| Course | PHLT 8048 Research and Application of Public Health and Behavior Change Theories |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Theory brief |
| Length | About 1,050 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHLT 8048 Week 3
Theory Brief: The Theory of Planned Behavior as Ajzen Set It Out, With Its Constructs and Belief Structure Intact, Applied Fairly to Night-Shift Workers Driving Home Drowsy
Student Name
Walden University
PHLT 8048: Research and Application of Public Health and Behavior Change Theories
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Theory Brief: The Theory of Planned Behavior as Ajzen Set It Out, With Its Constructs and Belief Structure Intact, Applied Fairly to Night-Shift Workers Driving Home Drowsy
Purpose
This brief reports the theory of planned behavior as Ajzen (1991) set it out and applies it to the behavior studied this term: night-shift hospital workers driving home while drowsy. It is written as a fair account of a theory that later weeks may set aside in favor of another. A rival rejected after a careless summary has not really been tested, so the brief keeps the theory's constructs and belief structure intact and reports the evidence for it without qualification beyond what that evidence itself contains.
Defining the Behavior
The theory requires a behavior defined precisely in terms of action, target, context and time, since beliefs and intentions predict behavior best when measured at the same level of specificity (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Here the behavior is defined as "driving myself home from the hospital within 30 minutes of the end of a night shift, without first napping or arranging another way home, during the next month." The definition specifies the action (driving), the context (from the hospital after a night shift), the time (within 30 minutes, over the next month) and an implicit target (oneself as driver). Changing any element, such as asking about drowsy driving in general, would change what the theory predicts.
The Constructs
Intention
Intention, a person's readiness to perform the behavior, is the theory's proximal determinant of behavior. People are expected to drive home without napping to the extent that they intend to.
Attitude Toward the Behavior
Attitude is how favorably or unfavorably the person judges doing the behavior. It rests on behavioral beliefs, which concern what the behavior is likely to bring, each weighted by how good or bad that outcome is judged to be. For a night-shift nurse, relevant beliefs might include "driving straight home gets me to bed sooner," "driving straight home means I see my children before school," and "driving straight home risks a crash." Attitude is the sum of each belief's strength multiplied by the evaluation of its outcome.
Subjective Norm
Subjective norm is the social pressure a person senses from others about the behavior. It rests on normative beliefs, what particular referents think the person should do, each weighted by motivation to comply with that referent. Referents here might include a spouse who wants the nurse home quickly, colleagues who all drive home, and a manager who has or has not spoken about drowsy driving. Later formulations add descriptive norms, perceptions of what others actually do, alongside these injunctive norms (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).
Perceived Behavioral Control
This construct captures the extent to which people believe they are able to perform the behavior, or refrain from it. It rests on control beliefs about factors that make the behavior easier or harder, each weighted by the perceived power of that factor. For this behavior, the factors include whether a nap room is available, whether a ride or public transit is an option, and whether childcare obligations require an immediate trip home. It shapes behavior through intention and also directly, whenever the control a person perceives matches the control they really have.
Background Factors
Personal characteristics, past experiences and demographic factors are treated as background influences that affect behavior through the beliefs underlying the three determinants, not as separate causes.
How the Theory Explains the Problem
On this account, a nurse drives home drowsy because she intends to, and she intends to because the outcomes she expects (sleep sooner, seeing her children) outweigh the risk she acknowledges, because people important to her expect her home and colleagues do the same, and because she perceives few practical alternatives. The theory thus accommodates the Week 1 observation that workers know the risk: knowing a risk is one behavioral belief among several, and the attitude it contributes to may still be favorable if other beliefs carry more weight. It also accommodates part of the morning-to-morning variation through perceived control: a nap room that is open one morning and full the next changes control beliefs.
Evidence for the Theory
A meta-analysis of prospective studies across health behaviors found that the theory's constructs predicted a substantial share of the variance in intentions, with attitude the strongest predictor, and that intention and perceived behavioral control predicted a smaller but meaningful share of the variance in later behavior (McEachan et al., 2011). Prediction was stronger over shorter time intervals and for some types of behavior than others. The theory's breadth of application and its explicit measurement procedures are genuine strengths: it tells a researcher exactly how to elicit salient beliefs and build a questionnaire.
What the Theory Implies for Intervention
Applied faithfully, the theory directs intervention toward the beliefs that most distinguish workers who nap or arrange rides from those who drive straight home. If elicitation showed that drivers believe a short familiar route carries little risk, messages would target that belief; if drivers believe colleagues would think less of them for napping, normative messages would address it; if drivers believe no alternative exists, programs would build and publicize alternatives so that control beliefs change. Each target follows from measured beliefs rather than from the designer's assumptions, which is one of the theory's most practical virtues.
Where the Theory Is Most Exposed
A fair report also names the criticisms the theory faces, because later weeks will weigh them. Critics argue that the theory explains intentions better than behavior and leaves much of behavior unexplained, particularly behavior performed habitually (Sniehotta et al., 2014). Ajzen (2015) replied that many of these criticisms misread the theory or apply it to poorly defined behaviors, and that habit can be accommodated through past behavior as a background factor. Both positions are reported here without verdict; the comparison in Week 5 will test them against this problem.
