Theory of Planned Behaviour – BMS Notes

The theory of planned behaviour, or TPB for short, is a psychological theory that connects behaviour to ideas.

According to the idea, an individual’s behavioural intents and behaviours are shaped by their subject norms, perceived behavioural control, and intention towards attitude.

By including perceived behavioural control, Icek Ajzen’s notion aims to enhance the theory of reasoned action’s predictive capacity. It has been used in research on the relationships between attitudes, beliefs, behavioural intentions, and actions in a variety of industries, including sustainability, public relations, advertising, healthcare, and sport management.

notions of important variables
Subjective standards and normative views
Normative belief: a person’s understanding of the pressures imposed by social norms, or the opinions held by others on appropriate or inappropriate behaviour.
Subjective norm: a person’s opinion of a certain behaviour that is impacted by the assessment of important people (e.g., parents, spouse, friends, teachers).

Control attitudes and the impression of behavioural control

Control beliefs are a person’s opinions on the existence of elements that might help or impede the performance of a behaviour. Self-efficacy and perceived behavioural control are theoretically connected.

Regarded behavioural control refers to how easy or difficult a behaviour is perceived by the person to do. It is considered that the whole collection of available control beliefs determines perceived behavioural control.

Intention and actions of behaviour

Behavior intention: a sign of a person’s preparedness to carry out a certain behaviour. It is thought to be a direct cause of behaviour. It is predicated on three factors: perceived behavioural control, attitude toward the behaviour, and subjective norm. Each predictor is weighted according to how significant it is in connection to the behaviour and population of interest.

Behavior is an individual’s discernible reaction to a certain objective in a particular scenario. According to Ajzen, behaviour is determined by intentions that are compatible with perceptions of behavioural control. Perceived behavioural control is thought to mitigate the effect of intention on behaviour, meaning that a positive intention will only result in behaviour when perceptions of behavioural control are strong.

Comparing concepts and operations

Behavioral control as perceived vs self-efficacy

According to Ajzen (1991) in the theory of planned behaviour, Bandura’s idea of self-efficacy provided insight into the function of perceived behavioural control. In a more recent research, Fishbein and Cappella[16] claimed that, in their integrative model, self-efficacy is equivalent to perceived behavioural control, which is similarly assessed by self-efficacy questions.

The design and amount of items in the perceived behavioural control assessment varied depending on the specific health issue in earlier research. For instance, when it comes to smoking-related themes, it is often gauged by statements like “It would be pretty simple for me to stop” and “I don’t believe I am addicted since I can truly simply not smoke and not yearn for it.”

The social cognitive theory of Bandura provides the foundation for the idea of self-efficacy. It speaks to the confidence that one can carry out the necessary actions to achieve the desired result. Perceived behavioural control—that is, the judgement of how easy or difficult a certain behaviour is—is referred to as self-efficacy. It is associated with control beliefs, which are views on the existence of elements that might either help or hinder the performance of the behaviour.

It is often assessed using self-report instruments in their surveys that start with the stem, “I am confident I can… (e.g., exercise, stop smoking, etc.).” In other words, it attempts to gauge one’s level of confidence in the possibility, feasibility, or probability of carrying out a certain behaviour.

Attitude toward actions versus expectation of results

The nature of the connections between attitudes and beliefs is described by the idea of planned behaviour. These theories propose that people’s accessible beliefs about a behavior—defined as the subjective likelihood that a behaviour will result in a certain outcome—determine people’s assessments of or attitudes toward that behaviour. To be more precise, the attitude is influenced by how each consequence is evaluated in direct proportion to the individual’s perceived likelihood that the behaviour results in the desired outcome.

The expectancy-value model served as the inspiration for outcome expectancy. It is a variable that connects anticipation, attitude, belief, and opinion. While the theory of planned behavior’s negative evaluation of self-performance is similar to perceived barriers, which refers to assessment of potential negative consequences that might arise from enacting the advocated health behaviour, its positive evaluation of self-performance of the specific behaviour is similar to the concept of perceived benefits, which refers to beliefs regarding the effectiveness of the proposed preventive behaviour in reducing the vulnerability to the negative outcomes.

