| Course | PU508 Social and Behavioral Theory and Frameworks |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Theory comparison paper |
| Length | About 890 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PU508 Unit 2
One Behavior, Two Models: A Theory Comparison Paper Testing the Health Belief Model Against the Theory of Planned Behavior on Condom Use With New Partners Among Students at a Composite University, and Choosing One for Reasons Stated and Defended
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PU508: Social and Behavioral Theory and Frameworks
Unit 2 Theory Comparison Paper
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The university and its survey figures are composite and bracketed for the writer's own data; the theories and meta-analyses cited are real.
The Behavior
Using a condom at every act of vaginal or anal intercourse with a new partner during the first three months of the relationship, among undergraduates aged 18 to 24. In the campus health survey, [41] percent of sexually active students with a new partner in the past year reported doing so consistently.
The Two Models in Brief
In the Health Belief Model, a protective action becomes likely when a person sees a threat as personally likely and serious, judges that the action's gains outweigh its costs, and meets a prompt to act; self-efficacy was added in later versions. The Theory of Planned Behavior traces action back to intention, and intention back to three sources: how favorably the person views the action, what the people who matter to them seem to expect, and how much control they feel over carrying it out, which can also act on behavior directly (Ajzen, 1991).
Comparison Table
Each construct is set against what meta-analyses report. Perceived susceptibility (Health Belief Model). Evidence: among the weakest predictors of behavior across studies (Carpenter, 2010). Fit for this behavior: weak; many students judge new partners by appearance and familiarity rather than by risk. Perceived severity (Health Belief Model). Evidence: weak predictor. Fit: weak. Perceived benefits and barriers (Health Belief Model). Evidence: the strongest Health Belief Model predictors (Carpenter, 2010). Fit: strong; barriers such as reduced pleasure and partner reaction are prominent. Cues to action (Health Belief Model). Evidence: rarely measured consistently. Fit: unclear. Attitude (Theory of Planned Behavior). Evidence: a consistent predictor of condom use intentions (Albarracín et al., 2001). Fit: strong, and it captures benefits and barriers as beliefs about outcomes. Subjective norm (Theory of Planned Behavior). Evidence: predicts intentions, especially norms tied to partners (Albarracín et al., 2001). Fit: strong; the partner's expectation is central. Perceived behavioral control (Theory of Planned Behavior). Evidence: adds to prediction of intentions and behavior. Fit: strong; having a condom available and negotiating its use in the moment. Intention (Theory of Planned Behavior). Evidence: intentions predict later condom use moderately well. Fit: strong, though intentions weaken in the moment, after alcohol or with a trusted partner. The Health Belief Model's strongest constructs, benefits and barriers, are already contained in the other model's attitude construct.
The Choice
The Theory of Planned Behavior is chosen. It includes the Health Belief Model's most predictive content within attitude, adds the partner and peer expectations the Health Belief Model leaves out, and offers perceived behavioral control for the practical skill of having and negotiating a condom. The Health Belief Model rests heavily on perceived susceptibility, which meta-analytic evidence suggests predicts behavior weakly, and it has no construct for a partner's expectations.
What Students Told the Health Center
Before choosing a model, the health center ran [four] focus groups with [31] students. Students rarely described their risk in terms of illness. They talked instead about whether a partner seemed trustworthy, whether bringing up a condom would signal distrust, whether friends used them and whether one was at hand when it mattered. Several said they intended to use condoms with new partners and then did not, usually after drinking or when a partner objected. These accounts map closely onto attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control, and hardly at all onto perceived severity. The focus groups therefore supported the meta-analytic evidence rather than replacing it, and they gave the program the actual words students use.
Why Not Both Models
A program could borrow from both, and some do. But mixing constructs without a single causal structure makes measurement and evaluation harder: it becomes unclear which change produced which effect. Choosing one model, and folding the other's useful content into it, keeps the program testable.
Defending the Choice
The strongest objection is that the Theory of Planned Behavior predicts intentions better than actions, and condom use happens in moments where intention can collapse. The answer is that perceived behavioral control, measured specifically, and implementation planning built on the theory, such as carrying condoms and rehearsing what to say, address that gap. A second objection is that both are individual-level theories that ignore campus context, such as availability of free condoms. That is true; the campus program will pair the theory with environmental steps, and a later unit will place it within an ecological frame.