What a Study Using the Theory Would Measure
A study applying the theory would first elicit salient behavioral, normative and control beliefs from night-shift workers in open-ended interviews, then build a questionnaire measuring each construct and its underlying beliefs, and finally measure the defined behavior over the following month through self-report or, better, through objective records such as badge-out times and parking exit data.
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
Ajzen, I. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: A commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araujo-Soares. Health Psychology Review, 9(2), 131-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.883474
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(2), 97-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2010.521684
Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araujo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.869710
The Walden PHLT 8048 Week 3 instructions
The third assignment usually asks for a brief that reports one theory accurately and applies it to the student's behavior. Faculty expect the theory's constructs defined as its originator defined them, including the belief structure beneath them where the theory has one, rather than a simplified textbook version. The behavior should be defined at the level of specificity the theory requires. The brief should explain how the theory accounts for the behavior, report the evidence for the theory fairly and name the major criticisms without resolving them, since later weeks will weigh them. Strong briefs also describe what a study or intervention using the theory would look like. Citing the original source for definitions is safer than relying on secondary summaries. About three pages is common.
Inside the PHLT 8048 Week 3 example
A purpose section explains why a rival must be reported fairly. A section defines the behavior by action, context and time and explains why specificity matters. Subsections set out intention, attitude with behavioral beliefs and illustrative beliefs for a nurse, subjective norm with normative beliefs and descriptive norms, perceived behavioral control with control beliefs and its direct path, and background factors. A section applies the theory to the knowledge-action gap and morning-to-morning variation. An evidence section reports a meta-analysis of prospective studies. A section describes the interventions the theory implies, built from measured beliefs. A section names the critique and the reply without verdict, and a final section describes the elicitation, questionnaire and objective measures a study would use.
Where the marks sit in the PHLT 8048 Week 3 rubric
Graders weigh accuracy and fairness most heavily. Briefs that reduce the theory to three boxes, omit the belief structure or misstate how constructs combine lose marks. Credit goes to a behavior defined with the specificity the theory demands, to belief-level illustrations that show how constructs are built, and to evidence reported without spin. Naming criticisms and replies without taking sides is expected at this stage, since a rival rejected after an unfair summary has not been tested. Describing the theory's implications for intervention and measurement shows understanding of how it is used. Citations should be to original sources for definitions. Clear organization by construct, with consistent application to the student's behavior, completes a strong brief.
Common PHLT 8048 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Theory briefs often summarize a model from memory. Return to the originator's own account and report each construct, including the beliefs beneath it. Define your behavior as precisely as the theory requires. Show how the theory would explain your behavior, including features that look awkward for it. Report the evidence fairly and name the criticisms without settling them yet. Describe the study the theory would guide. Quote the originator's definitions where a paraphrase might drift, and check that your example beliefs fit each construct. Reports on other theories benefit from the same fidelity.
Get a PHLT 8048 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Theory briefs depend on which model your section assigns, so name it and send the prompt with the rubric. The PHLT 8048 Week 3 brief that comes back reports that theory from its belief base upward, with an adapted, credited figure, in 24 to 48 hours. Nothing is charged for a first request.
More PHLT 8048 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PHLT 8048 Week 1: Theory Orientation Post
- PHLT 8048 Week 2: Automatic Motivation Construct Post
- PHLT 8048 Week 4: Construct Mapping by Moment
- PHLT 8048 Week 5: TPB Versus COM-B Comparison
- PHLT 8048 Week 6: Self-Efficacy Construct Critique
- PHLT 8048 Week 7: COM-B Selection Defense
- PHLT 8048 Week 8: Theory Boundary Discussion Post
- PHLT 8048 Week 9: Rival Theory Rebuttal Paper
- PHLT 8048 Week 10: Falsifiable Prediction Memo
- PHLT 8048 Week 11: Defended Theory Selection Paper
- PHLT 8060 Week 3: Independent Evidence Scan
- PHLT 8046 Week 3: Specific Aims Page Example
- PHLT 8044 Week 3: Water Access Program Logic Model
- PHLT 8042 Week 3: Kass Framework Fast-Food Zoning
PHLT 8048 Week 3 questions, answered
Why report a theory the paper may reject?
Because selection in this course means rejecting something on the record, and a rejection is only as credible as the report behind it. Reporting the planned behavior account at full fidelity now means the later comparison cannot be accused of beating a weakened version. If your section lets you brief your preferred theory instead, the same standard of fidelity applies.
How much of the belief structure has to appear?
Enough to show that each construct summarizes weighted beliefs and that those beliefs are elicited from the population studied. You do not need the full expectancy-value algebra, but a brief that presents attitude as a free-standing opinion has flattened the theory. The sample gives the belief layer its own paragraph and a row in the figure.
Can the brief cite a textbook instead of Ajzen?
For orientation, yes; for definitions, the original is safer. Secondary accounts sometimes drop the direct path from perceived control or blur the belief weighting, and anyone who has read the original will notice. The sample cites the originating work for each definition and uses the Glanz, Rimer and Viswanath text only for context on how the theory has been applied.
Where can I find a free PHLT 8048 Week 3 sample paper?
The full Week 3 theory brief is on this page, reporting the theory of planned behavior with its belief structure intact and applying it to drowsy drives home after night shifts.
Why define the behavior so precisely?
The theory predicts best when beliefs, intentions and behavior are matched in specificity to the behavior, so a vague target like drowsy driving would weaken every later measure.