The theory of planned behaviour as an intervention into addiction

Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips

This theory assumes that an individual's personal attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control

over their behaviour influence their intention to perform the behaviour. That intention, in turn, predicts whether the behaviour will occur. The TPB assumes a causal relationship between an individual's attitudes about a behaviour, their intention, and the actual performance of that behaviour.  Applied to intervening in the addictive behaviour of smoking, the theory of planned behaviour would reduce addiction in a three step process.

 Firstly, change subjective norms regarding behaviour such as smoking – change the public’s perception to make them believe smoking is harmful, unacceptable and antisocial – through methods such as public health campaigns. Change the law to make public smoking no longer a norm, or tobacco not to be advertised at the point of 

Secondly, change personal attitudes – show the individual that smoking is bad for them and a socially undesirable behaviour - using campaigns like the Toxic Cycle, or graphic warnings on cigarette 

Finally, change their level of perceived behavioural control – show people that they have the power to control and to quit their addictive behaviour – using methods like the Smokefree Products and NHS Quit Kits.

Critics would argue that the theory of planned behaviour is too rational – being able to explain intention, but not behaviour. The majority of people who try to give up smoking fail – due to psychological and physical dependence. The theory of planned behaviour does not take biological dependency into account – the body adjusts to be able to cope with nicotine, and neuroadaptation occurs, causing withdrawal symptoms when they try to quit. 

Armitage (1999) argued that the TPB was too rational an explanation of addiction as it ignored factors such as emotion, compulsion, and social pressures -  for example, many people smoke or drink when under stress or other negative emotions, or in social situations such as being in a group of friends who they usually smoke with.

Armitage & Conner (2001) did a meta-analysis and found that the TPB was good at predicting intention but not actual behaviour - although the theory of planned behaviour may help explain an attitude change which leads to somebody trying to quit their addictive behaviour, this intention change does not directly translate into managing to give up their addictive behaviour.

Albarracin (2005) criticised the use of self-report questionnaires to measure the TPB, believing them to be unreliable as they are better at assessing attitude and intention rather than actual behaviour. People also tend to give socially desirable answers - for example, addicts tend to play down or under-estimate the extent of their addiction. Alternatively, they may simply be unaware of the extent of their addiction. 

The Cochrane systematic review (2011) found that exposure to tobacco advertising and promotion, including POS displays, increases the likelihood that adolescents will develop a smoking addiction. This supports the assumption of the TPB that social attitudes play a major role in addictive behaviour - subjective norms considering a behaviour acceptable makes it more likely that people will carry out that behaviour.

Klag argued that self-determination theory is a better predictor of quitting, suggesting that people quit an addictive behaviour due to circumstances unique to them – life events such as having a child, or having a relative die due to their addiction - powerful individualistic triggers rather than generic social pressures.