T
Theory of Planned Behavior
Matthew P.H. Kan and Leandre R. Fabrigar
Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
Definition
The theory of planned behavior is a theory used to
understand and predict behaviors, which posits that
behaviors are immediately determined by behav-
ioral intentions and under certain circumstances,
perceived behavioral control. Behavioral intentions
are determined by a combination of three factors:
attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms,
and perceived behavioral control.
Introduction
An extension of the theory of reasoned action
(TRA; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein
1980), the theory of planned behavior (TPB) was
developed by Icek Ajzen (1985, 1991) as a gen-
eral model to predict and explain behavior across
a wide range of different types of behaviors. A key
assumption in the TRA is that behaviors are under
one’s volitional control. However, this assump-
tion is likely to be unrealistic in some contexts,
as one can imagine that the volitional control of
behaviors may vary across different situations. Rec-
ognizing that not all behaviors are under volitional
control, Ajzen (1985, 1991) proposed the addition
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017
V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1191-1
of the construct of perceived behavioral control
(i.e., one’s view of their degree of control over a
behavior) to the TRA. Because the primary dis-
tinction between the TPB and the TRA is the
addition of the perceived behavioral control com-
ponent, most of the key assumptions underlying
the TRA also apply to the TPB. Thus, a review of
the TRA provides a useful foundation for the
discussion of the TPB.
The Theory of Reasoned Action
The creators of the TRA, Martin Fishbein and Icek
Ajzen (1975; Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), designed
the TRA to predict and understand people’s overt
behaviors that are under their volitional control.
The TRA is based on the assumption that humans
are generally rational beings who make systematic
use of the information available to them. Thus, the
theory presumes that people’s behaviors are not
thoughtless, as they consider the implications of
their actions before they decide to engage or not
engage in a given behavior. When explaining the
TRA, it is useful to begin at the final outcome (i.e.,
behavior) and work backwards along the causal
chain (see Fig. 1 for the TRA pathway).
Behavior
In the context of the TRA, behavior is defined as
an overt action or set of actions that is performed by
an individual. Behavior can be construed broadly
or narrowly and is a function of the researcher’s
2 Theory of Planned Behavior

Theory of Planned
Behavioral Beliefs
Behavior, Fig. 1. The
theory of reasoned action
Beliefs that the
Behavior Leads to
Certain Outcomes Attitude toward
the Behavior

Evaluation of
Outcomes
Relative
Importance of
Intention Behavior
Attitude and
Normative Beliefs Subjective Norms

Beliefs of
Important
Referents
Subjective Norms

Motivation to
Comply with
Referents

theoretical and/or applied objectives (i.e., a re-
searcher chooses the behavior he or she wishes
to examine). However, according to the theory,
any behavior can be conceptualized in terms of
four components: action (i.e., the specific act per-
formed by an individual), target (i.e., who or what
the behavior is directed toward), context (i.e., in
what situation does the behavior occur), and time
(i.e., when the behavior occurs). An example of a
broad behavior would be eating (action only),
whereas a more specific behavior would be eating
(action) chips (target) in the lunchroom (context)
at noon (time). Each of the four components of
behavior can range substantially, as actions can
span from a single action to behavioral categories
comprised of multiple actions, targets from a sin-
gle target to multiple targets, context from a single
context to multiple contexts, and time from a
single point in time to a broader period of time.
Advocates of the TRA argue that any measure-
ment of behavior must specify the four compo-
nents of behavior if behavior is to be accurately
predicted and understood. Indeed, TRA theorists
have noted that researchers sometimes mistakenly
measure outcomes believing that they are measur-
ing behaviors, which may lead to inaccurate re-
sults. Thus, it is important to distinguish behaviors
from outcomes, as outcomes are the possible re-
sult of behaviors – not the behaviors themselves.
