Critically evaluate the theory of planned behaviour in relation to understanding health behaviours Flashcards
Intro
- TPB
- -Ajzen, 1991
- -PBC, sheeran et al (2003)
- -diagram
Paragraph 1
- effectiveness,
- -McEachan et al (2011)
- -Ajzen (1991)
- BI-I relationship
- -Sheeran (2002)
- -Webb and Sheeran
Paragraph 2
-Armitage and Conner (2001)
e- Armitage and Conner (2001)
–McEachan et al (2011)
Paragraph 3
- Cooke and French (2008)
- McEachan et al (2011)
- Hagger et al (2002)
Paragraph 4
- Interventions
- -schmidt and Kabst (2016)
- -Tyson et al (2014)
- Hardeman et al (2002)
- Fishbein and Ajzen (2010)
- Hardeman
Paragraph 5
- Additional predictors
- -McEachan et al (2011)
- The refractive Impulsive model of Strack and Deutsch (2004)
- Gardner (2014)
Paragraph 6
- Self-efficacy
- -Ajzen (2002a)
- -Rogers et al (2008)
- -Armitage and Conner (2001)
Conclusion
-TPB
-attitudes
Intentions
Ajzen (1991)
Theory of Planned behaviour
Sheeran et al (2003)
where PBC was accurate it provided stronger predictions of behaviour and moderated the intention-behaviour relationship (higher PBC was associated with stronger intention-behaviour relationships).
McEachan et al (2011)
Paragraph 1
attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control explained 37% of variance in changes to behavioural intentions, while behavioural intentions and perceived behavioural control explained only 19% of variance in behaviour change.
Ajzen (1991)
study
conducted a meta-analysis of 16 studies and found the multiple correlation between intentions and attitude, subjective norm and PBC to be 0.71 indicating high relatedness between intentions and the three constructs
Sheeran (2002)
a meta-analysis of meta-analyses of prospective test of the intention-behaviour relationship. Across 422 studies, intentions explained 28% of the variance for behaviour, this is a large effect size
Webb and Sheeran (2006)
meta-analysis of 47 studies to address this and found that a medium-large size change in intentions lead to a small-medium change in behaviour
Armitage and Conner (2001)
paragraph 2
- TPB accounts for 27% and 39% of the variance in behaviour and intention.
- The average multiple correlation of attitude, subjective norm and PBC with intention was R=.63, accounting for 39% of the variance.
- Independently reported correlation between Perceived Behavioural Control and intention strong (r =.43), and PBC independently accounted for 6% of the variance PBC also added an average of 2% to the prediction of behaviour
e-Armitage and Conner (2001)
reported there were differences in proportions of variance in measures of both objective (20%) and self-reported (31%) behaviour
McEachan et al (2011)
paragraph 2
when using self-reported measures, the relationships with behaviour are stronger
Cooke and French (2008)
a meta-analysis of 33 applications of TPB to screening attendance including all the constructs of TPB and found attitudes were the strongest predictor of intentional (with subjective norms being the least predictive) while behavioural intentions were the strongest predictor of behavioural
McEachan et al (2011)
paragraph 3
the main predictor for behavioural intention was Attitudes towards the behaviour (while the lowest predictor was subjective norms) and the main predictor for Behaviour was behavioural intention
Hagger et al (2002)
meta-analysis on 70 applications of TPB to physical activity and found that a clear majority were successful
Schmidt and Kabst (2016)
reported behaviour change interventions based on TPB generate medium sized effects
Tyson et al (2014)
after conducting a meta-analysis on 34 studies on increasing heterosexual condom use there was small sig effect (d=0.126)
Hardeman et al (2002)
meta-analysis of 24 intervention studies and found that many interventions are poorly designed,
Fishbein and Ajzen (2010)
out of all the studies that Hardeman looked at, only 4 conformed to the requirements of TPB
McEachan et al (2011)
paragraph 5
86 studies of past behaviour found an additional 5.3% of variance was explained for Intentions and 10.9% explained for behaviour.
The Refractive Impulsive Model of Strack and Deutsch (2004)
strong impact of past behaviour on future behaviour may be explained by past behaviour becoming more important as behaviour becomes more habitual with frequent performance
Gardner (2014)
18/24 studies provided evidence that intentions weaker predicted behaviour as habit strength increased
Ajzen (2002a).
Self-efficacy has been argued to be similar to the construct of perceived behavioural control
Rodgers et al (2008)
there was greater predictive power for self-efficacy measures
Armitage and Conner (2001)
self-efficacy explained more variance for intentions than controllability (19% vs 5%). Behaviour was also better explained (12% vs 3%)
self-efficacy was not a better predictor than a unidimensional measure of perceived behavioural control for intentions (19% vs 19%) or behaviour (12% vs 16%)
