Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 757–770 | Cite as

Dismantling the theory of planned behavior: evaluating the relative effectiveness of attempts to uniquely change attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control

  • Erika A. MontanaroEmail author
  • Trace S. Kershaw
  • Angela D. Bryan
Article
  • 821 Downloads

Abstract

The current study compares the effectiveness of interventions that attempted to uniquely influence hypothesized determinants of behavior in the Theory of Planned Behavior versus some optimal combination of constructs (three constructs vs. four) to increase condom use among intentions and behavior college students. 317 participants (Mage = 19.31; SDage = 1.31; 53.3% female; 74.1% Caucasian) were randomly assigned to one of seven computer-based interventions. Interventions were designed using the Theory of Planned Behavior as the guiding theoretical framework. 196 (61.8%) completed behavioral follow-up assessments 3-month later. We found that the four construct intervention was marginally better at changing intentions (estimate = − .06, SE = .03, p = .06), but the single construct interventions were more strongly related to risky sexual behavior at follow-up (estimate = .04, SE = .02, p = .05). This study suggests that these constructs may work together synergistically to produce change (ClinicalTrials.gov Number NCT# 02855489).

Keywords

Condom use HIV/STD Intervention Theory of planned behavior Dismantling study design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Erika Montanaro was supported by T32MH020031 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Mental Health or the National Institutes of Health.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Erika A. Montanaro, Trace S. Kershaw, Angela D. Bryan declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and Informed consent

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Aiken, L. S. (2010). Advancing health behavior theory: The interplay among theories of health behavior, empirical modeling of health behavior, and behavioral interventions. In H. Friedman (Ed.), Oxford handbook of health psychology (pp. 1–39). New York City: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 142–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. American College Health Association (ACHA). (2014). American college health association-national college health assessment II: Undergraduate students reference group data report spring 2014. Hanover, MD: American College Health Association.Google Scholar
  7. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70, 1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bandura, A. (1985). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bauman, L. J., Karasz, A., & Hamilton, A. (2007). Understanding failure of condom use intention among adolescents completing an intensive preventive intervention. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 248–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brien, T. M., Thombs, D. L., Mahoney, C. A., & Wallanu, L. (1994). Dimensions of self-efficacy among three distinct groups of condom users. Journal of American College Health, 42, 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bryan, A. D., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1996). Increasing condom use: Evaluations of a theory-based intervention to prevent sexually transmitted diseases in young women. Health Psychology, 15, 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bryan, A., Schmiege, S. J., & Broaddus, M. R. (2007). Mediational analysis in HIV/AIDS research: Estimating multivariate path analytic models in a structural equation modeling framework. AIDS and Behavior, 11, 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2012). STDs in adolescents and young adults. Retrieved March 23, 2014, from http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats11/adol.htm
  19. Conner, M. (2014). Extending not retiring the theory of planned behaviour: A commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychology Review, 9, 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Conner, M., Rhodes, R. E., Morris, B., McEachan, R., & Lawton, R. (2011). Changing exercise through targeting affective or cognitive attitudes. Psychology and Health, 26(2), 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Desmond, D. P., Maddux, J. F., Johnson, T. H., & Confer, B. A. (1995). Obtaining follow-up interviews for treatment evaluation. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 12, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 141–185). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagger, M. S., Chan, D. K., Protogerou, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2016). Using meta-analytic path analysis to test theoretical predictions in health behavior: An illustration based on meta-analyses of the theory of planned behavior. Preventive Medicine, 89, 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hagger, M. S., Gucciardi, D. F., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2017). On nomological validity and auxiliary assumptions: The importance of simultaneously testing effects in social cognitive theories applied to health behavior and some guidelines. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hofmann, W., De Houwer, J., Perugini, M., Baeyens, F., & Crombez, G. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 390–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holtforth, M. G., Castonguay, L. G., Borkovec, T. D., & Building, M. (2004). Expanding our strategies to study the process of change. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 396–404.Google Scholar
  28. Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jemmott, J. B., III, Jemmott, L. S., & Fong, G. T. (1998). Abstinence and safer sex HIV risk-reduction interventions for African American adolescents: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 279, 1529–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lo, S. H., Good, A., Sheeran, P., Baio, G., Rainbow, S., Vart, G., et al. (2014). Preformulated implementation intentions to promote colorectal cancer screening: A cluster-randomized trial. Health Psychology, 33, 998–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Magnan, R. E., Callahan, T. J., Ladd, B. O., Claus, E. D., Hutchison, K. E., & Bryan, A. D. (2013). Evaluating an integrative theoretical framework for HIV sexual risk among juvenile justice involved adolescents. Journal of AIDS & Clinical Research, 4, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., et al. (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Milgram, S. (1964). Group pressure and action against a person. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Montanaro, E. A., & Bryan, A. D. (2014). Comparing theory-based condom interventions: Health belief model versus theory of planned behavior. Health Psychology, 33, 1251–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Montanaro, E., Fiellin, L. E., Fakhouri, T., Kyriakides, T., & Duncan, L. R. (2015). Using videogame applications to assess gains in substance use knowledge in adolescents: New opportunities for evaluating intervention exposure and content mastery. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17, e245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Noar, S. M., & Zimmerman, R. S. (2005). Health behavior theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: Are we moving in the right direction? Health Education Research, 20, 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peters, E., Klein, W., Kaufman, A., Meilleur, L., & Dixon, A. (2013). More is not always better: Intuitions about effective public policy can lead to unintended consequences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7, 114–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reid, A. E., & Aiken, L. S. (2011). Integration of five health behavior models: Common strengths and unique contributions to understanding condom use. Psychology & Health, 26, 1499–1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 22, 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmiege, S. J., Broaddus, M. R., Levin, M., & Bryan, A. D. (2009). Randomized trial of group interventions to reduce HIV/STD risk and change theoretical mediators among detained adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Leaning.Google Scholar
  44. Sheeran, P., Klein, W. M., & Rothman, A. J. (2017). Health behavior change: Moving from observation to intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 573–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sheeran, P., Maki, A., Montanaro, E., Avishai-Yitshak, A., Bryan, A. D., Klein, W. M. P., et al. (2016). The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 35, 1178–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sherman, D. K., Kinias, Z., Major, B., Kim, H. S., & Prenovost, M. (2007). The group as a resource: Reducing biased attributions for group success and failure via group affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1100–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 8, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective in examining psychological process than mediational analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stangor, C., Sechrist, G. B., & Jost, J. T. (2001). Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 486–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trafimow, D., & Finlay, K. A. (1996). The importance of subjective norms for a minority of people: Between subjects and within-subjects analyses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 820–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2008). Mechanisms of implementation intention effects: The role of goal intentions, self-efficacy, and accessibility of plan components. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams, G. C., Freedman, Z. R., & Deci, E. L. (1998). Supporting autonomy to motivate patients with diabetes for glucose control. Diabetes Care, 21, 1644–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North Carolina CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.Yale UniveristyNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.University of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations