The Role of Self-identity in the Theory of

Planned Behavior: A Meta-Analysis

Jostein Rise1 Paschal Sheeran

Norwegian Institute for University of Sheffield
Alcohol and Drug Research Sheffield, UK
Oslo, Norway

Silje Hukkelberg
Department of Mental Health, Norwegian Institute
of Public Health Oslo, Norway

The present study used meta-analysis to evaluate the role of self-identity in the
theory of planned behavior (TPB). Altogether, 40 independent tests (N = 11607)
could be included in the review. A large, sample-weighted average correlation
between self-identity and behavioral intention was observed (r+ = .47). Multiple
regression analyses showed that self-identity explained an increment of 6% of the
variance in intention after controlling for the TPB components, and explained an
increment of 9% of the variance when past behavior and the TPB components
were controlled. The influence of self-identity on behavior was largely mediated by
the strength of behavioral intentions. Theoretical implications of the findings are
discussed.jasp_611 1085..1105

If a person sees himself or herself as concerned about the environment,

does this mean that the person is likely to intend to recycle? And does this
“environmental identity” directly influence recycling intentions, or does
holding the identity mean that the person is more likely to see recycling as
advantageous (i.e., hold a positive recycling attitude), perceive social pressure
to recycle (i.e., believe there is a supportive subjective norm), or believe
that recycling is easy (i.e., see the behavior as under one’s personal control)?
The present research is concerned with these questions. In particular, we
meta-analyzed the findings of studies that have measured self-identity, atti-
tude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention to assess
the nature and strength of relations between self-identity and behavioral
intentions.

1
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jostein Rise, Norwegian
Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research, P.O. Box 565, Sentrum 0105, Oslo, Norway. E-mail:
jr@sirus.no

1085

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2010, 40, 5, pp. 1085–1105.

© 2010 Copyright the Authors
Journal compilation © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
1086 RISE ET AL.

Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior

The relation between attitudes and behavior has been an area of major
concern in social psychology ever since the seminal review by Wicker (1969),
indicating that the ability of attitudes to predict behavior is actually quite
poor (cf. Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Perhaps the most important attempts to
remedy this problem have been the introduction of the theory of reasoned
action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and its successor, the theory of planned
behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1988).
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposed that the concept of behav-
ioral intention (e.g., “I intend to buy organic produce”) mediates the rela-
tionship between attitude and behavior, and put forward the concept of
subjective norm as a second predictor of intention. Whereas attitude refers to
the person’s overall evaluation of performing the behavior (e.g., “For me,
buying organic produce would be good/bad”), subjective norm refers to per-
ceived social pressure from important others to perform, or not to perform,
the behavior (e.g., “Most people who are important to me think that I should
buy organic produce”).
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) added the concept of perceived
behavioral control to the TRA as a third predictor of intention. Perceived
behavioral control (PBC) refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of perform-
ing a behavior (e.g., “For me, buying organic produce would be easy/
difficult”). Thus, according to the TPB, the more positive the person’s
attitude, the stronger the subjective norms and the greater the perceived
control over the behavior, the more likely it is that the person will intend to
perform the behavior. Correspondingly, the stronger the intention to
perform the behavior, the more likely it is that the person will perform the
behavior, assuming, of course, that the person possesses “actual control”
over the performance (see Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Sheeran, Trafimow, &
Armitage, 2003).
Several meta-analyses have shown that behavioral intention is predictable
from the three components of the TPB (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2001a;
Godin & Kok, 1996; Sheeran & Taylor, 1999). However, the level of predic-
tion is far from perfect; the variance explained in intention ranges from just
28% to 40%, on average. This consideration has led several researchers to
question the sufficiency assumption of the TPB; that is, the assumption that
the theory adequately captures all theoretical determinants of intention. In
fact, Ajzen (1991) relaxed this assumption when he developed the TPB,
stating that the TPB is, in principle, open to inclusion of additional predictors
so long as they increase the explained variance in behavioral intentions.
Accordingly, several researchers have proposed additional predictors that
might be used to augment the model’s predictive validity (for reviews, see
 SELF-IDENTITY META-ANALYSIS 1087

Abraham, Sheeran, & Johnson, 1998; Conner & Armitage, 1998). The aim of
the present research is to provide the first comprehensive quantitative assess-
ment of one important additional variable; namely, self-identity.

