The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research
Abstract
Two meta-analyses were conducted to Investigate the effectiveness of the Fishbein and Ajzen model in research to date. Strong overall evidence for the predictive utility of the model was found. Although numerous instances were identified in which researchers overstepped the boundary conditions initially proposed for the model, the predictive utility remained strong across conditions. However, three variables were proposed and found to moderate the effectiveness of the model. Suggested extensions to the model are discussed and general directions for future research are given.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
TPB's validity has been proven in meta-analyses in organizational behavior and in the domain of entrepreneurship.
“Its validity has been proven in meta-analyses in organizational behavior (Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988), as well as in the domain of entrepreneurship (Krueger, 2009;Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000;Schlaegel & Koenig, 2011).”
From Putting Entrepreneurship Education Where the Intention to Act Lies: An Investigation Into the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Behavior (2015) · cites this paper as Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988
When behaviors pose no serious problems of control, they can be predicted from intentions with considerable accuracy.
“As a general rule it is found that when behaviors pose no serious problems of control, they can be predicted from intentions with considerable accuracy (see Ajzen, 1988;Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988).”
From The theory of planned behavior (1991) · cites this paper as Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 72 · Cited by 3,867
- Authors
- Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1988-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 325
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2111230857
- Cited by
- 3,867
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 131 · 2022: 166 · 2021: 159 · 2020: 183 · 2019: 161 · 2018: 154 · 2017: 157 · 2016: 170 · 2015: 181 · 2014: 204 · 2013: 206 · 2012: 189
- FWCI
- 141.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Consumer Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
- Keywords
- theory of reasoned action, attitude-behavior relationship, behavior prediction, boundary conditions, moderators, consumer behavior, attitude-behavior gap
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
