| Course | HLTH 8745 Health Psychology |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 4 |
| Paper type | Model application |
| Length | About 660 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8745 Week 4
Model Application: Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior Applied to First-Time Blood Donors Who Said They Would Return Within Six Months and Did Not, and What the Model Misses Between Intending and Booking
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 8745: Health Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Model Application: Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior Applied to First-Time Blood Donors Who Said They Would Return Within Six Months and Did Not, and What the Model Misses Between Intending and Booking
The Behavior and the Gap
A composite regional blood center surveyed first-time whole-blood donors as they finished their donation. Most said they intended to donate again within six months. When the center checked its records six months later, fewer than a third had returned. This paper applies Ajzen's theory of planned behavior to that gap, asking how well the model explains the intention to return and what it misses between intending and booking an appointment.
The Model
In Ajzen's model, behavior follows from intention and, where control is incomplete, by perceived behavioral control. Intention itself rests on three appraisals: whether giving blood again seems worthwhile, whether people the donor respects would approve, and whether a return visit seems within reach (Ajzen, 1991). In a meta-analysis of 185 studies, Armitage and Conner (2001) found that the theory accounted for 27% of the variance in behavior and 39% of the variance in intention, with perceived behavioral control adding to prediction beyond attitude and norm.
Applying the Constructs to Returning
Research on blood donation has found these constructs predict intention well, and several studies add a moral norm, a personal sense of obligation to donate, which improves prediction (Masser et al., 2008). Godin et al. (2005) found that moral norm helped bridge the gap between intention and behavior, so that people with strong intentions and a strong sense of obligation were more likely to act.
Table 1
Theory of Planned Behavior Constructs Applied to a Return Donation
| Construct | What it means for returning | Example survey item | |
|---|---|---|
| Attitude | Evaluation of donating again as good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant | "For me, donating blood again in the next six months would be..." | |
| Subjective norm | Perceived approval of important others | "Most people whose opinion I value would want me to donate again" | |
| Perceived behavioral control | Confidence that returning is within one's control | "If I wanted to, I could easily donate again in the next six months" | |
| Intention | Plan to return | "I intend to donate again in the next six months" | |
Items follow standard theory of planned behavior wording; the center's survey is composite.
Where the Model Explains the Intention Well
The model explains why most first-time donors intend to return. Immediately after donating, attitudes tend to be positive, staff and others have voiced approval, and the process just completed shows it is feasible. Surveyed at that moment, intention is high.
What the Model Misses Between Intending and Booking
The gap lies after intention. Sheeran and Webb (2016) reviewed the intention-behavior gap and described how people with positive intentions often fail to act because they do not get started, are derailed by competing demands or do not keep going. For a return donation, three features of the behavior widen the gap. First, the behavior is delayed: donors must wait at least eight weeks before they are eligible again, so the intention formed at the chair must survive months. Second, the behavior requires an initiating step, booking an appointment, that has no natural prompt. Third, the experience may change: a donor who felt faint at the end of the first donation may form a positive intention in the moment but a more negative attitude once the memory settles.
The model measures intention at one moment and assumes it carries forward. It does not specify how intentions are translated into action or how they change over time. Planning constructs, such as implementation intentions that specify when and where the person will act, sit outside the original model.
Implications
The application suggests the center's problem is not low intention but intentions that are not acted on. Interventions should target the gap: a reminder when the donor becomes eligible, an option to book the next appointment before leaving and a brief prompt to plan a specific day.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
Godin, G., Conner, M., & Sheeran, P. (2005). Bridging the intention-behaviour gap: The role of moral norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X17452
Masser, B. M., White, K. M., Hyde, M. K., & Terry, D. J. (2008). The psychology of blood donation: Current research and future directions. Transfusion Medicine Reviews, 22(3), 215-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmrv.2008.02.005
Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention-behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503-518. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265
What the HLTH 8745 Week 4 instructions ask for
This week pairs one behavior theory with one narrowly defined act and asks how well the two fit. Faculty expect the model's constructs to be defined accurately and translated into the terms of the behavior, ideally with example measurement items. The strongest applications identify where the model explains the behavior well and where it falls short, supported by meta-analytic or review evidence. Faculty value applications that locate a limitation precisely, for example between forming an intention and acting on it, rather than listing general criticisms. The behavior should be defined narrowly enough to match the model's level of measurement. Implications should follow from the identified limitation, pointing to intervention targets the model would miss. A table translating constructs is a common format.
