are assumed to feed into and explain behavioural intentions. Whether intentions predict behaviour depends in part on factors beyond the individual's control, i.e. the strength of the intention–behaviour relation is moderated by actual control over the behaviour. Barring methodological shortcomings, a low intention–behaviour relation is a warning sign indicating that we may be reaching the limits of reasoned action.
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
Irrationality
A frequently voiced criticism of the TPB and other reasoned action models is that they are too ‘rational,’ not taking sufficient account of cognitive and affective processes that are known to bias human judgments and behaviour. It is true, of course, that the TPB emphasises the controlled aspects of human information processing and decision making. Its concern is primarily with behaviours that are goal-directed and steered by conscious self-regulatory processes. This focus has often been misinterpreted to mean that the theory posits an impassionate, rational actor who reviews all available information in an unbiased fashion to arrive at a behavioural decision. In reality, the theory draws a much more complex and nuanced picture.
Importantly, there is no assumption in the TPB that behavioural, normative and control beliefs are formed in a rational, unbiased fashion or that they accurately represent reality. Beliefs reflect the infor
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
The seven articles in this issue, and the accompanying meta-analysis in Health Psychology Review [McEachan, R.R.C., Conner, M., Taylor, N., & Lawton, R.J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 97–144], illustrate the wide application of the theory of planned behaviour [Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211] in the health domain. In this editorial, Ajzen reflects on some of the issues raised by the different authors. Among the topics addressed are the nature of intentions and the limits of predictive validity; rationality, affect and emotions; past behaviour and habit; the prototype/willingness model; and the role of such background factors as the big five personality traits and social comparison tendency.
Keywords
theory of planned behaviour, review, future directions
Introduction
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
Since its introduction 26 years ago (Ajzen, 1985), the theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991, in press) has, by any objective measure, become one of the most frequently cited and influential models for the prediction of human social behaviour. Its popularity is revealed by conducting a Google Scholar search for the keyword ‘theory of planned behavior OR theory of planned behaviour.’ From 22 citations in 1985, the number of citations per year has grown steadily to a total of 4550 in 2010 (Figure 1). Relying on a variety of indices, Nosek et al. (2010) found that my programme of research ranks as having the highest scientific impact score among US and Canadian social psychologists.
Figure 1. Number of citations of the TPB in Google Scholar.
PowerPoint slideOriginal jpg (77.00KB)Display full size
Yet, for all its popularity, or perhaps because of it, the TPB has also been the target of much criticism and debate. Some researchers reject it outright as an adequate explanation of human social behaviour. These investigators tend to deny the importance of consciousness as a causal agent (Wegner, 2002; Wegner & Wheatley, 1999) and view much human social behaviour as driven by implicit attitudes (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) and other unconscious mental processes (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000; Bargh, 1989; Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Brandstätter, Lengfelder, & Gollwitzer, 2001; Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004). Most critics, however, accept the theory's basic reasoned action assumptions but question its sufficiency or inquire into its limiting conditions (for a discussion, see Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010 Chapter 9). The articles in the present issue, as well as the meta-analysis of TPB research published in Health Psychology Review (McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, in press), are largely in the latter vein and I will take this opportunity to try to clarify aspects of the theory and to engage with some of the critical issues raised by the different authors.
Limits of predictive validity
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
Even when all TPB constructs are carefully assessed, they contain random measurement error. Well-designed measures of attitude towards a behaviour of interest, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, intention and behaviour rarely exhibit reliabilities in excess of 0.75 or 0.80. It follows that, even with good measures, the most we can reasonably expect in terms of correlations among the theory's constructs are coefficients of about 0.60. Past syntheses of TPB research have shown that, even when studies with questionable measures are included in the meta-analysis, the observed mean correlations approach their theoretical limits. For example, in a synthesis of the results of several previous meta-analyses, Sheeran (2002) reported a mean overall correlation of 0.53 between intention and behaviour; the mean correlation between perceived behavioural control and intention was found to be 0.40 in a meta-analysis by Armitage and Conner (2001); and in meta-analytic reviews covering a broad range of different behaviours (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Cheung & Chan, 2000; Notani, 1998; Rivis & Sheeran, 2003; Schulze & Wittmann, 2003), attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control produced mean multiple correlations with intentions that ranged from 0.59 to 0.66.
Meta-analysis made by McEachan et al. (2011) produced comparable results. Correlations of attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of control with intentions ranged from 0.40 to 0.57, producing a multiple correlation of 0.67. The intention–behaviour correlation of 0.43 and the perceived control–behaviour correlation of 0.31 were somewhat lower than in previous meta-analysis, most likely due to the fact that the present synthesis was restricted to prospective studies that assessed behaviour at some time after administering the TPB survey.
The intention–behaviour correlation, though usually quite substantial, can vary considerably. The meta-analysis by McEachan et al. points to one moderator of this relation, the temporal distance between measurement of intention and observation of behaviour. It stands to reason that, as time passes, an increasing number of intervening events can change people's behavioural, normative or control beliefs, modify attitudes, subjective norms or perceptions of control, thus generating revised intentions. Changes of this kind will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions that were assessed before the changes took place. Consistent with this argument, shorter intervals between assessment of intentions and observation of behaviour (5 weeks or less) were associated with stronger correlations than longer time intervals. Direct evidence in support of the proposition that instability of intentions over time can reduce their predictive validity was provided by Sheeran, Orbell, and Trafimow (1999) and by Conner, Sheeran, Norman, and Armitage (2000).
However, intentions are sometimes found to be poor predictors of behaviour even over relatively short time periods, as illustrated in the study by Kor and Mullan (2011). Intentions were assessed with respect to three sleep-related behaviours in the coming week: making bedroom/sleep environment restful, avoiding going to bed feeling thirsty or hungry and avoiding anxiety and/or stress-provoking activities before bedtime. One week later, the participants reported how often they had performed each behaviour in the preceding week. Composite measures aggregated across the three behaviours showed a correlation of only 0.17 between intention and behaviour. (Perceived behavioural control predicted behaviour somewhat better, with a correlation of 0.25.) A possible reason for the low intention–behaviour correlation is revealed by the relatively strong effect of the participants’ general capacity to override or inhibit impulses. Ability to inhibit responses, as assessed by a visual Go/NoGo computer task, correlated 0.43 with behaviour. This finding suggests that performance of the three sleep-related behaviours requires the ability to self-regulate, an aspect of actual control over the behaviour. For example, many people find it difficult to put distressing thoughts out of their minds and may therefore be unable to avoid anxiety or stress-provoking activities before bedtime. In the TPB, lack of actual control over a behaviour will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions. The relatively low correlation between perceived behavioural control and behaviour suggests that perceptions of control were not sufficiently accurate to serve as a good proxy for actual control.
