The need to examine behaviors within “actual” constraints: A systematic review of research using the integrative model of behavioral prediction
Abstract
To fully understand the theory-research gap in Fishbein’s integrative model of behavioral prediction (IMBP) and better design future IMBP research, we performed a systematic literature search and analyzed the current quantitative IMBP research articles. The final sample consisted of 41 eligible articles. Comparing the results of the systematic literature search with the IMBP, the results identified the common practices and several inconsistencies and issues in the current IMBP research. We first concluded the common practices (i.e., operationalization and methodology) of current IMBP research. We then noted four sets of inconsistencies/issues related to some of the IMBP research. First, we found inconsistencies in how attitudes, normative beliefs, and self-efficacy were measured in the IMBP research, especially related to the use of direct versus indirect measures. Second, we discovered the inconsistencies in statistical analyses of IMBP research and how it could create issues in aggregable knowledge of the IMBP relationships. Third, we noticed the issues of variable incompatibility in how intention and behavior were measured. Lastly and more importantly, we reviewed the small number of IMBP research articles that measured actual control variables (i.e., environmental constraints, skills) and further identified the issues across these articles. Furthermore, the paper offers directions for future IMBP research, specifically calling for more consistent research on the actual control variables as the moderators between intention and behavior.