Role of Self-Identity in the Theories of Reasoned Action and

Planned Behavior

The case for including self-identity as an additional predictor in the TPB

derives from theorists who have argued that identity processes should be
taken into account in the prediction of specific behaviors, and from empirical
evidence that self-identity predicts behavioral intentions after attitudes and
norms have been taken into account (e.g., Biddle, Bank, & Slavings, 1987;
Charng, Piliavin, & Callero, 1988; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). Self-identity
refers to salient and enduring aspects of one’s self-perception (e.g., “I think of
myself as a ‘green consumer’”; cf. Sparks, 2000). According to identity theory
(e.g., Thoits & Virshup, 1997), people apply socially meaningful categories to
describe themselves when answering the question “Who am I?” in terms of,
for example, sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., gender), social roles
(e.g., mother, father), social types (e.g., smoker, exerciser, healthy eater,
blood donor), and even personality traits (e.g., honest, optimist).
Thus, self-identities (or “me” identifications) are the perspective one takes
toward oneself when taking the role of specific or generalized others, imply-
ing that one incorporates the meanings and expectations associated with a
relevant categorization into the self, thus forming a set of identity standards
that guide identity-relevant behaviors (Stets & Burke, 2000). However, from
a reasoned action perspective, self-identity constitutes an external variable
that is assumed to exert its effect through the components of the model
and should, accordingly, have no independent value in the prediction of
behavioral intentions.
Sparks (2000) reviewed two theoretical grounds for assuming that com-
ponents of the TPB mediate the self-identity/intention relation. The first line
of argument assumes that self-identity exhibits conceptual overlap with atti-
tudes because self-identity is likely to represent a class of behavioral out-
comes that are on a par with utilitarian and affective outcomes expected to
flow from behavioral performances (cf. Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). According
to this idea, the concept of attitude should capture whatever influence self-
identity has on intention. When empirical studies do not support this pre-
diction, it has been argued that this is because self-identity concerns may
not have been especially salient when people responded to the evaluative
scales typically used to tap attitude toward behaviors (Eagly & Chaiken,
1993).
1088 RISE ET AL.

However, identity theorists (e.g., Biddle et al., 1985) have argued that
attitudes, norms, and self-identity have different motivational roots. Indi-
viduals conform to attitudes for instrumental reasons and to norms for fear
of being rejected by significant others (i.e., external sanctions), whereas one
acts in accordance with one’s self-identity for self-verification reasons. That
is, people are motivated to retain and affirm the sense of self and identity
(cf. Stets & Burke, 2000): People act to be consistent in their identity stan-
dard. By this account, when the social categorization including the identity is
activated, the person behaves so as to maintain consistency with the mean-
ings held in the identity standards. Accordingly, self-identity will tend to
predict intentions above the components of the TPB.
The second reason why self-identity may not predict intention after TPB
components have been taken into account relates to the possibility that
self-identity may simply reflect past performance of a behavior. The argu-
ment is that people understand what kind of persons they are by making
inferences based on their past behavior (i.e., through a self-perception
process; Bem, 1972). This idea suggests that self-identity should have no
direct effect on behavioral intentions once the effect of past behavior has
been controlled. Relatively few empirical studies have addressed this issue,
and mixed findings have been obtained.
Some studies have observed that self-identity retains a unique effect on
behavioral intentions after TPB components and past behavior have been
taken into account (Conner, Warren, Close, & Sparks, 1999; Hildonen, 2001;
Thompson & Rise, 2002); some studies have not shown an independent
effect of self-identity on behavioral intentions (e.g., Fekadu & Kraft, 2001);
whereas in other studies it has not been possible to separate the effect of
self-identity on intention from that of past behavior because other predictors
were included in the same step (Conner & Flesch, 2001; Conner & McMillan,
1999; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999). In sum, it remains unclear whether the
association between self-identity and behavioral intention merely reflects
experience with the focal behavior.
A further conceptual difficulty associated with evaluating the strength of
the self-identity/intention relation relates to a general problem with what can
be termed the additional-variables paradigm in TPB research. In this para-
digm, researchers identify a variable that is not specified in the TPB, measure
that variable in a TPB study of a particular behavior, and then assume that
if the variable captures unique variance in intention (after TPB predictors are
controlled), then their variable constitutes an additional predictor in the
TPB. As O’Keefe (2002) pointed out, this practice undermines the principle
of parsimony and is likely to lead to the development of a plethora of
behavioral intention models whose validity and generalizability are indeter-
minate (also see Trafimow, 2004).
 SELF-IDENTITY META-ANALYSIS 1089

To guard against this problem, O’Keefe (2002) proposed two criteria that
should be used to evaluate additional predictors in the TPB. First, a given
conceptual candidate should provide a large additional contribution to the
prediction of intention (after controlling for components of the TPB), which
reaches well beyond statistical significance. Second, the proposed concept
needs to demonstrate its utility in predicting behavioral intentions across a
wide range of behavioral domains.
However, it is clear that primary research studies are rarely in a position
to satisfy O’Keefe’s (2002) criteria. What is needed is a meta-analytic strategy
that accumulates effect sizes across studies in a manner that permits general
conclusions. Only one meta-analysis of the self-identity/intention relation has
been conducted to date (Conner & Armitage, 1998), and this review deserves
updating, for two reasons. First, the meta-analysis examined only six studies;
and second, past behavior was not taken into account in the analysis. The
conclusion we draw is that a new meta-analysis of the self-identity/intention
relation—one that includes recent research and that permits statistical
control of both TPB components and past behavior—is overdue.