How this HLTH 8745 Week 4 example is built
The paper opens with the composite blood center's survey and records check. A section states the model, citing Ajzen, and reports Armitage and Conner's meta-analytic variance figures. Table 1 translates attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control and intention into return-donation items. A paragraph cites Masser and colleagues' review and Godin and colleagues on moral norm. A section explains why intention is high right after a first donation. The central section cites Sheeran and Webb on the intention-behavior gap and identifies three features of return donation that widen it, noting that planning constructs sit outside the original model. Implications propose an eligibility reminder, booking before leaving and a prompt to choose a day.
Reading the HLTH 8745 Week 4 rubric
Marks follow two questions: are Ajzen's constructs rendered faithfully, and is the model's shortfall pinned to a specific moment? Listing constructs with generic definitions earns basic credit. Credit rises when each construct is translated into the specific behavior and when evidence on the model's predictive power is reported accurately. The strongest papers locate the model's limitation at a specific point and explain it with features of the behavior. Faculty value recognition that additions such as moral norm or planning have been proposed and tested. Implications earn credit when they target the limitation identified rather than restating the model's constructs. Clear tables, accurate citations and a narrowly defined behavior complete a strong application.
Common HLTH 8745 Week 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Model applications often list the theory's constructs, give a general example for each and conclude that the model fits. To write a stronger application, define the behavior narrowly and translate each construct into it with a sample item. Report evidence on how well the model predicts intention and behavior. Then ask where your behavior is likely to break away from intention: delays, missing prompts or changing experiences. Name what the model does not include and cite work on that gap. Recommend interventions aimed at the gap. If your course assigns a different behavior or model, the same application can be drafted for it.
Get a HLTH 8745 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Include the model your prompt specifies, the behavior under analysis and the rubric. The application you receive defines that behavior at the level the model requires, ties each construct to named beliefs, and spends its longest section where intention fails to become action. The screening program described is fictional. Turnaround is 24 to 48 hours, and a first paper carries no charge.
More HLTH 8745 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8745 Week 1: Ulcer Explanation Post
- HLTH 8745 Week 2: Wound Healing Mechanism Brief
- HLTH 8745 Week 3: Allostatic Load Analysis
- HLTH 8745 Week 5: Cortisol Measurement Critique
- HLTH 8745 Week 6: Cardiac Depression Peer Reply
- HLTH 8745 Week 7: Medication Adherence Analysis
- HLTH 8745 Week 8: Illness Representation Case
- HLTH 8745 Week 9: Fear-Avoidance Pain Analysis
- HLTH 8745 Week 10: Behavioral Trial Critique
- HLTH 8745 Week 11: Stress and Infection Mechanism Paper
- HLTH 8701 Week 4: Self-Construal Analysis
- HLTH 8574 Week 4: Prevalence Evidence Audit
- HLTH 8573 Week 4: Youth Population Profile
- HLTH 8560E Week 4: Survey Round Discussion Post
HLTH 8745 Week 4 questions, answered
Is the theory of planned behavior still acceptable to use?
Yes, provided its limits are stated. It remains widely used and does reasonably well at accounting for intentions, while critics have argued it underplays habit, emotion and the gap between intending and acting. The sample applies it in full and then gives that critique its own section, which is usually what graders want from a model application rather than either loyalty or rejection.
Why define the behavior so narrowly?
Because the model predicts best when the behavior and the beliefs are measured at the same level of detail, a principle Ajzen and Fishbein called compatibility. Getting screened someday and mailing this kit within two weeks are different behaviors with different beliefs attached. Your application is easier to judge, and fairer to the theory, when the target act is specific.
Could a different model fit this behavior better?
Possibly, and saying which one is a legitimate move in a conclusion. Accounts that emphasize planning, habit or immediate emotional reactions address parts of the gap the sample identifies. Keep the comparison brief unless your prompt invites it; the assignment asks you to apply one model thoroughly, and a paper that shops between several tends to apply none of them well.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8745 Week 4 sample paper?
The full Week 4 model application appears on this page, applying the theory of planned behavior to first-time blood donors who intended to return and did not, with five references.
How much does the theory of planned behavior explain?
Pooling 185 independent studies, Armitage and Conner found the model accounted for 27% of the variance in behavior and 39% of the variance in intention, with perceived behavioral control adding to prediction beyond attitude and norm.