The Theory of Planned Behavior

• p. 4 Footnote 1

  Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990, in press)

• p. 4 Footnote 1

  and Warshaw (1990, in press)

• p. 31 References

  Jackson, D. N., & Paunonen, S. V. (1985)

Judge's note: I viewed the footnote on p. 4 and the reference list on p. 31. A text search finds Jackson & Paunonen only in the reference list. The in-text Bagozzi & Warshaw citations lack the a/b suffixes, and neither listed entry is 'in press'.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 9 Table 1 footnotes

  a Not a direct test of the theory of planned behavior.

• p. 27 Table 7, van Ryn row and footnote

  a Secondary analysis.

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Compared the footnotes of Tables 1, 2 and 7. The author also thanks these data providers for data sets 'for reanalysis'. Locke et al. carries both marks, so only the authors can confirm whether the labels were swapped.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 31 Reference list

  Jackson, D. N., & Paunonen, S. V. (1985)

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: I searched the full article text and found no in-text citation of Jackson or Paunonen. Only the author can say whether a citation was dropped or the entry should be removed.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 9 Table 1, Doll & Ajzen row

  .49 .48 .14 .12 .51

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Read on the p. 9 image. In standardized OLS, R² = Σβ·r. Ajzen & Driver (.78) and Ajzen & Madden (.42) reproduce; these two rows do not. Doll & Ajzen is a 'mean within-subjects' row, where averaged coefficients need not satisfy the identity. That is a partial innocent explanation, but the Netemeyer row is a single regression. For the Netemeyer row the printed betas also cannot be reconciled with the printed r values for any predictor intercorrelation. Only the authors can say which value is right.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 12 Table 2, Netemeyer, Burton & Johnston, Lose weight

  .33 .14 .31 .24 – .02 .47 .56

• p. 12 Table 2, Schifter & Ajzen, Lose weight

  .62 .44 .36 .79 .17 .30 .74

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Values read from the upright p. 12 image. Other rows reproduce closely: van Ryn gives about .71 against .71 printed, Doll gives about .94 against .94. These two rows give R of about .47 and .82. Only the authors can say which entries are right.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 17 First paragraph

  explain between 10 and 36% of the variance

• p. 16 Table 3, After optimal rescaling column

  .57

• p. 17 First paragraph

  explain between 10 and 36% of the variance in the standard attitude

• p. 16 Table 3, After optimal rescaling column

  After

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Table 3 read on the p. 16 image and the sentence on p. 17. The sentence directly follows the Table 3 illustration. No column of Table 3 gives 10% or 36%: the bipolar column gives about 12% to 29%. The source of the stated range is unclear.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 17 First paragraph

  but rarely raised the correlations above the level obtained with bipolar scoring of beliefs

• p. 17 First paragraph

  but rarely raised the correlations above the level obtained with bipolar

Judge's note: I compared the bipolar and rescaled columns of Table 3. Most of the gains are small, but the jogging gain is .06. The word "rarely" misdescribes how often the correlations rose.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 22 Text below Table 5

  further increased the explained variance by 3 to 6%

• p. 22 Table 5, Shoplifting R

  .87

• p. 22 Text below Table 5

  variance by 3 to 6%

• p. 22 Table 5, R values for Step 1 and Step 2

  Step 2

Judge's note: R values read on the p. 22 image. The upper end computed from the printed two-decimal R values is about 7%. Because R is rounded to two decimals, the unrounded values could bring it to 6%, so this is a minor consistency point.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 2 Aggregation paragraph

  situaions

• p. 5 Perceived behavioral control paragraph

  is impact on intentions and actions

• p. 2 aggregation paragraph

  situaions, and forms of action

Judge's note: Both misspellings are visible on the page images. Neither falls at a line break, so hyphenation does not explain them. The 'is impact' item overlaps C015; it is kept here.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 2 aggregation paragraph

  any single ample of behavior

Judge's note: The truncated word 'ample' is visible at the start of the line in the page image.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 16 Paragraph on Table 3

  scoring b from ito 7

• p. 2 Aggregation paragraph

  situaions

• p. 5 Perceived behavioral control

  and is impact on intentions

• p. 5 Perceived behavioral control paragraph

  perception of behavioral control and is impact on intentions and actions

Judge's note: Each is visible on the page images (p. 16, the p. 2 crop, p. 5).

