social psychology literature review

PSYC 321--Social Psychology: Literature Review

• Getting Started
• Tests and Measurements
• Literature Review
• Citing Sources--APA Style

Methods for Synthesizing Qualitative Reviews

Ruth Garside, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Evidence Synthesis at the Medical School, University of Exeter

Check out PRISMA to guide your review: especially the checklist for your review and the flow diagram to develop your protocol.

The PRISMA Statement:

Anybody writing a systematic literature review should be familiar with the  PRISMA statement . The PRISMA Statement is a document that consists of a 27-item  checklist  and a  flow diagram  and aims to guide authors on how to develop a systematic review protocol and what to include when writing the review.

A protocol ideally includes the following:

Databases to be searched and additional sources (particularly for grey literature)

Keywords to be used in the search strategy

Limits applied to the search.

Screening process

Data to be extracted

Summary of data to be reported

From Majumbder, K. (2015). A young researcher's guide to a systematic review. Editage Insights. Retrieved from   https://www.editage.com/insights/a-young-researchers-guide-to-a-systematic-review#

Systematic Literature Review

Here are a couple of articles found in Sage Research Methods Online which give good definitions of what a Systematic Literature Review is and how to do one:

Dempster, M. (2003). Systematic review . In Robert L. Miller, & John D. Brewer

      (Eds.), The A-Z of Social Research. (pp. 312-317). London, England: SAGE

      Publications, Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857020024.n110

​Crisp, B.R. (2015). Systematic reviews: a social work perspective . Australian

      Social Work, 68 (3): 284-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2015.102426

Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M. Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016).

      What Synthesis Methodology Should I Use? A Review and Analysis of Approaches to

       Research Synthesis .  AIMS Public Health, 3 (1). 172-215.

      doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172

       http://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080/handle/1828/7464

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

• Veale, T.Search concept tools. Retrieved from //medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/info/639/information_specialists/1500/search_concept_tools Describes various structures for developing criteria: PICO, PICOS, SPIDER, SPICE, etc.

Support for Systematic Reviews

• Systematic Review Search Strategies Worksheet Organize your review by topic, database, search string, and criteria
• Evaluation of Sources Questions to ask of primary source articles (both qualitative and quantitative) when evaluating their quality
• Software for Organizing Systematic Reviews From Columbia University Medical Center's Library
• Evidence-Based Practice
• Meta-Ethnography
• Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

Examples of Systematic Reviews

Prospero: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

This web site collects systematic reviews in process.  By reviewing them, you can see what is included in a systematic review.

Campbell Systematic Reviews

This Monograph series is an open access collection of peer-reviewed systematic reviews.  "Campbell systematic reviews follow structured guidelines and standards for summarizing the international research evidence on the effects of interventions in crime and justice, education, international development, and social welfare." Registration and protocols are available from the Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews .

• << Previous: Tests and Measurements
• Next: Citing Sources--APA Style >>
• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 1:17 PM
• URL: https://libguides.stthomas.edu/psyc321

© 2023 University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Social Psychology Research Topics

Choosing topics for social psychology research papers or projects for class can be challenging. It is a broad and fascinating field, which can make it challenging to figure out what you want to investigate in your research.

Social psychology explores how individual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are affected by social influences. It explores how each person's behavior is affected by their social environment.

This article explores a few different social psychology topics and research questions you might want to study in greater depth. It covers how to start your search for a topic as well as specific ideas you might choose to explore.

How to Find a Social Psychology Research Topic

As you begin your search, think about the questions that you have. What topics interest you? Following your own interests and curiosities can often inspire great research questions.

Choose a Sub-Topic

Social psychologists are interested in all aspects of social behavior. Some of the main areas of interest within the field include social cognition, social influence, and social relationships investigating subtopics such as conformity, groupthink, attitude formation, obedience, prejudice, and so on.

• Social cognition : How do we process and use information about social experiences? What kinds of biases influence how we engage with other people?
• Social influence: What are the key social factors that influence our attitudes and behavior? What are group dynamics and how do we understand patterns of behavior in groups?
• Social relationships : What are the different types of social relationships? How do they develop and change over time?

To help ensure that you select a topic that is specific enough, it can be helpful to start by confining your search to one of these main areas.

Browse Through Past Research

After narrowing down your choices, consider what questions you might have. Are there questions that haven't been fully answered by previous studies? At this point, it can be helpful to spend some time browsing through journal articles or books to see some examples of past findings and identify gaps in the literature.

You can also find inspiration and learn more about a topic by searching for keywords related to your topic in psychological databases such as PsycINFO or browsing through some professional psychology journals.

Narrow Down Your Specific Topic

Once you have a general topic, you'll need to narrow down your research. The goal is to choose a research question that is specific, measurable, and testable. Let's say you want to study conformity; An example of a good research question might be, “Are people more likely to conform when they are in a small group or a large group?” In this case, the specific topic of your paper would be how group size influences social conformity .

Review the Literature on Your Chosen Topic

After choosing a specific social psychology topic to research, the next step is to do a literature review. A literature review involves reading through the existing research findings related to a specific topic.

You are likely to encounter a great deal of information on your topic, which can seem overwhelming at times. You may find it helpful to start by reading review articles or meta-analysis studies. These are summaries of previous research on your topic or studies that incorporate a large pool of past research on the topic.

Talk to Your Instructor

Even if you are really excited to dive right in and start working on your project, there are some important preliminary steps you need to take.

Before you decide to tackle a project for your social psychology class, you should always clear your idea with your instructor. This initial step can save you a lot of time and hassle later on.

Your instructor can offer clear feedback on things you should and should not do while conducting your research and might be able to offer some helpful tips. Also, if you plan to implement your own social experiment, your school might require you to present to and gain permission from an institutional review board.

Thinking about the questions you have about social psychology can be a great way to discover topics for your own research. Once you have a general idea, explore the literature and refine your research question to make sure it is specific enough.

Examples of Social Psychology Research Topics

The following are some specific examples of different subjects you might want to investigate further as part of a social psychology research paper, experiment, or project:

Implicit Attitudes

How do implicit attitudes influence how people respond to others? This can involve exploring how people's attitudes towards different groups of people (e.g., men, women, ethnic minorities) influence their interactions with those groups. For example, one study found that 75% of people perceive men to be more intelligent than women .

In your own project, you might explore how implicit attitudes impact perceptions of qualities such as kindness, intelligence, leadership skills, or attractiveness.

Prosocial Behavior

You might also choose to focus on prosocial behavior in your research. This can involve investigating the reasons why people help others. Some questions you could explore further include:

• What motivates people to help others?
• When are people most likely to help others?
• How does helping others cause people to feel?
• What are the benefits of helping other people?

How do people change their attitudes in response to persuasion? What are the different techniques that can be used to persuade someone? What factors make some people more susceptible to persuasion than others?

One way to investigate this could be through collecting a wide variety of print advertisements and analyzing how​ persuasion is used. What types of cognitive and affective techniques are utilized? Do certain types of advertisements tend to use specific kinds of persuasive techniques ?

Another area of social psychology that you might research is aggression and violence. This can involve exploring the factors that lead to aggression and violence and the consequences of these behaviors. Some questions you might explore further include:

• When is violence most likely to occur?
• What factors influence violent behavior?
• Do traumatic experiences in childhood lead to more aggressive behavior in adulthood?
• Does viewing violent media content contribute to increased aggressive behavior in real life?

Prejudice and discrimination are areas that present a range of research opportunities. This can involve studying the different forms that prejudice takes (e.g., sexism, racism, ageism ), as well as the psychological effects of prejudice and discrimination. You might also want to investigate topics related to how prejudices form or strategies that can be used to reduce such discrimination.

Nonverbal Behavior

How do people respond when nonverbal communication does not match up to verbal behavior (for example, saying you feel great when your facial expressions and tone of voice indicate otherwise). Which signal do people respond to most strongly?

How good are people at detecting lies ? Have participants tell a group of people about themselves, but make sure some of the things are true while others are not. Ask members of the group which statements they thought were true and which they thought were false.

Social Norms

How do people react when social norms are violated? This might involve acting in a way that is outside the norm in a particular situation or enlisting friends to act out the behaviors while you observe.

Some examples that you might try include wearing unusual clothing, applauding inappropriately at the end of a class lecture, cutting in line in front of other people, or some other mildly inappropriate behavior. Keep track of your own thoughts as you perform the experiment and observe how people around you respond.

Online Social Behavior

Does online social networking make people more or less likely to interact with people in face-to-face or other offline settings? To investigate this further, you could create a questionnaire to assess how often people participate in social networking versus how much time they spend interacting with their friends in real-world settings.

Social Perception

How does our appearance impact how people respond to us? Ask some friends to help you by having two people dress up in dramatically different ways, one in a professional manner and one in a less conventional manner. Have each person engage in a particular action, then observe how they are treated and how other people's responses differ.

Social psychologists have found that attractiveness can produce what is known as a halo effect . Essentially, we tend to assume that people who are physically attractive are also friendly, intelligent, pleasant, and likable.

To investigate this topic, you could set up an experiment where you have participants look at photographs of people of varying degrees of physical attractiveness, and then ask them to rate each person based on a variety of traits, including social competence, kindness, intellect, and overall likability.

Think about how this might affect a variety of social situations, including how employees are selected or how jurors in a criminal case might respond.

Social psychology is a broad field, so there are many different subtopics you might choose to explore in your research. Implicit attitudes, prosocial behavior, aggression, prejudice, and social perception are just a few areas you might want to consider.

A Word From Verywell

Social psychology topics can provide a great deal of inspiration for further research, whether you are writing a research paper or conducting your own experiment. In addition to some of the social psychology topics above, you can also draw inspiration from your own curiosity about social behavior or examine social issues that you see taking place in the world around you. 

American Psychological Association.  Frequently asked questions about institutional review boards .

Storage D, Charlesworth TES, Banaji M, Cimpian A.  Adults and children implicitly associate brilliance with men more than women .  J Exp Soc Psychol . 2012;90:104020. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104020

Talamas SN, Mavor KI, Perrett DI. Blinded by beauty: Attractiveness bias and accurate perceptions of academic performance . PLoS ONE . 2016;11(2):e0148284. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148284

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• Contact & Directions
• Climate Statement
• Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Adjunct Faculty
• Non-Senate Instructors
• Researchers
• Psychology Grads
• Affiliated Grads
• New and Prospective Students
• Honors Program
• Experiential Learning
• Programs & Events
• Psi Chi / Psychology Club
• Prospective PhD Students
• Current PhD Students
• Area Brown Bags
• Colloquium Series
• Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series
• Speaker Videos
• Undergraduate Program
• Academic and Writing Resources

Writing Research Papers

• Writing a Literature Review

When writing a research paper on a specific topic, you will often need to include an overview of any prior research that has been conducted on that topic.  For example, if your research paper is describing an experiment on fear conditioning, then you will probably need to provide an overview of prior research on fear conditioning.  That overview is typically known as a literature review.  

Please note that a full-length literature review article may be suitable for fulfilling the requirements for the Psychology B.S. Degree Research Paper .  For further details, please check with your faculty advisor.

