Citation
On the representation and separation of the personal and normative reasons for behavior

Material Information

Title:
On the representation and separation of the personal and normative reasons for behavior
Creator:
Miniard, Paul W. ( Paul Wayne ), 1952- ( Dissertant )
Cohen, Joel B. ( Thesis advisor )
Lynch, John G. ( Reviewer )
Schlenker, Barry R. ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1981
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 184 leaves

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Behavior modeling ( jstor )
Brands ( jstor )
Consumer convenience ( jstor )
Dogs ( jstor )
Modeling ( jstor )
Normativity ( jstor )
Personnel evaluation ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Referents ( jstor )
Target marketing ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Marketing -- UF
Human behavior
Marketing thesis, Ph.D.
Motivation (Psychology)
Psychology, Applied
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
In marketing, there is often a pragmatic need for understanding the relative importance of the personal and normative considerations underlying purchase behavior. One widely examined approach to representing the relationship between behavior and attitudinal and normative factors is the Fishbein behavioral intentions model. Recent evidence and discussions, however, have revealed that the model is not suited for those seeking to distinguish between personal and normative reasons for behavioral performance. The purpose of this research, therefore, is the development and evaluation of an alternative behavioral intentions model specifically designed to independently represent the personal and normative consequences underlying behavior. This separation is essentially based upon the extent to which a given consequence involves how others will react (i.e., provide rewards or punishments) to the person's performance of the behavior. Those consequences involving such reactions would comprise the normative component while the remaining consequences would be placed into the attitudinal component. Such a partitioning would provide a model that identifies the extent to which the behavior was based upon personal versus compliance based reasons. Model evaluation was undertaken in an experimental setting in which personal and normative considerations were manipulated. Testing the sensitivity of the proposed model's operationalizations to these manipulations allowed determination of the amount of overlap among the components. The results provided strong support for the adequacy of the proposed model in representing the personal and normative motivations underlying behavior. Mixed evidence was obtained with respect to the proposed measure's separation of these two sources of influence. How- ever, design features did allow determination as to whether or not a given component should receive a significant weight. This aspect of the research setting was particularly desirable since it permitted a test of the extent to which limitations in the model's ability to separate the two components would affect its accuracy in identifying salient sources of influence. This set of analyses clearly supported the model. These combined results suggest that the proposed model represents a promising approach to the identification of the personal and normative motivations underlying behavior.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1981.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 177-182).
General Note:
Vita.
General Note:
Typescript.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
07863762 ( oclc )
ABS1598 ( ltuf )
0028128217 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










ON THE REPRESENTATION AND SEPARATION OF
THE PERSONAL AND NORMATIVE REASONS FOR BEHAVIOR









By
Paul W. Miniard


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1981





























To
Debble
and My Pahcats





ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Professor Joel B.

Cohen, who served as committee chairman for both my doctoral disserta-

tion and masters thesis. I have been very fortunate to have received

his guidance and counsel during the past seven years. I hope that I
will maintain the standards he has passed on to me.

I was also fortunate to have Professors John G. Lynch, Jr.,and

Barry R. Schlenker as committee members. Both of them provided useful

and insightful contributions in the development and execution of this

research. Appreciation is also due Professors Dipunkar Chakravarti

and Alan G. Sawyer for their noteworthy assistance and concern.

I am eternally indebted to my parents for their providing me with

the means and instilling within me the desire to achieve this level of

education. To my wife, Debbie, I express my deepest appreciation for

her support and understanding during the past few years. Without her

and my parents, none of this would have been possible.

Finally, I wish to thank the American Marketing Association and

the Marketing Department of The Ohio State University for providing
financial support for this research.













TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................. iji
LIST OF TABLES . .. . . .. .. vi


ABSTRACT... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ii

CHAPTER

ONE INTRODUCTION................................. 1

TWO THE FISHBEIN BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS MODEL......... 4

The Relationship Between Intentions and
Behavior................................... 7
Examining the Hypothesized Causal Relations.... 12
The Model's Sufficiency........................ 18
Measuring Attitudinal and Normative Influences. 24
Separating Attitudinal and Normative
Influences................................ 26
Accuracy of the Normative Measures..........., 31
Accuracy of the Component Weights.............. 35

THREE A PROPOSED MODEL.........................,,,,,,. 43

FOUR METHOD...................................... 53

Research Goals............................... 53
Overview............................,...... 54
Subjects................................... 55
Procedure and Independent Variables.......... 55
Questionnaires............................. 67

FIVE RESULTS..................................,, 73

Overview................................... 73
Evaluation of the Experimental Deception..... 74
Manipulation Checks.......................... 75
Manipulations' Impact on Brand Choice and
Intentions................................ 83
Measure Validation........................... 88
The Measures' Sensitivity to the Experi-
mental Manipulations..................... 88
Brand Comparisons for Attitudinal Measures. 96
Compliers Versus Noncompliers.............. 106










Page

113
119

122

125

127

132


Model Predictions....................... ,,~~~
Accuracy of the Component Weights............
The Equivalence of Fishbein's Alternative
Normative Operationalizations..............
Relationships Among the Alternative Proposed
Personal and Normative Representations.... ,
Experimenter's Influence on Subjects'
Behavior...................................

SIX CONCLUSION.................................

APPENDICES

A INITIAL EXPERIMENTAL HANDOUT.......................

B CASE MATERIAL S...................................

C SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT................................

D QUESTIONNAIRES...............................

REFERENCES.......................................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.....................................


138

147

154

159

177

183





LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAGE

1 Summary of Studies of Intention-Behavior Relationship...... 8

2 Means for Manipulation Checks.............................. 77

3 ANOVA Results for Attitudinal Manipulation Checks.......... 78

4 ANOVA Results for Normative Manipulation Checks............ 80

5 Brand Choice by Experimental Condition..................... 84

6 Means for Behavioral Intention Measures.................... 85

7 ANOVA Results for Brand A Choice and Behavioral
Intention Measures.................................. 86

8 Means for Fishbein Model Measures by Experimental
Conditions..................................... 8:9

9 Means for Proposed Model Measures by Experimental
Conditions..................................... 90

10 ANOVA Results for Fishbein Model Measures.................. 91

11 ANOVA Results for Proposed Model Measures.................. 92

12 Means and T-Test Results for Personal Belief Measure of a
Brand's Ability to Meet Target Market's Needs......... 98

13 Means and T-Test Results for PE/B Measure.................. 99

14 Means and T-Test Results for Fishbein Belief Measure of a
Brand's Ability to Meet Target Market's Needs......... 10T

15 Means and T-Test Results for Fishbein Cb e Attitudinal
Representation................................. 102

16 Means and T-Test Results for Fishbein AB Measure........... 103

17 Means and T-Test Results for the Best Brand Measures
Contained in the Fishbein Questionnaire............... 104

18 Means and T-Test Results for the Best Brand Measures
Contained in the Proposed Model Questionnaire......... 105









TABLE PAGE

19 Means and T-Test Results Comparing Compliers Versus
Noncompliers on Manipulation Check Measures...... 109

20 Means and T-Test Results Comparing Compliers Versus
Noncompliers on Proposed Normative Measures...... 111

21 Means and T-Test Results Comparing Compliers Versus
Noncompliers on Fishbein Measures................ 112

22 Regression and Correlational Results for Intentions to
Recommend Brand A--Fishbein Model................ 115

23 Regression and Correlational Results for Brand A--
Proposed Model.....,........................,..... 117

24 Regression and Correlational Results for Choice--
Fishbein Model................................... 120

25 Correlations Testing the SN = NB MC. Relationship--
Brand A. .. . .. .. . 124

26 Correlations for Alternative Proposed Personal and
Normative Representations........................ 126

27 Correlations Relevant to the Effect of Including the
Experimenter Specific Measures in CB cI ...... 128
28 Correlations Relevant to the Effect of Including the
Experimenter Specific Measures in cb e........... 129