The Present Study

Based on the foregoing discussion, the aim of the present study is to

provide a meta-analytic integration of research on self-identity and the TPB.
In particular, the review aims to (a) quantify the strength of the relationship
between self-identity and behavioral intentions; (b) estimate the increment
in the variance in intentions that is attributable to self-identity after TPB
variables have been taken into account; (c) estimate the increment in variance
attributable to self-identity after both TPB variables and past behavior have
been taken into account; and (d) assess whether intention mediates the self-
identity/behavior relationship.

Method

Selection of Studies

Several procedures were used to collect the samples of studies: (a) social
scientific databases (e.g., BIDS, Conference Papers Index, PsychLit) were
searched; (b) reference lists of identified papers were evaluated for inclusion;
and (c) authors of published papers were contacted for potential unpublished
studies and studies that were in press. In order to be included in the review,
a bivariate statistical association between self-identity and behavioral
1090 RISE ET AL.

intention had to be retrievable from the studies. We also coded correlations

for future behavior, past behavior, and TPB variables whenever available. In
total, 40 independent tests of the self-identity/intention relation were identi-
fied from 33 papers. Table 1 presents the characteristics and effect sizes of the
studies that were included in the review.

Meta-Analytic Strategy

To provide an estimate of the effect size, the weighted average of the

sample correlations (r+) was used. This coefficient describes the direction and
strength of the relationship between two variables ranging from -1.00 to
+1.00. We assumed that studies in the meta-analysis were sampled from
populations with mean effect sizes that vary (i.e., random-effects model).
Therefore, we used the Hunter–Schmidt method (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990;
Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982; for a discussion, see Field, 2001, 2005).
Homogeneity analyses were conducted using the chi-square statistic
(Hunter et al., 1982) to determine whether variation among the correlations
was greater than by chance. The formula for degrees of freedom for this test
is k - 1, where k is the number of independent correlations. If chi square is
nonsignificant, then the correlations are homogeneous and the average
weighted effect size (r+) can be said to represent the population effect size.
Computation of weighted average effect size and homogeneity statistics were
conducted using Schwarzer’s (1988) Meta computer program.

Multiple Regression Analyses

All of the studies included in the review reported intercorrelations

between self-identity and TPB variables. Correlations among self-identity,
past behavior, and all TPB predictors were available in 11 cases. We used
computations of the sample-weighted average correlations among self-
identity, TPB variables, and past behavior as the input matrix for multiple
regression in order to determine the increment in variance attributable to
self-identity after controlling for relevant predictors.

Results

Sample-Weighted Average Correlations

The guidelines provided by Cohen (1992) are useful for interpreting

the magnitude of the sample-weighted average correlations (r+). Cohen
Table 1

Studies of the Relation Between Self-Identity and Behavioral Intention

Authors Sample Behavior N r

Armitage & Conner (1999a) Students Eat a low-fat diet 221 .57
Armitage & Conner (1999b) Hospital workers Eat a low-fat diet 413 .56
Armitage & Conner (1999c) General population Eat a low-fat diet 110 .54
Armitage & Conner (2001b, Study 1) Prospective students Donate blood 134 .69
Armitage & Conner (2001b, Study 2) Students Donate blood 172 .44
Arnold et al. (2006) General population Intentions to work for 978 .19
National Health Services
Åstrøm & Rise (2001) Young adults, Eat healthy food 735 .65
general population
Austin & Sheeran (2001) Students Give money to charity 251 .17
Campbell & Sheeran (2001) Students Exercise 181 .56
Conner & Flesch (2001) Students Casual sex 384 .29
Conner & McMillan (1999) Students Cannabis use 249 .81
Conner, Warren, Close, & Sparks Students Alcohol consumption 176 .48
(1999, Study 1)
Conner, Warren, Close, & Sparks Students Alcohol consumption 175 .57
SELF-IDENTITY META-ANALYSIS

(1999, Study 2)
1091
Table 1 Continued

Authors Sample Behavior N r

Conner, Warren, Close, & Sparks Students Alcohol consumption 159 .65
(1999, Study 3)
1092 RISE ET AL.