At its core, the TPB is concerned with the prediction of intentions. Behavioural, normative and control beliefs as well as attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of behavioural control are assumed to feed into and explain behavioural intentions. Whether intentions predict behaviour depends in part on factors beyond the individual's control, i.e. the strength of the intention–behaviour relation is moderated by actual control over the behaviour. Barring methodological shortcomings, a low intention–behaviour relation is a warning sign indicating that we may be reaching the limits of reasoned action.
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
Irrationality
A frequently voiced criticism of the TPB and other reasoned action models is that they are too ‘rational,’ not taking sufficient account of cognitive and affective processes that are known to bias human judgments and behaviour. It is true, of course, that the TPB emphasises the controlled aspects of human information processing and decision making. Its concern is primarily with behaviours that are goal-directed and steered by conscious self-regulatory processes. This focus has often been misinterpreted to mean that the theory posits an impassionate, rational actor who reviews all available information in an unbiased fashion to arrive at a behavioural decision. In reality, the theory draws a much more complex and nuanced picture.
Importantly, there is no assumption in the TPB that behavioural, normative and control beliefs are formed in a rational, unbiased fashion or that they accurately represent reality. Beliefs reflect the infor
0/5000
แปลบทความวิจัยAbstractJump to sectionIntroductionLimits of predictive validityAffect, emotions and rationality in the TPBMeasurement contextThe sufficiency assumptionBackground factorsDiscussionBackgroundThe seven articles in this issue, and the accompanying meta-analysis in Health Psychology Review [McEachan, R.R.C., Conner, M., Taylor, N., & Lawton, R.J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 97–144], illustrate the wide application of the theory of planned behaviour [Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211] in the health domain. In this editorial, Ajzen reflects on some of the issues raised by the different authors. Among the topics addressed are the nature of intentions and the limits of predictive validity; rationality, affect and emotions; past behaviour and habit; the prototype/willingness model; and the role of such background factors as the big five personality traits and social comparison tendency.Keywordstheory of planned behaviour, review, future directionsIntroductionJump to sectionIntroductionLimits of predictive validityAffect, emotions and rationality in the TPBMeasurement contextThe sufficiency assumptionBackground factorsDiscussionBackgroundSince its introduction 26 years ago (Ajzen, 1985), the theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991, in press) has, by any objective measure, become one of the most frequently cited and influential models for the prediction of human social behaviour. Its popularity is revealed by conducting a Google Scholar search for the keyword ‘theory of planned behavior OR theory of planned behaviour.’ From 22 citations in 1985, the number of citations per year has grown steadily to a total of 4550 in 2010 (Figure 1). Relying on a variety of indices, Nosek et al. (2010) found that my programme of research ranks as having the highest scientific impact score among US and Canadian social psychologists.Figure 1. Number of citations of the TPB in Google Scholar.PowerPoint slideOriginal jpg (77.00KB)Display full sizeYet, for all its popularity, or perhaps because of it, the TPB has also been the target of much criticism and debate. Some researchers reject it outright as an adequate explanation of human social behaviour. These investigators tend to deny the importance of consciousness as a causal agent (Wegner, 2002; Wegner & Wheatley, 1999) and view much human social behaviour as driven by implicit attitudes (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) and other unconscious mental processes (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000; Bargh, 1989; Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Brandstätter, Lengfelder, & Gollwitzer, 2001; Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004). Most critics, however, accept the theory's basic reasoned action assumptions but question its sufficiency or inquire into its limiting conditions (for a discussion, see Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010 Chapter 9). The articles in the present issue, as well as the meta-analysis of TPB research published in Health Psychology Review (McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, in press), are largely in the latter vein and I will take this opportunity to try to clarify aspects of the theory and to engage with some of the critical issues raised by the different authors.Limits of predictive validityJump to sectionIntroductionLimits of predictive validityAffect, emotions and rationality in the TPBMeasurement contextThe sufficiency assumptionBackground factorsDiscussionBackgroundEven when all TPB constructs are carefully assessed, they contain random measurement error. Well-designed measures of attitude towards a behaviour of interest, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, intention and behaviour rarely exhibit reliabilities in excess of 0.75 or 0.80. It follows that, even with good measures, the most we can reasonably expect in terms of correlations among the theory's constructs are coefficients of about 0.60. Past syntheses of TPB research have shown that, even when studies with questionable measures are included in the meta-analysis, the observed mean correlations approach their theoretical limits. For example, in a synthesis of the results of several previous meta-analyses, Sheeran (2002) reported a mean overall correlation of 0.53 between intention and behaviour; the mean correlation between perceived behavioural control and intention was found to be 0.40 in a meta-analysis by Armitage and Conner (2001); and in meta-analytic reviews covering a broad range of different behaviours (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Cheung & Chan, 2000; Notani, 1998; Rivis & Sheeran, 2003; Schulze & Wittmann, 2003), attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control produced mean multiple correlations with intentions that ranged from 0.59 to 0.66.Meta-analysis made by McEachan et al. (2011) produced comparable results. Correlations of attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of control with intentions ranged from 0.40 to 0.57, producing a multiple correlation of 0.67. The intention–behaviour correlation of 0.43 and the perceived control–behaviour correlation of 0.31 were somewhat lower than in previous meta-analysis, most likely due to the fact that the present synthesis was restricted to prospective studies that assessed behaviour at some time after administering the TPB survey.The intention–behaviour correlation, though usually quite substantial, can vary considerably. The meta-analysis by McEachan et al. points to one moderator of this relation, the temporal distance between measurement of intention and observation of behaviour. It stands to reason that, as time passes, an increasing number of intervening events can change people's behavioural, normative or control beliefs, modify attitudes, subjective norms or perceptions of control, thus generating revised intentions. Changes of this kind will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions that were assessed before the changes took place. Consistent with this argument, shorter intervals between assessment of intentions and observation of behaviour (5 weeks or less) were associated with stronger correlations than longer time intervals. Direct evidence in support of the proposition that instability of intentions over time can reduce their predictive validity was provided by Sheeran, Orbell, and Trafimow (1999) and by Conner, Sheeran, Norman, and Armitage (2000).However, intentions are sometimes found to be poor predictors of behaviour even over relatively short time periods, as illustrated in the study by Kor and Mullan (2011). Intentions were assessed with respect to three sleep-related behaviours in the coming week: making bedroom/sleep environment restful, avoiding going to bed feeling thirsty or hungry and avoiding anxiety and/or stress-provoking activities before bedtime. One week later, the participants reported how often they had performed each behaviour in the preceding week. Composite measures aggregated across the three behaviours showed a correlation of only 0.17 between intention and behaviour. (Perceived behavioural control predicted behaviour somewhat better, with a correlation of 0.25.) A possible reason for the low intention–behaviour correlation is revealed by the relatively strong effect of the participants’ general capacity to override or inhibit impulses. Ability to inhibit responses, as assessed by a visual Go/NoGo computer task, correlated 0.43 with behaviour. This finding suggests that performance of the three sleep-related behaviours requires the ability to self-regulate, an aspect of actual control over the behaviour. For example, many people find it difficult to put distressing thoughts out of their minds and may therefore be unable to avoid anxiety or stress-provoking activities before bedtime. In the TPB, lack of actual control over a behaviour will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions. The relatively low correlation between perceived behavioural control and behaviour suggests that perceptions of control were not sufficiently accurate to serve as a good proxy for actual control.
