The reasoned action approach (RAA) is an integrative framework for the prediction (and change) of human social behavior.
In their 2010 book, Fishbein and Ajzen[1] provide detailed examples of indirect measures in the Appendix, pp. 449–463.
Implicit associations are often different from explicit attitude measures, but there is little evidence to suggest that they predict behavior more adequately.
Several researchers have indeed offered possible extensions, for example self-identity, next to the three current variables claiming these contribute significant additional explained variance in intention and behavior.
A majority of previous studies reported results that cannot support the expected associations between variables and predicted outcomes.
Fishbein and Ajzen[1] have repeatedly stressed the importance of an open elicitation procedure to identify all relevant underlying beliefs.
[1] The reasoned action approach can be applied to predict both protection and risk health behaviors.
[15] Dobbs, Branscum, Cohn, Tackett, and Comiford[16] studied what factors may have impacts on pregnant smoker's decision-making to switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes during pregnancy using the RAA framework.
However, others' perceived judgement might not have influence on the pregnant smoker's intention, showing that injunctive norms are not related to the decision-making.
For both insertive and receptive anal sex, attitudes and perceived behavioral control are related with use of condoms with a new partner.
But perceived behavioral control were only significant direct associate to insertive anal intercourse with individual whose serostatus was unknown by his or her partner.
The study showed that normative beliefs of what their friends and parents support or perform have a significant impact on both boys and girls.
[18] Studies also show how RAA can be used to achieve a change of problem gambling behavior.
Palm, Seubert, and Glaser[20] analysed how motivated employees perform a work role in the nonwork domain, drawing on the RAA.