29 Correlations Relevant to the Effect of Including the
Experimenter as a Referent in xNB MC ....... 130














Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
ON THE REPRESENTATION AND SEPARATION OF
THE PERSONAL AND NORMATIVE REASONS FOR BEHAVIOR


Paul W. Miniard

June 1981

Chairman: Joel B. Cohen
Major Department: Marketing

In marketing, there is often a pragmatic need for understanding the

relative importance of the personal and normative considerations under-

lying purchase behavior. One widely examined approach to representing

the relationship between behavior and attitudinal and normative factors

is the Fishbein behavioral intentions model. Recent evidence and dis-

cussions, however, have revealed that the model is not suited for those

seeking to distinguish between personal and normative reasons for beha-

vioral performance.

The purpose of this research, therefore, is the development and
evaluation of an alternative behavioral intentions model specifically

designed to independently represent the personal and normative conse-

quences underlying behavior. This separation is essentially based

upon the extent to which a given consequence involves how others will
react (i.e., provide rewards or punishments) to the person's perform-

ance of the behavior. Those consequences involving such reactions

would comprise the normative component while the remaining consequences





would be placed into the attitudinal component. Such a partitioning

would provide a model that identifies the extent to which the behavior

was based upon personal versus compliance based reasons.

Model evaluation was undertaken in an experimental setting in

which personal and normative considerations were manipulated. Testing

the sensitivity of the proposed model's operationalizations to these

manipulations allowed determination of the amount of overlap among the

components. The results provided strong support for the adequacy of the

proposed model in representing the personal and normative motivations

underlying behavior. Mixed evidence was obtained with respect to the

proposed measure's separation of these two sources of influence. How-

ever, design features did allow determination as to whether or not a

given component should receive a significant weight. This aspect of the

research setting was particularly desirable since it permitted a test

of the extent to which limitations in the model's ability to separate

the two components would affect its accuracy in identifying salient

sources of influence. This set of analyses clearly supported the model.

These combined results suggest that the proposed model represents a

promising approach to the identification of the personal and normative
motivations underlying behavior.





CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

In today's marketing environment, many products are promoted on

the basis of their potential social implications. Advertisements in

which viewers are told or shown that product usage will lead referent

others to form favorable perceptions of the product user and/or act

favorably toward the user are quite common. Other products are posi-

tioned as a means for preventing others from forming undesirable per-

ceptions about the user. In both cases, the product's ability to sat-

isfy social or normative goals represents a primary selling point.

Alternatively, some basis other than the normative outcomes of product

usage can be employed for promoting a product. Some products are

depicted as being consistent with the consumer's desired self-image

while others are promoted on the basis of the product's performance on

some important attribute. In these situations, the product is positioned

in terms of its ability to satisfy goals more personal in nature (i.e.,

outcomes that are not mediated by others).

One can therefore often distinguish between products that are

positioned as a means to satisfying personal goals versus those that ful-

fill normative goals. Such positioning variations exist both between

and within product categories. The success of any particular strategy

is, however, directly dependent upon the importance consumers place

upon personal versus normative considerations. Advertisements which

stress personal considerations of product purchase and use (e.g.,











getting a good buy for one's money) may be inappropriate when norma-

tive considerations (e.g., being admired by others) dominate consum-

ers' choice behavior. By the same token, focusing on normative rea-

sons for behavioral performance is likely to be ineffective when product

choice is based upon personal considerations. Consequently, the success

of such positioning and promotional strategies in part depends upon

accurately identifying the existence and relative importance of the per-

sonal versus normative reasons underlying purchase behavior.

One frequently employed approach to understanding the determinants

of behavior is the Fishbein behavioral intentions model (Ajzen and

Fishbein 1980, Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) which specifies a personal or

attitudinal component and a social or normative component. Recent dis-

cussions (Fishbein and Ajzen 1981, Miniard and Cohen 1981) have revealed

that distinguishing between the personal and normative reasons for

behavioral performance is neither a goal nor an accomplishment of the

Fishbein model. This lack of concern over such a separation is most

clearly illustrated by the fact that all reasons for behavioral per-

formance are allocated to the "personal" component regardless of their

personal or normative implications. Concerns centering about how

important others will react if the behavior is or is not undertaken

(e.g., my friends will admire me if I do X) are treated as representing

personal rather than normative motivation under the Fishbein system.

Thus, the Fishbein model appears to be inappropriate for those seeking

to distinguish between the personal and normative motivations underlying

behavior.

The goal of this research is to develop and evaluate a behavioral

intentions model that will independently represent the personal and





normative considerations that determine a given behavior. Before turn-

ing to this alternative formulation, however, attention will first be

given to the Fishbein model and research evaluating the model's useful-

ness as a diagnostic tool.













CHAPTER TWO
THE FISHBEIN BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS MODEL

The Fishbein formulation postulates two determinants of behavioral

intentions: a personal or attitudinal component and a social influence

or normative component (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Symbolically, the
model can be stated as:

B a BI = (AB) 1 + (SN)w2' (1)
where B is the behavior, BI is the behavioral intention to perform

behavior B; AB is the attitude toward performing behavior B; SN is the

subjective normi; anrd wl and w2 are emipirically determined weights.
The first component, attitude toward the behavior (AB), is the

person's attitude toward performiing a given behavior under a defined set
of circumstances. In accordance with an expectancy-value formulation, a

person's attitude toward a specific behavior is determined by the per-

ceived consequences of performing the behavior and of the person's

evaluation of these consequences. This can be symbolically expressed as:


Ag C bie., (2)
1=1

where b is the belief that performing behavior B leads to consequence or

outcome i; e is the person's evaluation of consequence i; and n is the

number of salient beliefs the person holds about performing behavior B.

The second component, subjective norm (SN), represents the person's

perception of what important others think s/he should do. SN is in
turn proposed to be a function of the person's beliefs that specific

referent individuals or groups who are important to her/him think

s/he should or should not perform the behavior in question, and of











her/his motivation to comply with these referents. These hypothesized

determinants of SN can be symbolized as:


SN = c NB MC (3)
j=1

where NB is the normative belief (i.e., the person's belief that refer-

ence group or individual j thinks s/he should or should not perform the

behavior): MC is the person's motivation to comply with referent j;

and n is the number or relevant referents.

The relative importance of these two components in determining

intentions is expected to vary with the behavior, with the situation,

and with individual differences between persons. Some individuals, for

example, may be more "sensitive" to social demands and therefore may

attach more weight to their normative considerations than other indivi-

duals. Similarly, behaviors that carry greater interpersonal signifi-

cance or that are visible to important others may be more susceptible

to normative influences than behaviors that have less interpersonal

implications or that are less observable. The component weights

(wl and w2), which are traditionally estimated by multiple regression
procedures, are presumed to capture the importance of these two deter-
minants.