At its core, the TPB is concerned with the prediction of intentions. Behavioural, normative and control beliefs as well as attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of behavioural control are assumed to feed into and explain behavioural intentions. Whether intentions predict behaviour depends in part on factors beyond the individual's control, i.e. the strength of the intention–behaviour relation is moderated by actual control over the behaviour. Barring methodological shortcomings, a low intention–behaviour relation is a warning sign indicating that we may be reaching the limits of reasoned action.
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
Irrationality
A frequently voiced criticism of the TPB and other reasoned action models is that they are too ‘rational,’ not taking sufficient account of cognitive and affective processes that are known to bias human judgments and behaviour. It is true, of course, that the TPB emphasises the controlled aspects of human information processing and decision making. Its concern is primarily with behaviours that are goal-directed and steered by conscious self-regulatory processes. This focus has often been misinterpreted to mean that the theory posits an impassionate, rational actor who reviews all available information in an unbiased fashion to arrive at a behavioural decision. In reality, the theory draws a much more complex and nuanced picture.
Importantly, there is no assumption in the TPB that behavioural, normative and control beliefs are formed in a rational, unbiased fashion or that they accurately represent reality. Beliefs reflect the infor
At its core, the TPB is concerned with the prediction of intentions. Behavioural, normative and control beliefs as well as attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of behavioural control are assumed to feed into and explain behavioural intentions. Whether intentions predict behaviour depends in part on factors beyond the individual's control, i.e. the strength of the intention–behaviour relation is moderated by actual control over the behaviour. Barring methodological shortcomings, a low intention–behaviour relation is a warning sign indicating that we may be reaching the limits of reasoned action.
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
Irrationality
A frequently voiced criticism of the TPB and other reasoned action models is that they are too ‘rational,’ not taking sufficient account of cognitive and affective processes that are known to bias human judgments and behaviour. It is true, of course, that the TPB emphasises the controlled aspects of human information processing and decision making. Its concern is primarily with behaviours that are goal-directed and steered by conscious self-regulatory processes. This focus has often been misinterpreted to mean that the theory posits an impassionate, rational actor who reviews all available information in an unbiased fashion to arrive at a behavioural decision. In reality, the theory draws a much more complex and nuanced picture.
Importantly, there is no assumption in the TPB that behavioural, normative and control beliefs are formed in a rational, unbiased fashion or that they accurately represent reality. Beliefs reflect the infor
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
Microsoft Research Abstract
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
The Seven articles in this Issue, and the accompanying Meta-Analysis in Health Psychology Review [McEachan, RRC. , Conner, M., Taylor, N., & Lawton, RJ (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 97-144], illustrate. the wide application of the theory of planned behaviour [Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211] in the health domain. In this editorial, Ajzen reflects on some. of the issues raised by the different authors. Among the topics addressed are the nature of intentions and the limits of predictive validity; rationality, affect and emotions; past behaviour and habit; the prototype / willingness model; and the role of such background factors as. the Big Five personality traits and social comparison tendency.
Keywords
Theory of planned behavior, review, Future Directions
Introduction
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
Since its Introduction 26. years ago (Ajzen, 1985), the theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991, in press) has, by any objective measure, become one of the most frequently cited and influential models for the prediction of human social behaviour. Its popularity. is revealed by conducting a Google Scholar search for the keyword 'theory of planned behavior OR theory of planned behaviour.' From 22 citations in 1985, the number of citations per year has grown steadily to a total of 4550 in 2010 (Figure 1). Relying on a Variety of indices, Nosek et al. (2,010th) Found that My program of Scientific Research Ranks as having the highest Impact Score among US and Canadian social psychologists.
