UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 3.5 Free with a free account
From Intention to Action: The Theory of Planned Behavior
Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 3: Persuasion and Cognitive ProcessesSection 3.5 · lesson 16 of 8512 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Advanced Social Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Advanced Social Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: The Discomfort of Contradiction: Cognitive Dissonance in Everyday Life →← Building Mental Resistance: How Attitude Inoculation Protects Against PersuasionNext lesson: The Discomfort of Contradiction: Cognitive Dissonance in Everyday Life →
In this lesson
Three predictors of intention, and the stubborn gap between intending and doing.
- Trace the TPB from the Theory of Reasoned Action
- Define the 3 proximal predictors and their belief sources
- Analyze the intention-behavior gap
- Apply the model to intervention design
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,599 words). Read along, or search it.
Persuasion and Cognitive Processes
From Intention to Action
People who report strong environmental concern often fail to recycle. People who endorse exercise fail to attend the gym. People who plan to vote stay home on election day. None of that is hypocrisy. It is the central problem this section addresses. The Theory of Planned Behavior is the most influential framework for explaining it. Behavior is the product of an intention. And intention is the product of three psychological inputs. Attitudes, norms, and perceived control. We will also look at where the model still fails, and what closes the gap.
The Problem
People Do Not Do What They Mean To Do
An attitude is a useful prediction only when it forecasts behavior. And decades of research show that general attitudes forecast specific behaviors modestly. The theory has a history worth knowing, because the history explains its structure. The original was the Theory of Reasoned Action, from Fishbein and Ajzen. That was nineteen seventy-five, and it had only two predictors of intention. Attitudes, and subjective norms. It worked well for behaviors under volitional control. Things you can simply decide to do, and then do. It failed for behaviors requiring resources, skill, or opportunity. Ajzen added perceived behavioral control in nineteen ninety-one. That single addition closed the gap, and broadened the theory enormously. It now covers actions that depend on more than willingness alone. The result has thousands of empirical applications across many domains. Health, consumer choice, environmental action, technology adoption, education.
The Architecture
A Directed Chain, From Beliefs to Action
The model proposes a directed chain, so let us walk it in order. At the most distal level sit three kinds of belief. Behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs. Those produce, respectively, the three proximal predictors. Attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. Those three combine to determine behavioral intention. And intention, in turn, produces behavior. Though the model itself acknowledges that this final link is often imperfect. There is one extra arrow in the diagram, and it matters. Where behavior requires resources or opportunity beyond the person's control. Perceived control also predicts behavior directly. It captures the gap between what someone intends and what they can accomplish.
Predictor 1
Attitude Toward the Behavior, Not the Issue
Predictor one is attitude, and there is a trap in it. Attitude in the TPB is specific to the behavior, not to the issue. That distinction is the most common source of failure in applying the model. A person's general environmentalism predicts recycling poorly. Their attitude toward recycling household plastics this week predicts it well. Same person, same topic, radically different predictive power. Behavioral attitudes are formed from behavioral beliefs. Those are expectations about the likely outcomes of the action. Weighted by the value the person places on each outcome. The product of expectancy and value, summed across salient outcomes. Which gives you two levers, not one. Change the expected outcome, or change how it is evaluated.
Predictor 2
Subjective Norm: The Social Pressure Term
Predictor two is subjective norm. It captures perceived social pressure to perform or not perform the behavior. It is built from normative beliefs. What important others think the person should do. Weighted by the person's motivation to comply with each referent. Notice that two things must both be true for a norm to bite. You must believe the referent expects something of you. And you must be motivated to comply with that particular referent. A norm from someone whose opinion you do not weigh is not a norm at all. Subjective norms typically contribute less to intention than attitudes do. But they become decisive in two situations. In collectivist cultural contexts, and where social visibility is high.
Predictor 3
Perceived Behavioral Control Does Two Jobs
Predictor three is perceived behavioral control, and it does two jobs. It is the belief that you can successfully perform the behavior. Given the resources, skills and opportunities available to you. It is built from control beliefs about facilitating or impeding factors. Weighted by the perceived power of each of those factors. Its first role is to influence intention. People are less likely to form intentions for actions they consider infeasible. Its second role is to predict behavior directly. To the extent that perceived control accurately reflects actual control. Now, this construct overlaps substantially with Bandura's self-efficacy. Ajzen has argued the two are essentially equivalent at the conceptual level. The practical distinction lies in how it gets measured. Measures often combine internal capacity with external controllability. Can I do this, and will circumstances allow it? Two different questions. Recent measurement work separates them, and finds they behave differently. Internal capacity predicts intention more strongly. External controllability predicts actual behavior more strongly.
