Critical Assessment of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Research Paper Sample)

Critical Assessment of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
[Student’s Name]
[Institutional Affiliation]
Critical Assessment of the Theory of Planned Behaviour
Introduction
There exist many theories whose gist is to elucidate on human behavior. According to (Kraft, Rise, Sutton & Røysamb, 2005), all these theories have their implications, strengths, and limitations. One of such theories is the Theory of Planned Behavior, which seeks to explain and bring a better understanding of human behaviors and its various antecedents (Ajzen, 1991). This theory is an extension lead of the theory of reasoned action, taking into consideration the efficacy expectancies in explaining human behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Most empirical studies still follow the TPB model entrenched on the idea that PBC rather than human beliefs and other antecedents shape human behavior (Ajzen, 1991). It is essential to remove the aura of confusion and remove skepticism on TPB through a critical evaluation of its theoretical basis and inadequacies.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
According to Bachrach (2012), the theory of planned behavior otherwise abbreviated as TPB has proved useful in the process of understanding and profiling human behavior. In fact, most studies on different subjects and with different objectives adopt the theoretical framework of TPB in explaining different concepts based on human behavior (Eddosary, KO, Sagas & Kim, 2015). TPB elongates the ideas presented in the Fishbein’s Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Eddosary, KO, Sagas & Kim, 2015; Ajzen, 1991). The key proposition of TPB is that the behavior of people can best be predicted based on subjective norms, attitudes, and perceived control of behavior (Eddosary, KO, Sagas & Kim, 2015; Ajzen, 1991). Barua (2013) argues that TPB is a widely accepted model for the understanding and explanation of human behavior. Barua (2013) further opines that TPB is indeed one of the most dominant models that is cited in the explanation and prediction of human behavior. Bilic (2005) asserts that most meta-analyses studies prove that TBP can be successful in accounting for a plethora of behaviors demonstrated by different people depending on the situational factors and the surrounding. As a theoretical construct, TPB better builds the understanding of specific cognitive determinants that guide an individual’s behavior (Barua, 2013).
Statistically, all the three determinants account for 39-42 percent of the variance in the formation of intention (Bilic, 2005). On the other hand, PBC coupled with intentions yields a better explanation of 28-34 percent of the variance in behavior (Bilic, 2005). Furthermore, the legitimacy of TPB stems from the fact that it affects the above variable that are external to the framework yet mediated by the components of TPB (Bilic, 2005). TPB belongs to the class of rational choice models that builds on various assumptions (Petri & Govern, 2013). First off, individual self-interest is the most appropriate framework for the formation of a deeper understanding of human behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Petri & Govern, 2013). That is, rational behavior results from processes deliberated by cognition (Ajzen, 1991; Petri & Govern, 2013). Secondly, the internal factors such as attitude, play an integral role in the understanding of human behavior (Petri & Govern, 2013).
The intentions of engaging in certain behaviors are the most immediate precursor to the actual behaviors (Eddosary, KO, Sagas & Kim, (2015). Furthermore, the intent towards behavior is shaped by three major constructs (Bachrach, 2012). The first factor is an individual’s affect or attitude towards the behaviors (Bachrach, 2012). In this case, attitude is defined as either positive or negative appraisal of the behavior (Bilic, 2005). According to Ajzen (1991), a person’s intention to accomplish a behavior increases proportionally to the positivity of attitudes and subjective norms. Additionally, when an intention is held constant, a greater PBC is achieved through the solid execution of a particular behavior (Bilic, 2005). Secondly, the perceived control of the behaviors also known as PCB, that refers to the supposed ease or rather confidence that an individual harbors towards a behavior (Eddosary, KO, Sagas & Kim, 2015; Bachrach, 2012). In other words, PCB is a specific explanation of the comfort or trouble in the accomplishment a behavior based on the situational factors that elongate beyond one's controllable aspects utilized in the prediction of behaviors either through intentions or directly (Barua, 2013; Petri & Govern, 2013; Ajzen, 1991). The last factor is subjective norms that encapsulate to the social pressures from or within a society that elicit a behavior (Eddosary, KO, Sagas & Kim, 2015). Barua (2013) categorically states that PBC impacts the intentions as well as actions being that it directly influences the perceptions of an individual on the confidence levels to perform a given behavior (Bachrach, 2012). Barua (2013) further cautions that underscoring the knowledge of the situational factors is the starting point of misquoting or misunderstanding the PBC.