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 5 First paragraph

  Pleishman

• p. 11 Role of beliefs paragraph

  Milier, 1956

• p. 28 Conclusions

  Schiegel

• p. 28 Conclusions

  (Schiegel,

Judge's note: All four misspellings are visible on the page images (p. 5, the p. 11 crop, the p. 28 crop), so they are not extraction artefacts. The reference-list spellings were checked on pp. 31 and 33. Whether d'Avernas or d'Averna is correct cannot be settled here; the text and the list simply disagree.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 9 Table 1, last rows

  CCheating, shoplifting, lying—mean

• p. 9 Table 1, last rows

  GGiving a gift — mean

• p. 9 Table 1, Beck & Ajzen / Netemeyer rows

  CCheating, shoplifting, lying

Judge's note: The doubled capitals are visible in the Table 1 image on p. 9.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 32 Reference list

  Durvasala, S. (1990)

• p. 32 reference list

  Netemeyer, R. G., Andrews, J. C., & Durvasala, S. (1990)

• p. 9 Table 1

  Durvasula (1990)

Judge's note: The page 32 crop shows "Durvasala" and the Table 1 crop on page 9 shows "Durvasula". The spelling is inconsistent within the article.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 12 Table 2, Study column

  Godin et al. (3990)

Judge's note: '3990' is visible in the upright p. 12 image, and the reference entry (1990) is on p. 31.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 12 Table 2 title and rows

  ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BEHAVIOR (A5B)

• p. 12 Table 2 rows

  Lose weigha

• p. 12 Table 2

  Doil & Ajzen (1990)

Judge's note: All of these are visible in the upright p. 12 image. 'weigh' carries the superscript footnote 'a', so the word itself is missing its final 't'.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 14 first paragraph

  Fishbein, 1963, Fishbein & Ajzen, 1981;

Judge's note: The comma is visible on p. 192. This is a cosmetic punctuation point.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 17 Normative beliefs paragraph

  motivation to comply (in)

Judge's note: The crop shows "(in)" in the printed page, while Eq. (2) reads n_i m_i.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 19

  responding to the belief and valuation items may require

Judge's note: Seen in the p. 19 crop. This is probably a dropped 'e', but 'valuation' is still a readable word.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 20 First line

  (Ellen & Madden, 19%)

• p. 30 reference list

  Ellen, P. 5., & Madden, T. J. (1990)

Judge's note: '19%' is visible on the p. 20 image, and the reference entry on p. 30 reads (1990).

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 22 Table 5, Shoplifting attitude r and Lying Step 1 R

  78

• p. 22 Table 5, Step 1, Lying R

  79

Judge's note: Visible in the Table 5 image on p. 22. Every other entry has its decimal point, and Step 2 gives the shoplifting attitude r as .78.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 23 Table 6 note

  belief-based mueasure of

Judge's note: The misspelling is visible in the crop.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 26 Past behavior paragraph

  searching for ajob

Judge's note: The missing space is visible in the crop.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 28 Conclusions

  Schiegel, d*Avernas, Zanna

• p. 33 reference list

  Schlegel, R. P., d*Averna, I. R.

Judge's note: Both spellings are visible in the crops of pages 28 and 33.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 29 Reference list

  Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. E. (in press, a)

• p. 29 reference list

  Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (in press, b.)

Judge's note: Both entries are visible in the page 29 crops. They are by the same pair of authors on the same leisure-study project, but give different middle initials. Which initial is correct (B. L. is likely) rests on outside knowledge; the inconsistency itself is visible on the page.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 29 Reference list

  22, 45374.

• p. 31 References

  lnsko. C. A., Insko,

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the correct range is presumably 453–474. The page 29 crop shows '22, 45374.' as printed, so this is not only an extraction artefact. The page 31 crop shows 'lnsko. C. A., Insko, C. A., Blake, R. R., ...' appended to the end of the Hull (1943) entry. A text search finds Jackson/Paunonen only in the reference list.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 31 Reference list

  lnsko. C. A., Insko,

• p. 31 reference list, Hull / Insko

  lnsko. C. A., Insko, C. A., Blake

Judge's note: The crops and page 31 show the Insko entry starting on the Hull line with the first author printed twice ("lnsko. C. A., Insko, C. A."). Fix: start a separate entry reading "Insko, C. A., Blake, R. R., ...".

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 31 reference list

  phenomenal casuality

Judge's note: The crop of page 31 shows "casuality".

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 32 Reference list

  Misehel, W. (1968)

• p. 31 Reference list

  phenomenal casuality

• p. 33 Reference list

  Unplublished

• p. 33 reference list, Schlegel et al.

  Unplublished manuscript

Judge's note: The page 32 crop shows 'Misehel' and 'MeGuire'; the page 31 crop shows 'casuality'; the page 33 crop shows 'Unplublished'. 'Dosseit' appears in the reference text layer (line 1770). The in-text citations spell Mischel, McGuire and Dossett correctly, which supports the corrections.

Second check: none (judge only)