Social impact

The theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behaviour have both evaluated the idea of social influence using social norms and normative beliefs. People’s elaborate views of subjective standards are based on their assessments of whether or not society, their friends, and family expect them to act in a certain way. Evaluation of different social groupings is used to quantify social impact. For instance, when it comes to smoking:

Beliefs like “Most of my friends smoke” or “I feel guilty about smoking in front of a group of friends who don’t smoke” are examples of subjective norms from the peer group;
Thoughts like “My parents were extremely furious with me when I began smoking” or “All of my family smokes, therefore it seems normal to start smoking” are examples of subjective norms from the family.
Subjective norms derived from society or culture include beliefs like “We simply assume everyone is a nonsmoker” and “Everyone is against smoking.”

The theory of planned behaviour takes into account social impact, such as social norm and normative belief, based on collectivistic culture-related factors, while the majority of models are framed inside individual cognitive space. Social influence has been a welcome addition since it may very well be located in and dependent upon the social networks and organisations (e.g., peer group, family, school, and workplace) that influence an individual’s behaviour (e.g., health-related decision-making such as diet, condom use, quitting smoking and drinking, etc.).

Theory of Social Cognitive Learning

Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (SLT) was the precursor of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) in the 1960s. It asserts that learning takes place in a social setting with a dynamic and reciprocal interaction of the individual, environment, and behaviour, and it evolved into the SCT in 1986. The focus on social impact and both internal and external social reinforcement is what makes SCT special. SCT takes into account the many ways that people learn and retain behaviour in addition to the social context in which that behaviour is shown. The idea considers an individual’s prior experiences, which influence the likelihood of behavioural activity. These prior experiences have an impact on reinforcements, expectancies, and expectations, all of which determine whether or not an individual would participate in a certain activity as well as the motivations behind it.

Many behaviour theories that are used to health promotion emphasise behaviour initiation over behaviour maintenance. This is regrettable since the real objective of public health is behaviour maintenance, not only behaviour start. The explanation of goal-directed behaviour that can be sustained over time via control and reward is the core objective of self-control theory (SCT). The self-efficacy component was included as the theory progressed into SCT, although the other five constructs were created as part of the SLT.

Mutual Determination

This is the main idea of SCT. This describes the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between behaviour, environment, and person (a person with a collection of learning experiences) (responses to stimuli to achieve goals).

The capacity to behave

This is the real capacity of an individual to carry out an action using necessary information and abilities. To carry out an action effectively, a person has to know what to do and how to execute it. People pick up lessons from the effects of their actions, which have an impact on their surroundings.

Learning via Observation

This claims that humans have the ability to see and copy the activities of others after seeing or observing them. This is often shown by “modelling” certain actions. People may effectively do an action if they see another person demonstrating it.

Reinforcements

This is the term used to describe the internal or external reactions to an individual’s activity that influence the probability of the behaviour continuing or ceasing. Reinforcements may be good or negative, self-initiated, or found in the surroundings. The SCT construct that bears the strongest connection to the mutual influence of behaviour and environment is this one.

Expectations

This speaks to the expected results of an individual’s actions. Expectations for results may or may not be connected to health. Before acting, people consider the repercussions of their choices, and these thoughts might affect whether the activity is carried out successfully. A lot of expectations come from past experiences. Expectations are subjective and centred on the value that is assigned to the result, even if they are also influenced by prior experience.

Self-efficacy

This speaks to a person’s degree of self-assurance in their capacity to carry out an action effectively. Although other theories, such the Theory of Planned Behavior, have included this component subsequently, self-efficacy is exclusive to SCT. Environmental influences as well as an individual’s unique qualities and other elements have an impact on self-efficacy (barriers and facilitators).

Social Cognitive Theory’s Drawbacks

When using SCT in public health, one should take into account its many constraints. The following are some of the model’s limitations:
Although this may not always be the case, the theory makes the assumption that changes in one’s surroundings will always result in changes in the individual.
The idea is not well structured; it is based only on the dynamic interaction of environment, behaviour, and person. It’s uncertain how much each of these influences real behaviour and if one has a greater influence than the others.
Regardless of prior experience and expectations, the theory places a strong emphasis on learning processes while ignoring biological and hormonal predispositions that may affect behaviour.
The idea just makes reference to prior experiences; it does not concentrate on motivation or emotion. These aspects get little attention.
Because of its potential breadth, the idea may be challenging to fully operationalize.

When it comes to addressing individual behaviour change, Social Cognitive Theory takes into account several layers of the Social Ecological Model. Given the emphasis on the person and the environment—the latter of which has emerged as a key area of interest for health promotion initiatives in recent years—SCT has been employed extensively in this field. Similar to other theories, applying all of SCT’s premises to a single public health issue may be challenging, particularly when creating targeted public health initiatives.