For instance, exercising is a behavior and weight
loss is a possible outcome of exercising. However,
the outcome of weight loss could also be influ-
enced by other factors such as dieting. Thus, en-
suring that the behavior is measured, and not the
outcome, increases the accuracy of the prediction
of behavior. Behaviors can be measured using
behavioral indices generated via observations or
self-reports of behaviors, which can be advanta-
geous in terms of ease and resources if researchers
are confident in the reports’ accuracy (see Ajzen
and Fishbein 1980).
Behavioral Intention
According to the TRA, the most proximal deter-
minant of behavior is behavioral intention, which
is an individual’s perceived likelihood that he
or she will perform a behavior. This specification
of intention as the most immediate determinant of
behavior has several implications. First, it suggests
that intention is the best predictor of behavior.
Second, it posits that any other potential predictors
of behavior (e.g., attitudes) do not directly influ-
ence behavior. Instead, the relationships of these
other factors to behavior must be mediated by
intention. Third, it proposes that all behaviors are
deliberate, as intentions predicate all behaviors.
The accuracy of intentions in predicting behav-
iors is a function of two factors. First, prediction
Theory of Planned Behavior
accuracy can be increased by ensuring that the
four components of behavior (i.e., action, target,
context, and time) correspond with the four com-
ponents of intention. For instance, if the behavior
is to eat chips in the lunchroom at noon, then
asking an individual’s intention to eat chips in
the lunchroom at noon will maximize prediction
accuracy. Second, prediction accuracy is a func-
tion of the stability of intentions. In general, the
shorter the duration between the measurement of
an intention and the measurement of its corre-
sponding behavior, the more accurate the prediction
of behavior from intention will be. Thus, intentions
should be measured as close as possible to behav-
iors in order to maximize prediction accuracy.
Attitude Toward the Behavior
According to the TRA, there are two immediate
determinants of behavioral intention. The first de-
terminant is attitude toward the behavior, which
is an individual’s evaluation (i.e., favorability or
unfavorability) of performing the behavior in
question as defined by the behavior’s four com-
ponents. There are two key points to note here.
First, the TRA’s definition of attitudes is directed
toward the behavior – not the object associated
with behavior. For example, researchers should
measure an individual’s evaluation of him or her
eating chips, rather than the individual’s evalua-
tion of the chips themselves. As such, this con-
ceptualization of attitudes is different from the
definition of attitudes as it has often been concep-
tualized in the attitude-behavior consistency liter-
ature, which is the positive or negative evaluation
of the object itself. Second, this definition of atti-
tudes refers specifically to an individual’s own
performance of the behavior, rather than the per-
formance of the behavior in general.
When measuring one’s attitude toward a be-
havior, the attitude measure must be framed at the
specificity of the behavior in order to maximize
the prediction accuracy of the attitude on inten-
tion. Attitudes toward a behavior can be measured
using traditional attitude scales (e.g., Osgood et al.
1957), as long as they are framed at the appropri-
ate specificity of the behavior. However, attitudes
toward a behavior are often assessed by measuring
one’s behavioral beliefs, as the TRA postulates that
one’s attitude toward a behavior is a function of
3
one’s beliefs about the behavior. Attitudes toward
a behavior are an aggregate of the beliefs that the
behavior leads to certain outcomes and the evalu-
ations of those outcomes. Thus, an attitude toward
a behavior is a function of the extent to which each
outcome is viewed as positive or negative and the
likelihood that each outcome is seen as a result of
the behavior. Extremely positive attitudes occur
when each outcome is viewed as extremely posi-
tive and extremely likely. Likewise, negative atti-
tudes result from sets of beliefs regarding outcomes
that are seen as extremely negative and extremely
likely. Although one can have many behavioral
beliefs, only the salient behavioral beliefs will be
the immediate determinants of one’s attitude to-
ward a behavior. Furthermore, like the other direct
relations in the TRA, behavioral beliefs and atti-
tudes toward a behavior should be measured on the
same four behavioral elements in order to maxi-
mize the beliefs-attitudes correlation.
