JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 4(4), 371 -380 Copyright O 1995, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. COMMENTARY Whither Fact, Artifact, and Attitude: Reflections on the Theory of Reasoned Action Paul M. Herr Marketing Division, Graduate School of Business University of Colorado at Boulder In response to Fishbein and Middlestadt's (1995) study, the theory of reasoned action is evaluated in the context of general attitude theory. Although the theory has been theoretically interesting and practically useful, concerns are raised regarding its implementation, with particular respect to measurement, falsifiabil- ity, and testability issues. The theory provides a solid foundation for the study of consumer behavior, but participants in the debate over affect or belief-based attitude mediation should consider additional attitude theories that build on and complement the theory of reasoned action. Few would argue the contributions made to the study of attitudes and con- sumer behavior by Fishbein. At a time when critics called for abandoning the study of attitudes (e.g., DeFleur & Westie, 1963; Deutscher, 1966, 1969; Wicker, 1969, 1971), Fishbein's work was largely responsible for preserving and renewing interest in the construct. The links to marketing generated by the model of reasoned action are direct. Consequently, it has been one of the most widely used models by marketing managers, at least partly due to the diagnos- tic direction it provides. If more favorable attitudes are desired, create more favorable beliefs or get rid of unfavorable beliefs and so on. The model also possesses some intuitive appeal as well. Assuming at least limited rationality, beliefs should drive behavior. Despite the contributions, the literature is filled with dialogues between Requests for reprints should be sent to Paul M. Herr, Graduate School of Business, Univer- sity of Colorado, Campus Box 419, Boulder, CO 80309-0419.