Applying theories of behaviour to change addiction: Theoryof planned behaviour Flashcards
What is theories of planned behaviour and who was it formulated by?
It was formulated by Azjen -> cognitive theory that states that in addition to attitudes and subjective norms, individuals must have personal, voluntary control over the behaviour they wish to engage in.
TPB suggests addiction related behaviour can be predicted from a person’s intentions. These intention arise from three key influences, what are they?
Personal attitudes
Subjective norms
Perceived behavioural control
- Personal attitudes
An addicted person’s attitudes are a combination of favourable and unfavourable opinions about their addiction, formed by rationally evaluating positive and negative consequences of their behaviour.
Shifting balance towards unfavourable attitudes should reduce addiction- related behaviour
e.g associating gambling with outcomes like ‘I lose more money than I win’
-> intention not to gamble
e.g 2 our individual attitude to smoking might include tobacco is relaxing and makes me feel good, but it makes me cough in the morning, costs a lot of money, and smells bad
- Subjective norms
- beliefs about what others think
A person’s subjective awareness of social norms relating to addictive behaviour is formed from…
- Injunction form, what we believe out ‘significant others’ feel about the behaviour
- Descriptive form - perception of what others are actually doing
Would a addicted gambler’s family disapprove of their gambling ? If yes -> forming an intention not to gamble
- Subjective norms
- application
Aim to change subjective norms to reduce addiction related intentions and behaviours
Many campaigns against substance abuse (e.g Talk to Frank) combat this by providing messages that reveal the true extent of substance abuse in peers (i.e its a minority)
- Perceived behaviour control
- beliefs about our ability to change our behaviour.
How much control we believe we have over our behaviour (self efficacy) e.g does the addicted gambler believe they are able to give up
There are two possible effects of perceived behavioural control
1. Indirect influence via intentions - the stronger the self-efficacy, the stronger the intention to stop gambling
2. Direct influence - the greater the perceived control, the longer and harder the addict will try to stop (only one of three TPB elements that has direct influence on behaviour)
- Perceived behaviour control
- application
Increasing gambler’s self efficacy helps them to stop of avoid relapse e.g encourage optimistic outlook and confidence in ability to change, also awareness that change requires effort
One strength of TPB
Research support
EVALUATION: Research support
Participants in Hagger et al.’s study answered a questionnaire regarding behaviours related to alcohol. Intentions to restrict alcohol use were highly linked with attitudes, norms, and perceived control.
After one and three months, intentions were a good indicator of actual alcohol intake. Direct actual consumption was predicted by perceived behaviour control.
These findings support the theory’s predictions and imply that it is valid
Extra mini strength
A strength of TPB is that it takes into account the influence of peers (subjective norms), which is significant in both the beginning of the behaviour and its maintenance (SLT and operant conditioning )
COUNTERPOINT TO HAGGER
However the study failed to predict some alcohol related behaviours (e.g binge drinking), so the success of the TPB depends on the behaviour being measured
This suggests that even supportive research indicates that the predictive validity of the TPB is limited
What are four limitations of TPB
Short term effects
Cannot explain intention behaviour gap
Relies on self report questionnaires
Does not consider emotion
EVALUATION: Short term effects
McEachan et al.’s meta analysis of 237 tests revealed that the relationship between two intentions and behaviour changed with the amount of time that passed between them.
The evidence that intentions influence behaviour over the long run is much weaker. Intentions to stop drinking can only predict actual stopping for a period of five weeks.
As a result, intentions might not accurately foresee long-term changes in behaviour related to addiction, which would reduce the TPB’s effectiveness.
EVALUATION: Cannot explain intention behaviour gap
Miller and Howell investigated underage teen gambling. Their attitudes, perceived control, norms, were all tied to stopping.
However, the key element was unsupported because the intentions had nothing to do with the real gambling activity.
Consequently, we can’t use the theory for help in changing behaviour if it is unable to predict behaviour change.
EVALUATION: Does not consider emotion
The theory does not consider emotion as a key factor in addiction, focusing instead on the less emotional processes involved such as motivation and beliefs which limits its scope as an explanation of behaviour change