Subjective Norms
The second determinant of behavioral intention is
subjective norms, which is a person’s perception
that most people who are important to him (or her)
think he (or she) should or should not perform the
behavior in question. However, this perception
may or may not reflect what the important others
actually think. Subjective norms are determined
by normative beliefs and the motivation to comply
with specific referents. Normative beliefs are an
individual’s beliefs that a referent thinks he (or
she) should (or should not) perform the behavior.
Not all referents are equally important; thus, indi-
viduals are more likely to comply with more salient
referents than less salient referents. Subjective
norms can be predicted using an index that multi-
plies an individual’s normative beliefs regarding a
specific referent by the motivations to comply with
the same referent, and subsequently, sums the prod-
ucts for all referents. Finally, once again, the four
behavioral components of normative beliefs must
be matched with those of subjective norms.
Relative Importance of Attitude toward the
Behavior and Subjective Norms
Although the TRA assumes that attitudes toward
the behavior and subjective norms regarding the
behavior both influence intention, the theory does
4 Theory of Planned Behavior

not assume that these constructs will always be in
agreement or that the magnitude of their individ-
ual contributions to intention will be invariant
across different behaviors. When these two deter-
minants are in disagreement, the determinant of
intention with the greater weight, as determined
by action, target, context, time, and/or individual
differences, will be more influential on intention.
Thus, when attitudes toward a behavior are view-
ed as more important than subjective norms for a
certain behavior, then attitudes toward the behavior
will be more influential on intention than subjective
norms. Conversely, when subjective norms are per-
ceived as more important than attitudes, then sub-
jective norms will be more influential than attitudes
toward the behavior.
External Variables
As previously noted, the TRA’s core assumption
is that behavior can only be influenced by inten-
tions, which in turn are influenced by attitudes
toward the behavior and subjective norms. Thus,
one somewhat controversial assumption of the
TRA is that external variables can only influence
behavior indirectly through the influence on be-
havioral beliefs (which influence attitudes toward
the behavior), normative beliefs (which influence
subjective norms), and the relative importance of
attitudes toward the behavior and subjective norms.
There is no consistent pattern of influence for ex-
ternal variables on behavior, as their influence on
the determinants of behavioral intention varies ac-
ross different behaviors. External variables include
demographic variables (e.g., age, sex, socioeco-
nomic status, etc.), attitudes toward targets (e.g.,
people, institutions, etc.), and personality traits (e.g.,
extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, etc.).
The Theory of Planned Behavior
While there has been strong evidence in support of
the TRA, many of the studies previously reviewed
assumed high levels of volitional control (i.e., that
a person can willingly decide to perform or not
perform the behavior; see Sheppard et al. 1988;
Albarracín et al. 2001; Hagger et al. 2002). In
recognition of the fact that volitional control can
differ across different behaviors, Ajzen (1985,
1991) proposed the TPB. The TPB retains all the
key constructs comprising the TRA, but proposes
the addition of a third determinant of intentions:
perceived behavioral control. The performance of
a behavior depends at least to some degree on
one’s actual behavioral control (i.e., the ability
to perform a behavior). As the required opportu-
nities and resources to perform a behavior (e.g.,
time, money, skills, cooperation of others, etc.)
increase for an individual, the chances of the
individual performing the behavior increases
accordingly. Perceived behavioral control refers
to people’s perception of the ease or difficulty of
performing the behavior of interest.
Perceived behavioral control can influence ac-
tual behavior in two ways (see Fig. 2 for the full
TPB pathway). First, perceived behavioral control

Theory of Planned
Behavior, Fig. 2. The Attitude
Behavioral
theory of planned behavior toward the
Beliefs
Behavior

Normative Subjective
Intention Behavior
Beliefs Norms

Perceived
Control
Behavioral
Beliefs
Control
Theory of Planned Behavior
may influence intentions. Individuals who believe
they have neither the resources nor opportunities
to perform a certain behavior are unlikely to have
high intentions to perform the behavior, even if
they hold a favorable attitude towards the behav-
ior or if there are favorable subjective norms for
the behavior. Therefore, perceived behavioral con-
trol should influence intention independent of atti-
tude toward the behavior and subjective norms.