Different Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews come in many forms.  They can be part of a research paper, for example as part of the Introduction section.  They can be one chapter of a doctoral dissertation.  Literature reviews can also “stand alone” as separate articles by themselves.  For instance, some journals such as Annual Review of Psychology , Psychological Bulletin , and others typically publish full-length review articles.  Similarly, in courses at UCSD, you may be asked to write a research paper that is itself a literature review (such as, with an instructor’s permission, in fulfillment of the B.S. Degree Research Paper requirement). Alternatively, you may be expected to include a literature review as part of a larger research paper (such as part of an Honors Thesis). 

Literature reviews can be written using a variety of different styles.  These may differ in the way prior research is reviewed as well as the way in which the literature review is organized.  Examples of stylistic variations in literature reviews include: 

• Summarization of prior work vs. critical evaluation. In some cases, prior research is simply described and summarized; in other cases, the writer compares, contrasts, and may even critique prior research (for example, discusses their strengths and weaknesses).
• Chronological vs. categorical and other types of organization. In some cases, the literature review begins with the oldest research and advances until it concludes with the latest research.  In other cases, research is discussed by category (such as in groupings of closely related studies) without regard for chronological order.  In yet other cases, research is discussed in terms of opposing views (such as when different research studies or researchers disagree with one another).

Overall, all literature reviews, whether they are written as a part of a larger work or as separate articles unto themselves, have a common feature: they do not present new research; rather, they provide an overview of prior research on a specific topic . 

How to Write a Literature Review

When writing a literature review, it can be helpful to rely on the following steps.  Please note that these procedures are not necessarily only for writing a literature review that becomes part of a larger article; they can also be used for writing a full-length article that is itself a literature review (although such reviews are typically more detailed and exhaustive; for more information please refer to the Further Resources section of this page).

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

The topic, which is commonly a research question (or problem) of some kind, needs to be identified and defined as clearly as possible.  You need to have an idea of what you will be reviewing in order to effectively search for references and to write a coherent summary of the research on it.  At this stage it can be helpful to write down a description of the research question, area, or topic that you will be reviewing, as well as to identify any keywords that you will be using to search for relevant research.

2. Conduct a literature search.

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed.  For more information about this step, please see the Using Databases and Finding Scholarly References section of this website.

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources ; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail.  For more details about taking notes, please see the “Reading Sources and Taking Notes” section of the Finding Scholarly References page of this website.

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

At this stage, you are close to writing the review itself.  However, it is often helpful to first reflect on all the reading that you have done.  What patterns stand out?  Do the different sources converge on a consensus?  Or not?  What unresolved questions still remain?  You should look over your notes (it may also be helpful to reorganize them), and as you do, to think about how you will present this research in your literature review.  Are you going to summarize or critically evaluate?  Are you going to use a chronological or other type of organizational structure?  It can also be helpful to create an outline of how your literature review will be structured.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

The final stage involves writing.  When writing, keep in mind that literature reviews are generally characterized by a summary style in which prior research is described sufficiently to explain critical findings but does not include a high level of detail (if readers want to learn about all the specific details of a study, then they can look up the references that you cite and read the original articles themselves).  However, the degree of emphasis that is given to individual studies may vary (more or less detail may be warranted depending on how critical or unique a given study was).   After you have written a first draft, you should read it carefully and then edit and revise as needed.  You may need to repeat this process more than once.  It may be helpful to have another person read through your draft(s) and provide feedback.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft.

After the literature review is complete, you should incorporate it into your research paper (if you are writing the review as one component of a larger paper).  Depending on the stage at which your paper is at, this may involve merging your literature review into a partially complete Introduction section, writing the rest of the paper around the literature review, or other processes.

Further Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Full-length literature reviews

• Many full-length literature review articles use a three-part structure: Introduction (where the topic is identified and any trends or major problems in the literature are introduced), Body (where the studies that comprise the literature on that topic are discussed), and Discussion or Conclusion (where major patterns and points are discussed and the general state of what is known about the topic is summarized)

Literature reviews as part of a larger paper

• An “express method” of writing a literature review for a research paper is as follows: first, write a one paragraph description of each article that you read. Second, choose how you will order all the paragraphs and combine them in one document.  Third, add transitions between the paragraphs, as well as an introductory and concluding paragraph. 1
• A literature review that is part of a larger research paper typically does not have to be exhaustive. Rather, it should contain most or all of the significant studies about a research topic but not tangential or loosely related ones. 2   Generally, literature reviews should be sufficient for the reader to understand the major issues and key findings about a research topic.  You may however need to confer with your instructor or editor to determine how comprehensive you need to be.

Benefits of Literature Reviews

By summarizing prior research on a topic, literature reviews have multiple benefits.  These include:

• Literature reviews help readers understand what is known about a topic without having to find and read through multiple sources.
• Literature reviews help “set the stage” for later reading about new research on a given topic (such as if they are placed in the Introduction of a larger research paper). In other words, they provide helpful background and context.
• Literature reviews can also help the writer learn about a given topic while in the process of preparing the review itself. In the act of research and writing the literature review, the writer gains expertise on the topic .

Downloadable Resources

• How to Write APA Style Research Papers (a comprehensive guide) [ PDF ]
• Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers (a brief summary) [ PDF ]
• Example APA Style Research Paper (for B.S. Degree – literature review) [ PDF ]

Further Resources

How-To Videos     

• Writing Research Paper Videos
• UCSD Library Psychology Research Guide: Literature Reviews

External Resources

• Developing and Writing a Literature Review from N Carolina A&T State University
• Example of a Short Literature Review from York College CUNY
• How to Write a Review of Literature from UW-Madison
• Writing a Literature Review from UC Santa Cruz  
• Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149. doi : 1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

1 Ashton, W. Writing a short literature review . [PDF]     

2 carver, l. (2014).  writing the research paper [workshop]. , prepared by s. c. pan for ucsd psychology.

Back to top

• Research Paper Structure
• Formatting Research Papers
• Using Databases and Finding References
• What Types of References Are Appropriate?
• Evaluating References and Taking Notes
• Citing References
• Writing Process and Revising
• Improving Scientific Writing
• Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Writing Research Papers Videos

International Review of Social Psychology

Latest news

The facets of social evaluation: the diversity of aspects underlying the big two of social perception.

#Sorrynotsorry: Social psychological and intergroup underpinnings of political apologies

Can violent video game-related aggression spread to others effects on retaliatory and displaced aggression.

The Social Psychology of the Yellow Vests Movement

About this journal

The International Review of Social Psychology publishes empirical research and theoretical notes in all areas of social psychology. The IRSP emphasizes the scientific quality of its publications in every areas of social psychology. Submitted papers are reviewed by international experts. The journal was created to reflect research advances in a field where theoretical and fundamental questions inevitably convey social significance and implications. It is supported by ADRIPS .

Announcements

The facets of social evaluation.

Our new special collection, The facets of social evaluation: The diversity of aspects underlying the Big Two of social perception , is now published and can be read online for free.

Social evaluation is at the heart of people’s daily interactions. Several decades of research show that whether social perceivers appraise themselves, others, or groups, they rely on two basic, also called fundamental, or “Big Two” dimensions.

#Sorrynotsorry

Our new special collection, #Sorrynotsorry: Social psychological and intergroup underpinnings of political apologies , is published now.

Political apologies are often used as a tool to restore trust and facilitate intergroup relations after historical wrongdoings. In this special issue, we consider the nature of these apologies as well as the processes involved in how such apologies are perceived and how they might contribute to improved intergroup relations.

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Psychologist's Companion
• > Writing a Literature Review

Book contents

• Frontmatter
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 Eight Common Misconceptions About Psychology Papers
• 2 How to Generate, Evaluate, and Sell Your Ideas for Research and Papers
• 3 Literature Research
• 4 Writing a Literature Review
• 5 Planning and Writing the Experimental Research Paper
• 6 A Word About Content, Language, and Style
• 7 Commonly Misused Words
• 8 American Psychological Association Guidelines for Psychology Papers
• 9 Guidelines for Data Presentation
• 10 What Makes a Good Paper Great? Standards for Evaluating Psychology Papers
• 11 Ethics in Research and Writing
• 12 Submitting a Paper to a Journal
• 13 How to Make Your Paper Even Better: Proofreading, Revising, and Editing
• 14 Writing a Grant or Contract Proposal
• 15 How to Find a Book Publisher
• 16 Writing a Lecture
• 17 Article Writing 101
• Appendix: Sample Psychology Paper

4 - Writing a Literature Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Most undergraduate research papers, and many graduate and professional research papers as well, are based on literature reviews. The aims of a literature review are different from those of an empirical research paper, and hence the skills required differ somewhat as well. The goals of literature reviews are the following (American Psychological Association, 2009):

To define and clarify problems

To inform the reader about a subject by summarizing and evaluating studies

To identify inconsistencies, gaps, contradictions, and relationships in the literature

To suggest future steps and approaches to solve the issues identified

There are five kinds of literature reviews that can be distinguished on the basis of the aim of the review. Reviews can strive to (a) generate new knowledge, (b) test theories, (c) integrate theories, (d) develop a new theory, or (e) integrate existing knowledge.

If you plan to submit your literature review to a journal and have to decide where to submit it, you may want to read some literature reviews that have been published in the journals you are considering to find out whether your paper is a good fit to the journal. Generally, the probability of an article being accepted is highest when you develop new knowledge, a new theory, or integrate several theories (instead of just reviewing and summarizing the literature on a particular topic) (Eisenberg, 2000).

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Writing a Literature Review
• Robert J. Sternberg , Oklahoma State University , Karin Sternberg
• Book: The Psychologist's Companion
• Online publication: 05 June 2012
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511762024.006

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Social Work Literature Review Guidelines

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Literature reviews are designed to do two things: 1) give your readers an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic or idea and 2) demonstrate how your research fits into the larger field of study, in this case, social work.

Unlike annotated bibliographies which are lists of references arranged alphabetically that include the bibliographic citation and a paragraph summary and critique for each source, literature reviews can be incorporated into a research paper or manuscript. You may quote or paraphrase from the sources, and all references to sources should include in-text parenthetical citations with a reference list at the end of the document. Sometimes, however, an instructor may require a separate literature review document and will have specific instructions for completing the assignment.

Below you will find general guidelines to consider when developing a literature review in the field of social work. Because social work is a social science field, you will most likely be required to use APA style. Please see our APA materials for information on creating parenthetical citations and reference lists.

1. Choose a variety of articles that relate to your subject, even if they do not directly answer your research question. You may find articles that loosely relate to the topic, rather than articles that you find using an exact keyword search. At first, you may need to cast a wide net when searching for sources.

For example: If your research question focuses on how people with chronic illnesses are treated in the workplace, you may be able to find some articles that address this specific question. You may also find literature regarding public perception of people with chronic illnesses or analyses of current laws affecting workplace discrimination.

2. Select the most relevant information from the articles as it pertains to your subject and your purpose. Remember, the purpose of the literature review is to demonstrate how your research question fits into a larger field of study.

3. Critically examine the articles. Look at methodology, statistics, results, theoretical framework, the author's purpose, etc. Include controversies when they appear in the articles.