Figure 1. Number of citations in Google Scholar of the TPB. PowerPoint SlideOriginal. JPG (77.00KB) Display Size full Yet, for all its popularity, or perhaps because of it, the TPB has also been much criticism and debate of the Target. Some researchers reject it outright as an adequate explanation of social behavior Human. These investigators. tend to deny the importance of consciousness as a causal agent (Wegner, 2002; Wegner & Wheatley, 1999) and view much human social behaviour as driven by implicit attitudes (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) and other unconscious mental processes (Aarts & Dijksterhuis,. 2000; Bargh, 1989; Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Brandstätter, Lengfelder, & Gollwitzer, 2001; Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004). Most critics, however, accept the theory's basic reasoned action assumptions but question its sufficiency or inquire into its limiting conditions. (for a discussion, see Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010 Chapter 9). The articles in the present issue, as well as the meta-analysis of TPB research published in Health Psychology Review (McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, in press). , are largely in the latter vein and I Will take this opportunity to TRY to clarify aspects of the Theory and to Engage with Some of the Critical issues raised by the different Authors. Limits of predictive validity Jump to section Introduction Limits of predictive validity Affect,. emotions and rationality in the TPB Measurement context The sufficiency assumption Background factors Discussion Background Even when all TPB constructs are carefully Assessed, they contain Random measurement Error. Well-designed measures of Attitude towards a behavior of interest, subjective Norm, perceived behavioral Control, intention. and behaviour rarely exhibit reliabilities in excess of 0.75 or 0.80. It follows that, even with good measures, the most we can reasonably expect in terms of correlations among the theory's constructs are coefficients of about 0.60. Past syntheses of TPB research have shown that,. even when studies with questionable measures are included in the meta-analysis, the observed mean correlations approach their theoretical limits. For example, in a synthesis of the results of several previous meta-analyses, Sheeran (2002) reported a mean overall correlation of 0.53. between intention and behaviour; the mean correlation between perceived behavioural control and intention was found to be 0.40 in a meta-analysis by Armitage and Conner (2001); and in meta-analytic reviews covering a broad range of different behaviours (Armitage & Conner,. 2,001th; Cheung & Chan, the 2 thousandth; Notani, in 1998; Rivis & Sheeran, 2,003th; Schulze & Wittmann, 2003), attitudes, subjective Norms and perceived behavioral Control produced Mean multiple correlations with intentions that ranged from 0.59 to 0.66. Meta-Analysis Made. by McEachan et al. (2011) produced comparable results. Correlations of attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of control with intentions ranged from 0.40 to 0.57, producing a multiple correlation of 0.67. The intention-behaviour correlation of 0.43 and the perceived control-behaviour. correlation of twelve thirty-one a.m. were somewhat Lower than in previous Meta-Analysis, Most likely Due to the Fact that the present synthesis was restricted to prospective Studies that Assessed behavior at Some time after administering the TPB Survey. The intention-behavior correlation, though usually quite substantial. , can vary considerably. The meta-analysis by McEachan et al. points to one moderator of this relation, the temporal distance between measurement of intention and observation of behaviour. It stands to reason that, as time passes, an increasing number of intervening events. can change people's behavioural, normative or control beliefs, modify attitudes, subjective norms or perceptions of control, thus generating revised intentions. Changes of this kind will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions that were assessed before the changes took place. Consistent with this. argument, shorter intervals between assessment of intentions and observation of behaviour (5 weeks or less) were associated with stronger correlations than longer time intervals. Direct evidence in support of the proposition that instability of intentions over time can reduce their predictive validity was provided by Sheeran. , Orbell, and Trafimow (the 1,999th) and by Conner, Sheeran, Norman, and Armitage (2,000th). However, intentions are sometimes Found to be poor predictors of behavior even over relatively short time periods, as Illustrated in the Study by Kor and Mullan. (2011). Intentions were assessed with respect to three sleep-related behaviours in the coming week: making bedroom / sleep environment restful, avoiding going to bed feeling thirsty or hungry and avoiding anxiety and / or stress-provoking activities before bedtime. One week. later, the participants reported how often they had performed each behaviour in the preceding week. Composite measures aggregated across the three behaviours showed a correlation of only 0.17 between intention and behaviour. (Perceived behavioural control predicted behaviour somewhat better, with a correlation of 0.25. ) A possible reason for the low intention-behaviour correlation is revealed by the relatively strong effect of the participants' general capacity to override or inhibit impulses. Ability to inhibit responses, as assessed by a visual Go / NoGo computer task, correlated 0.43 with behaviour. . This finding suggests that performance of the three sleep-related behaviours requires the ability to self-regulate, an aspect of actual control over the behaviour. For example, many people find it difficult to put distressing thoughts out of their minds and may therefore be. unable to avoid anxiety or stress-provoking activities before bedtime. In the TPB, lack of actual control over a behaviour will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions. The relatively low correlation between perceived behavioural control and behaviour suggests that perceptions of control were not. Sufficiently Accurate to serve as a good proxy for Actual Control. At its core, the TPB is concerned with the prediction of intentions. Behavioural, normative and Control Beliefs as well as attitudes, subjective Norms and perceptions of behavioral Control are assumed to feed Into and. explain behavioural intentions. Whether intentions predict behaviour depends in part on factors beyond the individual's control, ie the strength of the intention-behaviour relation is moderated by actual control over the behaviour. Barring methodological shortcomings, a low intention-behaviour relation is a warning sign. Indicating that we May be reaching the Limits of reasoned Action. Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB Jump to section Introduction Limits of predictive validity Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB Measurement context The sufficiency assumption Background factors Discussion Background Irrationality A Frequently Voiced criticism. of the TPB and other reasoned action models is that they are too 'rational,' not taking sufficient account of cognitive and affective processes that are known to bias human judgments and behaviour. It is true, of course, that the TPB emphasises the controlled aspects. of human information processing and decision making. Its concern is primarily with behaviours that are goal-directed and steered by conscious self-regulatory processes. This focus has often been misinterpreted to mean that the theory posits an impassionate, rational actor who reviews all available information. in an unbiased Fashion to Arrive at a behavioral decision. In Reality, the Theory draws a much more Complex and nuanced Picture. importantly, there is no assumption in the TPB that behavioral, normative and Control Beliefs are formed in a Rational, unbiased Fashion or. that they accurately represent reality. Beliefs reflect the infor.
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
The Seven articles in this Issue, and the accompanying Meta-Analysis in Health Psychology Review [McEachan, RRC. , Conner, M., Taylor, N., & Lawton, RJ (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 97-144], illustrate. the wide application of the theory of planned behaviour [Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211] in the health domain. In this editorial, Ajzen reflects on some. of the issues raised by the different authors. Among the topics addressed are the nature of intentions and the limits of predictive validity; rationality, affect and emotions; past behaviour and habit; the prototype / willingness model; and the role of such background factors as. the Big Five personality traits and social comparison tendency.
Keywords
Theory of planned behavior, review, Future Directions
Introduction
Jump to section
Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context
The sufficiency assumption
Background factors
Discussion
Background
Since its Introduction 26. years ago (Ajzen, 1985), the theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991, in press) has, by any objective measure, become one of the most frequently cited and influential models for the prediction of human social behaviour. Its popularity. is revealed by conducting a Google Scholar search for the keyword 'theory of planned behavior OR theory of planned behaviour.' From 22 citations in 1985, the number of citations per year has grown steadily to a total of 4550 in 2010 (Figure 1). Relying on a Variety of indices, Nosek et al. (2,010th) Found that My program of Scientific Research Ranks as having the highest Impact Score among US and Canadian social psychologists.
