Reasoned action approach

These are a number of examples of the ways in which measurement items are constructed to measure the variables specified in the RAA.

• Behavior: (in terms of target, action, context, and time) i.e. "I (adolescent) always use condoms when having sex, at least during my teenage years", true – false.
• Intention: i.e. "I intend to [behavior]", likely – unlikely.
• Attitude: i.e. "My doing [behavior] would be" bad – good (instrumental), pleasant - unpleasant (experiential).
• Perceived norms: i.e. "Most people who are important to me think I should [behavior]", agree – disagree (injunctive); "most people like me do [behavior]", likely – unlikely (descriptive).
• Perceived behavioral control: i.e. "I am confident that I can do [behavior]", true – false (capacity); "my doing [behavior] is up to me", disagree – agree (autonomy).

In their 2010 book, Fishbein & Ajzen[1] provide detailed examples of indirect measures in the Appendix, pp. 449–463.

The reasoned-action approach has been criticized for being too rational. Fishbein & Ajzen[1] argue that to be a misunderstanding of the theory. There is nothing in their theory to suggest that people are rational; the theory only assumes that people have behavioral, normative and control beliefs which may be completely irrational but will determine behavior.

Another critical comment implies that most behavior is not intentional. Fishbein & Ajzen[1] argue that beliefs and intention can be activated automatically. They also suggest that alternative concepts, such as willingness,[4] are in fact measures of intentions. Implicit associations are often different from explicit attitude measures, but there is little evidence to suggest that they predict behavior more adequately.[5]

A further criticism on the reasoned-action approach concerns the sufficiency assumption, which suggests that the theory captures all relevant determinants of intention. Ajzen[3] stated that the theory is open to the inclusion of additional predictors if it can be shown that they capture a significant proportion of the variance in intention or behavior after the theory's current variables have been taken into account. Several researchers have indeed offered possible extensions, for example self-identity, next to the three current variables claiming these contribute significant additional explained variance in intention and behavior. In the reasoned-action approach, Fishbein and Ajzen[1] have indeed included new variables, but within the current three determinants (p. 282). They formulate strict criteria for a so-called 'fourth' variable and argue that none of the variables proposed fulfill these criteria.

With respect to social-cognitive theories in general, authors have criticized the 'Western' character of theories and argued that theories are not culture-free.[6] However, finding, in a specific cultural setting, specific beliefs that are not part of a general theory does not in itself invalidate the usefulness of the theory. Fishbein & Ajzen[1] have repeatedly stressed the importance of an open elicitation procedure to identify all relevant underlying beliefs. The theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior have successfully been applied in many different cultural settings.

In the reasoned-action approach change is seen as a planned process in three phases: elicitation of the relevant beliefs, changing intentions by changing salient beliefs, and changing behavior by changing intentions and increasing skills or decreasing environmental barriers. The basic idea behind selecting any potential change method is that the salient beliefs are to be changed. Fishbein & Ajzen[1] recognize methods such as persuasive communication, use of arguments, framing, active participation, modeling, and group discussion,[7] but indicate that these methods will only have effect when salient behavioral, normative, or control beliefs are changed. Obviously, it is important that the salient beliefs are identified and measured correctly. Witte[8] suggests to first organize the results of the beliefs elicitation in a list of relevant categories (for example, behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs, values) and then to decide which beliefs need to be changed, which need to be reinforced, and which need to be introduced.