Second, perceived behavioral control can poten-
tially influence behavior directly. Under situations
where perceived behavioral control is an accurate
indication of actual behavioral control, perceived
behavioral control can serve as a proxy of actual
behavioral control. However, in situations where
one’s perceived behavioral control is inaccurate in
predicting actual behavior control, then perceived
behavioral control would be unlikely to predict
actual behavior directly. Perceived behavioral
control becomes an inaccurate prediction of actual
behavioral control when the individual has little
information about the behavior, when require-
ments or available resources have changed, or
when new and unfamiliar elements have entered
into the situation. This relationship between per-
ceived behavioral control and actual behavior is
indicated by the broken arrow in Fig. 2, as this
relationship is only expected to emerge when
there is high correspondence between perceived
behavioral control and actual behavioral control.
Similar to attitudes and subjective norms, per-
ceived behavioral control is also determined by its
beliefs. Control beliefs are beliefs about the pres-
ence or absence of factors that facilitate or hinder
performance of a behavior. These beliefs may be
predicated on past experiences with the behavior
or by observation of others engaging in the behav-
ior. Generally, if an individual believes that he or
she has the required resources and opportunities
that facilitate, as well as the lack of obstacles that
impede the performance of the behavior, he or she
should have greater levels of perceived behavior-
al control. Additionally, like other types of beliefs
in the model, external variables can sometimes
influence control beliefs depending on the type
of behavior.
5
Evidence for the Theory of Planned Behavior
A number of meta-analyses have provided strong
support for the TPB. These reviews examined the
TPB across various domains of behavior (Armitage
and Conner 2001), including specific areas such as
health-related behaviors (Godin and Kok 1996),
physical activity (Hagger et al. 2002), and condom
use (Albarracín et al. 2001). These meta-analyses
found that perceived behavioral control predicted
intention above and beyond attitude toward the
behavior and subjective norms. Additionally,
some of these meta-analyses indicated a direct
influence of perceived behavioral control on be-
havior (e.g., Armitage and Conner 2001; Hagger
et al. 2002; McEachan et al. 2011). Furthermore,
control beliefs have been found to be predictive
of perceived behavioral control (e.g. Ajzen and
Madden 1986; Armitage and Conner 1999).
Criticisms of the Theory of Planned Behavior
Although the TPB has received substantial empir-
ical support, the TPB and the TRA have also been
criticized. Two criticisms in particular have at-
tracted significant attention in the literature (see
Eagly and Chaiken 1993, for a review). The first
criticism was one regarding the TRA, which ap-
plies to the TPB as well. Some researchers have
challenged the TRA’s assumption that the two
determinants of intention in the TRA (i.e., attitude
toward the behavior and subjective norms) are
sufficient to fully account for intention. Though
Ajzen (1985, 1991) recognized that perceived
behavioral control was another determinant of in-
tention, other researchers have proposed a number
of other determinants of intention. Among these
proposed determinants are past behaviors/habits
(Triandis 1977; Bentler and Speckart 1979;
Ouellette and Wood 1998), perceived moral obli-
gation (Schwartz and Tessler 1972), self-identity
(Biddle et al. 1987), and affective beliefs (Triandis
1977). Although many of these other determi-
nants have received support (see Conner and
Armitage 1998), they have not gained much ac-
ceptance with the exception of past behaviors/
habits. Strong past behaviors/habits have been
found to sometimes outperform intentions in pre-
dicting behavior (see Ouellette and Wood 1998;
Webb and Sheeran 2006). Additionally, while it
6 Theory of Planned Behavior
may be true that the TPB’s three determinants of
intention are strong predictors of intentions for
behaviors in general, other determinants may be
just as strong or even stronger predictors for cer-
tain behavioral domains.
