A central tension described in Ogden's (2016) editorial is that between the variability (the "mess") that appears inherent to human behavior - in this case in response to health-related interventions - and the determinacy science seeks. For those studying and modeling human behavior, it is hard not to be dumfounded by its "ill-fitting, multiple-influenced, volatile, situational and porous nature"
... [Show full abstract] (p. 318, Rowson, 2015). Yet, individual behavior is far too important an affair today not to be approached scientifically, thus seeking some level of predictability. Ogden's argument is that as this process is advancing, specifically through the effort of systematization illustrated by the work of Michie et al. (e.g., Michie, Atkins, & West, 2014), so is a profession, ultimately an entire field, at risk of perishing. My own view is that, as a scientific field, health behavior change is in its early stages and it is far too early for major paradigm shifts. Instead, I foresee a future where progress in this field will contribute to improve interventions for all but where complexity and insufficient evidence will regularly force interventionists to rely on other sources of information to make decisions. Indeed, this is precisely where I would relocate the central tension of the field: to the fact that while health psychologists are in demand to build interventions that work today, currently these have to be based on rather limited data about what works, why, for whom, and under which circumstances.