Figure 1. Number of citations in Google Scholar of the TPB. PowerPoint SlideOriginal. JPG (77.00KB) Display Size full Yet, for all its popularity, or perhaps because of it, the TPB has also been much criticism and debate of the Target. Some researchers reject it outright as an adequate explanation of social behavior Human. These investigators. tend to deny the importance of consciousness as a causal agent (Wegner, 2002; Wegner & Wheatley, 1999) and view much human social behaviour as driven by implicit attitudes (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) and other unconscious mental processes (Aarts & Dijksterhuis,. 2000; Bargh, 1989; Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Brandstätter, Lengfelder, & Gollwitzer, 2001; Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004). Most critics, however, accept the theory's basic reasoned action assumptions but question its sufficiency or inquire into its limiting conditions. (for a discussion, see Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010 Chapter 9). The articles in the present issue, as well as the meta-analysis of TPB research published in Health Psychology Review (McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, in press). , are largely in the latter vein and I Will take this opportunity to TRY to clarify aspects of the Theory and to Engage with Some of the Critical issues raised by the different Authors. Limits of predictive validity Jump to section Introduction Limits of predictive validity Affect,. emotions and rationality in the TPB Measurement context The sufficiency assumption Background factors Discussion Background Even when all TPB constructs are carefully Assessed, they contain Random measurement Error. Well-designed measures of Attitude towards a behavior of interest, subjective Norm, perceived behavioral Control, intention. and behaviour rarely exhibit reliabilities in excess of 0.75 or 0.80. It follows that, even with good measures, the most we can reasonably expect in terms of correlations among the theory's constructs are coefficients of about 0.60. Past syntheses of TPB research have shown that,. even when studies with questionable measures are included in the meta-analysis, the observed mean correlations approach their theoretical limits. For example, in a synthesis of the results of several previous meta-analyses, Sheeran (2002) reported a mean overall correlation of 0.53. between intention and behaviour; the mean correlation between perceived behavioural control and intention was found to be 0.40 in a meta-analysis by Armitage and Conner (2001); and in meta-analytic reviews covering a broad range of different behaviours (Armitage & Conner,. 2,001th; Cheung & Chan, the 2 thousandth; Notani, in 1998; Rivis & Sheeran, 2,003th; Schulze & Wittmann, 2003), attitudes, subjective Norms and perceived behavioral Control produced Mean multiple correlations with intentions that ranged from 0.59 to 0.66. Meta-Analysis Made. by McEachan et al. (2011) produced comparable results. Correlations of attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of control with intentions ranged from 0.40 to 0.57, producing a multiple correlation of 0.67. The intention-behaviour correlation of 0.43 and the perceived control-behaviour. correlation of twelve thirty-one a.m. were somewhat Lower than in previous Meta-Analysis, Most likely Due to the Fact that the present synthesis was restricted to prospective Studies that Assessed behavior at Some time after administering the TPB Survey. The intention-behavior correlation, though usually quite substantial. , can vary considerably. The meta-analysis by McEachan et al. points to one moderator of this relation, the temporal distance between measurement of intention and observation of behaviour. It stands to reason that, as time passes, an increasing number of intervening events. can change people's behavioural, normative or control beliefs, modify attitudes, subjective norms or perceptions of control, thus generating revised intentions. Changes of this kind will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions that were assessed before the changes took place. Consistent with this. argument, shorter intervals between assessment of intentions and observation of behaviour (5 weeks or less) were associated with stronger correlations than longer time intervals. Direct evidence in support of the proposition that instability of intentions over time can reduce their predictive validity was provided by Sheeran. , Orbell, and Trafimow (the 1,999th) and by Conner, Sheeran, Norman, and Armitage (2,000th). However, intentions are sometimes Found to be poor predictors of behavior even over relatively short time periods, as Illustrated in the Study by Kor and Mullan. (2011). Intentions were assessed with respect to three sleep-related behaviours in the coming week: making bedroom / sleep environment restful, avoiding going to bed feeling thirsty or hungry and avoiding anxiety and / or stress-provoking activities before bedtime. One week. later, the participants reported how often they had performed each behaviour in the preceding week. Composite measures aggregated across the three behaviours showed a correlation of only 0.17 between intention and behaviour. (Perceived behavioural control predicted behaviour somewhat better, with a correlation of 0.25. ) A possible reason for the low intention-behaviour correlation is revealed by the relatively strong effect of the participants' general capacity to override or inhibit impulses. Ability to inhibit responses, as assessed by a visual Go / NoGo computer task, correlated 0.43 with behaviour. . This finding suggests that performance of the three sleep-related behaviours requires the ability to self-regulate, an aspect of actual control over the behaviour. For example, many people find it difficult to put distressing thoughts out of their minds and may therefore be. unable to avoid anxiety or stress-provoking activities before bedtime. In the TPB, lack of actual control over a behaviour will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions. The relatively low correlation between perceived behavioural control and behaviour suggests that perceptions of control were not. Sufficiently Accurate to serve as a good proxy for Actual Control. At its core, the TPB is concerned with the prediction of intentions. Behavioural, normative and Control Beliefs as well as attitudes, subjective Norms and perceptions of behavioral Control are assumed to feed Into and. explain behavioural intentions. Whether intentions predict behaviour depends in part on factors beyond the individual's control, ie the strength of the intention-behaviour relation is moderated by actual control over the behaviour. Barring methodological shortcomings, a low intention-behaviour relation is a warning sign. Indicating that we May be reaching the Limits of reasoned Action. Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB Jump to section Introduction Limits of predictive validity Affect, emotions and rationality in the TPB Measurement context The sufficiency assumption Background factors Discussion Background Irrationality A Frequently Voiced criticism. of the TPB and other reasoned action models is that they are too 'rational,' not taking sufficient account of cognitive and affective processes that are known to bias human judgments and behaviour. It is true, of course, that the TPB emphasises the controlled aspects. of human information processing and decision making. Its concern is primarily with behaviours that are goal-directed and steered by conscious self-regulatory processes. This focus has often been misinterpreted to mean that the theory posits an impassionate, rational actor who reviews all available information. in an unbiased Fashion to Arrive at a behavioral decision. In Reality, the Theory draws a much more Complex and nuanced Picture. importantly, there is no assumption in the TPB that behavioral, normative and Control Beliefs are formed in a Rational, unbiased Fashion or. that they accurately represent reality. Beliefs reflect the infor.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
Translation research articles Abstract to section
Jump Introduction Limits of predictive validity
Affect emotions and, rationality in the. TPB
Measurement context The sufficiency assumption
Background factors Discussion Background The seven articles in, this issue. And the accompanying meta-analysis in Health Psychology Review [McEachan R.R.C. Conner M,,,,,, Taylor N. & Lawton R.J,,. (2011).Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology. ,, Review 5 97 - 144], illustrate the wide application of the theory of planned, behaviour [Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of. Planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 179,, - 211] in the health domain In, this editorial.Ajzen reflects on some of the issues raised by the different authors. Among the topics addressed are the nature of intentions. And the limits of predictive validity; rationality affect and, emotions; past behaviour and habit; the prototype / willingness. Model; and the role of such background factors as the big five personality traits and social comparison Keywords tendency.
