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.