The Framework of Behavioral Economics

The study of behavioural economics focuses on how choices made by people and organisations are influenced by psychological, cognitive, emotional, cultural, and social aspects, and how these decisions differ from those suggested by traditional economic theory.

The limits of economic actors’ rationality are the main focus of behavioural economics. Behavioral models often include concepts from microeconomic theory, psychology, and neuroscience. Public choice mechanisms and market decision-making processes are both studied in behavioural economics. Three recurring topics in the field of behavioural economics are:

Heuristics: Ninety-five percent of human judgments are made by using mental heuristics or rules of thumb.
Framing: The assortment of preconceptions and tales that people use as mental filters to interpret and react to situations.
Inefficiencies in the market: These include of incorrect pricing and irrational choices.

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was given to psychologist Daniel Kahneman in 2002 “for having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgement and decision-making under uncertainty,” and to economist Robert J. Shiller in 2013 “for his empirical analysis of asset prices” (within the field of behavioural finance). For “his contributions to behavioural economics and his pioneering work in proving that individuals are predictably irrational in ways that defy economic theory,” economist Richard Thaler was given the 2017 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

The study of behavioural economics combines concepts from economics and psychology, and it may provide light on why people don’t always act in their own best interests.

Behavioral economics offers a framework for understanding human mistake and when and how it occurs. Systematic biases or mistakes have predictable recurrence under certain conditions. Environments that encourage individuals to make better choices and lead healthier lives may be developed using the lessons learned from behavioural economics.

The rational choice model, a conventional economic theory, served as the foundation for the development of behavioural economics. It is thought that a reasonable individual will accurately analyse costs and benefits and make the best decisions for himself. It is required of a sensible individual to know his choices, both past and future, and to never waver between wishes that contradict one another. He is completely in control of his impulses and can regulate them so that he may accomplish his long-term objectives.

These presumptions are used by traditional economics to forecast actual human behaviour. This kind of thinking leads to the common policy recommendation to provide people with as many options as possible and allow them to choose the one that best suits their needs (with minimum government intervention). as they are more familiar with their preferences than public servants. The greatest people to determine what is best for them are the individuals themselves.

However, behavioural economics demonstrates that such conduct is not typical of real people. People struggle greatly with self-control and have poor cognitive capacities. Individuals often make decisions that are inconsistent with their own preferences (happiness). When it comes to long-term satisfaction, they usually choose for the most immediately appealing option—such as abusing drugs or overindulging in food.

They are very context-sensitive and often have no clue what they will like tomorrow or even next year. Behavioral economics, as described by Daniel Kahneman (2011, p. 5), “seems to describe two separate species.” The latter indicates that humans are remarkably inconsistent and flawed. Choosing a goal and then acting against it is common; self-control keeps us from reaching our objectives.

These choices are flawed, and behavioural economics links this to how the human mind is made. According to neuroscientists, the mind is made up of several distinct components, or mental processes, each of which follows its own logic (Kurzban, 2011). According to Brocas and Carrillo (2013), an arrangement of interdependent systems serves as the greatest representation of the brain. One important realisation is that the brain functions like a democracy (Tononi, 2012). That is, there isn’t a main figurehead for decisions. While enhancing happiness may be considered an individual’s behavioural objective, achieving that goal requires the involvement of several brain areas.

Behavioral economics endeavours to incorporate the comprehension of human behaviour by psychologists into the examination of economic issues. Behavioral economics and cognitive psychology have similarities in that they aim to assist people in adopting healthier habits by removing mental and emotional obstacles to pursuing true self-interest (Lowenstein, and Haisley, 2008).

Lastly, behavioural economics offers recommendations for how legislators should change the environment to encourage wiser decisions (Sunstein, 2014). The emphasis on mistakes raises ideas about how surroundings should be redesigned by legislators to encourage better decisions. For instance, just changing around the things that are already sold at the school might encourage kids to purchase more wholesome goods (e.g., placing the fruit at eye level, making choices less convenient by moving soda machines into distant areas, or requiring students to pay cash for desserts and soft drinks).

The main takeaway from behavioural economics is that people require encouragement to make choices that are in their own best interests since they are inherently flawed decision-makers. Knowing where individuals make mistakes might help them make the correct decisions. This method strengthens and supplements the rational choice paradigm.