For example: You should look for the strengths and weaknesses of how the author conducted the study. You can also decide whether or not the study is generalizable to other settings or whether the findings relate only to the specific setting of the study. Ask yourself why the author conducted the study and what he/she hoped to gain from the study. Look for inconsistencies in the results, as well.

4. Organize your information in the way that makes most sense. Some literature reviews may begin with a definition or general overview of the topic. Others may focus on another aspect of your topic. Look for themes in the literature or organize by types of study.

For example: Group case studies together, especially if all the case studies have related findings, research questions, or other similarities.

5. Make sure the information relates to your research question/thesis. You may need to explicitly show how the literature relates to the research question; don't assume that the connection is obvious.

6. Check to see that you have done more than simply summarize your sources. Your literature review should include a critical assessment of those sources. For more information, read the Experimental Psychology - Writing a Literature Review handout for questions to think about when reading sources.

7. Be sure to develop questions for further research. Again, you are not simply regurgitating information, but you are assessing and leading your reader to questions of your own, questions and ideas that haven't been explored yet or haven't been addressed in detail by the literature in the field.

Social Psychology and Literature: Toward Possible Correspondence

Cite this chapter.

• Alberta Contarello 5  

1751 Accesses

3 Citations

“We are all social psychologists” declare Tajfel and Fraser (1978) and, by way of explanation, they offer one of the most complete definitions of the discipline. It is the study of “the various aspects of the interaction between individuals, between and within social groups, and between individuals and social systems, small or large, of which they are part” ( Tajfel and Fraser 1978, p. 22 ). Similar in their interests and passions, what, above all, distinguishes a professional social psychologist from an “amateur” or naive one is the method, or rather methods, used. The former follows strict research rules and procedures which are logical and systematic, explicitly sets out the hypotheses and tries to support them with references to scholarly shared criteria. The latter worries much less about the logical consistency of his or her convictions, develops naive, often post hoc, theories to explain events — especially when faced with the unexpected — and, being closely tied to pre-existing ideas, tends to confirm the underlying bias in a kind of vicious circle. There is, however, a third category. Because of their mastery and competence in treating psychosocial phenomena, authors of literary texts emerge as bearers of a type of knowledge which is different both from that of the scientist and that of the “practical” person, busy getting on with everyday life. Psychologists tend to appreciate this ability and often refer to the richness and depth shown by poets and writers when considering the psychic and relational aspects of life, or the familiarity with which they approach such extreme themes as life, love and death.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Theoretical psychology: discursive transformations and continuity in Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung

Social Psychology: Exemplary Interdiscipline or Subdiscipline

Adamopoulos J (1982) Analysis of interpersonal structures in literary works of three historical periods. J Cross-Cult Psychol 13:157–168

Article   Google Scholar  

Adamopoulos J (2002) The perception of interpersonal behaviors across cultures. In: Lonner WJ, Dinnel DL, Hayes SA, Sattler DN (Eds) Online readings in psychology and culture (Unit 15, Chapter 2). Retrieved September 13, 2006 from Western Washington University, Center for Cross-Cultural Research website: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~culture/contents_complete.htm

Adamopoulos J, Bontempo RT (1986) Diachronic universals in interpersonal structures. J Cross-Cult Psychol 17:169–189

Adamopoulos J, Kashima Y (Eds) (1999) Social psychology and cultural context. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA

Google Scholar  

Barthes R (1970) S/Z. Editions du Seuil, Paris

Baxter L (1988) A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In: Duck S, Hay D, Hobfoll S, Ickes W, Montgomery B (Eds) Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research and interventions. Wiley, Chichester, pp 257–274

Baxter L, Montgomery BM (1996) Relating. Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford, New York

Benzecri JP et al. (1973) L’analyse des données. II L’analyse des correspondance. Dunod, Paris

Billig M (1982) Ideology and social psychology. Blackwell, Oxford

Brislin RW (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: Triandis HC, Berry JW (Eds) Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, vol. 2: methodology. Allyn & Bacon, Boston MA, pp 389–444

Bruner J (1964) On knowing. Essays for the left hand. Belknap Press, Cambridge MA

Bruner J (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

Bruner J (1990) Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

Bruner J (2001) Self-making and world-making. In: Brockmeier J, Carbaugh D (Eds) Narrative and identity. Studies in autobiography, self and culture. John Benjamins, Amsterdam

Bruner J (2003) Making stories: law, literature, life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

Bruner J, Feldman FC (1996) Group narrative as a cultural context of autobiography. In: Rubin DC (Ed) Remembering our past. Studies in autobiographical memory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 291–317

Claridge G, Pryor R, Watkins G (1990) Sounds from the Bell Jar. Ten psychotic authors. St Martin’s Press, New York

Contarello A, Gargioni M, Mazzotta A (2003) Individuals in societies. The potential of literary texts analysis for societal psychology. In: Làszlò J, Wagner W (Eds) Theories and controversies in societal psychology. New Mandate, Budapest Hungary, pp 131–152

Contarello A, Mazzara BM (1999) Membership, practices and values. Social constructionism in context. Paper presented at the I Berlin Conference on Social Constructionism in Psychology and Related Disciplines. Free University, Berlin, November 4th–6th

Contarello A, Vellico E (2003) Social psychology and literary texts: an empirical analysis of a contemporary Indian novel. Empir Stud Arts 21:21–49

Contarello A, Volpato C (1991) Images of friendship. Literary depictions through the ages. J Soc Pers Relat 8:49–75

Contarello A, Volpato C (1995) Women and family relationships in cultural transition. An analysis of autobiographical texts. In: Quaderni di Psicologia Sociale. TPM Edizioni, Padova, pp 1–16

Contarello A, Volpato C (2002) Social representations, narrative, and literary texts. In: László J, Stainton Rogers W (Eds) Narrative approaches in social psychology. New Mandate, Budapest, pp 74–87

Culler J (1981) The pursuit of signs: semiotic, literature, deconstruction. Routledge & Kegan, London

Doise W, Clémence A, Lorenzi-Cioldi F (1992) Représentations socials et analyse des données. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble

Eco U (1979) Lector in fabula. La cooperazione interpretativa nei testi narrativi. Bompiani, Milano

Endicott J, Spitzer RL (1978) A diagnostic interview: the schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 25:837–844

Flick U (1998) Social representations in knowledge and language as approaches to a psychology of the social. In: Flick U (Ed) The psychology of the social. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–12

Gergen KJ (1973) Social psychology as history. J Pers Soc Psychol 36:309–320

Gergen KJ (1989) Warranting voice and the elaboration of the self. In: Shotter J, Gergen KJ (Eds) Texts of identity. Sage, London, pp 70–81

Gergen KJ (1991) The saturated self. Basic Books, New York

Gergen KJ (1994) Realities and relationships. Soundings in social construction. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

Gergen KJ, Gergen MM (1984) Historical social psychology. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ

Gergen KJ, Gergen MM (1987) Narratives of relationships. In: Ghee M. Mc Clarke DD, Burnett R (Eds) Accounting for relationships. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 269–288

Gergen KJ, Gergen MM (1988) Narrative and the Self as relationships. In: Berkowitz L (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 21. Academic Press, New York, pp 17–56

Gergen MM (1994) The social construction of personal histories: gendered lives in popular autobiographies. In: Sarbin TR, Kitsuse JI (Eds) Constructing the social. Sage, London, pp 19–44

Gergen MM, Gergen KJ (1993) Narratives of the gendered body in popular autobiography. In: Josselson R, Lieblich A (Eds) The narrative study of lives, vol. 1. Sage, London, pp 191–218

Harary F (1963) Così fan tutte. A structural study. Psychol Rep 13:466.

Harary F (1966) Structural study of “a severed head”. Psychol Rep 19:473–474

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Harré R (1979) Social being. A theory for social psychology. Blackwell, Oxford

Harré R, Gillett G (1994) The discursive mind. Sage, London

Heider F (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley, New York

Kearns MS (1987) Metaphors of mind in fiction and psychology. Kentucky University Press, Lexington

Levinger G (1994) Figure versus ground: micro and macroperspectives on the social psychology of personal relationships. In: Erber R, Gilmour R (Eds) Theoretical frameworks for personal relationships. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ, pp 1–28

László J, Rogers SW (Eds) (2002) Narrative approaches in social psychology. New Mandate, Budapest

László J, Vince O (2002) Coping with historical tasks. The role of historical novels in transmitting psychological patterns of national identity. SPIEL (Siegener Periodicum zur Internationalen Empirischen Literaturwissenschaft) 21:76–88

László J, Wagner W (Eds) (2003) Theories and controversies in societal psychology. New Mandate, Budapest

László J, Vince O, Somogyvari IK (2003) Representation of national identity in successful historical novels. Empir Stud Arts 21:69–80

Mayer JD (1994) Emotion over time within a religious culture: a lexical analysis of the old testament. J Psychohist 22:235–248

McClelland DC (1961) The achieving society. van Nostrand, Princeton NJ

Mecacci L (1999) Psicologia moderna e postmoderna. Laterza, Roma-Bari

Mininni G (2004) Psicologia e media. Laterza, Roma-Bari

Moghaddam F (2004) From psychology in literature to psychology is literature. Theory Psychol 14:503–525

Montgomery BM (1992) Communication as the interface between couples and cultures. Commun Yearb 15:475–507

Moretti F (2005) Graphs, maps, trees. Abstract models for literary history. Verso, London

Moscovici S (1981) Social representations. In: Forgas JP (Ed) Social cognition. Academic Press, London, pp 181–209

Moscovici S (1986) The Dreyfus affair, Proust and social psychology. Soc Res 53:23–56

Musil R (1997) The Man without Qualities. Picador, London

Oatley K (1992) Best laid schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Oatley K, Johnson-Laird PN (1987) Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cogn Emot 1:29–50

Pepitone A, Triandis HC (1987) On the universality of social psychological theories. J Cross-Cult Psychol 18:471–498

Potter J (1996) Representing reality. Sage, London

Potter J, Wetherell M (1987) Discourse and social psychology. Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage, London

Potter J, Stringer P, Wetherell M (1984) Social texts and contexts. Literature and social psychology. Routledge, London

Propp VJ (1928) Morfologija skazki. Academia.

Péley B (2002) Narrative psychological study of self and object representation with young deviant people. In: László J, Stainton Rogers W (Eds) Narrative approaches in social psychology. New Mandate, Budapest, pp 125–145

Rawlins WK (1992) Friendship matters. Aldine, New York.

