The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is invoked frequently when social science scholars examine messages, affect, cognition, and action. Nevertheless, the fact that the TRA is a cross-sectional model limits its utility as an explanatory mechanism for those who study relationships among these variables as they change over time. This essay addresses this limitation by developing three versions of a Dynamic Theory of Reasoned Action (DTRA).
Method
Simulations were conducted to examine the properties of these varying DTRA models. The extent of autoregression was varied in these simulations, and the subsequent effects on the size and stability of the model parameters, the fit of the cross-sectional TRA, and the distributional properties of the variables that comprise the model were assessed.
Results
Results indicate that in the absence of an external shock (such as a persuasive message), these models reach equilibrium, and that trials to equilibrium increase as the autoregression parameters increase. The TRA fits perfectly at equilibrium, but may fail when the system is not in equilibrium, even when the DTRA fits perfectly. Finally, although starting with seed distributions closely approximating normality, distributional properties depart decidedly from normality over trials.
Conclusion
Implications for the fit of cross-sectional causal models and the meaning of cross-sectional associations are discussed.
AjzenI. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
2.
AjzenI. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683.
3.
ArmitageC. J.ConnorM. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
4.
BambergS.SchmidtP. (1998). Changing travel-mode choice as rational choice: Results from a longitudinal intervention study. Rationality and Society, 10, 223-252.
5.
BrinbergD. (1979). An examination of the determinants of intention and behavior: A comparison of two models. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 560-575.
6.
DulanyD. E. (1968). Awareness, rules, and propositional control: A confrontation with S-R behavior theory. In DixonT.HortonD. (Eds.), Verbal behavior and behavior theory (pp. 340-387). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
7.
Fife-SchawC.SheeranP.NormanP. (2007). Simulating behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior: Impacts on intention and action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 43-68.
8.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
9.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
10.
HamiltonM. A.HunterJ. E. (1995). PATH.BAS: A least squares static path analysis program. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
11.
HunterJ. E.LevineR. L.SayersS. E. (1976). Attitude change in hierarchical belief systems and its relationship to persuasibility, dogmatism, and rigidity. Human Communication Research, 3, 3-28.
12.
KaplanD.HarikP.HotchkissL. (2001). Cross-sectional estimation of dynamic structural equation models in disequilibrium. In CudeckR.JoreskogK. G.DuToitS. H. C.SorbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 315-340). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
13.
Lewis-BeckM. S. (1974). Determining the importance of an independent variable: A path analytic solution. Social Science Research, 3, 95-107.
14.
LiskaA. E. (1984). A critical examination of the causal structure of the Fishbein/Ajzen attitude-behavior model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 61-74.
15.
McCartyD. (1981). Changing contraceptive usage intentions: A test of the Fishbein model of intention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 192-211.
16.
McGuireW. J. (1960). Cognitive consistency and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 345-354.
17.
OgdenJ. (2003). Some problems with social cognition models: A pragmatic and conceptual analysis. Health Psychology, 22, 424-428.
18.
O’KeefeD. J. (2002). Persuasion theory & research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
OuelletteJ. A.WoodW. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54-74.
20.
PavittC. Q. (2001). Philosophy of science and communication theory. Huntington, NY: Nova Science.
21.
RichetinJ.SenguptaA.PeruginiM.AdjaliI.HurlingR.GreethamD.SpenceM. (2010). A micro-level simulation for the prediction of intention and behavior. Cognitive Systems Research, 11, 181-193.
22.
RomanoJ. L.NetlandJ. D. (2008). The application of the theory of reasoned action and planned behavior to prevention science in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 777-806.
23.
SheppardB. H.HartwickJ.WarshawP. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.
24.
SkårS.SniehottaF. F.Araújo-SoaresV.MolloyG. J. (2008). Prediction of behavior vs. predictions of behavior change: The role of motivational moderators in the theory of planned behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 609-627.
25.
TrafimowD. (1998). Attitudinal and normative processes in health behavior. Psychology & Health, 13, 307-317.
26.
WebbT. L.SheeranP. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249-268.
27.
WeberK.MartinM. M.CorriganM. (2007). Real donors, real consent: Testing the theory of reason action on organ donor consent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2435-2450.
