Talk:Theory of reasoned action

message: HI! I am editing the Theory of Reasoned Action for a communications class at Georgetown University. I'll be working on the page for the next few weeks. Feel free to send your suggestions about how to improve the page to me. Thanks! Rsp53 (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Someone copy and pasted the article from http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/theoryofreasonedaction.htm but Im new to editing articles so im not sure how to add refs to the end so anyway there's where the original came from etc. 134.7.248.137 09:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Reference 

message: Hi Ryann, I'm impressed by the huge difference you made on this page. I know it's hard, since the original version didn't cover a lot of information. I think this page isn't very accessible to nonacademic, because there's no daily examples to make your readers feel connected. I think some examples or photos/graphs will be helpful to extend your contents, and engaging readers with the information in this page. I think the two references you added to support this page is very useful, since they demonstrate that this page contains authentic resources, and the editor was well thought when editing it.
I think the history (or development) of this theory is missing, because I believe readers searching for this theory are in need of detailed information from the time it was discovered to present days. And adding the history will help readers understand the circumstance of where and why Theory of Reasoned Action was discovered. In addition, as to the formula part, I think a sample question combined with solution using this formula will be very helpful in demonstrate how the formula works, and how can we benefit from it.
Thanks for the great work!
St798 (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Leo 

message: Hi there! 
I think your page has good material to expand. 
Your page can use a background or an overview about the theory before the application. You need to define any abbreviations, like TRA, to give the reader an idea from the beginning on what it means.
The Process and Formula are really interesting an crucial. So you need to explain them more and provide examples to show how they can be applied. 
From my view, I don't think you need a section for theory revision. Maybe you can just mention in the "See Also".
Maybe you can use a section about the theory in certain behaviors or phenomenon. 
Hope this helps!Fna8 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: While this page does touch on the definition of an attitude, it might be beneficial to add that an attitude is some sort of emotional or opinion based view associated with a belief. In addition it might be helpful for readers if this page were to elaborate more on the elements of subjective norms. A subjective norm does not only describe the social pressure an individual feels to act or not, but also has a component in which potential consequences of said action are considered. However, this page does do a thorough job listing and explaining the three conditions that affect the relationship between behavioral intention and behavior, in a manner that can easily be understood. Lastly, it might be interesting to add that the Theory of Reasoned Action is not applicable in all predictions. In some situations a person may feel as though complying with social norms is more important than their own personal beliefs and vice-versa. In examining this possibility it is easy to see the importance of understanding the strengths of one’s beliefs and the strength of the pressure to socially conform in specific situations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBurchfield (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback from The University of Dayton 

message: Hello! I have read the other comments on this page and I have a few to add. First, it is important to discuss the Theory of Planned Behavior to elaborate on the Theory of Reasoned Action.  I see that it is in the “See Also” section but I believe it deserves its own section on the Theory of Reasoned Action page to explain how the Theory of Planned Behavior is similar to TRA. The Theory of Planned Behavior has the same original components of TRA but it supplements TRA by adding the aspect of perceived behavioral control as an additional element in a person’s intention/behavior.  In other words, people want to participate in the behaviors in which they know they will be successful.  Theory of Planned Behavior is also able to further develop the Theory of Reasoned Action by including explanations for the category of non-voluntary behaviors.  Another helpful addition to this page would be to include some sort of diagram/visual that shows the steps that lead up to behavior to make it easier for people who are unfamiliar with the theory to better understand it. Videkam1 (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback from Dayton University 

message: Hi all, This is Young. I am editing this TRA page for a class assignment. I did several editing in the past 2 days, which mainly includes:
1. Adding two more sections Development of the theory and Critiques to include the derivation and further examination of the original theory.
2. Edited the sexual behavior in application section. Previously, only one research on sexual behavior of African American girls is presented, which I found is kinda odd. So I put another research into it on applying TRA into condom use.
3. Added some minor adjustments in the overview.
For my wonderful peer review partners, I also wonder:
1. Do you think the application of the theory should be more integrated? Do you feel the sparse structure now is bit weird?
2. Do you think the Preview of the theory should be shortened to be a brief version?
3. What else do you think this wikipedia page could include or revised?
Please let me know if those were effective. Any suggestions of your are highly appreciated!
Yy362 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Editing by Young 

message: I think that's all great new section you're going to add it and back to your specific questions, here are my suggestions
I like your ideas to add further examination of the original theory and wondering how to combine with the current version. Since the development of theory seems to short and kinda vague. This is Totally agree with you about the sexual behavior section, I think they only mentioned African American is related to sexually transmitted disease, but do you think if you research on condom use can cover more perspectives ? or you can follow the condom use into african american girl this specific group? Either way is fit to this section. 
The formula part got my attention however only serval sentence introduce this part and I think maybe can add a little bit more narrative on that ? I do not feel this page need more integrate so far, I can easily navigate and the length for this theory is just right. The preview section is kind of long but for the people who do not familiar with communication theory is not bad, offering more details and it's help them make sense. 
Looking forward your beautiful polish narrative in the future, cheers! --Yeahunicorn (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Wanyu 

