Abstract
Tests of social cognitive theories provide informative data on the factors that relate to health behavior, and the processes and mechanisms involved. In the present article, we contend that tests of social cognitive theories should adhere to the principles of nomological validity, defined as the degree to which predictions in a formal theoretical network are confirmed. We highlight the importance of nomological validity tests to ensure theory predictions can be disconfirmed through observation. We argue that researchers should be explicit on the conditions that lead to theory disconfirmation, and identify any auxiliary assumptions on which theory effects may be conditional. We contend that few researchers formally test the nomological validity of theories, or outline conditions that lead to model rejection and the auxiliary assumptions that may explain findings that run counter to hypotheses, raising potential for ‘falsification evasion.’ We present a brief analysis of studies (k = 122) testing four key social cognitive theories in health behavior to illustrate deficiencies in reporting theory tests and evaluations of nomological validity. Our analysis revealed that few articles report explicit statements suggesting that their findings support or reject the hypotheses of the theories tested, even when findings point to rejection. We illustrate the importance of explicit a priori specification of fundamental theory hypotheses and associated auxiliary assumptions, and identification of the conditions which would lead to rejection of theory predictions. We also demonstrate the value of confirmatory analytic techniques, meta-analytic structural equation modeling, and Bayesian analyses in providing robust converging evidence for nomological validity. We provide a set of guidelines for researchers on how to adopt and apply the nomological validity approach to testing health behavior models.
Highlights
Testing the validity of social cognitive models applied to the prediction of health behavior provides an important evidence base to inform the development of behavioral interventions aimed at promoting health behavior (Biddle et al, 2007; Weinstein, 2007; Leventhal et al, 2008; Schwarzer, 2008; Conner and Norman, 2015; Sniehotta et al, 2015)
In this article we have discussed the merits of rigorous nomological validity tests of models applied in health psychology
We identified the importance of converging evidence for the nomological validity of models across multiple tests through path analytic meta-analysis and the role of Bayesian estimation to provide greater precision tests of nomological validity based on prior evidence
Summary
Testing the validity of social cognitive models applied to the prediction of health behavior provides an important evidence base to inform the development of behavioral interventions aimed at promoting health behavior (Biddle et al, 2007; Weinstein, 2007; Leventhal et al, 2008; Schwarzer, 2008; Conner and Norman, 2015; Sniehotta et al, 2015). The specification of models in this way is consistent with the Popper’s (1959) position that social scientists should seek to provide a comprehensive description of the situational and interpersonal factors affecting human action Central to this position is the requirement that such descriptions are specified in advance of observation and should be verified or disconfirmed through rigorous empirical tests. Such an approach requires clear a priori specification of sets of relations among social cognitive variables as antecedents, mediators and consequents in the nomological network followed by subsequent simultaneous tests of the network. This position was advocated by Cronbach and Meehl (1955), among others, when proposing the importance of subjecting theories to strict tests of their nomological validity, and abandoning the theory or proposing modifications and subsequent tests in an iterative approach
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