The ability of the Fishbein model to accurately predict inten-

tions has been substantiated for a variety of behavioral objects such as

alcohol (Schlegel, Crawford, and Sanborn 1977), birth control pills

(Davidson and Jaccard 1975), female occupations (Greenstein, Miller,

and Weldon 1979), financial loans (Ryan and Bonfield 1980), marijuana

(Bearden and Woodside 1978), swine flu vaccinations (Oliver and Berger





1979), and toothpaste (Wilson, Mathews, and Harvey 1975). However,
such evidence alone is of limited value in evaluating a model of beha-

vioral intentions. Although examination of a model's predictive power

represents one possible approach to verifying the relationships hypoth-

esized by the model, focusing on a model's predictive accuracy provides

little evidence concerning the model's diagnostic utility. Since the

real promise of any such formulation rests upon its ability to provide a

greater understanding of the determinants that guide intentions and con-

sequently behavior, it would seem most sensible to employ criteria for

model evaluation that directly examine a model's usefulness as a diagnos-

tic tool (i.e., the model's ability to provide insights into the exist-

ence and importance of those attitudinal and normative factors under-

lying behavior).

Therefore, it is argued that before any model that identifies the

determinants of behavioral intentions can be confidently employed for

diagnostic purposes, several important criteria should be met. First,
the usefulness of a model that identifies the determinants of intentions

is dependent upon the relationship between intentions and behavior.

Second, the causal relations hypothesized by the model should be vali-

dated. Third, the model should be fully identified in the sense that

exogeneous variable (i.e., variables other than those postulated as the

immediate antecedents of intention) will affect intentions only indi-

rectly (i.e., the exogeneous variables' influence on intentions is

mediated by one or more of the postulated determinants). Fourth, the

accuracy and independence of the measured used to operationalize the

model's components should be established. Finally, the weights










representing the importance of the hypothesized determinants of inten-
tions should be valid. Each of these criteria is in turn discussed

below.

The Relationship Between Intentions and Behavior
One major assumption of the Fishbein model is that "behavioral

intentions are the immediate determinants of the corresponding overt

behaviors" (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, p. 372). If behaviors were not

predictable from intentions, then clearly there would be less value in

specifying and validating a model which decomposes intentions. Thus,

establishing the existence of an intentions-behavior relationship as

well as the factors that influence the magnitude of this relationship

is of major importance.

In general, the assumption of an intentions-behavior relationship
has been supported. Table 1 summarizes the results for a number of

studies that have examined this relationship across a range of behaviors,

research settings, and subject populations. While there is a consider-

able degree of variation in the magnitude of the intentions-behavior

relationship, this relationship is significant (p<.05) in all but a

single case (Fishbein 1966, male college students).

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, pp. 368-372, Ajzen and Fishbein 1980,

pp. 42-51) point out that the accuracy of predicting behavior from
intentions will depend upon (1) the time between the measurement of

intentions and the behavior's occurrence, (2) whether the intention

measure corresponds directly to the behavioral criterion, and (3) the

degree to which the person is able to act in accordance with her/his
intention or without the assistance of others. The first factor

















Time
Investigators) Behavior Subjects Interval r


Table 1

Sumimary of Studies of Intention-Behavior Relationship


Ajzen (1971)a


Choice in Prison-
er's Dilemma
game

Choice in Prison-
er's Dilemma
game

Number of mes-
sages sent to
coworkers

Number of times
subject complied
with coworkers'
instructions

Fruit drink
purchase


Voting on nuclear
power ballot pro-
posal

Premarital sex



Premarital sex


College
students


College
students


College
students


College
students


< hour .82


Ajzen & Fishbeina
(1970)


Ajzen & Fishbeina
(1974)


Ajzen & Fishbeina
(1974)



Bonfield (1974)b



Bowman & Fishbeinb
(1978)


Fishbein (1966)b



Fishbein (1966)b



Harrell & Bennettb
(1974)


Jaccard, Knox, &b
Brinberg (1979)


< hour



< hour


.84*


.88*


< hour


Not stated



1-2 weeks



1 semester



1 semester


Dairy
panel
members

General
populace


Female
college
students

Male
college
students

Physician
panel


General
populace


College
students


Up to 3
months


.40*


Prescribing a
given brand of
drug

Voting for
presidential
candidate


.86*


1 week


King (1975)b


3 weeks


.90


Attending
church















Time
Investigators) Behavior Subjects Interval r


Note: All correlations except for the correlation reported by
Fishbein (1966) involving males are significant at the
.05 level.

investigation employed an experimental methodology.
investigation employed a survey methodology.

Represents average BI-B correlation.

** Correlations reported are the results for post-test measures of
intentions.


Table 1 Continued


Oliver & Bergerb
(1979)

Oliver & Bergerb
(1979)

Pomazal & Brownb
(1977)

Pomazal & Jaccardb
(1976)

Ryan & Bonfieldb
(1980)


Schlegel,Craw-b
ford, & Sanborn
(1977)

Songer-Nocksa
(1976)

Wilson, Mathews,a
& Monoky
(1972)

Wilson, Mathews,a
& Harvey
(1975)


Swine flu
shot

Swine flu
shot

Smoking
marijuana

Donating
blood

Financial loan
application

Alcohol use



Choice in game
of chicken

Choice in
Prisoner's
Dilemma game

Toothpaste
selection


College
students

General
populace

College
students

College
students

University
faculty
& staff

High
school
students

College
students

College
students


Housewives


Not stated


Not stated


< 1 hour


1 week


Up to 3
months


1 month



< 1 hour


<1 hour



< 1 hour


.33*


.69


.74*











recognizes that a person's intentions are not "fixed" and that the

opportunity for changes to occur will increase as the interval between

assessment of intentions and performance of the behavior increases.

Consequently, it is generally expected that the intentions-behavior

relationship will decrease as the time interval increases. Support for

this contention is provided in Table 1. Studies where the behavior's

occurrence is temporally close to measurement of intentions typically

find a stronger relationship than those involving greater time inter-

vals. A direct examination of this issue was undertaken by Fishbein,

Loken, Chung, and Roberts (1978) in which the time between the measure-

ment of college women's intentions to smoke cigarettes and the beha-

vior's assessment was varied. The results indicated that the predic-

tive power of intentions increased as the time interval decreased.

The correspondence concern deals with the extent to which the

intention measure and behavior are equivalent in action, target, con-

text, and time elements. For example, intentions to purchase an auto-

mobile (a general target) should not be expected to accurately predict

purchases of a particular automobile brand (a specific target).

Similarly, a measure of intentions failing to specify a given time

frame may not predict a behavior that is assessed within a finite

amount of time.

The final factor identified by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) is the

extent to which the behavior is under volitional control. As reported

in Table 1, Fishbein (1966) found females' intentions to engage in pre-

marital sex to be more strongly related to their subsequent behavior

than for males. This result should be expected as females are more










likely to encounter "willing others" than are males. Further evidence

in the realm of blood donations that the intentions-behavior relation-

ship is influenced by the extent to which behavioral performance is

dependent upon other persons and events is presented by Pomazal and
Jaccard (1976).

