Term Paper: The Theory of Reasoned Action

“Consumer Behavior”

Master of Business Administration (Executive)

SUBMITTED TO:

Prof. Rupesh Shrestha

SUBMITTED BY:
Neeraj Sharma

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

BALKUMARI, KATHMANDU

07 August 2010
Definition and Example: Theory of Reasoned Action
Derived from the social psychology setting, the theory of reasoned action (TRA) was proposed by
Ajzen and Fishbein (1975 & 1980). The components of TRA are three general constructs:
behavioral intention (BI), attitude (A), and subjective norm (SN). TRA suggests that a person's
behavioral intention depends on the person's attitude about the behavior and subjective norms (BI
= A + SN). If a person intends to do a behavior then it is likely that the person will do it.
Furthermore a person's intentions are themselves guided by two things: the person's attitude
towards the behavior and the subjective norm. Behavioral intention measures a person's relative
strength of intention to perform a behavior. Attitude consists of beliefs about the consequences of
performing the behavior multiplied by his or her valuation of these consequences. Subjective norm
is seen as a combination of perceived expectations from relevant individuals or groups along with
intentions to comply with these expectations. In other words, "the person's perception that most
people who are important to him or her think he should or should not perform the behavior in
question" (Azjen and Fishbein, 1975).

To put the definition into simple terms: a person's volitional (voluntary) behavior is predicted by
his/her attitude toward that behavior and how he/she thinks other people would view them if they
performed the behavior. A person’s attitude, combined with subjective norms, forms his/her
behavioral intention.

Fishbein and Ajzen say, though, that attitudes and norms are not weighted equally in predicting
behavior. “Indeed, depending on the individual and the situation, these factors might be very
different effects on behavioral intention; thus a weight is associated with each of these factors in
the predictive formula of the theory. For example, you might be the kind of person who cares little
for what others think. If this is the case, the subjective norms would carry little weight in
predicting your behavior” (Miller, 2005, p. 127).

Miller (2005) defines each of the three components of the theory as follows and uses the example
of embarking on a new exercise program to illustrate the theory:

• Attitudes: the sum of beliefs about a particular behavior weighted by evaluations of these
beliefs.

o You might have the beliefs that exercise is good for your health, that exercise
makes you look good, that exercise takes too much time, and that exercise is
uncomfortable. Each of these beliefs can be weighted (e.g., health issues might be
more important to you than issues of time and comfort).

• Subjective norms: looks at the influence of people in one’s social environment on his/her
a behavioral intention; the beliefs of people, weighted by the importance one attributes to
each of their opinions, will influence one’s behavioral intention.
 o You might have some friends who are avid exercisers and constantly encourage you
to join them. However, your spouse might prefer a more sedentary lifestyle and
scoff at those who work out. The beliefs of these people, weighted by the
importance you attribute to each of their opinions, will influence your behavioral
intention to exercise, which will lead to your behavior to exercise or not exercise.

• Behavioral intention: a function of both attitudes toward a behavior and subjective norms
toward that behavior, which has been found to predict actual behavior.

o Your attitudes about exercise combined with the subjective norms about exercise,
each with their own weight, will lead you to your intention to exercise (or not),
which will then lead to your actual behavior.

Utility
The theory of reasoned action has “received considerable and, for the most part, justifiable
attention within the field of consumer behavior…not only does the model appear to predict
consumer intentions and behavior quite well, it also provides a relatively simple basis for
identifying where and how to target consumers’ behavioral change attempts” (Sheppard, Hartwick,
& Warshaw, 1988, p. 325).

Formula

In its simplest form, the TRA can be expressed as the following mathematical problems:

BI = (AB) W1 + (SN) W2

BI = behavioral intention

(AB) = One’s attitude toward performing the behavior

W = empirically derived weights

SN = one’s subjective norm related to performing the behavior

(Source: Hale, 2003)

Process

As a behavioral process, an expanded TRA flow model can be expressed as follows:

Belief toward an outcome

Evaluation of the outcome
Evaluation of the outcome
Beliefs of what others think Attitude Behavior
What experts think Subjective norm
Motivation to comply with others

(Source: Ajzen, 1980)

Relating with Example:

The Theory of Reasoned Action: Applied to Coupon Usage

Coupon usage is an aspect of consumer and marketer behavior that has experienced near
phenomenal growth, with total coupon distribution in 1982 estimated at $119.5 billion according to
Marketing Communications 1982. The important role of coupons and other forms of dealing has
prompted researchers to examine characteristics of the "deal-prone" consumer, to investigate the
impact of deals on consumer choice and brand switching and to study the influence of deals on
overall product sales and market shares. Researchers generally reflect a decided marketer
orientation by focusing on ways to enable companies to stimulate consumer response. This is, of
course an important issue, but surprisingly little research has examined dealing behaviour is
basically an unexplored area that represents the focus of the present inquiry. Such behavior may
appear trivial in comparison to what often is studied by consumer researchers. The fact remains;
however that coupon use represents significant expenditures of time and effort and provides
savings to millions of consumers.
The Theory of reasoned action our guiding research premise is that coupon usage is rational,
systematic and thoughtful behavior rather than capricious or primary under the control of
unconscious motives. The theory of reasoned action provides a suitable frame work for
conceptualizing such behavior. According to this perspective, consumer's intensions to use
coupons are determined by their attitudes and perception of whether important others (e.g. spouse)
think one should or should not expend the effort to clip, save and use coupons. Behaviour is in turn
determined my intensions.

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)?

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, Rakesh, to go see a movie. If
Rakesh had a positive attitude toward that movie (I have 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 Rakesh 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 Rakesh of a favorable attitude.

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.

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 Kusom, 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 ACE College. Again, knowing that I did not go to ACE college is not a reason to think
that my behavioral intent had no influence on my behavior; I may attend the Katmandu University
School of Management.

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 people's
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.

Limitations
Sheppard et al. (1988) disagreed with the theory but made certain exceptions for certain situations
when they say “a behavioral intention measure will predict the performance of any voluntary act,
unless intent changes prior to performance or unless the intention measure does not correspond to
the behavioral criterion in terms of action, target, context, time-frame and/or specificity” (p. 325).
So, in reference to the above example, if prior to your exercising you learn you have a medical
condition, this may affect your behavioral intention.

Sheppard et al. (1988) say there are three limiting conditions on 1) the use of attitudes and
subjective norms to predict intentions and 2) the use of intentions to predict the performance of
behavior. They are:

1. Goals Versus Behaviors: distinction between a goal intention (an ultimate accomplishment
such as losing 10 pounds) and a behavioral intention (taking a diet pill)

2. The Choice Among Alternatives: the presence of choice may dramatically change the nature of
the intention formation process and the role of intentions in the performance of behavior

3. Intentions Versus Estimates: there are clearly times when what one intends to do and what one
actually expects to do are quite different.

Reference:

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/16813032/Theory-of-Reasoned-Action

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_reasoned_action

• Consumer Behavior – Eight Editions

• http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/theoryofreasonedaction.htm

• Liker, J. K., & Sindi, A. A. (1997). User acceptance of expert systems: A test of the theory
of reasoned action. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14(2), 147-173.

• Mykytyn, P. P. J., & Harrison, D. A. (1993). The application of the theory of reasoned
action to senior management and strategic information systems. Information Resources
Management Journal, 6(2), 15-26.

• 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(3), 325-343.