Further reflections on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and fertility research

Abstract

The 'debate' occasioned by our comments on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and its application to fertility research has given rise to a rich and thoughtful set of reflections. We are grateful to all who responded to our commentary by raising important insights about the TPB and the value of alternative approaches to demographic research on fertility. These contributions have enriched our own thinking about the issues involved in modelling fertility and, we hope, will also stimulate further debate in the field at large.Because many reactors seemed to assume otherwise, we want to reiterate that our commentary was not intended as a critique of the TPB but a challenge to the idea that the TPB was an optimal starting point for studying fertility. As we noted, many demographers have found it useful. Liefbroer and Klobas confirmed this in their comments, noting the useful extensions that can be made to the models to deal with concerns we raised. These include extensions addressing the complexity of fertility as a product of multiple behaviours, life course trajectories in beliefs, attitudes and intentions, feed-back mechanisms and the impact of macro-level factors. We agree that these extensions of the TPB greatly improve its value for fertility research.A crucial factor in our reservations about the TPB as a starting point for theorising fertility is its assumption that the impact of beliefs and attitudes on behaviour must be mediated through the formation of conscious, deliberative intentions. Miller (2011) raises similar concerns. Liefbroer (2011) argues that the TPB would still be a useful heuristic framework if intentions were ignored. Rightly or wrongly, we view the central role given to intentions as a defining characteristic of the TPB, and this belief plays a crucial role in shaping our comments.The issue is not whether automatic processes in the mind feed into observed behaviours, but whether they can do so directly. Ajzen and Fishbein 2000 thoughtfully discuss the compatibility of the TPB's models of attitude formation and change with dual process models of cognition that posit the existence of both automatic and deliberative processes. They fully embrace automaticity in the * Christine A. Bachrach

A Cognitive–Social Model of Fertility Intentions

“…However, as argued elsewhere (Morgan and Bachrach, 2011; Bachrach and Morgan, 2011), recent developments in cognitive science challenge one of its key features – most notably the assumption that the formation of conscious intentions to act precede all behaviors 3 . We discuss the evidence against this assumption in a later section.…”

Intention to adopt cryptocurrency: a robust contribution of trust and the theory of planned behavior

“…(G€ otze, 2011;Yzer, 2012;Shah and Soomro, 2017;Mazambani and Mutambara, 2020). Second, several scholars criticize and look at it as a failure and its association with unplanned behavior (Mbaya, 2010;Bachrach and Morgan, 2011). Lastly, to know potential investors' IACR remains on the infantry stage in Pakistan (Choi and Chung, 2013).…”

Predicting FinTech innovation adoption in South Africa: the case of cryptocurrency

“…Combined, positive attitude towards target behaviour, favourable subjective norm and perceived behavioural control will strongly influence behavioural intention (Ajzen, 2012). In some quarters, the TPB has been critiqued for failure to account for unplanned behaviour (Bachrach and Morgan, 2011). The processes in the mind that constitute intentions do not always directly feed into observable actions (Barber, 2011).…”