|
|
Theory
of Reasoned Action
Theory
of Reasoned Action
Relationship
of Behavioral Intention to Behavior
Evaluation
Glossary
References
Self-Test
|
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:
-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 (“You’ll 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.
|
|
|