One issue that has received some attention in the literature is

the sufficiency of relying solely upon intentions for predicting beha-

vior. According to the model, the relationship between some variable

(including the attitudinal and normative determinants of intentions)

and behavior should be completely mediated by intentions. Bentler and

Speckart (1979) question, however, whether a cognitive construct such

as intentions can fully mediate the influence of affect upon behavior.

In examining this issue, the authors found AB exerted a direct (i.e.,
independent of BI) behavioral effect across three different alcoholic

and drug consumption behaviors. Ajzen and Fishbein (1970) also report

that BI was unable to mediate AB's influence upon behavior in one of

two games involving the Prisoner's Dilemma paradigm, although BI did
mediate the relationship between subjective expected utility and beha-

vior. In contrast, others (Fishbein, Bowman, Thomas, Jaccard, and

Ajzen 1980; Oliver and Berger 1979; Ryan and Bonfield 1980) have sup-

ported BI's ability to mediate the relationship between attitudes and
behavior.

Evidence bearing upon BI's sufficiency with respect to Fishbein's
normative variables has been much more favorable. Most research has

substantiated BI's mediating role (Ajzen and Fishbein 1970; Bentler

and Speckart 1979; Ryan and Bonfield 1980). The single exception is





reported by Oliver and Berger (1979) where intentions were unable to

mediate the influence of CNB.MC. upon behavior in one of two test
situations.

Little research is presently available concerning BI's ability to

mediate the behavioral influence of exogeneous variables (i.e., vari-

ables other than those identified by the model). Since marketers have

often relied upon such exogeneous variables (e.g., past purchase beha-

vior, demographics) for predicting purchase behavior, examination of

BI's sufficiency relative to these typical marketing predictors would

,fill an~important void in present knowledge. Those,few studies addres-

sing this concern have produced conflicting results, Fishbein, Ajzen,

and Hinkle (1980) report that supplementing intentions with several

exogeneous variables (e.g., prior voting history, party identification)

failed to produce significant increments in predicting voters' choices

in the 1976 presidential election. In the realm of "helping" behaviors,

Pomazal and Jaccard (1976) found intentions to substantially mediate

the effects of traditional altruistic variables (e.g., dependency,

guilt, social responsibility) on behavior. Bentler and Speckart (1979),

however, found both past behavior and intentions necessary for predict-

ing future behavior in three behavioral domains. Given that past pur-

chase behavior is frequently employed for predicting future purchase

behavior, further investigation of the relative predictive merits of

prior behavior versus intentions seems desirable.

Examining the Hypothesized Causal Relations

Figure 1 contains the hypothesized causal network underlying the

Fishbein model as depicted by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, p. 16). This





ibe. AB -LBI : B


ENB.MC. SN


Figure 1.


Hypothesized Causal Flow Underlying the Fishbein
Behavioral Intentions Model.










causal system postulates that (1) changes in either bi or ei will lead

to changes in AB, (2) changes in either NBj or MCj will produce changes
in SN, (3) changes in AB will create changes in BI when, as expressed
in equation 1, the attitudinal component receives a significant weight,
(4) changes in SN will bring about changes in BI when the normative

component weight is significant, (5) the influence of Cb ei upon BI

is mediated by AB, (6) the influence of CNB MCj upon BI is mediated by

SN, and (7) the influence of Ag and SN upon B is mediated by BI. If
the model is to be employed as a framework for devising behavioral

change strategies, then it is of paramount importance that these causal
relations be established (Lutz 1977). Such evidence also impacts upon

the significance of other criteria for evaluating the model's diagnos-

tic promise. Suppose that attitudes and subjective norms were not
causal antecedents of intention. Efforts to validate the component

weights, which attempt to represent the components' relative importance
in the formation (as opposed to prediction) of intentions within a

given situation, would then be of little diagnostic value.
Research addressing the hypothesized causal relations has employed

a variety of methodological and analytical approaches. One approach has
been to experimentally manipulate the postulated antecedents of a given
criterion variable. If the manipulations significantly vary these ante-
cedents, one might then reasonably expect the criterion variable to
demonstrate a similar sensitivity. Several investigations have provided

support for the causal flow as the effects of experimental manipulations

upon intentions and/or behavior were also reflected in the attitudinal
and normative components (Ajzen 1971, Ajzen and Fishbein 1970, 1972,

1974; Ryan 1977). In contrast, data presented by Miniard (1981) reveals





that significant variations in AB were not accompanied by significant
variations in BI even though intentions were under attitudinal control

(i.e., the attitudinal component received a significant weight).
Some attention has also been directed at the causal relations

between the attitudinal and normative components and their hypothesized

determinants. In an experiment manipulating bi, Lutz (1975) reports

significant Cb ei changes in each test situation but that AB changed in
only three of the four test situations. Unsupportive evidence was pro-
vided in a separate experiment involving manipulation of e. where A
1 B
remained unaffected although Cbje. varied in two of the three test sit-
uations. Ryan (1977) reports that manipulations of NB influenced both

CNB MCj and SN. Finally, Miniard and Cohen (1979) found that manipu-
lations altering MC also varied SN and BI.

Evidence that antecedent and criterion variables display similar

sensitivity to experimental manipulations provides only tentative sup-

port for the postulated causal flow. It is possible for such joint
sensitivity to exist even when the presumed "antecedent" and "criterion"
variables are unrelated. This would occur if these variables were

determined by some other variable which was influenced by the experi-

mental manipulations. In order to eliminate this alternative explana-

tion, it is necessary to demonstrate that the influence of the experi-
mental manipulations on the criterion variable is mediated by the ante-
cedent variable. Suppose, for example, that a manipulation altered both

AB and BI. Support for A 's antecedent role would be attained if the
experimental effects on BI became insignificant (or were at least

attenuated) when those variations in BI attributable to AB are removed.





This could be accompanied via the regression model comparison proced-

ures employed by Lutz (1977) or through the step-down F statistic pre-

sented by Ryan (1978a).

Research examining an antecedent's ability to mediate the influ-

ence of experimental manipulations on its corresponding criterion has

substantially supported the model. Ajzen and Fishbein (1970) and

Songer-Nocks (1976) found experimentally induced variations in behavior

to be strongly though not completely mediated by intentions. Similarly,

the effects of manipulations upon intentions have been largely mediated

by the attitudinal and normative components (Ajzen and Fishbein 1970;

Ryan 1977; Songer-Nocks 1976). While this evidence provides reasonable

support for the hypothesized flow of effects, the fact that experimental

manipulations often exert some independent influence on the criterion

variables indicates that the antecedents are not accounting for all of

the variance in the criterion variables that is induced by the manipula-

tions. Such findings call into question the model's sufficiency (i.e.,

whether the model has fully specified the determinants of intentions)

and raise the possibility that an additional model component may be

necessary to capture the unique influence of these experimental manipu-

lations.