Ricoeur P (1984–85) Time and narrative, vol. 1–2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL

Ricoeur P (1991) L’identité narrative. Revues des Sciences Humaines 221:35–47

Rosenberg S (1988) Self and others: studies in social personality and autobiography. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 21:57–95

Rosenberg S (1990) Personality and affect: a quantitative approach and comparison. In: Martindale C (Ed) Psychological approaches to the study of literary narratives. Buske Verlag, Hamburg, pp 1–19

Rosenberg S (1997) Multiplicity of selves. In: Ashmore RD, Jussim LJ, Lee J (Eds) Self and identity: fundamental issues. Rutger’s series on self and social identity, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 23–45

Rosenberg S, Jones R (1972) A method for investigating and representing a person’s implicit theory of personality: Theodore Dreiser’s view of people. J Pers Soc Psychol 22:372–386

Sarbin TR (Ed) (1986) Narrative psychology. The storied nature of human conduct. Praeger, New York

Scheff TJ (1997) Emotions, the social bond and human reality: part/whole analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Smorti A (1994) Il pensiero narrativo. Giunti, Firenze

Tajfel H, Fraser C (1978) Introducing social psychology. Penguin, London

Taylor SE (1998) The social being in social psychology. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (Eds) The handbook of social psychology. McGraw-Hill, Boston MA, pp 58–95

Triandis HC (1978) Some universals of social behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 4:1–16

Triandis HC, Bontempo R, Villareal MJ, Asai M, Lucca N (1988) Individualism and collectivism: cross cultural perspectives on Self-Ingroup relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:323–338

Trzebinski J (1997) Il Sé narrativo. In: Smorti A (Ed) Il Sé come testo. Giunti, Firenze

Volpato C, Contarello A (1995) Relations personelles et culture: une analyse de textes littéraires. Soc Sci Inf 34:205–224

Volpato C, Contarello A (1999) Towards a social psychology of extreme situations: Primo Levi’s “If This is a Man” and social identity theory. Eur J Soc Psychol 29:239–258

Vygotskij LS (1971) The psychology of art. MIT, Cambridge

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35131, Padova, Italy

Alberta Contarello

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Nihonmatsu-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan

Toshio Sugiman Ph.D. ( Professor ) ( Professor )

Swarthmore College, 500 College Avenue, Swarthmore, PA, 19081, USA

Kenneth J. Gergen Ph.D. ( Professor ) ( Professor )

Johannes Kepler University, Altenbergerstrasse 69, 4040, Linz, Austria

Wolfgang Wagner Ph.D. ( Professor ) ( Professor )

Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan

Yoko Yamada Ph.D. ( Professor ) ( Professor )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer

About this chapter

Contarello, A. (2008). Social Psychology and Literature: Toward Possible Correspondence. In: Sugiman, T., Gergen, K.J., Wagner, W., Yamada, Y. (eds) Meaning in Action. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-74680-5_18

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-74680-5_18

Publisher Name : Springer, Tokyo

Print ISBN : 978-4-431-74679-9

Online ISBN : 978-4-431-74680-5

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Taylor & Francis Open Select

Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review

Rachel davis.

a Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology , University College London , London, UK

Rona Campbell

b School of Social and Community Medicine , University of Bristol , Bristol, UK

Lorna Hobbs

Susan michie.

Interventions to change health-related behaviours typically have modest effects and may be more effective if grounded in appropriate theory. Most theories applied to public health interventions tend to emphasise individual capabilities and motivation, with limited reference to context and social factors. Intervention effectiveness may be increased by drawing on a wider range of theories incorporating social, cultural and economic factors that influence behaviour. The primary aim of this paper is to identify theories of behaviour and behaviour change of potential relevance to public health interventions across four scientific disciplines: psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics. We report in detail the methodology of our scoping review used to identify these theories including which involved a systematic search of electronic databases, consultation with a multidisciplinary advisory group, web searching, searching of reference lists and hand searching of key behavioural science journals. Of secondary interest we developed a list of agreed criteria for judging the quality of the theories. We identified 82 theories and 9 criteria for assessing theory quality. The potential relevance of this wide-ranging number of theories to public health interventions and the ease and usefulness of evaluating the theories in terms of the quality criteria are however yet to be determined.

Introduction

Human behaviours, including tobacco and alcohol consumption, dietary behaviours, physical activity and sexual practices, play a key role in many of the leading causes of death in developing and developed countries (Aveyard & West, 2007 ; Danaei et al., 2009 ; Ezzati et al., 2002 ; Mokdad, Marks, Stroup, & Gerberding, 2004 ; Parkin, Boyd, & Walker, 2011 ; Solomon & Kington, 2002 ). Even small changes in such behaviours can have substantial effects on population health outcomes (Ezzati et al., 2002 ; Mokdad et al., 2004 ; National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2010 ; Solomon & Kington, 2002 ). Understanding these behaviours and the contexts in which they occur is essential for developing effective evidence-based health behaviour change interventions and policies and for reducing avoidable mobility and mortality (House of Lords, 2011 ; Office of Behavioural and Social Sciences Research, 2006 ).

Despite the relatively small investment in preventive health and behavioural science (Marteau, Dieppe, Foy, Kinmonth, & Schneiderman, 2006 ), there is evidence for the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions at individual, community and population levels (Abraham, Kelly, West, & Michie, 2009 ; Albarracin et al., 2005 ; Michie & West, 2013 ; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2007 ; Nigg, Allegrante, & Ory, 2002 ). Interventions have been targeted at behavioural risk factors (e.g., smoking; Carr & Ebbert, 2012 ; Rice & Stead, 2008 ), encouraging protective behaviours (e.g., health screening; Brouwers et al., 2011 ; Everett et al., 2011 ), improving adaptation to chronic and acute illness (e.g., adherence to medical advice; Cutrona et al., 2010 ) and changing health professional behaviours to improve the quality and efficiency of services (e.g., hand hygiene compliance; Fuller et al., 2012 ). While there are many examples of successful interventions, there are also examples of ineffective interventions (e.g., Coleman, 2010 ; Summerbell et al., 2005 ); for those that are effective, the effects tend to be modest, with significant heterogeneity of short-term and long-term effects (Michie, Johnston, Francis, Hardeman, & Eccles, 2008 ).

To maximise the potential efficacy of interventions, it is necessary to understand behaviour and behaviour change: in other words, it is necessary to have a theoretical understanding of behaviour change. In this context, theory represents the accumulated knowledge of the mechanisms of action (mediators) and moderators of change as well as the a priori assumptions about what human behaviour is, and what the influences on it are. The application of theory is advocated as an integral step in intervention design and evaluation and in evidence synthesis, for example, by the UK Medical Research Council's guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions (Campbell et al., 2000 , 2007 ; Craig et al., 2008 ; Glanz & Bishop, 2010 ). This is for several reasons. First, the antecedents of behaviour and the causal determinants of change can be appropriately identified and targeted by the intervention (Hardeman et al., 2005 ; Michie & Abraham, 2004 ; Michie et al., 2008 ) and component behaviour change techniques can be selected and/or refined and tailored (Michie & Prestwich, 2010 ; Michie et al., 2008 ; Rothman, 2004 ). Second, theoretically identified mechanisms of action (i.e., mediators) can be investigated to gain further understanding as to how the intervention brings about its effects (Michie & Abraham, 2004 ; Rothman, 2004 , 2009 ). This allows researchers to determine whether unsuccessful interventions have failed either because the intervention has had no effect upon the hypothesised mediator or because the hypothesised (and successfully influenced) mediator has had no effect upon behaviour (Michie & Abraham, 2004 ; Rothman, 2004 , 2009 ), thus facilitating more efficient refinement of the intervention. Third, theory summarises the cumulative knowledge of how to change behaviour across different populations, behaviours and contexts. Finally, theory-based interventions provide an opportunity in which theory can be tested. This aids development of more useful theories which, in turn, supports intervention optimisation (Michie et al., 2008 ; Rothman, 2004 ).

The question as to whether interventions that are explicitly based on theory are more effective that those that are not is a complex one. Some reviews have found a positive association (Albada, Ausems, Bensing, & van Dulmen, 2009 ; Albarracin et al., 2005 ; Glanz & Bishop, 2010 ; Noar, Benac, & Harris, 2007 ; Swann, Bowe, Kosmin, & McCormick, 2003 ; Taylor, Conner, & Lawton, 2011 ), but others have found no association, or, even a negative association (Gardner, Wardle, Poston, & Croker, 2011 ; Roe, Hunt, Bradshaw, & Rayner, 1997 ; Stephenson, Imrie, & Sutton, 2000 ). Some reviews have reported a mixture depending on the measure of effectiveness (Ammerman, Lindquist, Lohr, & Hersey, 2002 ; Bhattarai et al., 2013 ; Kim, Stanton, Li, Dickersin, & Galbraith, 1997 ).

There are several factors that may explain this mixed picture. Theory is often poorly applied. A review investigating application of theory using the 19-item ‘Theory Coding Scheme’ (Michie & Prestwich, 2010 ), found that only 10% of studies of theory-based interventions reported links between behaviour change techniques and theoretical constructs and only 9% reported that all the constructs had been targeted by behaviour change techniques. Another explanation may be that the choice of theory may not have been appropriate. For example, if a behaviour is heavily influenced by habit or emotional states then a theory that focuses on beliefs and reflective thought processes may not be appropriate when informing intervention design.

The importance of understanding the theoretical underpinnings of behavioural interventions has been highlighted in previous research suggesting theoretical bases for combining behaviour change techniques within interventions to allow synergistic effects and enhance their effectiveness (Dombrowski et al., 2012 ; Michie, Abraham, Whittington, McAteer, & Gupta, 2009 ; Taylor et al., 2011 ; Webb, Joseph, Yardley, & Michie, 2010 ). Despite the advantages of theory, behaviour change interventions are often designed without reference to theory (Davies, Walker, & Grimshaw, 2010 ; Prestwich et al., 2013 ). For instance, a recent meta-analysis found that only 22.5% of 235 implementation studies explicitly used theories of behaviour change (Davies et al., 2010 ). Where theory is used, it is often only loosely referred to rather than rigorously applied to intervention design and evaluation (Painter, Borba, Hynes, Mays, & Glanz, 2008 ; Prestwich et al., 2013 ). In those situations where interventions are based on ‘explicit theory’, theory is often used sub-optimally to develop or evaluate the intervention (e.g., only a few of the theoretical constructs may be targeted and/or theory is not used to appropriately tailor the intervention).

Choosing a relevant theory can be a challenging task for intervention designers, especially given the large number of theories, many of which have the same or overlapping constructs, to choose from (Michie et al., 2005 ). There is a lack of guidance on how to select an appropriate theory for a particular purpose (Michie, 2008 ), with a predominance in published intervention evaluations of a small number of theories that have already gained recognition in the field (Painter et al., 2008 ). By using a ‘common’ or ‘favourite’ theory, rather than one that may be more suited to the particular characteristics of the target population, behaviour and context, the potential benefit of using theory is limited.

One approach to addressing the plethora of different, overlapping theories and lack of guidance as to how to choose between them was the development of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF; Cane, O'Connor, & Michie, 2012 ; Michie et al., 2005 ). Developed by psychologists and implementation researchers, the TDF provides a framework of theoretical domains to explain barriers and facilitators of behaviour in any particular situation. Informed by 128 explanatory constructs from 33 theories of behaviour, the TDF has been used in many contexts to understand behaviour and design theoretically informed interventions (Francis, O'Connor, & Curran, 2012 ; French et al., 2012 ). Another resource for theory-informed research is the US National Institute of Health's ‘Grid Enabled Measures’ (GEM) web-based database. GEM provides the descriptions of theoretical constructs and behavioural and social measures to assess these constructs ( https://www.gem-beta.org/Public/Home.aspx ). While both these approaches are of value, neither specifies relationships between theoretical domains and constructs in terms of the effect that one domain or construct may have on another. They deal with theoretical domains and constructs, not theories per se. One previous consensus exercise did generate a list of eight constructs thought to influence HIV-related behaviours, with the resulting framework specifying links between the constructs and behaviour (Fishbein et al., 2001 ). However, it is not clear how this consensus was reached and how relevant the included constructs are to other behaviours, given the focus on HIV-related behaviours. Researchers or interventions designers may want to select specific theories either at the beginning of the intervention design process or after conducting some preliminary research to indicate which theories are likely to be relevant and useful. In these situations there is a need for an accessible source of potentially useful theories, as well as a method for selecting amongst them.

