Recent studies, however, have also explored the role of ambivalence in predicting
behaviour (Thompson et al. 1995) which has been defined in a variety of different ways.
For example, Breckler (1994) defined it as ‘a conflict aroused by competing evaluative
predispositions’ and Emmons (1996) defined it as ‘an approach – avoidance conflict –
wanting but at the same time not wanting the same goal object’. Sparks et al. (2001)
incorporated the concept of ambivalence into the Theory of Planned Behaviour and
assessed whether it predicted meat or chocolate consumption. A total of 325 volunteers
completed a questionnaire including a measure of ambivalence assessed in terms of the
mean of both positive and negative evaluations (e.g. ‘how positive is chocolate’ and ‘how
negative is chocolate’) and then subtracting this mean from the absolute difference
between the two evaluations (i.e. ‘total positive minus total negative’). This computation
provides a score which reflects the balance between positive and negative feelings. The
results showed that the relationship between attitude and intention was weaker in those
participants with higher ambivalence. This implies that holding both positive and
negative attitudes to a food makes it less likely that the overall attitude will be translated
into an intention to eat it.
Predicting behaviour: exploring the intention–behaviour gap
Sutton (1998a) argued that although structured models are ineffective at predict-
ing behavioural intentions they are even less effective at predicting actual behaviour. In
fact, he suggested that studies using these models only predict 19–38 per cent of the
variance in behaviour. Some of this failure to predict behaviour may be due to the
behaviour being beyond the control of the individual concerned. For example, ‘I intend
to study at university’ may not be translated into ‘I am studying at university’ due to
economic or educational factors. Further, ‘I intend to eat healthily’ may not be trans-
lated into ‘I am eating healthily’ due to the absence of healthy food. In such instances,
the correlation between intentions and behaviour would be zero. However, for most
behaviours the correlation between intentions and behaviour is not zero but small,
suggesting that the individual does have some control over the behaviour. Psychologists
have addressed the problem of predicting actual behaviour in three ways: (1) the con-
cept of behavioural intentions has been expanded; (2) past behaviour has been used as
a direct predictor of behaviour; and (3) variables that bridge the intention–behaviour
gap have been studied.
Expanding behavioural intentions
Much of the research that uses models to predict health behaviours focuses on
behavioural intentions as the best predictor of actual behaviour. However, recent
researchers have called for additional variables to be added which expand behavioural
intentions. These include the following:
Self-predictions – Sheppard et al. (1988) argued that rather than just measuring
behavioural intentions (i.e. ‘I intend to start swimming next week’) it is also
important to assess an individual’s own prediction that this intention is likely to be
HEALTH BELIEFS 39