.Theory of planned behaviour review future,, directions
Jump Introduction to section
Limits Introduction of predictive validity
Affect,, Emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context The sufficiency assumption
Background factors Discussion Background Since. Its introduction 26 years, ago (Ajzen 1985), the theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen 1991 in press) has,,,By any, objective measure become one of the most frequently cited and influential models for the prediction of human social. Behaviour. Its popularity is revealed by conducting a Google Scholar search for the keyword theory of planned behavior. ' OR theory of planned behaviour. 'From 22 citations, in 1985 the number of citations per year has grown steadily to a total. Of 4550 in 2010 (Figure 1).Relying on a variety of indices Nosek et, al. (2010) found that my programme of research ranks as having the highest scientific. Impact score among US and Canadian social psychologists.
Figure 1. Number of citations of the TPB in Google Scholar.
PowerPoint. SlideOriginal JPG (77.00KB) Display full size
Yet for all, its popularity or perhaps, because, of itThe TPB has also been the target of much criticism and debate. Some researchers reject it outright as an adequate explanation. Of human social behaviour. These investigators tend to deny the importance of consciousness as a causal agent (Wegner 2002;,, Wegner & Wheatley 1999), and view much human social behaviour as driven by implicit attitudes (Greenwald, & Banaji1995) and other unconscious mental processes (Aarts, & Dijksterhuis 2000; Bargh 1989; Bargh, &, Chartrand 1999; Brandst, ä tter. ,, Lengfelder & Gollwitzer 2001; Uhlmann, & Swanson 2004). Most, critics however accept the, theory 's basic reasoned action. Assumptions but question its sufficiency or inquire into its limiting conditions (for a discussion see Fishbein, & Ajzen 2010 Chapter,, 9).The articles in the, present issue as well as the meta-analysis of TPB research published in Health Psychology Review (McEachan,, ,,, Conner Taylor & Lawton in press), are largely in the latter vein and I will take this opportunity to try to clarify aspects. Of the theory and to engage with some of the critical issues raised by the different authors.
Limits of predictive validity
Jump. To section
.Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect emotions and, rationality in the TPB
Measurement context The sufficiency. Assumption
Background factors Discussion Background Even when all TPB constructs are, carefully assessed they contain random. Measurement error. Well-designed measures of attitude towards a behaviour of interest subjective norm perceived behavioural,,, Control.Intention and behaviour rarely exhibit reliabilities in excess of 0.75 or 0.80. It follows that even with good measures,,, The most we can reasonably expect in terms of correlations among the theory 's constructs are coefficients of about 0.60. Past. Syntheses of TPB research have shown that even when, studies with questionable measures are included in, the meta-analysisThe observed mean correlations approach their theoretical limits. For example in a, synthesis of the results of several. Previous, meta-analyses Sheeran (2002) reported a mean overall correlation of 0.53 between intention and behaviour; the. Mean correlation between perceived behavioural control and intention was found to be 0.40 in a meta-analysis by Armitage. And Conner (2001);And in meta-analytic reviews covering a broad range of different behaviours (Armitage, & Conner 2001; Cheung & Chan 2000;,, Notani 1998; Rivis, &, Sheeran 2003; Schulze, & Wittmann 2003), attitudes subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Produced mean multiple correlations with intentions that ranged from 0.59 to 0.66.
Meta-analysis made by McEachan et al.(2011) produced comparable results. Correlations, of attitudes subjective norms and perceptions of control with intentions. Ranged from 0.40 to 0.57 producing a, multiple correlation of 0.67. The intention - behaviour correlation of 0.43 and the. Perceived control - behaviour correlation of 0.31 were somewhat lower than in, previous meta-analysisMost likely due to the fact that the present synthesis was restricted to prospective studies that assessed behaviour at. Some time after administering the TPB survey.
The intention - behaviour correlation though usually quite substantial can,,, Vary considerably. The meta-analysis by McEachan et al. Points to one moderator of, this relationThe temporal distance between measurement of intention and observation of behaviour. It stands to reason that as time,, Passes an increasing, number of intervening events can change people 's behavioural normative or control beliefs modify,,, Attitudes subjective norms, or perceptions of control thus generating, revised intentions.Changes of this kind will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions that were assessed before the changes took. Place. Consistent with this argument shorter intervals, between assessment of intentions and observation of behaviour (5. Weeks or less) were associated with stronger correlations than longer time intervals.Direct evidence in support of the proposition that instability of intentions over time can reduce their predictive validity. Was provided by Sheeran Orbell and,, Trafimow (1999) and by Conner Sheeran Norman and,,, Armitage (2000).
However intentions,, Are sometimes found to be poor predictors of behaviour even over relatively short, time periodsAs illustrated in the study by Kor and Mullan (2011). Intentions were assessed with respect to three sleep-related behaviours. In the coming week: making bedroom / sleep environment restful avoiding going, to bed feeling thirsty or hungry and avoiding. Anxiety and / or stress-provoking activities before bedtime One, week later.The participants reported how often they had performed each behaviour in the preceding week. Composite measures aggregated. Across the three behaviours showed a correlation of only 0.17 between intention and behaviour. (Perceived behavioural control. Predicted behaviour somewhat better with a, correlation of 0.25.) A possible reason for the low intention - behaviour correlation is revealed by the relatively strong effect of the participants. ' General capacity to override or inhibit impulses. Ability to inhibit responses as assessed, by a visual Go / NoGo computer. Task correlated 0.43, with behaviour.This finding suggests that performance of the three sleep-related behaviours requires the ability, to self-regulate an. Aspect of actual control over the behaviour. For example many people, find it difficult to put distressing thoughts out. Of their minds and may therefore be unable to avoid anxiety or stress-provoking activities before bedtime In, the TPB.Lack of actual control over a behaviour will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions. The relatively low correlation. Between perceived behavioural control and behaviour suggests that perceptions of control were not sufficiently accurate. To serve as a good proxy for actual control.
