Behavior Change
Analysis of the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior
Change
- James A. Lenio
Graduate student, Applied Psychology
Keywords: Transtheoretical Model, Behavior change, Stages of change
model, Behavior theory, Self change, Health behavior
Abstract
The focus of this paper is on the Transtheoretical Model of BehaviorChange (TTM).
A description of the model, the applications toward modifying
health behavior, and the model’s criticisms will all be examined.
Through research of published literature, the paper concludes that the model does in fact seem to support health behavior change and shows potential for effective, appropriate intervention.
More research is necessary in the area of measurement validity, criteria consistency, and application over unique populations to make the model more widely accepted.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to describe the Transtheoretical Model of
Behavior Change, discuss the applications it has for modifying health
behaviors, and discuss the criticisms of the model. There are many
thoughts, ideas, and theories that try to explain how people modify their
own behaviors but not one of them is universally agreed upon. The
Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (TTM), created by
Prochaska and DiClemente (1983), is one of the more popular theories
used to describe this event.
The TTM is a model of intentional change that focuses on the decision-making abilities of the individual rather than the social and biological influences on behavior as other approaches tried (Velicer,Prochaska, Fava, Norman, and Redding, 1998; Scholl, 2002).
This model grew from systematic integration of more than 300 theories of
psychotherapy, along with analysis of the leading theories of behavior
change (Prochaska and Velicer, 1997).
The critical assumptions of the TTM and main constructs which include the stages of change, processes of change, self-efficacy, and decisional balance will be examined in detail below (Patten, Vollman, and Thurston, 2000; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997;Velicer et al., 1998; Scholl, 2002).
Theory Constructs
Stages of Change
The aspect that makes the TTM unique is the idea that change occurs
over time, an aspect generally ignored by other theories of change
(Prochaska and Velicer, 1997; Velicer et al., 1998; Scholl, 2002). This
temporal dimension of the theory proposes that a person may progress
through five stages of change when trying to modify their behaviors
(Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Prochaska et al., 1992; Prochaska &
Velicer, 1997).
In the TTM, behavior change is treated as dynamic, rather
than an “all or nothing” phenomenon.This distinction is considered one
of the theory’s strengths (Marshall & Biddle, 2001).
The first stage of the TTM is the precontemplation stage, where
people have no intentions of taking action in the foreseeable future,
usually measured as the next six months (Prochaska et al., 1992;
Prochaska & Velicer, 1997; Scholl, 2002). Individuals in this stage may be
unaware or uninformed of the consequences of their behavior
(Prochaska et al., 1992; Scholl, 2002) or may have had a number of failed
attempts at change and are discouraged to try again (Prochaska &
Velicer, 1997). Prochaska et al. (1992) suggest that the main trait of
someone in the precontemplation stage is they show resistance to
recognizing or modifying a problem behavior. For an individual to move
out of this stage they must experience cognitive dissonance, a negative
affective state, and acknowledge the problem (Scholl, 2002).
In the next stage, contemplation, individuals are intending on making
a change within the next six months (Patten et al., 2000; Prochaska et al.,
1992; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997;Velicer et al., 1998). People in this stage
weigh the pros and cons of making the change which can cause them to
remain here for long periods of time (Patten et al., 2000; Prochaska et al.,
1992; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997; Velicer et al., 1998).
A person in this stage is deciding if he or she needs to correct the problem and whether or not the pros and cons of making a change outweigh the pros and cons of maintaining his or her present behavior (Scholl, 2002). Being stuck in this stage is known as chronic contemplation or behavioral procrastination (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997).
During this stage the person still participates in the risky behavior but is aware that this behavior causes a problem (Patten et al., 2000). The main trait of someone in the contemplation stage is that the person is seriously considering resolving the problem (Prochaska et al., 1992).
An individual will move on to the next stage if he or she perceives that the pros outweigh the cons and if the force of motivation is stronger forchange than it is for remaining stable (Scholl, 2002).
The next stage, preparation, is when the person is planning on making a behavior change within the next month (Patten et al., 2000; Prochaska et al., 1992; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997;Velicer et al., 1998).
A person in this stage has often unsuccessfully taken some sort of action to change the behavior within the last year, but still engages in the high-riskbehavior (Patten et al., 2000; Prochaska et al., 1992; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997;Velicer et al., 1998).
An individual in this stage may not know how to proceed to make a change and could be nervous about his or her ability to change (Scholl, 2002).
A plan of action is made up for elimination or significant reduction of the problem behavior in which the person can choose between alternative potential solutions (Prochaska et al., 1992; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997; Velicer et al., 1998).
Individuals will move to the next stage when they select a plan of action that they feel will work ......
Read more:
14Lenio.pdf (application/pdf Object)
No comments:
Post a Comment