The Constructs
What Each Term Is Made Of, and What It Predicts
Let us line up the constructs against what each one is made of. Attitude toward the behavior comes from behavioral beliefs and outcome evaluations. It predicts intention. Subjective norm comes from normative beliefs and motivation to comply. It also predicts intention. Perceived behavioral control comes from control beliefs and their perceived power. And it predicts intention, and behavior directly. Behavioral intention is the weighted combination of the three above. It is a conscious plan to engage in the specific behavior. And it predicts behavior, imperfectly. Behavior itself is intention plus actual control. Notice that perceived control is the only construct with two arrows out of it. That double role is exactly what the Theory of Reasoned Action was missing.
How Well It Works
The Numbers, Stated Honestly
Now the numbers, and we should state them honestly. Meta-analytic syntheses give the model's performance in two figures. The three predictors jointly explain about forty percent of the variance in intention. Intention plus perceived control explain about twenty-five percent of the variance in behavior. Those are respectable figures for a parsimonious model. They also indicate substantial unexplained variance. Most of it, in fact, remains unexplained. And the drop from forty percent to twenty-five percent is not evenly spread. It concentrates at one specific link in the chain. The step from intention to behavior.
The Gap
Strong Intentions Work About Half the Time
Forming an intention does not guarantee that it gets enacted. Sheeran's meta-analysis, from two thousand and two, put a number on it. Even strong intentions translate into behavior only about half the time. The gap is not uniform. It is largest in three situations. First, health behaviors requiring sustained effort. One decision is not enough when the behavior must be repeated. Second, behaviors competing with established habits. There the old response is already automatic, and the new one is not. Third, behaviors depending on contextual triggers you cannot anticipate. Now think about what this means for intervention design. Most persuasion work targets intention. If intention converts only half the time, doubling persuasive success is not enough. Half the behavioral outcome is still untouched.
The Fix
Implementation Intentions
Gollwitzer's implementation intentions offer the best-supported fix. That work dates from nineteen ninety-nine. The move is from intending a goal to specifying a trigger. A goal intention sounds like this. I will exercise more. No cue, no place, no time. The decision has to be made again every day. An implementation intention sounds completely different. When I finish breakfast on weekdays, I will put on my running shoes. And run for twenty minutes. That if-then structure links the action to a salient environmental cue. Three mechanisms combine to make it work. First, the plan creates a strong mental link between cue and action. The action becomes close to automatic when the cue appears. Second, planning reduces the cognitive load of deciding in the moment. That conserves willpower for the action itself. Third, the specificity removes excuses about ambiguous conditions. It wasn't really the right time stops being available. Meta-analyses report medium-to-large effects on behavioral follow-through. Particularly for behaviors that fail through forgetting, distraction or procrastination. One caveat matters. Implementation intentions do not replace TPB constructs. They presuppose them. A person must already intend the behavior.
Extensions And Critiques
What the Model Leaves Out
The model has been extended, and it has been seriously criticized. The Reasoned Action Approach, from Fishbein and Ajzen in twenty ten, refines it. It separates experiential from instrumental attitudes. Injunctive from descriptive norms. And capacity from autonomy aspects of control. Those refinements modestly improve predictive power. And they clarify which specific belief content drives a given behavior. Other critics note that the TPB models intentional behavior only. It treats habit, automatic affect and identity as outside the framework. So extensions have added past behavior as a proxy for habit. Anticipated affect, especially anticipated regret. And self-identity as a fourth proximal driver of intention. Then there is the hard critique, from Sniehotta, Presseau and colleagues. They argued the theory has reached the limits of its predictive power. And that progress requires moving beyond intention as the primary outcome. Their specific objections are three. Under-specification of how the three predictors combine. Limited treatment of automatic and dual-process influences. And the difficulty of using correlational data to design causal interventions. Ajzen's defense is that parsimony is the theory's strength. And that the limitations are problems of application, not of the framework.
Consolidate
The Model as a Diagnostic Instrument
Three applied domains show what the model is actually good for. In health behavior it has been the dominant framework for three decades. Interventions targeting specific belief sets outperform untargeted education. Providing skills training to increase perceived control over condom use. Or shifting normative beliefs about adolescent smoking. By exposing students to accurate peer-prevalence data. In sustainability, perceived control is usually the bottleneck. People hold favorable attitudes and recognize the normative pressure. But they perceive structural barriers: cost, access, time. So interventions that combine structural change with control-targeted messaging win. Better bin infrastructure, financial incentives, default settings. In technology adoption, the TPB became the Technology Acceptance Model. Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness map onto control and attitude. And here is the use that survives every critique. Survey a target population with TPB measures. You learn which proximal predictor is the bottleneck for that behavior. Which tells you exactly where to spend the intervention budget.
About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology
Why take it here
Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About From Intention to Action: The Theory of Planned Behavior
What is the theory of planned behavior?
What is the difference between the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior?
Why do intentions not always lead to behavior?
What are implementation intentions?
About the Advanced Social Psychology course
How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.
85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →