The reasoned action approach to understanding and predicting behavior includes the sufficiency assumption. Although variables not included in the theory may influence behavior, these variables work through the variables in the theory. Once the reasoned action variables are included in an analysis, the inclusion of other variables will not increase the variance accounted for in behavioral intentions or behavior. Reasoned action researchers are very concerned with testing if new variables account for variance (or how much traditional variables account for variance), to see whether they are important, in general or with respect to specific behaviors under investigation. But this approach tacitly assumes that accounting for variance is highly relevant to understanding the production of variance, which is what really is at issue. Based on the variance law, I question this assumption.