At present, theories used in public health and behaviour change interventions more generally tend to emphasise individual and sometimes interpersonal rather than broader social and environmental variables (Glanz & Bishop, 2010 ). Capabilities and motivation (individual factors) are often targeted, but context (social and environmental variables) is far less likely to be considered. NICE's ( 2007 ) behaviour change guidance concluded that interventions were more effective if they simultaneously targeted variables at different levels (e.g., individual, community and population; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2007 ). Therefore, to maximise effectiveness, intervention designers are likely to benefit from drawing from a wider range of theories than currently used. Current resources on theories of behaviour change tend to reflect specific contexts and disciplines, and are thus inevitably limited in the range of theories considered (Agar, 2008 ; Conner & Norman, 2005 ; Glanz & Bishop, 2010 ; Glanz, Rimer, & Lewis, 2002 ).

To improve the selection and application of theory we need to consider, across relevant disciplines, those theories which may be of potential use in informing public health questions. By identifying a range of theories we can assess which theories may be of value given the behaviour, population and context in question. To this end, we conducted a scoping review and consensus exercise, informed by the disciplines of psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics. The scoping review and consensus exercise primarily aimed to address the question, ‘What theories exist across the disciplines of psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics that could be of value to guiding behaviour change interventions?’

To be as comprehensive as possible we focused on both theories of behaviour and behaviour change. Theories of behaviour tend to be linear, and explain the reasons why behaviour may occur by considering a number of predictors and their associations with one another and how these could influence the likelihood of a particular behaviour (Agar, 2008 ; Conner & Norman, 2005 ; Glanz & Rimer, 1997 ; Head & Noar, 2013 ). Theories of change tend to be more cyclical and identify interactional and dynamic behaviour change processes (Agar, 2008 ; Head & Noar, 2013 ). In practice, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two and some theories could be viewed as both.

Of secondary interest we also addressed ‘What criteria should we consider when evaluating the quality and potential appropriateness of behaviour change theory?’ Finally, we assessed the extent to which the theories we identified had been applied within the behaviour change field.

The scope of the present paper is twofold: (i) to report in detail the methodology employed to identify relevant theories and to produce a compendium of these theories and (ii) to provide the list of agreed criteria for judging the quality of the theories. Ways in which some of the theories have been used to study behaviour change are also briefly summarised, though it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss this in detail. Research examining how the theories have been operationalised and the quality of their empirical application (as measured by the quality criteria reported here) forms part of the future research programme.

Theories of behaviour and behaviour change were identified through five sources: expert consultation with a multidisciplinary project advisory group, electronic databases, web searching, forward and backward searching of reference lists and hand searching of key behavioural science journals. Empirical application of the theories was identified from electronic databases and searching the reference lists of retrieved articles. These, together with expert consultations with the advisory group, informed the development of the quality assessment criteria.

Expert advisory group

Twenty-four UK experts from the social and behavioural sciences and/or population health research formed the advisory group, which determined the scope, methods and conduct of the review. The group comprised four sociologists, five economists, five psychologists, four health service researchers, three anthropologists, two epidemiologists and one policy researcher.

Definition of key terms

One of the first tasks of the advisory group was to agree definitions of the terms ‘theory’ and ‘behaviour’. A shortlist of potentially relevant definitions of each term was compiled from peer-reviewed journals, reports and books, for example, the American Psychological Association Dictionary . In the first of two rounds of a Delphi process, advisory group members were asked to rate each definition and parts of the definition for potential use. When a definition (or a part of it) was rated as important by at least 50% of the group it was retained as relevant. In the second round, core concepts were extracted and synthesised by the authors and used to create working definitions which were then considered for refinement by the advisory group in order to create the final definitions:

The term theory was defined as: ‘a set of concepts and/or statements with specification of how phenomena relate to each other. Theory provides an organising description of a system that accounts for what is known, and explains and predicts phenomena’.

Behaviour was defined as: ‘anything a person does in response to internal or external events. Actions may be overt (motor or verbal) and directly measurable or, covert (activities not viewable but involving voluntary muscles) and indirectly measurable; behaviours are physical events that occur in the body and are controlled by the brain’.

Identification of relevant theories

To inform the literature search strategy, theories of behaviour and behaviour change were identified through expert consultation with the advisory group and an initial scoping of the literature using generic and discipline-specific terms related to behaviour and behaviour change theories. For example, the term ‘cultural change’ tended to be used by anthropologists, ‘action’ by sociologists and ‘behaviour’ by psychologists.

Literature search strategy

The literature search was conducted primarily to uncover theories of behaviour and behaviour change that were not identified through expert consultation with our advisory group. Secondary to this we identified the ways in which the theories we identified had been empirically applied. While we briefly report this, it was beyond the scope of the study to analyse this comprehensively and in detail. In order to retrieve relevant literature across different disciplines six databases were searched between 1 January 1960 and 11 September 2012: PsycINFO, Econlit, Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, EMBASE and MEDLINE. Databases were chosen based on their coverage of discipline- and content-specific literature and on the volume of public health literature. Databases that did not allow the use of wildcards (to account for variations in spellings) or sets of search terms to be entered and combined through the use of Boolean operators, and/or databases that only retrieved titles of articles but not abstracts were not used (e.g., Anthropology Index Online). The final search was conducted on the 11 September 2012.

The search strategy included four sets of search terms: those that (i) apply theory to behaviour change (e.g., ‘behaviour change theory’); (ii) are relevant to behaviour change and also of relevance in understanding behaviour more generally [e.g., ‘Health Belief Model’ (HBM)]; (iii) are relevant to behaviour change but that do not mention theory (e.g., ‘behaviour modification’); and (iv) discipline-specific terms combined with the term behaviour change (e.g., ‘economics and behaviour change’). A list of the search terms together with how these terms were combined can be found in the online supplemental material ( Supplemental Figure 1 ).

The search strategy was customised to each database. Standard filters were used to capture systematic reviews where applicable. A sensitivity analysis was performed to ensure that the search results included key articles on theories relevant to behaviour change (identified through the initial scoping of the literature). Given the complex body of evidence, in terms of cross-cutting disciplines and sheer breadth and volume of literature, the search was restricted to titles and abstracts to tighten the search specificity.

Additional potentially relevant theories were identified through expert consultation and web searching for key documents from organisations known for their interest in behaviour change. This included, from the USA, the National Institute of Health's Behaviour Change Consortium and, from the UK, the NICE, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI Centre), Government Social Research Unit, House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee Report on Behaviour Change and National Institute of Health Research's Health Technology Assessment.

Forward and backward citation searching, and hand searching of key behavioural science journals were performed to minimise the likelihood of relevant theories being missed. The journals hand searched were: Annals of Behavioural Medicine , BMC Health Services Research , British Journal of Health Psychology , Health Psychology , Health Psychology Review , Implementation Science , International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology , Journal of Applied Behavioural Science and Social Science & Medicine .

Inclusion criteria for theories

Theories were included if they: (i) met our definition of theory and behaviour and (ii) considered individual behaviour as an outcome or part of the process leading to the outcome. Theories that considered group behaviour (e.g., ‘organisational behaviour’), without reference to individual behaviour were excluded. While we acknowledge that such theories are of interest to intervention designers who want to change group behaviour we decided to limit the scope of the review to theories concerned with individual behaviour change to keep it manageable. The inclusion of each theory was considered independently by at least two of the four authors and by members of the advisory group. Inter-rater reliability was assessed.

Theories that focused purely on cognition were not included. Examples of such theories include Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954 ), which aims to explain how people's opinions are influenced within social groups and Cognitive Adaptation Theory (Taylor, 1983 ), which aims to explain how people cognitively adapt to threatening events. While these theories contribute to our understanding of knowledge, beliefs and intentions about behaviour there are often significant gaps between these and behaviour (Sheeran, 2002 ) and this project was about theories of behaviour and behaviour change.

We distinguished frameworks, which provide an organising structure, from theories which, in addition, offer explanations of how phenomena relate to each other and permit outcomes to be predicted. Thus, conceptual frameworks such as the TDF (Cane et al., 2012 ; Michie et al., 2005 ), or the Ecological Model (McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988 ) that are commonly used to guide the design, implementation or evaluation of interventions were not included. While these frameworks have value in implementation and in public health research, policy and practice, this review was of specific theories.

Inclusion criteria for articles

Screening of articles was in two stages. The first stage (title and abstract) was intentionally inclusive, retaining articles if they mentioned: (i) theory in relation to behaviour or behaviour change or (ii) changing behaviour but made no reference to theory (the full text of the article was then checked to see if theory was used to inform the research). We considered all behaviour to be of relevance, not just health-related behaviours. At the second stage of screening (full-text) tighter restrictions applied and articles were included if: (i) theory and behaviour was defined as per our study definitions and (ii) they fell into one of four categories of article: descriptive, intervention, evaluative or review:

• Descriptive articles were defined as those that contained the original description of a theory by the author/s who originally conceived of the theory (i.e., primary theory sources) or by an author/s who proposed advances in the theory by re-specification. Secondary theory sources (i.e., those that only provided an overview/description of the theory) were not included.
• Intervention articles were defined as those that stated in their methods that they used theory to inform the development and/or evaluation of an intervention aimed at changing behaviour and that included a measure of behaviour as an outcome. We focused on behaviour as the end-point rather than the consequence of the behaviour (e.g., weight loss) because there are a number of factors further along the causal chain that could affect the link between behaviour and outcome (Hardeman et al., 2005 ).
• Evaluative articles were defined as those reporting studies that empirically tested a theory longitudinally.
• Review articles were defined as those that systematically reviewed a theory in relation to a change in behavioural outcomes. Narrative reviews or selective overviews of the literature (i.e., those without a description of a search strategy and no clear methodology that could be reproduced independently) were not included.

Articles were excluded if they: focused on cognition (e.g., intention to change behaviour) rather than actual behaviour; were restricted to research participation behaviours, animal studies, scale development, measurement or programme development, cost-effectiveness or single case studies; focused on mental health including therapeutic interventions where cognitive or emotional variables were the primary outcome. Dissertations and doctoral theses, books and book reviews, conference posters and presentations, editorials and commentaries were excluded for practical reasons to limit the volume of material to be retrieved and reviewed to manageable proportions. Articles that used multiple theories to inform their methodology were excluded because our review was of the empirical application of individual theories to changing behaviour.

We did not exclude articles based on their quality, since the methodology of applying these criteria has yet to be developed.