The second criticism of the TPB is that it only
applies to comparatively deliberate behaviors be-
cause it assumes that behaviors are predominantly
a result of rational thought (see Eagly and Chaiken
1993). Thus, the TPB and the TRA disregard
spontaneous attitude-to-behavior processes. Rec-
ognizing this deficiency in the TPB and TRA,
Fazio (1990; Fazio and Towles-Schwen 1999)
proposed a model that incorporates both delib-
erate and spontaneous attitude-to-behavior pro-
cesses: MODE (Motivation and Opportunity as
DEterminants) model. According to this model,
deliberate and spontaneous attitude-to-behavior
processes are determined by motivation and op-
portunity (i.e., time and resources). When an indi-
vidual has both the motivation and opportunity to
engage in effortful analysis of a given behavior,
he or she will likely undergo a deliberate attitude-
to-behavior process. These deliberate processes
are presumed to be similar to those described in
the TRA and the TPB (see Fazio and Roskos-
Ewoldsen 1994; Fazio and Olson 2014).
Alternatively, when an individual lacks either
the motivation or the opportunity to engage in ef-
fortful analysis of an attitude, they will likely un-
dergo a spontaneous attitude-to-behavior process.
A model that maps onto this spontaneous process is
Fazio’s (1986) attitude-to-behavior process model.
There is no behavioral intention in this model;
instead, the activated attitudes (toward the object)
and subjective norms guide behavior through
the definition of the event. It is this definition of
the event that determines the direction and nature
of the behavior, as approach behaviors typically
follow a positive definition of the event and avoid-
ance behaviors typically follow a negative defini-
tion of the event (Fazio 1990). Additionally, the
MODE model postulates that these two processes
can operate simultaneously. The MODE model
has been supported in the literature by a number
of studies in domains such as prejudice, relation-
ship outcomes, and self-control behaviors (see
Fazio and Olson 2014). Some of these studies
have indicated that automatically activated atti-
tudes are better predictors of behavioral outcomes
than self-reported attitudes.
Other theorists have also argued for more spon-
taneous and less deliberative models of behavior.
For example, Wood and colleagues (see Wood
and Neal 2007; Wood and Neal 2009; Wood
et al. 2014) have argued that behavioral processes
are often strongly influenced by habits. In their
model, contextual cues (e.g., physical locations,
other people, internal states, preceding actions in
a sequence, etc.) activate an individual’s mental
representation of habitual response, which, in turn,
influences the habitual response (i.e., behavior).
Habits develop slowly through context–response
learning, which can be strengthened through fre-
quent context–response pairings, as these frequent
pairings lead to a stronger associative link between
the memory representation of the contextual cues
and that of the response. Frequent pairings of a
context with a particular response may also weaken
associations between the same context and other
responses.
Although habitual response is an automatic
process and does not depend on goals for perfor-
mance (other than when individuals are learning
context–response associations; Neal et al. 2006),
it can be influenced by controlled processes (see
Quinn et al. 2010). When an individual has an
intention that is incompatible with a habit, he or
she could inhibit the habitual response via vigilant
monitoring, which involves heightening attentional
focus on a response to ensure that it is not per-
formed. Furthermore, an individual could inhibit
the habitual response through stimulus control (i.e.,
removing oneself from the situation) and/or dis-
traction (i.e., thinking about something else).
More commonly, an individual has an inten-
tion that is in agreement with a habit, because
many habits originate from past goal pursuits. In
these situations, habits may thoughtlessly perform
the intended behavior that initially prompted the
individual to respond repetitively. Ouellette and
Wood (1998) supported this notion, as they found
that the frequency of past performance (i.e., habit
strength) positively correlated with behavioral
intentions for many behaviors (r = 0.43). More-
over, habits have the potential to guide intention,
Theory of Planned Behavior
as individuals who lack access to the motivations
and cognitions guiding behavior draw inferences
about their actions from past behavior (Wood and
Neal 2007; Neal et al. 2012). For example, people
may reason, “I do this often, so I must like to do it.”
Conclusion
In sum, the theory of planned behavior is a theory
used to predict and understand behaviors. It posits
that behaviors are immediately determined by be-
havioral intentions, which in turn are determined
by a combination of three factors: attitude toward
the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived be-
havioral control. Moreover, under some circum-
stances, perceived behavioral control can directly
predict behaviors. Though proponents of the the-
ory of planned behavior have proposed that the
theory predicts all behaviors, opponents of the
theory have argued that the theory only predicts
deliberate – not automatic – behaviors.
