Theory Of Reasoned Action

Theory of Reasoned Action The theory of Reasoned Action was developed by Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen as an improvement over Information Integration theory (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). There are two important changes. First, Reasoned Actions adds another element in the process of persuasion, behavioral intention. Rather than attempt to predict attitudes, as does Information Integration theory (and several others), Reasoned Action is explicitly concerned with behavior. However, this theory also recognizes that there are situations (or factors) that limit the influence of attitude on behavior. For example, if our attitude leads us to want to go out on a date but we have no money, our lack of money will prevent our attitude from causing us to go on a date. Therefore, Reasoned Action predicts behavioral intention, a compromise between stopping at attitude predictions and actually predicting behavior. Because it separates behavioral intention from behavior, Reasoned Action also discusses the factors that limit the influence of attitudes (or behavioral intention) on behavior. The second change from Information Integration theory is that Reasoned Action uses two elements, attitudes and norms (or the expectations of other people), to predict behavioral intent. That is, whenever our attitudes lead us to do one thing but the relevant norms suggest we should do something else, both factors influence our behavioral intent. For example, John’s attitudes may encourage him to want to read a Harry Potter book, but his friends may think this series is childish. Does John do what his attitudes suggest (read the book) or what the norms of his friends suggest (not read the book)? Specifically, Reasoned Action predicts that behavioral intent is created or caused by two factors: our attitudes and our subjective norms. As in Information Integration theory, attitudes have two components. Fishbein and Ajzen call these the evaluation and strength of a belief. The second component influencing behavioral intent, subjective norms, also have two components: normative beliefs (what I think others would want or expect me to do) and motivation to comply (how important it is to me to do what I think others expect). Therefore, we have several options for trying to persuade someone. The first group of options are like the strategies identified by information integration theory: -strengthen the belief strength of an attitude that supports the persuasive goal. -strengthen the evaluation of an attitude that supports the persuasive goal -weaken the belief strength of an attitude that opposes the persuasive goal -weaken the evaluation of an attitude that supports the persuasive goal -create a new attitude with a belief strength and evaluation that supports the persuasive goal -remind our audience of a forgotten attitude with a belief strength and evaluation that supports the persuasive goal. For example, suppose you wanted to persuade your roommate, Pat, to go see a movie. If Pat had a positive attitude toward that movie (I ve heard that movie is funny), you could try to increase the belief strength (Everyone says it is funny; no question about it) or evaluation (That movie isn’t just funny, its hilarious!) of that attitude. If Pat had a negative attitude toward attending the movie (The movie theater is decrepit) you could try to reduce the belief strength (They remodeled it) or evaluation (The important thing is the movie, not the theater) of that negative attitude. You could create a new favorable attitude (I heard the soundtrack to this movie is great!) or remind Pat of a favorable attitude. However, the addition of subjective norms creates several other options:

1

-strengthen a normative belief that supports the persuasive goal -increase the motivation to comply with a norm that supports the persuasive goal -reduce a normative belief that opposes the persuasive goal -reduce the motivation to comply with a norm that opposes the persuasive goal -create a new subjective norm that supports the persuasive goal -remind the audience of a forgotten subjective norm that supports the persuasive goal. For example, you could try to strengthen an existing normative belief (No one should sit home on a Friday night) or increase the motivation to comply (Youll really be depressed if you stay home -- people are right when they say you shouldn’t stay home on the weekend). If Pat thinks it is wrong to go to a movie with a roommate instead of a date, you could try to weaken this normative belief or her motivation to comply with it. Furthermore, you could try to create a new norm (Everybody is going to see movies made by this director) or remind Pat of a forgotten norm. Finally, the fact that there are two influences on behavioral intention, attitudes and norms, gives one final possibility for persuading others: -if one component (attitudes, norms) supports the persuasive goal more than the other, make that component more important than the other.

2

Relationship of Behavioral Intention to Behavior The theory of Reasoned Action adds a new variable between attitudes (and norms) and behavior: behavioral intent. An important question, therefore, is how does behavioral intent relate to behavior? Reasoned Action states that three factors influence whether (or how much) behavioral intent shapes our behavior. First, as suggested above, we must have control over our behavior (volitional control). If I am broke, I cannot go to the movies with my girlfriend. My attitude (and norms of others) may lead me to want very much to teach at Harvard, but I cannot make them hire me. Because our society in may ways is cooperative, we do not always get what we want (what our attitudes lead us to desire and what norms suggest we should want) because we just do not have complete control over our environment. A second reason why behavioral intent may not yield the expected behavior is that attitudes and behavior must be measured at the same level. If my intent is to buy a new car I may not buy a Ford Mustang. So the fact that I did not purchase a Mustang does not show that my behavioral intent did not affect my behavior (I could have bought a Chevrolet). If I want to go to college I might not attend the University of Southern California. Again, knowing that I did not go to USC is not a reason to think that my behavioral intent had no influence on my behavior; I may attend the University of California, Los Angeles. This may seem somewhat silly, but some researchers thought that they found that behavioral intent did not influence behavior because they did not measure intent and behavior correctly. For example, in one study behavioral intent (or attitude) was measured by asking a group of people if they like snakes. Everyone said no, indicating a negative attitude. Then these people were asked if they would like to touch a snake, and many did so. The researchers concluded that those who did touch the snake were inconsistent, because the engaged in a behavior (touching a snake) that was inconsistent with their attitude (not liking snakes). However, this behavior (touching a snake) is not a good indicator of their attitude. Perhaps they were curious to know what snakes (an animal they did not like) felt like. A better behavioral measure would have been to ask them if they wanted a snake for a pet. It seems likely that everyone who displayed a negative attitude (I don’t like snakes) would have also had a negative behavior (No, I will not take a snake for a pet). So, for attitudes or behavioral intent must be measured at the same level. Third, we know that attitudes do change over time. Behavioral intent and behavior must be measured at the same time for us to expect that they will relate. Reasoned action states that attitudes, together with subjective norms, determine behavioral intent. This means that if a persons attitude changes, his or her behavioral intent will probably change to. So, if we learn peoples behavioral intent and then wait to measure their behavior several weeks or months later, that behavior may correspond to their current behavioral intent but not the behavioral intent we learned.

3

Evaluation There has been a great deal of research on the theory of Reasoned Action (see, e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). This research is generally supportive of the predictions it makes: Behavioral intent can be predicted from attitudes toward behavior and subjective norms. These predictions hold up in a variety of situations, like consumer behavior, voting, and others (see O’Keefe, 1990). However, this research shows that, of the two components, attitude is a better (more accurate) predictor of behavioral intent than subjective norms. O’Keefe points out the relationship between the attitudinal component and the factors that contribute to it (evaluation, belief strength) is stronger than the relationship between the subject norms and their components (normative beliefs, motivation to comply). Thus, I believe it is useful to add the idea of subjective norms, because sometimes they can influence our behavior, but in general attitudes are a more important influence. Reasoned Action complicates our understanding of persuasion (a drawback), because it inserts another variable into the process: messages > attitudes > behavioral intent > behavior (and note that the Elaboration Likelihood Model would insert cognitive responses between messages and attitudes). However, Reasoned Action explains some of the reasons why an attitude (or behavioral intent) will not result in the expect behavior.

Glossary: 

attitude toward behavior: the attitudinal component of Reasoned Action



behavioral intent: how our attitudes and norms would lead us to behave



belief strength: likelihood that an attitude is true



evaluation: favorability or unfavorability of an attitude



motivation to comply: how much (or how little) we want follow norms



normative beliefs: expectations of how we should behave in a given situation



subjective norms: expectations we think others have about how we should behavior; the normative component of Reasoned Action



volitional control: extent to which a person has voluntary power over what he or she will do

References: 

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.



Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975).. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.



Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.

4