Inter-rater reliability

Articles were screened for relevance at abstract and full-text stage by the lead author (Rachel Davis). At both screening stages, 30% of the abstracts were independently screened by two other researchers (each of which screened 15%) and inter-rater reliability (calculated using percentage agreement) was assessed. Since the data constitute unbalanced cells, we have used percentage agreement as it provides a more transparent and more readily interpretable parameter than Cohen's kappa. As kappa corrects for chance agreement among multiple coders, use of kappa is likely to underestimate reliability (Steinijans, Diletti, Bomches, Greis, & Solleder, 1997 ). Differences of views about inclusion were resolved through discussion and consensus with the other authors.

Data extraction

Data were extracted on: (i) country where the research took place, (ii) theory used, (iii) type of article (descriptive, intervention, evaluative or review), (iv) design (quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods), (v) target behaviour (e.g., smoking, physical activity), (vi) target direction of behaviour [i.e., increase (which also included maintaining behaviour) or decrease in uptake] and (vii) measurement of behaviour (self-report, objective or both). Dual data extraction was conducted independently on 60% of the included papers by two researchers and inconsistencies resolved through joint discussion.

Quality assessment criteria

We reviewed key literature which synthesised scientific and philosophical perspectives on what makes a theory scientific and useful for the purpose of effecting healthy behaviour change in a target population (e.g., Glanz & Rimer, 1997 ; West, 2006 ) and used this to draft an initial list of quality criteria. These were considered by the advisory group in both a face-to-face discussion and a subsequent electronic Delphi-like consultation aimed at achieving consensus.

We report the theories of behaviour and behaviour change identified in our review and the agreed criteria for assessing theory quality. A high-level summary of the key characteristics of the review articles is also provided.

A high level of agreement was observed for decisions on inclusion in relation to both the theories and the articles included in the review (>90%).

Theories identified

Eighty-two theories of behaviour and behaviour change were identified. These are listed in Table 1 along with the lead author, date of the paper that originally described the theory and the number of articles that reported using the theory. Fifty-nine (out of the 82 theories) were applied in the articles included in our review. The remaining theories ( N = 23) were identified by the advisory group and/or through abstracts of the articles retrieved in our literature search. In other words, these were theories that met our inclusion criteria but did not have relevant articles retrieved from our search strategy that met our article inclusion criteria, i.e., articles did not fall within one of our four categories (descriptive, intervention, evaluative, review). Theories identified through our search that were excluded, with reasons for exclusion, can be found in the online supplemental material ( Supplemental Table 1 ).

Note: Theories 30–32 were all reported in one paper.

It is important to note here that while our intention was to provide a list of potentially relevant theories across different disciplines, it was not possible to categorise the theories according to disciplines. Many of the theories had influences from more than one discipline and/or authors were from several disciplines or could not be categorised into any one discipline.

Nine defining features were identified as conceptually important for a good theory: (i) clarity of constructs – ‘Has the case been made for the independence of constructs from each other?’ (ii) clarity of relationships between constructs – ‘Are the relationships between constructs clearly specified?’ (iii) measurability – ‘Is an explicit methodology for measuring the constructs given?’ (iv) testability – ‘Has the theory been specified in such a way that it can be tested?’ (v) being explanatory – ‘Has the theory been used to explain/account for a set of observations? (statistically or logically)’; (vi) describing causality – ‘Has the theory been used to describe mechanisms of change?’ (vii) achieving parsimony – ‘Has the case for parsimony been made?’ (viii) generalisablity – ‘Have generalisations been investigated across’: (a) behaviours? (b) populations? (c) contexts?’ and (ix) having an evidence base.

Articles retrieved

In the results sections that follow we briefly summarise the main findings of the articles included in our review. Further examination of the empirical application of these theories using our quality assessment criteria is part of the future research programme.

Of 8680 articles retrieved through the database search, 6620 were excluded at the first stage of screening (title and abstract) and 1804 articles (out of the remaining 2060) were excluded after full-text screening, leaving 256 articles. To these a further 20 articles were added through searching the reference lists of the included articles, resulting in 276 articles. Figure 1 displays a flow chart of the search results.

Article characteristics

Articles were published between 1977 and 2012, with most of the research conducted in Europe and North America. Eighteen categories of behaviours were identified, with three accounting for 50% of the articles: increasing physical activity ( N = 72; 26%), safe sex practices ( N = 36; 13%) and smoking cessation ( N = 30; 11%). Fifty-two (19%) articles addressed multiple health-related behaviours, with 17 (6%) of these targeting healthy eating and physical activity together. The remaining categories comprised behaviours relating to: healthy eating ( N = 13), addictive behaviours including alcohol and drugs ( N = 12), health examinations and tests ( N = 11), environmental conservation ( N = 10), violence and delinquency ( N = 9), sun protection ( N = 9), drug adherence ( N = 5), job- or education-related activities ( N = 4), Internet- or other technology-related behaviours ( N = 4), health care professional adherence to health care guidelines ( N = 3), financial-related activities ( N = 2), speeding ( N = 2) and 2 ‘others’ which were behaviours that did not fall into any of the above categories including pet removal from domestic residence ( N = 1) and repairing mosquito nets ( N = 1).

The majority of articles used quantitative methods ( N = 243; 88%) and most reported interventions ( N = 168; 61%) or were evaluative ( N = 62; 35%). Thirty-one descriptive articles (either primary theory sources or extensions of a theory) were identified. Behaviour was most commonly measured by self-report methods ( N = 194; 70%). For a high-level summary of these key characteristics, please refer to Table 2 ; a more detailed account of each individual article can be found online in Supplemental Table 2 .

Papers published by the same first author and focused on the same theory were assessed to identify cases in which multiple articles based on the same intervention (i.e., intervention protocol and outcomes) or data-set had been published. This was found to be the case for 19 articles in total (covering 9 interventions/data-sets; see Tables 1 and ​ and2 2 ).

Frequency of use

Of the 82 theories identified, just 4 theories accounted for 174 (63%) of articles: the Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM; N = 91; 33%), the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; N = 36; 13%), Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; N = 29; 11%) and the Information-Motivation-Behavioural-Skills Model (IMB; N = 18; 7%). A further four theories accounted for an additional 32 (12%) of the included articles: the HBM ( N = 9; 3%), Self-determination Theory (SDT; N = 9; 3%), Health Action Process Approach (HAPA; N = 8; 3%) and Social Learning Theory (SLT; N = 6; 2%; SLT is a precursor of SCT). The remaining theories ( N = 70) were applied fewer than 6 times each in the literature that met our inclusion criteria, with most only being applied once or twice (see Table 1 ).

This scoping review of theories of behaviour/behaviour change of potential relevance to designing and evaluating public health interventions was informed by the disciplines of psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics. Eighty-two theories were identified that spanned a myriad of behaviours and could be applied to designing and evaluating interventions to improve public health, as well as tackle other social issues such as environmental sustainability and public safety.

It is important to note that the literature identified in the scoping review reflects the search strategy that aimed to identify theories rather than exhaustively review theoretically informed empirical studies. Therefore, whilst the review identified articles that use the theories in relation to our inclusion criteria, it does not reflect the wider application of these theories to public health-related research.

Scoping reviews are used to map or configure a body of evidence. They therefore tend to focus on breadth, including studies that are representative of the variation within the evidence base, rather than focusing on depth and assembling all the eligible material. It can also mean that establishing what the boundaries of the review are, and therefore what should be included or excluded, may be refined during the course of the review (Shemilt et al., 2013 ). Consensus methods can help with this process. While we intended to conduct this review in a systematic and reproducible way, as it was the first attempt that we were aware of to review a bodies of theory in this way, its purpose seemed more akin to that of a scoping than a systematic review. As Gough, Thomas, and Oliver ( 2012 ) have suggested, there is a clear distinction between aggregative systematic reviews that are ‘about seeking evidence to inform decisions’ and configurative scoping reviews which are about ‘seeking concepts to provide enlightenment through new ways of understanding’. Arguably what we wanted to attempt was a combination of these two things but we have nevertheless labelled what we did a scoping review.

From the theories we identified, only a few were frequently applied in literature. While the purpose of our scoping review was not to uncover all the relevant literature on how these theories have been applied, the finding is of interest because it is consistent with other reviews and publications (e.g., Glanz & Bishop, 2010 ; Painter et al., 2008 ; Prestwich et al., 2013 ). Sixty-three per cent of the articles identified in the review related to just four theories: the TTM, TPB, SCT and the IMB Skills Model. While the literature we uncovered was limited by our inclusion criteria, and includes a small number cases in which authors have published more than one article applying the same theory to the same data-set or intervention, it indicates the very uneven distribution of frequency of theory use. This raises the question as to why many theories are so little used. One explanation may be that how often a theory is used, could in part, be confounded by the year in which the theory was introduced. Knowledge of a theory in terms of how much it is discussed in the public domain is also likely to play a role. Another explanation might be that those that are used more frequently are ‘better’ theories and selected for use because they have a stronger evidence base or meet other quality criteria. However, a couple of examples suggest that frequency does not necessarily follow quality. For example, the theory appearing most frequently in our review, the TTM, has been criticised on several grounds (West, 2005 ) and its empirical support has been questioned by systematic review findings (e.g., Cahill, Lancaster, & Green, 2010 ; Etter & Perneger, 1999 ; Littell & Girvin, 2002 ; Whitelaw, Baldwin, Bunton, & Flynn, 2000 ). On the other hand, recent meta-regression evidence has shown good support for Control Theory (Dombrowski et al., 2012 ; Ivers et al., 2012 ; Michie et al., 2009 ); however, this was identified in only one article in our review. Another explanation is that people are not aware of the full range of theories from which to choose and so instead opt for those most commonly applied in the literature. Frequency of use may not reflect perceived quality of the theory but instead, fashion, familiarity, prior training, exposure or incentivisation. We hope that this review will help to increase awareness among intervention designers and researchers about the range of theories available. We report nine criteria agreed as markers of theory quality that could aid selection of the most appropriate theory or theories.

Our decision to focus on theories of behaviour change at the level of the individual and exclude theories concerned with group behaviour is likely to be part of the explanation for the preponderance of psychological theories identified in the review, although even interventions at the community level tend to be informed by psychological or social–psychological theories (e.g., Bonell, Fletcher, et al., 2013 ; Bonell, Jamal, et al., 2013 ; Glanz & Bishop, 2010 ; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2007 ). This, and the decision not to include books where sociological and anthropological theories are more likely to be found, may go some way to explaining why these types of theory are under-represented. In addition, Kelly et al. ( 2010 ) found that sociological theories were missed in electronic searches, particularly if they were more than 25 years old. Given that interventions may be improved by drawing on theories specifically targeting group behaviours, this would be a useful focus for a future literature review as we are not aware of there being such a review.

This review raised the issues as to what constitutes ‘a theory’ and ‘a behaviour’. Theories, as conceptualised here, ranged from quite specific (e.g., to a particular behavioural domain or type of intervention) to very general, including multiple levels of influence. The cut-offs at either end of this spectrum were agreed by consensus but were inevitably arbitrary. A general observation was that more general theories may have greater face validity but be less useable in guiding research than more specific theories; choice of theory will therefore be partly guided by the purpose it is to be put to. Another observation was that there appeared to be no generally accepted use of terms such as theory, model, framework and orientation, with different uses by different authors. Increasing the precision of, and consensus on, use of terminology would be helpful for the field.