de Pelsmacker & Janssens (2007) General population Speeding behavior 334 .23
Evans & Norman (2003) Adolescents Road crossing 1833 .42
Fekadu & Kraft (2001) Female adolescents Use contraceptives 354 .31
Giles, McClenahan, Cairns, & University students Donate blood 100 .59
Mallet (2004)
Hagger & Chatzisarantis (2006, University students Various mundane 241 .83
Study 1) behaviors
Hagger & Chatzisarantis (2006, University students Dieting behavior 250 .80
Study 2)
Hildonen (2001) Students Buy ecological products 206 .69
Jackson, Smith, & Conner (2003) University employees Physical activity 85 .50
Mannetti, Pierro, & Livi (2004) Students and young Recycling 230 .41
workers
Moan & Rise (2006) Adolescents Reduce smoking 145 .31a
Moan, Rise, & Andersen (2004) Parents Smoking 159 .25
Ouellette & Wood (1998) Students Various behaviors 71 .69
Rapaport & Orbell (2000) University students Provision of emotional 195 .23
support and practical
assistance
Rise & Ommundsen (2010, Study 1) Spanish students Quit smoking 204 .17
Rise & Ommundsen (2010, Study 2) Norwegian students Quit smoking 204 .34
Robinson & Smith (2002) General population Buy sustainable-produced 550 .30
foods
Sheeran (1998) Students Purchase British beef 182 .44
Sparks & Guthrie (1998, Study 1) UK sample, general Eat a low-fat diet 242 .64
population
Sparks & Guthrie (1998, Study 2) Danish sample, Eat a low-fat diet 216 .70
general population
Sparks & Guthrie (1998, Study 3) Finnish sample, Eat a low-fat diet 239 .46
general population
Sparks & Shepherd (1992) General population Eat organic vegetables 261 .37
Spence & Townsend (2006) General population Attitudes toward 99 .74
genetically modified
foods
Terry, Hogg, & White (1999) Community residents Household recycling 143 .56
Theodorakis (1994) Females Participate in a physical 395 .31
fitness program
Theodorakis, Bagiatis, & Goudas University students Teach individuals with 99 .71
(1995) disabilities
Thompson & Rise (2002) College students Exercise and recycle 232 .61
drinking cartons
SELF-IDENTITY META-ANALYSIS

a
Because self-identity was measured with respect to smoker identity, whereas intention was measured with respect to smoking
reduction, this correlation has been recoded.
1093
1094 RISE ET AL.

Table 2

Meta-Analysis of Self-Identity and Theory of Planned Behavior Variables

Relationship r+ 95% confidence interval c2

Intention/self-identity .47 .46–.49 761.83***
Intention/attitude .50 .49–.51 604.19***
Intention/subjective norm .39 .37–.40 203.06***
Intention/PBC .35 .33–.36 1280.11***
Attitude/self-identity .37 .36–.39 438.46***
Attitude/subjective norm .36 .35–.38 258.46***
Attitude/PBC .25 .23–.27 749.62***
Subjective norm/self-identity .29 .28–.31 263.69***
Subjective norm/PBC .14 .12–.16 434.04***
PBC/self-identity .25 .24–.27 1185.81***
Note. N = 11607. k = 40. N = sample size on which sample-weighted average corre-
lation is based; k = number of correlations; r+ = sample-weighted average correlation;
c2 = chi-square test for homogeneity of sample correlations; PBC = perceived
behavioral control.
***p < .001.

proposed that a correlation of .10 is small, .30 is medium, and .50 is

strong.
Table 2 presents the average correlations obtained among self-identity
and TPB variables (k = 40). The sample-weighted average correlation
between self-identity and behavioral intentions was of medium magnitude
(r+ = .47), according to Cohen’s (1992) criteria (95% confidence interval =
.46–.49). The robustness of this correlation can be determined by estimating
the number of unpublished studies with null findings that would be required
to invalidate the conclusion that self-identity and intentions are significantly
associated at the 5% alpha level. The fail-safe N (Rosenthal, 1984) was 35485,
which greatly exceeds the recommended tolerance level of 5k + 10. Because it
is extremely unlikely that there are so many studies with null results that we
were unable to locate, the average correlation between self-identity and inten-
tion should be considered robust.
The reliability of measures of self-identity included in the meta-analysis
was generally high (mean a = .78). Nevertheless, we elected to account
for measurement error using the formulas described by Hunter et al. (1982).
The sample-weighted average correlation corrected for unreliability was .52.
 SELF-IDENTITY META-ANALYSIS 1095

Thus, 1.3% of the variance was a result of unreliability, and 4.1% of the
variance was a result of sampling error.
The discriminant validity of self-identity, compared to the other compo-
nents of the TPB, was also supported by the findings (Table 2). The highest
average correlation was between self-identity and attitude (r+ = .37). The
magnitude of this association indicates that there is only modest conceptual
overlap between the two concepts. Similarly, small to medium correlations
were obtained between self-identity and both subjective norm and PBC
(r+s = .29 and .25, respectively).

Self-Identity as an Additional Predictor of Intention in the TPB

A two-step hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to determine

whether self-identity enhances the prediction of behavioral intentions beyond
that engendered by the TPB on its own. The components of the TPB were
included in the first step, and self-identity was entered in the second step (see
Table 3). Attitude was the strongest determinant in the first step (beta = .36,
p < .001), although subjective norm and PBC were also significant predictors
of intention. These three predictors accounted for 35% of the variance in
intentions.

Table 3

Hierarchical Regression of Intention on Theory of Planned Behavior Variables

and Self-Identity

Variable Beta Beta

Step 1
Attitude .36*** .29***
Subjective norm .23*** .18***
Perceived behavioral control .23*** .18***
Step 2
Self-identity .28***
2
R .35 .41
Model F 2075.09*** 651.50***
DR2 .06
Fchange 2021.14***
Note. N = 11607. k = 40.
***p < .001.
1096 RISE ET AL.