message: Hi Young, to address your questions: 1. I think the application part are well-developed. You might consider adding some related pictures to improve the visualization; 2. The sparse structure doesn't bother me. However, I am wondering whether there should be some subsections under "overview", such as "origin" or "assumptions" (if there are); 3. I don't think the "Preview" section should be shortened as it is supposed to cover the major points of the entire article; 4. I agree with Wanyu that there could be more word descriptions around the "formula" and "process" sections. Hope it could help a bit!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuentinValentino (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review From Moruomi 

message: Hey!
Just testing the talk page.
The intro for your article is pretty short. It seems super concise, but I almost wish the explanation of the theory came in the first line rather than later. It's kind of an intimidating theory lol. Earlier explanation might be more welcoming to viewers, idk...
--Kekile (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  MC's Comment for Conor! 

message: Hi!
The theory page is relatively smaller as compared to other theories. Here are some of my suggestions that you could incorporate in this Wikipedia page.
In the ‘Introduction’ page, the developers of the theory Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen have an invalid link that shows in red. Maybe you should remove the link tab on it so that it does not lead users to an invalid page.Under the ‘Overview – Factors’, there is no explanation of what these ‘factors’ are. In case you can locate what these factors maybe, it will help understand the theory better.
‘Behavioral Intentions’ has a link under the Theory of Planned Behavior (an extension of the theory by one of the founders, Icek Ajzen). Maybe you could link these ‘Intentions’ from this Theory of Planned Behavior page to explain what these intentions are.
I was able to locate an inforgraphic available on this website:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/308784496_fig1_Figure-1-The-theory-of-reasoned-action-and-planned-behavior-Revised-from-Health
An aspect often spoken of in conjunction with Theory of reasoned action and planned behavior is Johari Window- it is an exercise to map an awareness of your personality which then expresses how you behave. Maybe you can think about adding this in as an “Additional Information”.
Hayday13 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review by RA 

message: Hey Conor, this is an interesting theory that could be approached from a lot of different angles. The organization of the page isn't too bad, but I think it could be touched up. One small thing that jumped out to me was that the title of the theory isn't capitalized in the header. I like the different applications listed on this page, but would be interested in an online application of theory, for example, how TRA is applied on social media platforms or other forms of computer-mediated communication. The "Process" section is still incomplete, but has potential to be a meaningful section is you elaborate on the flow model mentioned. I also think you could add a section on the integration of this theory: what communication context and tradition it follows, and its approach to knowing (positivistic vs. interpretive). I hope that helps! Good luck finishing your edits.
Zach
Zdomercct (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! Sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to note that MOS:CAP (the MOS being Wikipedia's style guideline) discourages "unnecessary" capitalization (see the MOS:CAP page for details) in article titles, body text, and headings, so that is why the title of the theory isn't capitalized now. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Zach 

message: Hi!
What I love about this page is that the applications of the theory are specific and detailed that worth deep reflections. However, the structure of this page is not coherent enough if digging deeply upon it. 
Firstly, the opening above the contents seems serve the same function with the paragraph right below overview. My suggestion is to merge them together and make it simpler as one brief general opening above the contents. 
Secondly, the second layer of heading such as 1.1 Factors, 1.2 Formula, 1.3 Conditions, and 1.4 Limitations are supposed to be part of the first layer of heading such as 1 Overview. But what makes more sense for me is that factors, formula, conditions and limitations are part of the key contents of the theory. 
Thirdly, the “Development and investigation” can be more highlighted if elaborated more detailedly as three main parts: habit, facilitating conditions, and affect, with three second layer of headings.
Lastly, the contents of critiques are lack of structure. It is better to list the problems as the second layer of headings and elaborate more under the headings.
Funkayever (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Kay Jiaqi Zeng (CCT) 

message: Theory of Reasoned Action should be in title case, I made multiple changes.  The page name should be corrected too, but I don't know how.  
Important: the abbreviation TORA shifts to TRA halfway through the article; in teh subgroup "College fraternity and sorority hazing". Is this intended?Philos-o-Shark (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Kevin 

message: This page has well organized structure. By looking at the contents, readers can easily have a general idea of what this theory is talking. I think adding some pictures that described the process of how this theory works may help readers better understand.
Another thing is about the inconsistent with the abbreviations. For example, the “college fraternity and sorority hazing” part starts with: Theory of Reasoned Action has been applied to the study of. The “Knowledge sharing in companies” under it starts with: TRA is used to examine the communication behavior in corporations. I think it is unnecessary to use the full name, compared with the term “TRA”.
References: <A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action>，<Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model>Zw321 (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCT peer review 2020