‘Behaviour’ also varies in level of specificity: for example, physical activity includes sports which includes volleyball which includes running. Behaviours are also part of sequences, often dependent on previous behaviours (e.g., carrying gym kit) and sometimes on other people's behaviours (e.g., others turning up for a team game). Just as the relevance of a particular theory may vary across type of behaviour, so it may vary according to the level of specificity.

The review also suggests that there are a large number of theories that are of potential use in designing public health interventions. The cataloguing of 83 theories of behaviour change is an important resource for researchers wishing to draw on theories beyond the few that currently dominate the literature. However, few of these theories have been subjected to wide-scale rigorous empirical evaluation. There have been calls for more operationalization, application, testing and refining of theories over many years (e.g., Michie & Johnston, 2012 ; Noar & Zimmerman, 2005 ; Rothman, 2004 ; Weinstein, 2007 ; Weinstein & Rothman, 2005 ), but advances are slow. We need more investment into methodological and substantive research in this area, for example, the use of fractionated factorial (Collins et al., 2011 ) and n -of-1 (Johnston, Jones, Charles, McCann, & McKee, 2013 ) designs to tease apart complex interventions and the extent to which theories can be generalised across populations, behaviours and contexts.

Identifying the theories in this review is just the first step in a much larger and ongoing programme of work aimed at improving the use of appropriate theory and the scientific rigour with which it is applied. Future work will investigate the ways in which theories have been operationalised and the extent to which different theories share constructs and can be seen as ‘families’ of theory. Transforming the nine quality criteria into forms, such as reliable scales or response options that can be used in evaluating theories is a complex task, and a study in its own right. The evolution of theories over time, including the issue of when a theory is considered a new theory, will also be examined. Many theories contained similar constructs or the same constructs but with slightly different names. Understanding these similarities and working towards a common set of terminology would facilitate the building of a cumulative understanding of mechanisms of action from both primary research and evidence syntheses. It would also further our understanding of the evolution of theories and how theories have been revised and/or integrated with other theories over time. Having said this, it is also important to recognise that not only language varies across and within disciplines but so do epistemological and ontological assumptions and preoccupations.

The next phase of the current research is to (i) investigate the connectedness of theories with each other and (ii) operationalize and demonstrate the application of the agreed quality criteria. These will both inform the understanding of theory and its development, and help guide researchers, policy-makers and interventions on the appropriate selection and application behaviour change theories to developing public health and other behaviour change interventions.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the study's advisory group for developing the literature search strategy, key definitions and the quality criteria for evaluating theory: Robert Aunger, Mary Barker, Mick Bloor, Heather Brown, Richard Cookson, Cyrus Cooper, Peter Craig, Paul Dieppe, Anna Dixon, Rachel Gooberman-Hill, Simon Griffin, Graham Hart, Kate Hunt, Susan Jebb, Marie Johnston, Mike Kelly, Steve Morris, Mark Petticrew, Paschal Sheeran, Mark Suhreke, Ivo Vlaev, Robert West, Daniel Wight, Daniel Zizzo. We are also grateful to Kate Sheals for invaluable help in the latter stages of manuscript preparation.

Funding Statement

Funding : This project was funded by the Medical Research Council's Population Health Sciences Research Network [grant number PHSRN10 ]. The work was undertaken with the support of The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research: Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council [ RES-590-28-0005 ], Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust [ WT087640MA ], under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.

This project was funded by the Medical Research Council's Population Health Sciences Research Network [grant number PHSRN10]. The work was undertaken with the support of The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research: Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council [RES-590-28-0005], Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust [WT087640MA], under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article can be accessed here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941722 .

• Abraham C., Kelly M. P., West R., Michie S. The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence public health guidance on behaviour change: A brief introduction. Psychology, Health and Medicine . 2009;(1):1–8. doi: 10.1080/13548500802537903. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agar J. What happened in the sixties? British Journal for the History of Science . 2008:567–600. doi: 10.1017/S0007087408001179. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albada A., Ausems M. G. E. M., Bensing J. M., van Dulmen S. Tailored information about cancer risk and screening: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling . 2009:155–171. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.005. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albarracin D., Gillette J. C., Earl A. N., Glasman L. R., Durantini M. R., Ho M. H. A test of major assumptions about behavior change: A comprehensive look at the effects of passive and active HIV-prevention interventions since the beginning of the epidemic. Psychological Bulletin . 2005:856–897. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.856. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ammerman A. S., Lindquist C. H., Lohr K. N., Hersey J. The efficacy of behavioral interventions to modify dietary fat and fruit and vegetable intake: A review of the evidence. Preventive Medicine . 2002;(1):25–41. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2002.1028. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aveyard P., West R. Managing smoking cessation. BMJ . 2007;(7609):37–41. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39252.591806.47. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhattarai N., Prevost A., Wright A., Charlton J., Rudisill C., Gulliford M. Effectiveness of interventions to promote healthy diet in primary care: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMC Public Health . 2013;(1):1–14. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1203. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonell C. P., Fletcher A., Jamal F., Wells H., Harden A., Murphy S., Thomas J. Theories of how the school environment impacts on student health: Systematic review and synthesis. Health & Place . 2013:242–249. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.09.014. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonell C., Jamal F., Harden A., Wells H., Parry W., Fletcher A., et al.Moore L. Systematic review of the effects of schools and school environment interventions on health: Evidence mapping and synthesis. Public Health Research . 2013;(1) Retrieved from http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/71161/FullReport-phr01010.pdf . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brouwers M. C., De Vito C., Bahirathan L., Carol A., Carroll J. C., Cotterchio M., et al.Wathen N. What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? A systematic review. Implementation Science . 2011:111. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-111. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cahill K., Lancaster T., Green N. Stage-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . 2010;(11) doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004492.pub4. CD004492. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell M., Fitzpatrick R., Haines A., Kinmonth A. L., Sandercock P., Spiegelhalter D., Tyrer P. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ . 2000:694–696. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell N. C., Murray E., Darbyshire J., Emery J., Farmer A., Griffiths F., et al.Kinmonth A. L. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ . 2007:455–459. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39108.379965.BE. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cane J., O'Connor D., Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementation Science . 2012:37. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-37. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carr A. B., Ebbert J. Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . 2012 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005084.pub3. CD005084. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman T. Do financial incentives for delivering health promotion counselling work? Analysis of smoking cessation activities stimulated by the quality and outcomes framework. BMC Public Health . 2010:167. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-167. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins L. M., Baker T. B., Mermelstein R. J., Piper M. E., Jorenby D. E., Smith S. S., et al.Fiore M. C. The multiphase optimization strategy for engineering effective tobacco use interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine . 2011:208–226. doi: 10.1007/s12160-010-9253-x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conner N., Norman P. Predicting health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models . Buckingham: Open University Press; 2005. 2nd ed. [ Google Scholar ]
• Craig P., Dieppe P., Macintyre S., Michie S., Nazareth I., Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ . 2008:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cutrona S. L., Choudhry N. K., Stedman M., Servi A., Liberman J. N., Brennan T., et al.Shrank W. H. Physician effectiveness in interventions to improve cardiovascular medication adherence: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine . 2010:1090–1096. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1387-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danaei G., Ding E. L., Mozaffarian D., Taylor B., Rehm J., Murray C. J., Ezzati M. The preventable causes of death in the United States: Comparative risk assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors. PLoS Medicine . 2009;(4):e1000058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000058. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies P., Walker A. E., Grimshaw J. M. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implementation Science . 2010:14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-14. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dombrowski S. U., Sniehotta F. F., Avenell A., Johnston M., MacLennan G., Araujo-Soares V. Identifying active ingredients in complex behavioural interventions for obese adults with obesity-related co-morbidities or additional risk factors for co-morbidities: A systematic review. Health Psychology Review . 2012:7–32. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.513298. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Etter J. F., Perneger T. V. A comparison of two measures of stage of change for smoking cessation. Addiction . 1999:1881–1889. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.9412188113.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Everett T., Bryant A., Griffin M. F., Martin-Hirsch P. P. L., Forbes C. A., Jepson R. G. Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . 2011;(5):CD002834. doi: 10.1002/14651858.Cd002834.Pub2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ezzati M., Lopez A. D., Rodgers A., Vander Hoorn S., Murray C. J. L., Coll C. R. A. Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet . 2002:1347–1360. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11403-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations . 1954:117–140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fishbein M., Triandis H. C., Kanfer F. H., Becker M., Middlestadt S. E., Eichler A. Factors influencing behaviour and behaviour change. In: Baum A., Revenson T. A., Singer J. E., editors. Handbook of health psychology . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001. pp. 3–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Francis J. J., O'Connor D., Curran J. Theories of behaviour change synthesised into a set of theoretical groupings: Introducing a thematic series on the theoretical domains framework. Implementation Science . 2012:35. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-35. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• French S. D., Green S. E., O'Connor D. A., McKenzie J. E., Francis J. J., Michie S., et al.Grimshaw J. M. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: A systematic approach using the theoretical domains framework. Implementation Science . 2012:38. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-38. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuller C., Michie S., Savage J., McAteer J., Besser S., Charlett A., et al.Stone S. The feedback intervention trial (FIT) – improving hand-hygiene compliance in UK healthcare workers: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS One . 2012;(10):e41617. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041617. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gardner B., Wardle J., Poston L., Croker H. Changing diet and physical activity to reduce gestational weight gain: A meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews . 2011:e602–e620. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00884.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glanz K., Bishop D. B. The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions. Annual Review of Public Health . 2010:399–418. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103604. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glanz K., Rimer B. K. Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion practice . Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glanz K., Rimer B. K., Lewis F. M., editors. Health behavior and health education. Theory, research and practice . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough D., Thomas J., Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews . 2012:28. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hardeman W., Sutton S., Griffin S., Johnston M., White A., Wareham N. J., Kinmonth A. L. A causal modelling approach to the development of theory-based behaviour change programmes for trial evaluation. Health Education Research . 2005:676–687. doi: 10.1093/Her/Cyh022. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Head K., Noar S. M. Facilitating progress in health behaviour theory development and modification: The reasoned action approach as a case study. Health Psychology Review . 2013:34–52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• House of Lords . Behaviour change. Science and technology select committee, 2nd Report of Session 2010 . London: The Stationery Office (on authority of the House of Lords); 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ivers N., Jamtvedt G., Flottorp S., Young J. M., Odgaard-Jensen J., French S. D., et al.Oxman A. D. Audit and feedback: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . 2012 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3. CD000259. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston D. W., Jones M. C., Charles K., McCann S. K., McKee L. Stress in nurses: Stress-related affect and its determinants examined over the nursing day. Annals of Behavioral Medicine . 2013:348–356. doi: 10.1007/s12160-012-9458-2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly M., Morgan A., Ellis S., Younger T., Huntley J., Swann C. Evidence based public health: A review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England. Social Science and Medicine . 2010:1056–1062. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.032. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim N., Stanton B., Li X., Dickersin K., Galbraith J. Effectiveness of the 40 adolescent AIDS-risk reduction interventions: A quantitative review. Journal of Adolescent Health . 1997:204–215. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(96)00169-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Littell J. H., Girvin H. Stages of change: A critique. Behavior Modification . 2002:223–273. doi: 10.1177/0145445502026002006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marteau T., Dieppe P., Foy R., Kinmonth A. L., Schneiderman N. Behavioural medicine: Changing our behaviour – A growing body of evidence shows how to make behavioural interventions effective. British Medical Journal . 2006:437–438. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7539.437. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLeroy K. R., Bibeau D., Steckler A., Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education and Behavior . 1988:351–377. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500401. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S. Designing and implementing behaviour change interventions to improve population health. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy . 2008;(3):64–69. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008014. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S., Abraham C. Interventions to change health behaviours: Evidence-based or evidence-inspired? Psychology & Health . 2004;(1):29–49. doi: 10.1080/0887044031000141199. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S., Abraham C., Whittington C., McAteer J., Gupta S. Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: A meta-regression. Health Psychology . 2009:690–701. doi: 10.1037/a0016136. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S., Johnston M. Theories and techniques of behaviour change: Developing a cumulative science of behaviour change. Health Psychology Review . 2012:1–6. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2012.654964. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S., Johnston M., Abraham C., Lawton R., Parker D., Walker A., Psychological Theory Group Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. Quality & Safety in Health Care . 2005;(1):26–33. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S., Johnston M., Francis J., Hardeman W., Eccles M. From theory to intervention: Mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Applied Psychology . 2008:660–680. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00341.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S., Prestwich A. Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychology . 2010;(1):1–8. doi: 10.1037/a0016939. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S., West R. Behaviour change theory and evidence: A presentation to government. Health Psychology Review . 2013:1–22. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2011.649445. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mokdad A. H., Marks J. S., Stroup D. F., Gerberding J. L. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA . 2004:1238–1245. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.10.1238. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . Behaviour change at population, community and individual levels [NICE public health guidance 6] London: Author; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . Health systems and health-related behaviour change – A review of primary and secondary evidence . London: Author; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nigg C. R., Allegrante J. P., Ory M. Theory-comparison and multiple-behavior research: Common themes advancing health behavior research. Health Education Research . 2002:670–679. doi: 10.1093/Her/17.5.670. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noar S. M., Benac C. N., Harris M. S. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin . 2007:673–693. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noar S. M., Zimmerman R. S. Health behavior theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: Are we moving in the right direction? Health Education Research . 2005:275–290. doi: 10.1093/her/cyg113. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Office of Behavioural and Social Sciences Research . Healthier lives through behavioral and social science research . Bethesda, MD: Author; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Painter J. E., Borba C. P. C., Hynes M., Mays D., Glanz K. The use of theory in health behavior research from 2000 to 2005: A systematic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine . 2008:358–362. doi: 10.1007/s12160-008-9042-y. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parkin D. M., Boyd L., Walker L. C. The fraction of cancer attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors in the UK in 2010. British Journal of Cancer . 2011;(2):S77–S81. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.489. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prestwich A., Sniehotta F. F., Whittington C., Dombrowski S. U., Rogers L., Michie S. Does theory influence the effectiveness of health behavior interventions? Meta-analysis. Health Psychology . 2013:465–474. doi: 10.1037/a0032853. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rice V. H., Stead L. F. Nursing interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . 2008;(8):CD001188. doi: 10.1002/14651858.Cd001188.Pub3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roe L., Hunt P., Bradshaw H., Rayner M. Health promotion interventions to promote healthy eating in the general population : A review . London: Health Education Authority; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothman A. J. “Is there nothing more practical than a good theory?” Why innovations and advances in health behavior change will arise if interventions are used to test and refine theory. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity . 2004:11. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-1-11. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothman A. J. Capitalizing on opportunities to refine health behavior theories. Health Education & Behavior . 2009:150s–155s. doi: 10.1177/1090198109340514. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheeran P. Intention-behaviour relations: A conceptual and empirical overview. European Review of Social Psychology . 2002;(1):1–36. doi: 10.1080/14792772143000003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shemilt I., Simon A., Hollands G. J., Marteau T. M., Ogilvie D., O'Mara-Eves A., et al.Thomas J. Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: Use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews. Research Synthesis Methods . 2013;(1):31–49. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1093. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon S., Kington R. National efforts to promote behavior-change research: Views from the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. Health Education Research . 2002:495–499. doi: 10.1093/her/17.5.495. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinijans V. W., Diletti E., Bomches B., Greis C., Solleder P. Interobserver agreement: Cohen's kappa coefficient does not necessarily reflect the percentage of patients with congruent classifications. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics . 1997:93–95. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stephenson J. M., Imrie J., Sutton S. R. Rigorous trials of sexual behaviour interventions in STD/HIV prevention: What can we learn from them? AIDS . 2000;(3):S115–S124. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Summerbell C. D., Waters E., Edmunds L. D., Kelly S., Brown T., Campbell K. J. Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . 2005;(12):CD001871. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swann C., Bowe K., Kosmin M., McCormick G. Teenage pregnancy and parenthood: A review of reviews. Evidence briefing . London: Health Development Agency; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor N., Conner M., Lawton R. The impact of theory on the effectiveness of worksite physical activity interventions: A meta-analysis and meta-regression. Health Psychology Review . 2011:33–73. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.533441. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor S. E. Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist . 1983:1161–1173. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.38.11.1161. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb T. L., Joseph J., Yardley L., Michie S. Using the internet to promote health behavior change: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. Journal of Medical Internet Research . 2010;(1):e4. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1376. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinstein N. D. Misleading tests of health behavior theories. Annals of Behavioral Medicine . 2007;(1):1–10. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm3301_1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinstein N. D., Rothman A. J. Commentary: Revitalizing research on health behavior theories. Health Education Research . 2005:294–297. doi: 10.1093/her/cyg125. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West R. Time for a change: Putting the Transtheoretical (Stages of Change) Model to rest. Addiction . 2005:1036–1039. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00995.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West R. Theory of addiction . Oxford: Blackwell; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitelaw S., Baldwin S., Bunton R., Flynn D. The status of evidence and outcomes in stages of change research. Health Education Research . 2000:707–718. doi: 10.1093/her/15.6.707. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Psychology: Literature Review