Notwithstanding this level of prediction by TPB variables, the inclusion

of self-identity in the second step significantly enhanced the prediction of
behavioral intentions (DR2 = .06, p < .001). Together, the four predictors
accounted for 41% of the variance in intention. Attitudes and self-identity
exhibited the highest beta weights (betas = .29 and .28, respectively), as com-
pared to .18 for both subjective norms and PBC.

Predictive Validity of Self-Identity Controlling for TPB Variables and

Past Behavior

In the next analysis, TPB variables were entered on the first step, past
behavior was entered on the second step, and self-identity was entered on the
third step of a hierarchical regression (k = 16; N = 3488). The TPB compo-
nents accounted for 31% of the variance (see Table 4), and past behavior
explained an additional proportion of the variance (5%). In the final step,
self-identity was able to account for a highly reliable increment of 9% in
the variance explained in behavioral intentions. In this subgroup of studies,

Table 4

Hierarchical Regression of Intention on Theory of Planned Behavior Variables,

Self-Identity, and Past Behavior

Variable Beta Beta Beta

Step 1
Attitude .36*** .31*** .22***
Subjective norm .25*** .20*** .16***
Perceived behavioral control .20*** .18*** .14***
Step 2
Past behavior .23*** .16***
Step 3
Self-identity .34***
2
R .31 .36 .45
Model F 525.38*** 485.92*** 560.75***
DR2 .05 .09
Fchange 253.37*** 552.38***
Note. N = 3488. k = 16.
***p < .001.
 SELF-IDENTITY META-ANALYSIS 1097

self-identity turned out to be the strongest determinant of intentions, along

with attitude (betas = .34 and .22, respectively), whereas the betas for TPB
predictors were clearly lower. These findings suggest that self-identity cannot
be construed as simply a reflection of past behavior, but captures a separate
and distinct psychological process in the formation of behavioral intentions.

Does Intention Mediate the Self-Identity/Behavior Relation?

There were 13 studies (N = 2141) that included a prospective measure of

behavior in which intercorrelations with self-identity, intention, and PBC
could be retrieved. Using the sample-weighted average correlations as the
input matrix, regression of behavior on intention and PBC showed significant
beta coefficients for both predictors (betas = .47 and .29, respectively;
ps < .001), and 36% of the variance in behavior was explained. The bivariate
association between self-identity and behavior was significant (beta = .43,
p < .001). Including self-identity on the second step of the regression equa-
tion engendered a significant increment in the variance accounted for
(Fchange = 82.93, DR2 = .02, p < .001). Self-identity, intention, and PBC each
had significant beta coefficients (betas = .20, .30, and .35, respectively;
ps < .001).
Although these findings appear to suggest that self-identity has a direct
influence on behavior, even after intention and PBC have been taken into
account, two considerations speak against this interpretation. First, correla-
tions between PBC and both intention and self-identity were unusually small
in this subset of studies (r+s = .22 and .08, respectively), so findings are likely
to have been different if the values were similar to those obtained in the larger
sample of studies (see Table 2). Second, self-identity was significantly asso-
ciated with behavior after intention and PBC were controlled in none of the
13 primary studies, which suggests that the significant association may simply
be an artifact of the large sample included in the meta-analysis. Finally, it is
worth noting that a Sobel’s test indicated that intention was a highly reliable
mediator of the self-identity/behavior relation (Z = 22.76, p < .001).

Discussion

The present study examined 40 tests of the predictive validity of self-

identity using meta-analytic procedures and, therefore, constitutes the most
comprehensive and systematic analysis of the self-identity/intention relation
to date. The key findings from the review can be summarized as follows:
Self-identity had a medium-sized average correlation with behavioral
1098 RISE ET AL.

