Abstract It has been asserted that the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is better at behavioral prediction than it is behavioral change. However, the performance of a theory depends not only on the theoretical propositions, but the auxiliary assumptions attached to the theory. It is because of such auxiliary assumptions, which are required to bridge the gap between nonobservational terms at the level of theory and the observational terms at the level of the empirical hypothesis, that we believe critiques of the TPB's utility are misguided. We argue that a failure to separate theoretical assumptions from auxiliary assumptions leads to this false assumption. We suggest the importance of distinguishing between the auxiliary assumptions required for prediction studies and the auxiliary assumptions required for intervention studies. We believe that in attaching sound auxiliary assumptions to intervention studies, the TPB is equally effective at facilitating behavior change as it is behavior prediction.

中文翻译：

---

解开计划行为理论的辅助假设和理论假设：对预测和干预研究的影响

摘要 有人断言，与行为改变相比，计划行为理论 (TPB) 更擅长行为预测。然而，一个理论的表现不仅取决于理论命题，还取决于理论所附带的辅助假设。正是因为需要这些辅助假设来弥合理论层面的非观察性术语和经验假设层面的观察性术语之间的差距，我们认为对 TPB 效用的批评是错误的。我们认为，未能将理论假设与辅助假设分开会导致这种错误假设。我们建议区分预测研究所需的辅助假设和干预研究所需的辅助假设的重要性。