• Careers in Psychology
• Find Books/eBooks
• Find Articles
• Literature Review
• Formatting in a Flash
• APA - The Basics
• Integrating Sources
• Research Process
• Sensation and Perception
• Sleep Disorders
• Media Violence
• Stress Management
• Parenting Workshop
• Covid and Mental Health

New All-in-One Search

  Classic Catalog | Remote Access | Help          

Classic Catalog | Remote Access | Help          

A-to-Z List | Remote Access

A-to-Z List | By Subject | By Type

Sample Literature Review

• SAMPLE Literature Review in APA7 (PDF) This is a PDF for you to use as an example of the formatting and content of a literature review for this assignment.

Click on the link above to open the PDF for the SAMPLE Literature Review

Don't forget that all the journal/scholarly articles you choose will be on the same topic. Do NOT choose magazine or newspaper articles for this assignment.

For more help finding scholarly journal articles with research, see Find Articles.  

For more help with APA references and in-text citations, see APA 7 Citation Help .

Best Databases for the Psychology Literature Review

How the Library Helps You Identify Types of Sources

Other Helpful Library Resources

• APA Citation Page Use this page to help you create references and in-text citations for APA 7.
• Finding Articles for Psychology, including those with Original Research Information on this page helps students find articles with original research and explains the sections of a scholarly journal article.

Finding Scholarly Articles in the Library's Database

What is a Literature Review

The literature review that you write summarizes and explains research that has been done on a particular topic. All of the articles will be on the same topic . You've seen literature reviews in academic articles that are written to show what's already been researched and why the authors choose to do their own research. Since you aren't actually conducting long, extensive research, you are are looking at a body of research and looking for common issues and also the progression of research (more sophisticated, taking new angles, etc.).

Content of the Review

Introduction.

The introduction explains the focus and establishes the importance of the subject. It discusses what kind of work has been done on the topic and identifies any controversies within the field or any recent research which has raised questions about earlier assumptions. It may provide background or history. It concludes with a purpose or thesis statement. This statement will sum up and evaluate the state of the art in this field of research.

Often divided by headings/subheadings, the body summarizes and evaluates the current state of knowledge in the field. It notes major themes or topics, the most important trends, and any findings about which researchers agree or disagree. 

The conclusion summarizes all the evidence presented and shows its significance.You should suggest any practical applications of the research as well as the implications and possibilities for future research.

How to Write A Literature Review

1. find a working topic.

Look at your textbook and Blackboard information. You should find a topic that's not too broad or too narrow. For example, developmental disabilities may be too broad but autism may be a better fit.

2. Review the Literature

• Use one of the psychology databases. 
• Remember that the reference lists of recent articles and reviews can lead to valuable papers
• Use the date slider bar to find older articles that might be considered "seminal" or the foundation for later studies.

3. Read the Selected Articles Thoroughly and Evaluate Them

• What assumptions do most/some researchers seem to be making?
• What methodologies do they use? what testing procedures, subjects, material tested?
• Evaluate and synthesize the research findings and conclusions drawn
• Note experts in the field: names/labs that are frequently referenced
• Watch for popularity of theories and how this has/has not changed over time

4. Develop a Working Thesis

Write a one or two sentence statement summarizing the conclusion you have reached about the major trends and developments you see in the research that has been done on your subject.

• << Previous: Videos
• Next: Formatting in a Flash >>
• Last Updated: Sep 17, 2024 9:04 PM
• URL: https://libguides.rccc.edu/psychology

• University of La Verne
• Subject Guides

PSY 306: Cognitive Psychology

• Literature Reviews
• Find Articles
• What is a Literature Review?
• Literature Review Resources
• Literature Review Books
• The 5 Steps to Writing a Literature Review
• APA Citations
• Organize Citations
• A literature review is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. As a researcher, you collect the available literature on a topic, and then select the literature that is most relevant for your purpose. Your written literature review summarizes and analyses the themes, topics, methods, and results of that literature in order to inform the reader about the history and current status of research on that topic.

What purpose does a literature review serve?

• The literature review informs the reader of the researcher's knowledge of the relevant research already conducted on the topic under discussion, and places the author's current study in context of previous studies.
• As part of a senior project, the literature review points out the current issues and questions concerning a topic. By relating the your research to a knowledge gap in the existing literature, you should demonstrate how his or her proposed research will contribute to expanding knowledge in that field.
• Short Literature Review Sample This literature review sample guides students from the thought process to a finished review.
• Literature Review Matrix (Excel Doc) Excel file that can be edited to suit your needs.
• Literature Review Matrix (PDF) Source: McLean, Lindsey. "Literature Review." CORA (Community of Online Research Assignments), 2015. https://www.projectcora.org/assignment/literature-review.
• Academic Writer (formerly APA Style Central) This link opens in a new window Academic Writer (formerly APA Style Central) features three independent but integrated centers that provide expert resources necessary for teaching, learning, and applying the rules of APA Style.
• Sample Literature Reviews: Univ. of West Florida Literature review guide from the University of West Florida library guides.
• Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL) Sample literature review in APA from Purdue University's Online Writing Lab (OWL)

• << Previous: Find Articles
• Next: APA Citations >>
• Last Updated: Aug 16, 2024 3:09 PM
• URL: https://laverne.libguides.com/psy306