Who has the authority to change a theory? Everyone! A commentary on Head and Noar

Head and Noar (2013) wrote an interesting and challenging paper; we agree with many of their statements but disagree on a number of essential issues. We think that Head and Noar are (1) too negative about the current state of health behaviour theories, for example, the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010) and (2) too coercing with their recommendations. Head and Noar expect too much from a theory. Our interpretation of the concept of theory is somewhat different. We see a theory as a formal and abstract statement about a selected aspect of reality. Theories are reductions of reality. That is not a shortcoming but a definition to understand and solve real life problems. We need a multi-theories approach (Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok, Gottlieb, & Fernández, 2011; Buunk & van Vugt, 2008). From that perspective, real life problems are a jigsaw puzzle and various theories contribute to parts of the solution. The argument that one theory, in this case the RAA, does not explain all the possible variances in behaviour or behaviour change is not convincing. For example, RAA is self-defined as a theory about reasoned behaviours, not a theory about automatic behaviours. RAA is not a magic bullet. Glanz, Rimer, and Viswanath (2008) distinguish between theories of the problem and theories of the action: explaining behaviour and changing behaviour. RAA is a theory of the problem. RAA’s contribution to the action is the content of the intervention: the specific beliefs that should be targeted for change. We need other action theories to identify effective behavioural change methods and develop change interventions. Head and Noar suggest that Fishbein and Ajzen present RAA also as a change theory. That might be the case, but it is clear that RAA is not an action theory as it focuses completely on the identification of beliefs that need to be reinforced, changed or added (Witte, 1995), to change the target behaviours. Researchers and intervention developers who solely work with RAA in developing interventions are ignoring that important distinction between theories of the problem and theories of the action. We agree with Head and Noar that, for theory testing, we need other systematically varied experimental designs than for the evaluation of theory-based interventions. Evaluation studies of real life interventions are unlikely to have designs that allow for