At its core the TPB, is concerned with the prediction of, Behavioural intentions.Normative and control beliefs as well as attitudes subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioural control are assumed. To feed into and explain behavioural intentions. Whether intentions predict behaviour depends in part on factors beyond. The individual ', s control i.e. The strength of the intention - behaviour relation is moderated by actual control over the. Behaviour.Barring, methodological shortcomings a low intention - behaviour relation is a warning sign indicating that we may be reaching. The limits of reasoned action.
Affect emotions and, rationality in the TPB
Jump to section Introduction Limits of predictive. Validity
Affect emotions and, rationality in the TPB
Measurement context The sufficiency assumption
Background factors Discussion Background
.Irrationality
A frequently voiced criticism of the TPB and other reasoned action models is that they are too 'rational,' Not taking sufficient account of cognitive and affective processes that are known to bias human judgments and, behaviour. It true is, course of, the that TPB emphasises the controlled aspects of human information processing and decision making.Its concern is primarily with behaviours that are goal-directed and steered by conscious self-regulatory processes. This. Focus has often been misinterpreted to mean that the theory posits an impassionate rational actor, who reviews all available. Information in an unbiased fashion to arrive at a behavioural decision. In reality the theory, draws a much more complex. And nuanced picture.
.Importantly there is, no assumption in the TPB that behavioural normative and, control beliefs are formed in, a rational. Unbiased fashion or that they accurately represent reality. Beliefs reflect the infor.
Jump Introduction Limits of predictive validity
Affect emotions and, rationality in the. TPB
Measurement context The sufficiency assumption
Background factors Discussion Background The seven articles in, this issue. And the accompanying meta-analysis in Health Psychology Review [McEachan R.R.C. Conner M,,,,,, Taylor N. & Lawton R.J,,. (2011).Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology. ,, Review 5 97 - 144], illustrate the wide application of the theory of planned, behaviour [Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of. Planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 179,, - 211] in the health domain In, this editorial.Ajzen reflects on some of the issues raised by the different authors. Among the topics addressed are the nature of intentions. And the limits of predictive validity; rationality affect and, emotions; past behaviour and habit; the prototype / willingness. Model; and the role of such background factors as the big five personality traits and social comparison Keywords tendency.
.Theory of planned behaviour review future,, directions
Jump Introduction to section
Limits Introduction of predictive validity
Affect,, Emotions and rationality in the TPB
Measurement context The sufficiency assumption
Background factors Discussion Background Since. Its introduction 26 years, ago (Ajzen 1985), the theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen 1991 in press) has,,,By any, objective measure become one of the most frequently cited and influential models for the prediction of human social. Behaviour. Its popularity is revealed by conducting a Google Scholar search for the keyword theory of planned behavior. ' OR theory of planned behaviour. 'From 22 citations, in 1985 the number of citations per year has grown steadily to a total. Of 4550 in 2010 (Figure 1).Relying on a variety of indices Nosek et, al. (2010) found that my programme of research ranks as having the highest scientific. Impact score among US and Canadian social psychologists.
Figure 1. Number of citations of the TPB in Google Scholar.
PowerPoint. SlideOriginal JPG (77.00KB) Display full size
Yet for all, its popularity or perhaps, because, of itThe TPB has also been the target of much criticism and debate. Some researchers reject it outright as an adequate explanation. Of human social behaviour. These investigators tend to deny the importance of consciousness as a causal agent (Wegner 2002;,, Wegner & Wheatley 1999), and view much human social behaviour as driven by implicit attitudes (Greenwald, & Banaji1995) and other unconscious mental processes (Aarts, & Dijksterhuis 2000; Bargh 1989; Bargh, &, Chartrand 1999; Brandst, ä tter. ,, Lengfelder & Gollwitzer 2001; Uhlmann, & Swanson 2004). Most, critics however accept the, theory 's basic reasoned action. Assumptions but question its sufficiency or inquire into its limiting conditions (for a discussion see Fishbein, & Ajzen 2010 Chapter,, 9).The articles in the, present issue as well as the meta-analysis of TPB research published in Health Psychology Review (McEachan,, ,,, Conner Taylor & Lawton in press), are largely in the latter vein and I will take this opportunity to try to clarify aspects. Of the theory and to engage with some of the critical issues raised by the different authors.
Limits of predictive validity
Jump. To section
.Introduction
Limits of predictive validity
Affect emotions and, rationality in the TPB
Measurement context The sufficiency. Assumption
Background factors Discussion Background Even when all TPB constructs are, carefully assessed they contain random. Measurement error. Well-designed measures of attitude towards a behaviour of interest subjective norm perceived behavioural,,, Control.Intention and behaviour rarely exhibit reliabilities in excess of 0.75 or 0.80. It follows that even with good measures,,, The most we can reasonably expect in terms of correlations among the theory 's constructs are coefficients of about 0.60. Past. Syntheses of TPB research have shown that even when, studies with questionable measures are included in, the meta-analysisThe observed mean correlations approach their theoretical limits. For example in a, synthesis of the results of several. Previous, meta-analyses Sheeran (2002) reported a mean overall correlation of 0.53 between intention and behaviour; the. Mean correlation between perceived behavioural control and intention was found to be 0.40 in a meta-analysis by Armitage. And Conner (2001);And in meta-analytic reviews covering a broad range of different behaviours (Armitage, & Conner 2001; Cheung & Chan 2000;,, Notani 1998; Rivis, &, Sheeran 2003; Schulze, & Wittmann 2003), attitudes subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Produced mean multiple correlations with intentions that ranged from 0.59 to 0.66.
Meta-analysis made by McEachan et al.(2011) produced comparable results. Correlations, of attitudes subjective norms and perceptions of control with intentions. Ranged from 0.40 to 0.57 producing a, multiple correlation of 0.67. The intention - behaviour correlation of 0.43 and the. Perceived control - behaviour correlation of 0.31 were somewhat lower than in, previous meta-analysisMost likely due to the fact that the present synthesis was restricted to prospective studies that assessed behaviour at. Some time after administering the TPB survey.
The intention - behaviour correlation though usually quite substantial can,,, Vary considerably. The meta-analysis by McEachan et al. Points to one moderator of, this relationThe temporal distance between measurement of intention and observation of behaviour. It stands to reason that as time,, Passes an increasing, number of intervening events can change people 's behavioural normative or control beliefs modify,,, Attitudes subjective norms, or perceptions of control thus generating, revised intentions.Changes of this kind will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions that were assessed before the changes took. Place. Consistent with this argument shorter intervals, between assessment of intentions and observation of behaviour (5. Weeks or less) were associated with stronger correlations than longer time intervals.Direct evidence in support of the proposition that instability of intentions over time can reduce their predictive validity. Was provided by Sheeran Orbell and,, Trafimow (1999) and by Conner Sheeran Norman and,,, Armitage (2000).