Most research on TPB back up the understanding of involvement in exercises (Bachrach, 2012). Furthermore, the sports domain also draws most of its explanation on coaching behaviors as well as the recycling behaviors of the spectators, from this theory (Eddosary, KO, Sagas & Kim, 2015). TPB aids in the understanding of the contemporary problems that have far-reaching impacts entrenched in the modern society such as hate crimes, sexual assaults, traffic congestions, overconsumption, and poverty among others (Ajzen, 1991;Barua, 2013; Petri & Govern, 2013).The achievement of PBC about behaviors greatly depends on accuracy and confidence of perceptions (Bachrach, 2012). For instance, an individual may be perceiving low accuracy of perception, case in which the PBC becomes unrealistic due to scanty information available (Barua, 2013; Petri & Govern, 2013).
Evaluation of the Theory of Planned Behaviour
Despite being famous for some reasons, Theory of Planned Behaviour continues to elicit different reactions from both critics and proponents (Barua, 2013; Yzer, 2012). Some researchers argue that the theory in itself is limited in explaining adequately the human behavior (Barua, 2013). For instance, some recent literature seems to concur that consciousness is not by whatever means connected to the cause of the act (Barua, 2013). As a matter of fact, the conscious will is a utility of consistency, priority, and inimitability of the experience in the process of human thought (Barua, 2013). Put simply, even though people hold an intentional belief that they cause the action, they are coerced to perform the deed (Barua, 2013; Yzer, 2012). Despite the proposition that PBC has a direct influence on behavior, the pragmatic critics anti-moderation effects of PBC are not weighty in justifying the fact that PBC is likely to have a nonstop influence on behavior (Yzer, 2012).
Critics argue that even though the TPB is successful, its variables fail to justify the numerous variance that exist for both behavior and intentions (Bilic, 2005). Some additional variables such as moderating variables that can affect the cognition intention and behavior relationships (Bilic, 2005). TPB fails to account for the information on how the actual performance of a particular behavior has an influence on cognitions that build up and shape the current behavior (Bilic, 2005). Moreover, conscious processes that TPB advocate for are far much less important than habits (Bilic, 2005). For example, routines act as both direct causes of intention and moderator of the relationship between intentions and subjective norms as well as attitude (Bilic, 2005). For that matter, the current TPB model needs a feedback loop through the inclusion of the past behaviors (Bilic, 2005).
Most meta-analyses connect seven intellectual attributes such as accessibility, involvement, temporal stability, ambivalence, certainty based on cognitions, consistency affective-cognition, and direct experience to have an influence on the link between behaviors and intentions. Notably, the temporal stability that better defines itself through reliability of cognition has an impact on the other moderators and is better placed in explaining behavior enactment as a back-up to PBC (Ajzen, 1991). Bilic (2005) posits that PBC can work better in predicting exercise only through the incorporation of past performances. Therefore, PCB is just a combination of two constructs: perceived difficulty and control. However, as is in the current PCB within TBP model the differential effects of the constructs is nearly impossible, thus the need for the adoption of situations that define each of the constructs (Bilic, 2005). It is noteworthy that even the first proponent named Ajzen left room for more studies to aid in the further understanding of the variables within the TPB model (Ajzen, 2011). Essentially, the addition of the variables to the theory further exacerbates the chances of compromising its thrift (Yzer, 2012). In other words, it would be so easy to specify precisely the behavior antecedents while, at the same time, it would be impossible to address the concern of the contributing factors.
The theory also fails to include succinctly the factors that determine whether or not individuals may react to their intentions (Yzer, 2012). The discrepancy brings out the importance of difference in reactions because, in essence, intention does not qualify to be a predictor human behavior. Instead, PCB outperforms intentions when it comes to prediction of behavior. Most meta-analyses prove that the independent contributions of PBC and intentions to human behavior are next to im...