intention, according to Cohen’s (1992) criteria. The association between

self-identity and intention was similar in magnitude to the attitude–intention
relationship (r+s = .48 and .50, respectively) and was larger than the average
subjective-norm/intention, and PBC–intention correlations (r+s = .39 and .35,
respectively). In addition, fail-safe N analyses indicate that the self-identity/
intention association was robust (i.e., resistant to future null results).
Multiple regression analyses show that self-identity enhanced the predic-
tion of intention after components of the TPB—and components of the TPB
plus past behavior—were taken into account. Findings show that self-
identity captured 6% additional variance in intention above and beyond that
afforded by attitude, subjective norm, and PBC, whereas a 9% increase in
explained variance in intention was observed when past behavior was also
controlled. Finally, mediation analysis suggests that the influence of self-
identity on behavior was largely, and perhaps entirely, mediated by the
strength of behavioral intention.
Although the results of the meta-analysis seem to support the inclusion of
self-identity as an additional predictor in the TPB, O’Keefe’s (2002) criteria
must be considered before firm conclusions can be drawn. O’Keefe’s first
criterion is that any potential additional variable in the TPB should contrib-
ute a large additional contribution to the prediction of intention, and not
simply a statistically reliable increment. In our view, values of 6% and 9%
additional variance satisfy this criterion. Self-identity explains substantial
additional variance in intention beyond that engendered by TPB variables
and past behavior.
O’Keefe’s (2002) second criterion is that the efficacy of a candidate vari-
able must be demonstrated across a wide range of behaviors. Canary and
Seibold’s (1984) comprehensive categorization of behaviors, examined in
attitude–behavior theories (also see Kim & Hunter, 1993), indicates that
research in the following categories were included in the review: health
behavior (e.g., Sparks & Guthrie, 1998), consumer behavior (e.g.,
Hildonen, 2001), contraceptive behavior (Fekadu & Kraft, 2001), academic
behavior (Theodorakis, Bagiatis, & Goudas, 1995), altruistic behavior (e.g.,
Rapaport & Orbell, 2000), and environmental behavior (e.g., Terry et al.,
1999).
The major categories in which data were not available for inclusion in the
meta-analysis concern the domains of group participation, voting, race rela-
tions, religiosity, and deviance. Although it would have been desirable to
include behaviors from these categories, we do not believe that their absence
seriously undermines the meta-analysis, not least because identity concerns
seem highly relevant for behaviors in the absent categories. Overall, it is fair
to suggest that self-identity exhibited good predictive validity across a wide
range of behaviors. Thus, the findings from the present review would seem to
 SELF-IDENTITY META-ANALYSIS 1099

satisfy O’Keefe’s (2002) criteria and warrant the conclusion that self-identity
constitutes an important additional predictor in the TPB.
Theoretical implications of this conclusion also deserve attention. Atti-
tude theorists (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) have argued that self-identity
refers to a particular class of behavioral outcomes and, therefore, should
overlap with standard attitude measures that (according to both the TRA
and TPB) capture these outcomes. However, two findings in particular seem
to contradict this analysis. First, the variance shared by self-identity and
attitude was quite modest (R2 = .14); and second, self-identity had a signifi-
cant association with intention, even after the association between attitude
and intention was statistically controlled. Both of these findings should have
been impossible if attitude and self-identity referred to the same concept.
Instead, our findings seem to be more consistent with Biddle et al.’s (1985)
perspective that self-identity has different motivational origins, compared to
attitude and subjective norm. According to this view, a key component of
people’s motivation to formulate behavioral intentions (and, subsequently,
to enact those intentions) is to reinforce, support, and confirm their sense of
self (see Stets & Burke, 2000). In this context, it is timely to reinforce the idea
that the role of self-identity should be interpreted in terms of socially defined
influences, distinct from normative influences (Åstrøm & Rise, 2001; also see
Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2006). Thus, self-identities derive from socially
constructed categories or types of person, which are accepted by individuals
as descriptive of themselves (see Thoits & Virshup, 1997). In this capacity, the
role of self-identity in the TPB provides an account of the failure of subjective
norm (i.e., the social influence component of the TPB) as a predictor of
intentions, as compared with attitudes and PBC (see Ajzen, 1991).
The findings are also contrary to a self-perception theory perspective on
the nature of self-identity, for similar reasons. Although there was a reliable
association between past behavior and self-identity, the variance shared by
the two concepts was quite modest (R2 = .11), and self-identity predicted
intention, even after past behavior was controlled. Thus, although the acqui-
sition of particular self-identities may be derived, at least in part, from
experience of particular behaviors, self-identity is clearly not simply reducible
to such experience.
Finally, it may be worthwhile to note that self-identity is distinct
from group identity, although both of them are social identities (Stets &
Burke, 2000; Thoits & Virshup, 1997). While self-identity constitutes
me-identification—that is, identification of the self as, say, a smoker—and
includes the meanings, expectations, and activities related to being a smoker,
group identity constitutes we-identification of the self with, say, other
smokers, which implies acting on behalf of the group of smokers (cf. Thoits &
Virshup, 1997). This distinction tends to be blurred in conceptualizations
1100 RISE ET AL.

(Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2006) and measurement of self-identity