Several investigations have employed recent advancements in the

analysis of correlational data for testing causal relationships. Path

analysis techniques (Kerlinger and Pedhazur 1973), for example, are use-

ful for establishing a variable's mediating role. Examination of

whether AB acted as the intervening variable between Ebiei and BI,

for example, would involve testing the significance of the regression










weights for Eb ei and AB in a model with BI as the dependent variable.
If the Cbjie component received a significant weight, this would indi-
cate that Cbeiei had an influence upon BI above and beyond its influence

acting through AB. Support for AB's mediating role would thus require
the Cbjie regression weight to be insignificant.
Evidence relevant to intentions' ability to mediate the influence
of the attitudinal and normative components upon behavior was presented
above. With respect to the attitudinal component, Lutz (1977) and

Ryan (1977) have shown Ag to mediate the relationship between BI and
Cb e although Oliver and Berger (1979) found AB unable to completely
mediate this relationship in one of two situations. In a recent investi-

gation of the postulated causal flow underlying the normative component,

Miniard and Cohen (1981) found SN unable to mediate the ZNB.MC.-BI
relationship. This set of results were predicted by the authors as

they argued that SN, a perceptual construct, should only mediate the
influence of NB, also a perceptual construct, and not MC, which is a
motivational construct. While a significant and frequently substantial

correlation between SN and CNB.MC. has often been reported (Glassman
and Birchmore 1974; Glassman and Fitzhenry 1976; King and Jaccard 1973;
Pomazal and Brown 1977; Pomazal and Jaccard 1976), without knowing the

correlation between CNBj and SN, it is impossible to evaluate the need
for weighting NB by MC in predicting SN. A significant correlation
between SN and CNB.MC.oudocrfSNadNBweehglrltd
J j COl cu fS n NJ e hgl lad
and MC approached a positive constant. Since most behavioral settings
in which others are influential are likely to involve only positive
referents (i.e., one is motivated to comply with the referents), it is





probable that MC will often be positive with little variation across

referents. In testing MC's relationship with SN under experimental con-

ditions in which MC varied, Miniard and Cohen (1981) found that weight-

ing NB by MC significantly decreased the prediction of SN thus indica-

ting that the relationship expressed in equation 3 is misspecified.

Supportive evidence of SN's mediating role between CNB.MC. and BI
is reported by Oliver and Berger (1979). This inconsistency with the

findings of Miniard and Cohen (1981) may be attributable to differences

in MC variability. In the Oliver and Berger (1979) survey setting it

would appear that only positive others served as important referents.

This would lead to small variation in MC which, as noted above, does not

provide an adequate test situation for evaluating MC's relationship with
SN.

An alternative analytical technique for examining causal flows

using correlational data was employed by Lutz (1978) in testing the

Fishbein model. By comparing the discrepancies between predicted and

actual correlations for nonadjacent pairs of variables in the postulated

causal flow, one can evaluate the adequacy of a given causal ordering

relative to alternative orderings. Examination of the total discrep-

ancy of various orderings revealed strong support for the configuration

proposed by the Fishbein formulation, although it should be noted that

only the causal chain involving the attitudinal component was examined.

The Model's Sufficiency

One of the diagnostic outcomes derived from the Fishbein model is

the identification of the important determinants (as well as the

determinants' relative importance) of intentions. Identifying which










component is the most influential provides useful information in select-

ing the most appropriate behavioral change strategy. But the validity
of such statements as "attitudes are the dominant determinant in the

present setting" is directly related to the model's sufficiency; that is,

the extent to which the model fully specifies the determinants of inten-

tions. Support for the model's sufficiency requires exogeneous vari-

ables (i.e., those other than the attitudinal and normative variables

specified in the model) to affect intentions only indirectly through

either component of the model. Thus, any variable related to inten-

itions should also be related to one of the model's components. Further,

any relationship between such variables and intentions should be elim-

inated when the attitudinal and normative components are statistically

held constant (e.g., the addition of an external variable into a regres-

sion model containing the model's variables should not produce a signi-

ficant increment in the prediction of intentions).

Several approaches have been adopted for operational izing these

external variables. Survey-based investigations have examined the

model's ability to mediate such exogeneous variables as religion, age,

occupational prestige, and assorted personality and social constructs.

In an early study of the model's sufficiency involving transplant

donations, Schwartz and Tessler (1972) found a subset of these external

variables increased the model's ability to predict intentions. Later

investigations, however, have supported the model's mediational adequacy.

In a study of family planning, Jaccard and Davidson (1975) found that

the addition of external variables did not provide substantive pre-

dictive improvements. Similarly, after examining the predictive improve-

ment provided by 33 external variables, Schlegel, Crawford, and










Sanborn (1977) concluded from their study of adolescent alcohol use

that "present results could hardly be considered to provide a psycho-

logically meaningful basis for any revision of the Fishbein theory"

(p. 428). Additional support for the model's sufficiency is provided

by Pomazal and Brown (1977) and Pomazal and Jaccard (1976).

Attention has also been directed at the model's ability to mediate

the effects of the traditionally employed attitude toward an object

(A ) upon intentions. Some have shown that Ao is mediated by the
model's components (Ajzen 1971; Ajzen and Fishbein 1970, 1974; King

1975; Pomazal and Jaccard 1976) while others have found the model

unable to completely mediate the effect of AO on intentions (Ajzen and
Fishbein 1969; Jaccard and Davidson 1975; Schwartz and Tessler 1972).

Several investigations have demonstrated the impact of situational

influences on consumers' intentions to purchase products (Belk 1974,

1975; Sandell 1968). One important question is whether attitudinal and

normative variables can adequately capture the influence of situational

factors on intentions. Miller and Ginter (1979) have demonstrated that

a situation specific attitude model will provide a superior prediction

relative to a non-situation specific model when behavior is susceptible

to situational influences. The question still remains, however, as to

whether these modifications fully mediated the impact of the situation.

Sandell (1968) attempted to address this issue by assessing subjects'

intentions to consume various products across a number of produce usage

situations as well as their attitudes toward these products. The

amount of variation in intentions explained by the situational design

factors was then compared to the variation explained by the attitudinal

measure. The attitudinal measure was found to explain a substantially





lower proportion of intentions' variation,which led Sandell to conclude

that "methods of greater predictive power than offered by conventional

preference and attitude measurement techniques should be pursued"

(p. 408).

The soundness of such a conclusion depends in part upon the ade-

quacy of the measure employed for representing subjects' attitudes.

The particular operationalization used by Sandell asked subjects to pro-

vide "context-free" judgments of how much they liked a particular pro-

duct. That is, prior to responding to the various situational scenarios,

subjects were asked to "place all alternatives on a one-dimensional

preference scale from 'like extremely' to 'dislike extremely"' (Sandell

1968, p. 406). These global evaluations, which can be viewed as being

reflective of subjects' attitude toward an object (A ), were then used

to predict consumption intentions across a wide range of situational
settings. It has been convincingly argued, however, that reliance

upon such global evaluations for the prediction of a specific intention
or behavior is inappropriate (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977; Fishbein and

Ajzen 1975). Rather than predicting intentions to consume a product

across a number of situations with a measure of subjects' general lik-

ing or disliking of the product, Sandell should have employed a measure
of subjects' attitude toward consuming the product in each situation.

Indeed, if one has reason to believe that the criterion of interest is

susceptible to situational influences, then it would seem unreasonable

not to modify the variables that are expected to predict this criterion

accordingly. Viewed in this light, Sandell's results are perhaps best

viewed as evidence that a strong relationship between criterion and










predictor variables should not be expected when these variables do not

correspond in their levels of specificity.

Another potential limitation of the study involves the degree to

which social influences were operative in the situational scenarios.

If social influences were an important determinant of intentions in

some of the situations, then subjects should have responded to a norma-

tive measure as well as an attitudinal measure. Unfortunately, evidence

concerning whether such influences did play a role in guiding subjects'

intentions was not provided, thus leaving this concern unresolved.