However intentions,, Are sometimes found to be poor predictors of behaviour even over relatively short, time periodsAs illustrated in the study by Kor and Mullan (2011). Intentions were assessed with respect to three sleep-related behaviours. In the coming week: making bedroom / sleep environment restful avoiding going, to bed feeling thirsty or hungry and avoiding. Anxiety and / or stress-provoking activities before bedtime One, week later.The participants reported how often they had performed each behaviour in the preceding week. Composite measures aggregated. Across the three behaviours showed a correlation of only 0.17 between intention and behaviour. (Perceived behavioural control. Predicted behaviour somewhat better with a, correlation of 0.25.) A possible reason for the low intention - behaviour correlation is revealed by the relatively strong effect of the participants. ' General capacity to override or inhibit impulses. Ability to inhibit responses as assessed, by a visual Go / NoGo computer. Task correlated 0.43, with behaviour.This finding suggests that performance of the three sleep-related behaviours requires the ability, to self-regulate an. Aspect of actual control over the behaviour. For example many people, find it difficult to put distressing thoughts out. Of their minds and may therefore be unable to avoid anxiety or stress-provoking activities before bedtime In, the TPB.Lack of actual control over a behaviour will tend to reduce the predictive validity of intentions. The relatively low correlation. Between perceived behavioural control and behaviour suggests that perceptions of control were not sufficiently accurate. To serve as a good proxy for actual control.
At its core the TPB, is concerned with the prediction of, Behavioural intentions.Normative and control beliefs as well as attitudes subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioural control are assumed. To feed into and explain behavioural intentions. Whether intentions predict behaviour depends in part on factors beyond. The individual ', s control i.e. The strength of the intention - behaviour relation is moderated by actual control over the. Behaviour.Barring, methodological shortcomings a low intention - behaviour relation is a warning sign indicating that we may be reaching. The limits of reasoned action.
Affect emotions and, rationality in the TPB
Jump to section Introduction Limits of predictive. Validity
Affect emotions and, rationality in the TPB
Measurement context The sufficiency assumption
Background factors Discussion Background
.Irrationality
A frequently voiced criticism of the TPB and other reasoned action models is that they are too 'rational,' Not taking sufficient account of cognitive and affective processes that are known to bias human judgments and, behaviour. It true is, course of, the that TPB emphasises the controlled aspects of human information processing and decision making.Its concern is primarily with behaviours that are goal-directed and steered by conscious self-regulatory processes. This. Focus has often been misinterpreted to mean that the theory posits an impassionate rational actor, who reviews all available. Information in an unbiased fashion to arrive at a behavioural decision. In reality the theory, draws a much more complex. And nuanced picture.
.Importantly there is, no assumption in the TPB that behavioural normative and, control beliefs are formed in, a rational. Unbiased fashion or that they accurately represent reality. Beliefs reflect the infor.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
ภาษาอื่น ๆ
การสนับสนุนเครื่องมือแปลภาษา: กรีก, กันนาดา, กาลิเชียน, คลิงออน, คอร์สิกา, คาซัค, คาตาลัน, คินยารวันดา, คีร์กิซ, คุชราต, จอร์เจีย, จีน, จีนดั้งเดิม, ชวา, ชิเชวา, ซามัว, ซีบัวโน, ซุนดา, ซูลู, ญี่ปุ่น, ดัตช์, ตรวจหาภาษา, ตุรกี, ทมิฬ, ทาจิก, ทาทาร์, นอร์เวย์, บอสเนีย, บัลแกเรีย, บาสก์, ปัญจาป, ฝรั่งเศส, พาชตู, ฟริเชียน, ฟินแลนด์, ฟิลิปปินส์, ภาษาอินโดนีเซี, มองโกเลีย, มัลทีส, มาซีโดเนีย, มาราฐี, มาลากาซี, มาลายาลัม, มาเลย์, ม้ง, ยิดดิช, ยูเครน, รัสเซีย, ละติน, ลักเซมเบิร์ก, ลัตเวีย, ลาว, ลิทัวเนีย, สวาฮิลี, สวีเดน, สิงหล, สินธี, สเปน, สโลวัก, สโลวีเนีย, อังกฤษ, อัมฮาริก, อาร์เซอร์ไบจัน, อาร์เมเนีย, อาหรับ, อิกโบ, อิตาลี, อุยกูร์, อุสเบกิสถาน, อูรดู, ฮังการี, ฮัวซา, ฮาวาย, ฮินดี, ฮีบรู, เกลิกสกอต, เกาหลี, เขมร, เคิร์ด, เช็ก, เซอร์เบียน, เซโซโท, เดนมาร์ก, เตลูกู, เติร์กเมน, เนปาล, เบงกอล, เบลารุส, เปอร์เซีย, เมารี, เมียนมา (พม่า), เยอรมัน, เวลส์, เวียดนาม, เอสเปอแรนโต, เอสโทเนีย, เฮติครีโอล, แอฟริกา, แอลเบเนีย, โคซา, โครเอเชีย, โชนา, โซมาลี, โปรตุเกส, โปแลนด์, โยรูบา, โรมาเนีย, โอเดีย (โอริยา), ไทย, ไอซ์แลนด์, ไอร์แลนด์, การแปลภาษา.
- I like the guy playing the muscular, I t
- กิจกรรมจิตอาสา
- เสื้อ 100 ตัว
- แต่ด้วยการสื่อสารที่ผิดพลาด
- คืนวันศุกร์เราอาจมาปาร์ตี้กันที่เดิม
- Knowledge
- Faculty of Science and Technology
- allow u
- Since of Jan-Sep' 2015, HSETH have many
- ขอโทษ เพราะ ตอบช้า
- รายได้ กำไร ขาดทุน cost (AIS DTAC TMH)/1
- Please yoursend gotografy
- เซเว่นเซน
- พวกเรารักป่าไม้
- counter
- กิจกรรมจิตอาสา
- มีเครื่องประดับเป็นจำนวนมาก
- How is different?
- The job related activities of the doctor
- ฉันมีความสุขทุกครั้ง ที่พวกพวกเขาได้จดมา
- เพื่อนชอบเก็บดอกไม้มาให้ฉัน
- เปรีบยเทียบ
- as the fast food industy has been a popu
- quality images in training data set X, e