What the Choice Means for the Program
Messages will target attitudes about pleasure and trust, normative beliefs about what partners and friends expect, and control through skills practice and condom access in residence halls. Measurement will use items for each construct, with intention and later use as outcomes.
Limits
Meta-analyses pool varied populations; few studies focus on the first months of a new relationship among college students.
Conclusion
For a behavior shaped by partners and in-the-moment control, the Theory of Planned Behavior fits better and keeps the Health Belief Model's best content.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 142-161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.142
Carpenter, C. J. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of health belief model variables in predicting behavior. Health Communication, 25(8), 661-669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.521906
What the PU508 Unit 2 assignment asks for
Unit 2 in PU 508 typically asks students to compare two behavior theories for a specific health behavior and choose one. Instructions usually require defining the behavior, summarizing each theory, comparing constructs against evidence, making a choice and justifying it. Define the behavior narrowly, with population, action and time frame, because both theories predict specific actions. Keep summaries short so the comparison has room. Build a table that tests each construct against the same body of evidence, ideally meta-analyses. Choose one theory, state why in a few sentences and answer the strongest objections. Use local evidence, such as focus groups, to check the fit. Cite theory sources and research in APA style, and explain what the choice means for program design.
How the PU 508 Unit 2 example is put together
The sample defines the behavior precisely, with a margin note on why narrow definitions matter. Brief summaries of both models follow. The comparison table tests eight constructs against two meta-analyses, and a highlighted line notes that the Health Belief Model's best constructs are already inside the attitude construct. The choice is stated with reasons, flagged by a margin note. A section on focus groups shows students talk about trust, partners and availability rather than illness, with a third margin note. A section explains why the program does not mix both models. Two objections are answered. Program implications, limits and a conclusion close the paper. Each objection is answered with a design feature the program will actually include.
PU508 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points
PU 508 theory comparison rubrics generally award points for a precisely defined behavior, accurate summaries, a systematic comparison grounded in evidence, a clear choice, a strong justification, attention to objections, implications for practice, sources and presentation. Behavior points go to a narrow definition with population and time frame. Summary points reward accuracy without padding. Comparison points depend on testing each construct against research. Choice points require committing to one theory. Justification points go to reasons tied to the evidence. Objection points reward answering the strongest criticism. Papers that check the literature against local data, such as focus groups, tend to earn the top grades. A brief note on how closely the studies resemble this campus also earns credit.
PU508 Unit 2 help: mistakes that cost points
Theory comparison papers often lose points by describing both theories at length and comparing them only in a final paragraph. Others define the behavior so loosely that either theory seems to fit, or avoid choosing. Define the behavior precisely. Keep each summary brief. Build a table that tests every construct against the same evidence. Choose one theory and explain why in plain sentences, folding in any useful content from the other. Answer the strongest objections honestly, such as the gap between intention and action. Check the fit against what your population says. Close with how the chosen theory will shape messages and measurement. Keep the table readable, with one line of evidence per construct.
Get a PU508 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Whatever pair of models and health problem your PU508 prompt names, the desk can weigh them against the evidence. Include the Unit 2 instructions and rubric with the request. A free first custom sample reaches you in 24-48 hours, comparing constructs directly and choosing one model with reasons your section can check. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More PU508 papers and MPH samples
- PU508 Unit 1: Lewin Walking to School Post
- PU508 Unit 3: Determinants Review
- PU508 Unit 4: Construct Mapping Table
- PU508 Unit 5: Ecological Model Analysis
- PU508 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- PU508 Unit 7: Intervention Mapping Worksheet
- PU508 Unit 8: Construct Measurement Plan
- PU508 Unit 9: Case Analysis
- PU508 Unit 10: Theory-based Proposal
- PU501 Unit 2: Tattoo Safety Core Functions Analysis
PU508 Unit 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PU508 Unit 2 sample paper?
The complete PU508 Unit 2 theory comparison paper is here, testing two behavior theories on condom use among students at a composite university.
Which theory does PU508 Unit 2 choose?
The Theory of Planned Behavior.
Why not the Health Belief Model?
Its threat constructs predict behavior weakly, and it has no construct for partners' and peers' expectations.
What objection does the paper answer?
That intentions collapse in the moment, answered through perceived control and planning skills.
How long is the PU508 Unit 2 paper?
About six pages with a comparison table at the center.