An alternative orientation to examining the model's ability to

mediate situational influences has been to test the incremental pre-

dictive value of supplementing attitudinal measures with situational fac-

tors. Rokeach (1968; Rokeach and Kliejunas 1972), for example, postu-

lates that the prediction of behavior with respect to a given object

within a particular situation is best achieved by the weighted sum of

one's attitude toward the object plus one's attitude toward the situa-

tion. Symbolically, this can be stated as:

8os = A As = (w)Ao + (1-w)As, (4)
when Bos is the behavior with respect to object o within situation s;

Ao is the attitude toward object o; As is the attitude toward situ-
ation s; and w is an individually determined importance weight.

In a recent examination of the Rokeach formulation, Bearden and

Woodside (1978) found, contrary to the model, that Ao alone was superior
to A A in predicting marijuana usage intentions and reported past beha-
O S
vior. Such a result is not altogether surprising as one can easily

imagine settings where the model will produce inaccurate predictions.










For instance, a person could be favorable toward both the object (i.e.,

marijuana) and the situation (i.e., attending the opera) but hold a

negative evaluation of the behavior itself (i.e., using marijuana
while attending the opera). Clearly, as discussed before, a better

estimation of this behavior would be attained by simply asking the per-

son her/his evaluation of engaging in the behavior within the particu-

lar situation (i.e., AB '
In a similar vein, Bearden and Woodside (1976) examined the incre-
mental value of supplementing attitude measures with situational fac-

tors in predicting consumers' intentions to purchase various brands of

soft drinks across seven consumption situations (e.g., while entertain-

ing at home, during a work break, with an evening meal). To do this,
the following model was tested:

BI [A ]wl + [S h1 h2 h 12+ [ S S S ]3 (5)

where BIj is the behavioral intention toward brand j; Ao is the atti-
tude toward the object (i.e, brand j); Sh is the likelihood of situ-
ation h occurring for the consumer; Sh is the likelihood of the con-

sumer using the product in situation h; S3 stelkliodo h
consumer using brand j in situation h; and wl, w2, and w3 are empiri-
cally determined weights. A test of the situational factors incre-

mental value is thus provided by the significance of the w2 and w3

regression weights. The wl, w2, and w3 weights were significant in 96%,
100%, and 71% of the reported model tests, respectively. These find-
ings led the authors to conclude that "situations are influential in
the formation of behavioral intentions and that a better understanding
of choice behavior is possible if more than attitudinal measures are

used to explain behavior" (p. 768).





While the approach of testing the added value attained through the

addition of situational predictors into a model containing an attitud-

inal predictor holds promise, this particular investigation is suspect

on several counts. First, as was the case in the Sandell (1968)

study, the authors measured Ao when AB should have been assessed. The
second and perhaps most serious problem is that the particular oper-

ationalizations used to represent situational influences in the model

(i.e., Sh Sh2 *Sh3) essentially provide a derived measure of behav-

ioral intention. As such, it is not that surprising that the wl and

w2 weights achieved such a high rate of significance.
To summarize, most investigations have supported the model's

ability to mediate exogeneous variables in that very little incremental

variation is explained when other variables are incorporated into the

model. Even in those cases where the model has not completely mediated

the effects of external variables, it has greatly attenuated the

relationship between these variables and intentions. Existing evidence

concerning the extent to which the model captures situational influ-

ences seems inadequate for reasons discussed above. Consequently, fur-

ther research in this area appears necessary.

Measuring Attitudinal and Normative Influences

Analysis of the mean responses to the attitudinal and normative

measures is often undertaken for a variety of diagnostic reasons. Ryan

and Bonfield (1980), for example, tested NB.MC. compounds against zero
in judging the normative influence exerted by various referents.

Responses to the measures are also useful for understanding intentional

and behavioral differences between persons. Comparing the responses

to the various measures of those who do or do not intend to engage in










the behavior allows one to identify the possible reasons for differ-

ences in intentions (see, for example, Bowman and Fishbein 1978; Jac-

card and Davidson 1972; Pomazal and Brown 1977; Pomazal and Jaccard

1976).

The soundness of these analyses is directly dependent upon the

validity of the measurements employed. If NB and MC do not accurately

represent normative influence, then analyses such as those employed by

Ryan and Bonfield (1980) would be misleading. Similar problems can

occur for intenders-nonintenders comparisons. Let us assume (and, as

shall be shown shortly, such an assumption seems warranted) that respon-

ses to the motivation to comply measure are influenced by one's atti-

tude toward the behavior (i.e., I want to comply with a referent who

advocates a behavior I am predisposed toward and do not want to comply

with a referent who supports a behavior I oppose). Suppose the true

state of affairs is such that (1) intenders have a favorable attitude

while nonintenders have an unfavorable attitude, (2) both intenders

and nonintenders perceive others to favor their engaging in the beha-

vior, and (3) intenders and nonintenders place equal importance on

others' expectations. Under the third condition, the motivation to

comply measure should reflect equal normative influence between the two

groups. However, if MC is sensitive to attitude, it is quite likely
that intenders and nonintenders will differ in their responses to this

measure. Such a result would lead to an incorrect conclusion about the

reasons for intentional differences.

Therefore, the accuracy and independence of the Fishbein measures

represents a crucial concern. The following discussion will first

address the adequacy of the formulation's conceptual and operational









separation of attitudinal and normative influences. Attention will

then be given to the normative measures' ability to accurately repre-
sent normative influences.

Separating Attitudinal and Normative Influences
As discussed by Miniard and Cohen (1981), many of the shortcomings
in the Fishbein model's ability to isolate attitudinal and normative

influence can be attributed to the manner in which Fishbein distin-

guishes between the two components of his model. Under the Fishbein

system, structural rather than motivational properties represent the
basis for determining whether a given belief is allocated to the atti-

tudinal or normative components. Beliefs that identify a referent's

expectation regarding the behavior in question (e.g., "My parents think
I should attend college") are termed normative beliefs and incorporated

into the normative component of the model. Beliefs that do not contain

explicit referent expectation but which specify some consequence of per-
forming the behavior (e.g., "Attending college will lead to a better

job"), even if this behavior outcome is normative or under the control of

others (e.g., "Attending college will lead to receiving my parents'

approval"), are labelled behavioral beliefs and placed into the atti-

tudinal component. Consequently, normative and personal motivations or

reasons for engaging in a behavior are lumped together in the atti-

tudinal component. In addition, the beliefs "My parents think I should

attend college" and "Attending college will lead to receiving my par-

ents' approval,"' while structurally different, may reflect a similar

underlying concern with the parents' reaction. Thus, a given reason

for performing the behavior may be represented in both model components.









The potential for overlap among the components is further illus-
trated by considering the model's treatment of informational social

influences. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, p. 306) state that motivation to

comply with a referent should capture all of the bases of social power,
including expertise, discussed by French and Raven (1959). This

implies, for example, that the influence resulting from the rational

and convincing arguments of a trusted other who is valued solely for

her/his knowledge on the particular topic should be reflected in the

normative component. However, as Miniard and Cohen (1981) have argued,

"the potential for confounding and double counting exists since these

are precisely the factors that should have led to a greater likelihood
of information acceptance and hence impact on the attitudinal component."

