Cited by 700Behavioral Health and InterventionsSmoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Time for a change: putting the transtheoretical (stages of change) model to rest

Open access
WEST, ROBERT·2005·Addiction

Abstract

The Transtheoretical Model of behaviour change, known to many as the Stages of Change (SOC) model, states that with regard to chronic behaviour patterns such as smoking, individuals can be characterized as belonging to one of five or six 'stages' (Prochaska et al. 1985; Prochaska & Goldstein 1991; Prochaska & Velicer 1997). Stage definitions vary from behaviour to behaviour and across different versions of the model but in the case of smoking: 'precontemplation' involves an individual not thinking about stopping for at least 6 months; 'contemplation' involves an individual planning to stop between 31 days and 6 months, or less than 31 days if they have not tried to quit for 24 hours in the past year; 'preparation' involves the individual having tried to stop for 24 hours in the past year and planning to stop within 30 days (it has been accepted by the proponents of the model that having tried to stop should perhaps be dropped from this stage definition); 'action' involves the individual having stopped for between 0 and 6 months; 'maintenance' involves the individual having stopped for more than 6 months. In some versions of the model there is also a 'termination' stage in which the individual has permanently adopted the new behaviour pattern. The model further proposes that individuals progress through stages sequentially but usually revert to prior stages before achieving maintenance and then termination (Prochaska & Velicer 1997). The model also proposes that different self-change strategies (the so-called 'processes of change') are involved in moving between different stages (Prochaska & Velicer 1997) and that the different stages are associated with different beliefs (assessment of the 'pros' and 'cons' of the behaviour and self-confidence in ability to change the behaviour). It argues that interventions to promote change should be designed so that they are appropriate to an individual's current stage (Prochaska & Goldstein 1991). Moving an individual from one stage to another is purported to be a worthwhile goal because it will increase the likelihood that this person will subsequently achieve the termination stage (Prochaska & Goldstein 1991). Proponents of the model have argued that the model has revolutionized health promotion, claiming that interventions that are tailored to the particular stage of the individual improve their effectiveness (Prochaska & Velicer 1997) (for a readily accessible outline of the model and the assessment tools that accompany it see: http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/transtheoretical.htm). There are serious problems with the model, many of which have been well articulated (Etter & Perneger 1999; Bunton et al. 2000; Whitelaw et al. 2000; Sutton 2001; Etter & Sutton 2002; Littell & Girvin 2002). However, its popularity continues largely unabated. This editorial does not seek to revisit the plethora of empirical evidence and conceptual analysis that has been ranged against the model. It simply argues that the problems with the model are so serious that it has held back advances in the field of health promotion and, despite its intuitive appeal to many practitioners, it should be discarded. It is now time for a change. A replacement is needed that more accurately reflects observations about behaviour change, is internally consistent, and generates useful ideas and predictions. It needs to provide a way of describing how people can change with apparent suddenness, even in response to small triggers. It needs to be a stimulus to research that will go beyond a simplistic decision-making model of behaviour and produce genuinely novel insights. However, even in the absence of a new theory, simply reverting to the common sense approach that was used prior to the Transtheoretical Model would better than staying with the model. In that approach people were asked simply about desire to change and ability to change and it was recognized that these were affected by a range of personal and situational factors including addiction. This editorial draws primarily from research in smoking. It is in this area that the model was first developed and where much of the research relating to it has been carried out. To give some idea of the extent of the dominance of smoking, of 540 articles found in PubMed using the search phrase 'stages of change', 174 also had 'smoking' in the abstract or title, 60 had 'alcohol', seven had cocaine, two had 'heroin' or 'opiate' and one had 'gambling'. First of all the model is flawed even in its most basic tenet, the concept of the 'stage'. It has to draw arbitrary dividing lines in order to differentiate between the stages. This has to mean that these are not genuine stages. For example, an individual who is planning to stop smoking is in the preparation stage if this is within the next 30 days (provided that the smoker has made a quit attempt that lasted 24 hours in the past 12 months) but only the contemplation stage if it is in 31 days' time (Sutton 2001). Bou

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01139.x

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Prochaska and DiClemente's Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change is widely used but lacks supporting evidence of effectiveness from systematic reviews.

    “For instance, Prochaska and DiClemente's Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change is an example of a widely-used theory, model or framework that lacks supporting evidence of effectiveness from systematic reviews [37].”
  • Evidence of the effectiveness of the Stages of Change Theory (Trans-Theoretical Model) is not supported by the results of careful systematic reviews.

    “Although it has been widely used, evidence of its effectiveness is not supported by the results of careful systematic reviews.”

    From Demystifying theory and its use in improvement (2015) · cites this paper as [71]

  • West notes that the problems with the Stages of Change Theory are so serious that it has held back advances in the field of health promotion and should be discarded.

    “West notes that “…the problems with the model are so serious that it has held back advances in the field of health promotion and, despite its intuitive appeal to many practitioners, it should be discarded.”71”

    From Demystifying theory and its use in improvement (2015) · cites this paper as [71]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Robinson, T. E. & Berridge, K. C. (2003) Addiction. Annual Review of Psychology , 54 , 25-53.
  2. West, R. (in press) Theory of Addiction . Oxford: Blackwells Pub- lishing Ltd.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
WEST, R.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
WEST, ROBERT
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06-15
Volume
100
Issue
8
Pages
1036-1039
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W1569910090
Cited by
700
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 40
FWCI
56.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
transtheoretical model, stages of change, smoking cessation, tobacco use, stage-matched intervention, change processes, precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, termination, health promotion, intervention effectiveness, self-efficacy, health beliefs, smoking cessation interventions, tobacco control, health promotion policy, health promotion practice, health promotion research
MeSH terms
Attitude to Health, Humans, Models, Psychological, Smoking, Health Behavior, Smoking Cessation

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