Cited by 9,970Behavioral Health and InterventionsEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityMedia Influence and Health

Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta‐analytic review

Armitage, Christopher J., Conner, Mark·2001·British Journal of Social Psychology

Abstract

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) has received considerable attention in the literature. The present study is a quantitative integration and review of that research. From a database of 185 independent studies published up to the end of 1997, the TPB accounted for 27% and 39% of the variance in behaviour and intention, respectively. The perceived behavioural control (PBC) construct accounted for significant amounts of variance in intention and behaviour, independent of theory of reasoned action variables. When behaviour measures were self-reports, the TPB accounted for 11% more of the variance in behaviour than when behaviour measures were objective or observed (R2s = .31 and .21, respectively). Attitude, subjective norm and PBC account for significantly more of the variance in individuals' desires than intentions or self-predictions, but intentions and self-predictions were better predictors of behaviour. The subjective norm construct is generally found to be a weak predictor of intentions. This is partly attributable to a combination of poor measurement and the need for expansion of the normative component. The discussion focuses on ways in which current TPB research can be taken forward in the light of the present review.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/014466601164939

Cites

191 of 191 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Armitage, Christopher J.
Venue
British Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-12
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
471-499
ISSN
  • 0144-6665 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8309
OpenAlex
W2152095411
Cited by
9,970
References
191
Citations by year
2026: 441 · 2025: 511 · 2024: 511 · 2023: 588 · 2022: 584 · 2021: 633 · 2020: 626 · 2019: 552 · 2018: 553 · 2017: 515 · 2016: 525 · 2015: 547 · 2014: 528 · 2013: 473 · 2012: 440
FWCI
105.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
theory of planned behavior, perceived behavioral control, attitudes, subjective norms, behavioral intention, behavior prediction, self-prediction, theory of reasoned action, attitude measurement
MeSH terms
Behavior, Humans, Internal-External Control, Motivation, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychological Theory, Self-Assessment, Reproducibility of Results, Self Efficacy

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