It is clear from the above discussion that Fishbein has not attemp-

ted to conceptually distinguish between personal versus social motiva-

tions for engaging in a behavior. Indeed, one might argue that the two

components of the Fishbein model represent two alternative measures of

the same underlying construct (i.e., one's overall evaluation, inclu-

ding both personal and social considerations, of the behavior). While

existing evidence demonstrating that both components significantly add

to the prediction of behavioral intentions might be interpreted as con-

tradicting this contention, Birnbaum and Mellers (1979) have recently

argued that this situation can occur when the model's components repre-
sent imperfect measures of the same construct.

The potential for confounding or "double counting" is clearly
reflected in the operationalizations employed for model implementation.

In measuring normative beliefs, the respondent is asked to indicate





whether "Referent X thinks I should/should not perform behavior Y."

In the situation where one has received valued information from an

expert concerning some contemplated action, the person is likely to

believe that the expert thinks s/he should perform the behavior,

although such expert information will probably lead to the creation or

change of beliefs that underlie her/his personal evaluation of the beha-

vior. Subjective norm, operationalized as "Most people who are impor-

tant to me think I should/should not perform behavior Y" (Fishbein and

Ajzen 1975), also fails to distinguish between others who are important

for informational as opposed to normative reasons.

The motivation to comply measure asks the person how much "I want

to do/I want to do the opposite of what referent X thinks I should do"

(Fishbein 1976). Since the measure fails to identify the basis or

motivation for "wanting to do what the referent thinks I should do," it

cannot discriminate between wanting to comply because one believes the

referent to be correct (i.e., informational social influence) versus

wanting to comply to attain some social goal (i.e., normative social

influence). A further problem with the motivation to comply measure

lies in its potential sensitivity to the degree of consistency between

the person's and the referent's desires. For example, a person may

"want" to do what a referent thinks s/he should do when s/he has a

favorable attitude toward the behavior to start with and the referent

thinks s/he should perform the behavior or when s/he has an unfavorable

attitude toward the behavior and the referent does not think s/he

should perform the behavior.

Similar problems also exist in the measurement of the attitudinal

component. Direct measures of AB have typically asked respondents to









simply evaluate "performing behavior X" (see, for example, Ajzen and
Fishbein 1969, 1970, 1972). Since respondents are not asked for their

personal evaluation (i.e., how they feel about the behavior without
taking into account the reactions of others to the behavior), it is

likely that they will, to some extent, include normative considerations

in their responses. The potential for confounding is even more evident

for the Cbiei estimate of attitude which, as discussed above, incor-

porates consequences that are normative in nature even though such con-

sequences should be captured by motivation to comply.

As indicated above, there would seem to be a considerable potential

'for the Fishbein model to represent a given influence in both model

components which would lead to a large amount of overlap among the com-

ponents. Evidence of such confounding is provided by numerous investi-

gations reporting a significant correlation between the two components.
Bonfield (1974), for example, found a correlation of .67 between the

two components. R~yan (1978b) reports correlations of similar magni-

tude between CNB MCj and AB, although the degree of association between

Cbie. and CNB.MC. was substantially lower. Further indication of the
components' overlap was provided by Oliver and Berger (1979) in which

propositions that (1) As is a function of both Zbje. and CNB.MC. and

(2) SN is a function of both ENB.MC. and Lbje. were tested via regres-
sion analysis for the two different samples. Both propositions were

supported for each sample. Most recently, Warshaw (1980) found signi-

ficant relationships between AB and SN ranging from .36 to .58 across
four product categories.

While findings of significant interrelationships among the mea-

sures are indicative of confounded components, such results fail to










identify which measure is inadequate or the basis of such inadequacies.

To answer such questions, it is necessary to go beyond simple correla-

tions and instead look at a measure's sensitivity to variations of a

particular source of influence. An example of this orientation is

reported by Ajzen and Fishbein (1972) where, in a role playing study,

manipulations of others' expectations were found to significantly alter

both NB and AB'

Additional evidence regarding the overlap among the Fishbein model

components is reported by Miniard and Cohen (1979). Manipulations of

one's attitude toward an object had a significant impact upon subjects'

responses to the AB, SN, and MC measures. Similarly, variations in a
referent's influence potential (operationalized as whether or not infor-

mation describing the referent's manipulative intentions was provided to

subjects) had a significant effect upon subjects' AB, SN, and MC respon-
ses. These findings confirmed the previously discussed suspicions that

AB would incorporate normative considerations and that MC would be sensi-
tive to the favorability of the person's own attitude.

Unfortunately, the generality of the finding that SN was affected

by the attitudinal manipulation was constrained by the fact that

explicit information was presented to subjects on only one referent.

This may have encouraged inference processes, based partially on atti-

tude, regarding what "important others" believed the subject should do.

Evidence bearing on SN's sensitivity to attitudinal influences when

other's expectations are known is provided by a further analysis of the

data reported by Miniard (1981). In a role playing experiment, sub-

jects were provided information about their own evaluation of a

behavior and, in some conditions, others' expectations for their





behavior. In conditions where information regarding others' expecta-

tions was not given, subjects provided significant (p<.05) non-zero

(i.e., not at the scale midpoint) SN responses in a manner consistent

with their own personal evaluation of the product. Interestingly,

this attitudinal contamination also occurred in the conditions where

others' expectations were known. Further demonstration of the overlap

between AB and SN is provided by Ryan (1977) in which attitudinal and

normative manipulations significantly influenced both measures. AB

was also shown to completely mediate the influence of the manipulations

on SN which suggests that the AB served as an antecedent of SN in this

experimental setting.

Accuracy of the Normative Measures
In addition to the apparent overlap among the components, there are

presently some unresolved issues bearing upon the accuracy of the nor-
mative measures in representing normative influences. Lutz (1976) has

pointed out that SN implicitly assumes one is motivated to comply with
others and thus is unable to refect the influence of negative referent

groups or individuals. Evidence of SN's inability to incorporate the

motivational aspects represented by MC has already been discussed. It

would therefore appear that SN will not accurately reflect normative

influences when others are either unimportant or when one is motivated

to do the opposite of what others expect.

Interestingly, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) have recently suggested

that MC should be assessed on a unipolar scale as opposed to the pre-

viously suggested (Fishbein 1976) bipolar scale since "people are

unlikely to be motivated to do the opposite of what their salient

referents think they should do" (p. 75). While it is certainly true









that important others will usually serve as positive referents, it is

also possible for others to represent negative referents (e.g., rebel-

lion against authority, reactance theory predictions). Assigning a

negative referent a positive motivation to comply score (which would

occur under unipolar coding) thus appears both theoretical and counter-

intuitive. In addition, this alteration in the coding format would

often artificially produce a positive relationship between SN and

ZNB MCj since it would prevent MC from assuming negative values. To
illustrate, suppose SN = +3, NB = +3, and MC = -3 for one individual and

that SN = +2, NB = +2, and MC = -3 for another. In this situation

,(where MC is coded in a bipolar fashion), SN and NBMC would be nega-

tively correlated. However, if MC was treated in a unipolar fashion

(e.g., MC was coded as +1 rather than -3), a positive correlation would
be obtained.