(Falomir & Invernizzi, 1999).
Thus, Falomir and Invernizzi (1999) found that a measure of smoker
identity predicted intention to quit smoking above the TPB components in a
sample of Spanish adolescents. A close inspection of the measure of smoker
identity in Falomir and Invernizzi’s study reveals that it was a mixture of
self-identity as a smoker (“To what extent do you feel as a smoker?”) and
identification with the group of smokers (“To what extent do you identify
with the group of smokers?”). Hence, this study was not included in the
present study. The basic idea is that smokers in many contexts view them-
selves in terms of what it means to be a smoker as a certain type of social
person (“I am a smoker”), but may in another context shift to a group
identity (“we smokers”) to unite in opposition to a common identity threat;
for example, when health authorities restrict smoking in public places
(e.g., restaurants). Evidence for this distinction was provided by Rise and
Ommundsen (2010), who found that the two concepts were only weakly
related and that they predicted intentions to quit smoking independently.
In conclusion, the present meta-analysis provides the strongest evidence
to date that the concept of self-identity is conceptually and empirically dis-
tinct from attitude, subjective norm, PBC, and past behavior. Across a wide
variety of behavioral domains, the self-identity/intention relation rivaled
the strength of the attitude–intention relation. Moreover, self-identity was
responsible for a substantial increment in variance explained in behavioral
intentions, even after the components of the TPB and past behavior had been
taken into account. In our view, these findings warrant the conclusion that
self-identity is a vital predictor of intentions and behavior and should be
incorporated into the dominant model of attitude–behavior relations; that is,
the theory of planned behavior.
This suggests that self-identity may be a distinctive target for persuasive
strategies, but, as noted by O’Keefe (2002) in his review of the literature, there
appears to be little systematic research on identity-based influence strategies.
Nevertheless, he proceeded to suggest two possible labeling strategies: to
make an existing identity more readily activated, and to provide people with
alternative identities. In this context, it may be important to reiterate the
implications of the theoretical underpinnings of the concept; namely, that
identity change is a long-term and reciprocal process. For example, behavior
adjusts to conform to the meanings of the identity standard; while at the same
time, the identity standard changes to adjust to the meaning of the behavior
(cf. Stets & Burke, 2003). These ideas imply that when health authorities
implement intervention programs directed at breaking unhealthy behavioral
patterns, they must consider that they are, in effect, trying to construct
new identities in the sense that the meanings, expectations, and activities
 SELF-IDENTITY META-ANALYSIS 1101

associated with becoming a certain type of person or belonging to a novel

social category must be incorporated into the self so as to complete the
behavioral change process. To some extent, this may explain why it is so
difficult to break unhealthy behavioral patterns (e.g., quitting smoking).

References

(Note. Studies that were included in the meta-analysis are preceded by an

asterisk.)
Abraham, C., Sheeran, P., & Johnston, M. (1998). From health beliefs to
self-regulation: Theoretical advances in the psychology of action control.
Psychology and Health, 13, 569–591.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior:
Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474.
*Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999a). Distinguishing perceptions of
control from self-efficacy: Predicting consumption of a low-fat diet using
the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
72–90.
*Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999b). Predictive validity of the theory of
planned behavior: The role of questionnaire format and social desirabil-
ity. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 261–272.
*Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999c). The theory of planned behaviour:
Assessment of predictive validity and “perceived control.” British Journal
of Social Psychology, 38, 35–54.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001a). Efficacy of the theory of planned
behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology,
40, 471–499.
*Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001b). Social cognitive determinants of
blood donation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1431–1457.
*Arnold, J., Loan-Clarke, J., Coombs, C., Wilkinson, A., Park, J., &
Preston, D. (2006). How well can the theory of planned behavior account
for occupational intentions? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 374–
390.
*Åstrøm, A. N., & Rise, J. (2001). Young adults’ intention to eat healthy
food: Extending the theory of planned behavior. Psychology and Health,
16, 223–237.
1102 RISE ET AL.

*Austin, M., & Sheeran, P. (2001). Incorporation of charity donation behavior

into the self-concept. Unpublished raw data, University of Sheffield, UK.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic
Press.
Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J., Anderson, D. S., Hauge, R., Keats, D. M., Keats,
J. A., et al. (1985). Social influence, self-referent identity labels, and
behavior. Sociological Quarterly, 26, 159–185.
Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J., & Slavings, R. (1987). Norms, preferences, identi-
ties, and retention decisions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 322–337.
*Campbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (2001). Self-identity and exercise. Unpublished
raw data, University of Sheffield, UK.
Canary, D. J., & Seibold, D. R. (1984). Attitudes and behavior: A comprehen-
sive bibliography. New York: Praeger.
Charng, H. W., Piliavin, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (1988). Role identity and
reasoned action in the prediction of repeated behavior. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 51, 81–105.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned
behavior: A review and avenues for future research. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 28, 1429–1464.
*Conner, M., & Flesch, D. (2001). Having casual sex: Additive and interac-
tive effects of alcohol and condom availability on the determinants of
intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 89–112.
*Conner, M., & McMillan, B. (1999). Interaction effects in the theory of
planned behaviour: Studying cannabis use. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 38, 195–222.
*Conner, M., Warren, R., Close, S., & Sparks, P. (1999). Alcohol consump-
tion and the theory of planned behavior: An examination of the cognitive
mediation of past behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
1676–1704.
*de Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2007). The effects of norms, attitudes,
and habits on speeding behavior: Scale development and model building
and estimation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 6–15.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
*Evans, D., & Norman, P. (2003). Predicting adolescent pedestrians’ road-
crossing intentions: An application and extension of the theory of planned
behavior. Health Education Research, 18, 267–277.
Falomir, J. M., & Invernizzi, F. (1999). The role of social influence and
smoker identity in resistance to smoking cessation. Swiss Journal of
Psychology, 58, 73–84.
 SELF-IDENTITY META-ANALYSIS 1103