Cross-References
▶ Attitudes
▶ Conscious Versus Unconscious Determinants
of Behavior
▶ Habits
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory
of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.),
Action-control: From cognition to behavior
(pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50(2), 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes
and predicting social behavior. Englewood-Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-
directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived
behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22(5), 453–474. doi:10.1016/0022-1031
(86)90045-4.
Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., &
Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action
7
and planned behavior as models of condom use:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1),
142–161. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.142.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. A. (1999). Distinguishing
perceptions of control from self-efficacy: Predicting
consumption of a low-fat diet using the theory of planned
behavior 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(1),
72–90. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01375.x.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. A. (2001). Efficacy of the
theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.
doi:10.1348/014466601164939.
Bentler, P. M., & Speckart, G. (1979). Models of attitude–-
behavior relations. Psychological Review, 86(5),
452–464. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.86.5.452.
Biddle, B., Bank, B, & Slavings, R. (1987). Norms, pref-
erences, identities and retention decisions. Social Psy-
chology Quarterly, 50(4), 322–337.
Conner, M. A., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending
the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues
for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 28(15), 1429–1464. doi:10.1111/j.1559-181
6.1998.tb01685.x.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of
attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers.
Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior?
Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations
of social behavior (pp. 204–243). New York, NY, US:
Guilford Press.
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes
guide behavior: The MODE model as an integra-
tive framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75–109).
San Diego: Academic Press.
Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2014). The MODE model:
Attitude-behavior processes as a function of motivation
and opportunity. In J. W. Sherman, B. Gawronski, &
Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories of the social
mind (pp. 155–171). New York: Guilford Press.
Fazio, R. H., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (1994). Acting
as we feel: When and how attitudes guide behavior.
In S. Shavitt & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Persuasion: Psy-
chological insights and perspectives (pp. 71–93).
Needham Heights: Allyn Bacon.
Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE
model of attitude-behavior processes. In S. Chaiken &
Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psy-
chology (pp. 97–116). New York: Guilford Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention,
and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading: Addison-Wesley.
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. doi:10.4278/0890-1171-11.2.87.
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Biddle, S. J. H.
(2002). A meta-analytic review of the theories of rea-
soned action and planned behavior in physical activity:
8 Theory of Planned Behavior
Predictive validity and the contribution of additional
variables. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
24(1), 3–32.
McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton,
R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related
behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-
analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(2), 97–144.
doi:10.1080/17437199.2010.521684.
Neal, D. T., Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2006). Habits – A
repeat performance. Current Directions in Psychologi-
cal Science, 15(4), 198–202. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.
2006.00435.x.
Neal, D. T., Wood, W., Labrecque, J. S., & Lally, P. (2012).
How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual
triggers of habits in daily life. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 48(2), 492–498. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.
2011.10.011.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957).
The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention
in everyday life: The multiple processes by which
past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.
124.1.54.
Quinn, J. M., Pascoe, A., Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2010).
Can’t control yourself? Monitor those bad habits.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4),
499–511. doi:10.1177/0146167209360665.
Schwartz, S. H., & Tessler, R. C. (1972). A test of a model
for reducing measured attitude-behavior discrepancies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(2),
225–236. doi:10.1037/h0033365.
Sheppard, B., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. (1988). The
theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past
research with recommendations for modifications and
future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3),
325–343.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey:
Brooks-Cole.
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behav-
ioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-
analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological
Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.
132.2.249.
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and
the habit-goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4),
843–863. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843.
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2009). The habitual consumer.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 579–592.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.08.003.
Wood, W., Labrecque, J. S., Lin, P. Y., & Rünger, D.
(2014). Habits in dual process models. In J. W. Sher-
man, B. Gawronski, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process
theories of the social mind (pp. 371–385). New York:
Guilford Press.