Introduction
As human beings, we often find ourselves in situations where we must make decisions about our actions. Our behavior can be influenced by various factors such as our attitudes, beliefs, social norms, and personal values. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), developed by Icek Ajzen in 1991, is a psychological model that aims to understand and predict human behavior based on these factors. This article will provide an overview of the TPB, its components, and its applications in different fields.
Components of the Theory of Planned Behavior
The TPB model consists of three main components: attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Attitudes refer to an individual’s positive or negative evaluation of a behavior, while subjective norms are the perceived social pressure to engage in a behavior. Perceived behavioral control, on the other hand, refers to the individual’s perception of their ability to perform the behavior.
According to the TPB, these three components determine an individual’s behavioral intention, which is a key determinant of behavior. The stronger an individual’s intention to perform a behavior, the more likely they are to actually engage in that behavior. However, it is important to note that behavioral intentions do not always translate into actual behavior due to various external factors that can affect an individual’s ability to perform the behavior.
Applications of the Theory of Planned Behavior
The TPB has been widely applied in various fields such as health, education, marketing, and environmental studies. In the field of health, the TPB has been used to study health-related behaviors such as smoking, exercise, and diet. In a review of the TPB’s applications to health-related behaviors, Godin and Kok (1996) found that the TPB was a useful model for understanding and predicting health-related behaviors, as it accounted for both social and psychological factors that influence behavior.
In the field of education, the TPB has been applied to understand and predict student behavior in the classroom. Burns, Houser, and Farris (2018) used the TPB to examine the instructor confirmation-interaction model, which aimed to explain student behavior based on their perception of the instructor’s confirmation and interaction.
The TPB has also been applied in marketing to understand consumer behavior. For example, Cheng, Lam, and Hsu (2006) used the TPB to study negative word-of-mouth communication, which refers to consumers’ intentions to share negative information about a product or service. They found that the TPB was a useful model for understanding consumers’ negative word-of-mouth communication intentions.
Furthermore, the TPB has been applied in environmental studies to understand pro-environmental behavior. Ho, Liao, and Rosenthal (2015) used the TPB to study public pro-environmental behavioral intentions in Singapore. They found that the TPB, in combination with media dependency theory, was a useful model for predicting pro-environmental behavior.
Criticism of the Theory of Planned Behavior
While the TPB has been widely used and accepted as a useful model for understanding and predicting behavior, it has also faced criticism. One major criticism of the TPB is that it assumes that individuals are rational decision-makers who carefully consider their options before making a decision. This assumption ignores the fact that individuals often make decisions based on emotions, habits, or social pressures, rather than rational thought processes.
Another limitation of the TPB is that it does not account for the role of past behavior in predicting future behavior. Research has shown that past behavior is a strong predictor of future behavior, and the TPB may not adequately account for this factor (Ajzen, 1991).
In addition, compared to similar models or theories, such as the Social Cognitive Theory, the TPB does not account for the influence of environmental factors. Despite these criticisms, the TPB remains a valuable model for understanding and predicting human behavior, particularly in situations where individuals have a degree of control over their actions. Its focus on attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control provides a comprehensive framework for examining the factors that influence behavior, and its applications in various fields have yielded valuable insights into human behavior. However, it is important to recognize the limitations of the TPB and consider other factors that may influence behavior in different contexts.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
Burns, M. J., Houser, M. L., & Farris, K. L. (2018). Theory of planned behavior in the classroom: An examination of the instructor confirmation-interaction model. Higher Education, 75(6), 1091–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0187-0
Cheng, S., Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2006). Negative Word-of-Mouth Communication Intention: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30(1), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348005284269
Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The Theory of Planned Behavior: A Review of its Applications to Health-Related Behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-11.2.87
Ho, S., Liao, Y., & Rosenthal, S. (2015). Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior and Media Dependency Theory: Predictors of Public Pro-environmental Behavioral Intentions in Singapore. Environmental Communication-a Journal of Nature and Culture, 9(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.932819
Mou, Y., & Lin, C. A. (2015). Exploring Podcast Adoption Intention via Perceived Social Norms, Interpersonal Communication, and Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(3), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1054997
Wang, X. (2009). Integrating the Theory of Planned Behavior and Attitude Functions: Implications for Health Campaign Design. Health Communication, 24(5), 426–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230903023477