*Fekadu, Z., & Kraft, P. (2001). Augmenting planned behavior with self-
identity theory: Self-identity, past behavior, and its moderating effects in
predicting intention. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 671–685.
Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte
Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological
Methods, 6, 161–180.
Field, A. P. (2005). Is the meta-analysis of correlation coefficients accurate
when population correlations vary? Psychological Methods, 10, 444–467.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitudes, intention, and behavior:
An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
*Giles, M., McClenahan, C., Cairns, E., & Mallet, J. (2004). An application
of the theory of planned behavior to blood donation: The importance of
self-efficacy. Health Education Research, 19, 380–391.
Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996).The theory of planned behavior: A review of
its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health
Promotion, 11, 87–97.
*Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2006). Self-identity and the theory of
planned behaviour: Between- and within-participants analyses. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 731–757.
*Hildonen, C. (2001). Teorien om planlagt atferd og kjøp av miljømerkede
produkter [The theory of planned behavior and buying of environmental
products]. Master’s thesis in Psychology, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting
error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-analysis:
Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.
*Jackson, C., Smith, A., & Conner, M. (2003). Applying an extended version
of the theory of planned behavior to physical activity. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 21, 119–133.
Kim, M. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Attitude–behavior relations: A meta-
analysis of attitudinal relevance and topic. Journal of Communication, 43,
101–142.
*Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: Planned and self-
expressive behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 227–236.
*Moan, I. S., & Rise, J. (2006). Predicting smoking reduction among ado-
lescents using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior.
Psychology and Health, 21, 717–738.
*Moan, I. S., Rise, J., & Andersen, M. (2004). Predicting parents’ intentions
not to smoke indoors in the presence of their children using an extended
version of the theory of planned behavior. Psychology and Health, 20,
353–371.
1104 RISE ET AL.

O’Keefe, D.J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
*Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life:
The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54–74.
*Rapaport, P., & Orbell, S. (2000). Augmenting the theory of planned behav-
ior: Motivation to provide practical assistance and emotional support to
parents. Psychology and Health, 15, 309–324.
*Rise, J., & Ommundsen, R. (2010). Predicting the intention to quit smoking
using an extended theory of planned behavior: A comparative study among
Spanish and Norwegian students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
*Robinson, R., & Smith, C. (2002). Psychosocial and demographic variables
associated with consumer intention to purchase sustainable produced
foods, as defined by the Midwest Food Alliance. Journal of Nutrition
Education and Behavior, 34, 316–325.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Schwarzer, R. (1988). Meta: Programs for secondary data analysis. Berlin,
Germany: Free University of Berlin.
*Sheeran, P. (1998). Relevance of identity to the purchase of British beef.
Unpublished raw data, University of Sheffield, UK.
Sheeran, P., & Taylor, S. (1999). Predicting intentions to use condoms:
Meta-analysis and comparison of the theories of reasoned action and
planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1624–1675.
Sheeran, P., Trafimow, D., & Armitage, C. J. (2003). Predicting behaviour
from perceived behavioural control: Tests of the accuracy assumption of
the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42,
393–410.
Sparks, P. (2000). Subjective expected utility-based attitude–behavior
models: The utility of self-identity. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.),
Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group mem-
bership (pp. 31–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*Sparks, P., & Guthrie, C. (1998). Self-identity and the theory of planned
behavior: Useful addition or unhelpful artifice? Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28, 1393–1410.
*Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned
behavior: Assessing the role of identification with green consumerism.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 388–399.
*Spence, A., & Townsend, E. (2006). Examining consumer behavior toward
genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Analysis, 26, 657–670.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224–237.
 SELF-IDENTITY META-ANALYSIS 1105

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2003). A sociological approach to self and

identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and
identity
(pp. 128–152). New York: Guilford.
*Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned
behavior: Self-identity, social identity, and group norms. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 38, 225–244.
*Theodorakis, Y. (1994). Planned behavior, attitude strength, role identity,
and the prediction of exercise behavior. Sport Psychologist, 8, 149–165.
*Theodorakis, Y., Bagiatis, K., & Goudas, M. (1995). Attitudes toward
teaching individuals with disabilities: Application of the theory of
planned behavior. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 151–160.
Thoits, P. A., & Virshup, L. K. (1997). Me’s and we’s: Forms and functions
of social identity. In R. Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity:
Fundamental issues (Vol. 1, pp. 106–133). New York: Oxford University
Press.
*Thompson, M., & Rise, J. (2002). The theory of planned behavior extended:
The role of past behavior and social influence. Unpublished manuscript.
Trafimow, D. (2004). Problems with change in R2 as applied to theory of
reasoned action research. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 515–
530.
Wicker, A.W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: the relationship of verbal and
overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25,
41–78.