Another concern relevant to the accuracy of the MC measure is the

appropriate level at which the measure should be calibrated. MC has

typically been operationalized at a general level of specificity such

that respondents are asked about their general tendency or willingness

to comply with a referent. Glassman and Fitzhenry (1976) have criti-

cized a general level of specificity on the basis that, while a given

referent may be generally important, "it is very likely that with

respect to a specific behavior, this person's opinions may not be impor-

tant" (p. 479). Operationalizing MC at a general level,which is inde-

pendent of the particular behavior under investigation, seems inconsis-

tent with Fishbein's (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975)

arguments concerning the need for correspondence between predictors and

criteria. This appears analogous to asking one to evaluate some








consumption-related consequence (e.g., sweet taste) with specifying the

product context (coffee versus soda). There appear, however, to be

several potential advantages to using a general level of specificity.

Ahtola (1976) has suggested that a general measure is statistically con-

venient since it allows MC to be independent of NB. Further, a general

level should minimize the measure's sensitivity to the previously dis-

cussed problem of the degree of consistency between the person's and
the referent's desires.

One alternative level for calibrating MC is a situation specific

level. That is, respondents would be asked to indicate how much they
wanted to comply with a referent in the particular situation. While a

situation specific level would meet the need for correspondence between

predictor and criterion variables, it is also likely to be particularly
sensitive to the degree of consistency between what the person wants to

do and the behavior the referent prefers.

Fishbein (1976) has stated that he is "leaning" toward a moderate

level of specificity. MC would thus be measured with respect to a par-

ticular behavioral domain (e.g., how much a person wants to comply with

a referent in regard to shopping behaviors). Such a level, however,

would appear to be susceptible to the same potential shortcomings of

the alternative levels. Not only may a moderate level fail to reflect

a referent's influence in a given situation, it may also tap the atti-
tudinal component. Another problem lies in the subjectiveness involved
in deciding what constitutes a moderate level.

In summary, none of the existing rationales advocating a particular

level of specificity provides sufficient justification for the adoption

of that level. A general level is perhaps better on operational grounds





as it should avoid tapping normative beliefs and the attitudinal com-

ponent, but it appears inconsistent with Fishbein's arguments concern-

ing the need for correspondence between the criterion variable and its

predictors. Conversely, a situation specific level meets the need for

correspondence but may enhance the amount of confounding in the measure.

A moderate level does not appear to be a fairly sensible compromise

since it lacks the desired degree of correspondence and still may

reflect unwanted sensitivity to normative beliefs and attitudes.

Scant evidence bearing on this issue is presently available.

Glassman and Birchmore (1974) tested the effect of MC specificity upon

the SN =CNB MCj across seven contraceptive behaviors. In contrast,

Miniard and Cohen (1981) found that LNB MCj failed to correlate with
intentions only when MC was calibrated at a general level. Thus, a gen-

eral level was predictively inferior to the moderate and situation spe-

cific levels, with the later levels yielding essentially the same predic-

tive power. Miniard and Cohen (1981) also tested the various levels'

sensitivity to manipulations of attitudinal and normative influences.

Expectations that MC's sensitivity to attitudinal influences would be an

increasing function of the measure's situation specificity were not

confirmed as all levels were equally affected by the attitudinal mani-

pulation. This finding may have been due, however, to the particular

procedures of the study since prior to responding to MC subjects were
aware of the particular situation under investigation. Miniard and

Cohen thus suggested that it may be necessary to assess MC prior to dis-

closure of the behavioral context before a general and perhaps moderate

levels' insensitivity to attitudinal influences emerges. While this









should enhance the levels' immunity to such influences, it may occur at

the expense of their predictive power.

In the beginning of this section, several illustrations were pre-

sented of the diagnostic problems created by measures that do not

fully or distinctly represent the influences they presumably capture.
The importance of sound measurements is further demonstrated below.

Accuracy of the Component Weights
One key validity concern is the model's ability via the component

weights to correctly identify both the existence and relative impor-

tance of salient attitudinal and normative influences. If, for example,

both attitudinal and normative influences were equally important in

determining intentions, one would hope that the component weights would

accurately represent this "state of nature." Similarly, a given deter-

minant should receive a significant weight when the determinant is in

fact important in guiding intentions and should not receive a signifi-

cant weight when it does not influence intentions. If this were not the

case, then the diagnostic usefulness of the model would be limited.

Several factors could threaten the accuracy of the component weights
and thus the model's diagnosticity. As noted above in the discussion of

the model's sufficiency, the validity of statements concerning the com-

ponents' relative importance is dependent upon the degree to which the
model fully identifies the determinants of intentions. An additional

factor is the measures' accuracy in representing attitudinal and norma-

tive influences. Recall that Miniard and Cohen (1981) found SN unable

to mediate the influence captured by MC upon intentions. This implies

that the normative component may be less accurate when SN is used for

representing normative influences.










A major threat to the accuracy of the component weights is the

existence of multicollinearity among the components. Regression pro-

cedures are typically employed for estimating the weights (i.e., beta

coefficients) associated with each model component. However, the pre-

sence of multicollinearity makes the estimation and interpretation of

such beta coefficiencies difficult (Green 1978, pp. 227-230; Johnston

1963, pp. 201-207). Tests for estimating the weights' significance are

sensitive to the amount of overlap or multicollinearity among the pre-

dictors such that higher degrees of multicollinearity lower the likeli-

hood of rejecting the null hypothesis that beta equals zero. Multi-

collinearity can thus produce situations where important variables

appear insignificant. Conversely, predictors that are unrelated to the

criterion may appear important as reflected by a significant beta coef-

ficient. Such occurences have been discussed under the label of "sup-

pressor" variables (Cohen and Cohen 1975; Darlington 1968).

Problems attributable to multicollinearity may also occur when the

diagnostic goal is the determination of which component is more impor-

tant in a given situation. In this instance, it is necessary to test

whether the beta coefficients differ in magnitude (Draper and Smith,

1966, pp. 72-77). As before, tests of this nature are sensitive to the

presence of multicollinearity such that greater degrees of multicol-

linearity lower the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis that

the betas are equal,which produces a more conservative test. Conse-

quently, the existence of overlap between the attitudinal and normative

components impairs one's ability to identify their relative importance.

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) have stated that the weights associated

with the attitudinal and normative components are "proportional to





their relative importance in the prediction of behavioral intentions"

(pp. 302-303). However, such an interpretation is only valid when the

components are independent. When the components are not independent,

the overlap is arbitrarily distributed between the weights. There-

fore, the weights cannot be interpreted as being representative of

the components' relative importance.

As an illustration, consider one possible situation in which the

attitudinal component incorporates much of the influence that should be

reflected under the normative component but where the normative com-

ponent captures only that influence which it is intended to represent.

In this case, the weight associated with the normative component will

understate the true importance of that component while the attitudinal

component weight will overstate the importance of this source of influ-

ence. Consequently, the weights would provide a distorted picture of

the components' relative importance.

In the preceding section, evidence was presented which indicated

that a substantial amount of overlap presently exists among the Fish-

bein model components and that the Fishbein normative measures may pro-

vide inaccurate representations of normative influences. Such evidence

is limited, however, in that it only establishes the potential for

inaccurate weights. It may be that, even in the presence of such prob-

lems, the weights correctly reflect the salient influences. It would

seem reasonable to expect, for example, that some degree of overlap

among the components could exist without substantively harming the

weights' accuracy. What is needed, then, is a direct test of this model

1ssue.









Two possible criteria for evaluating the accuracy of the weights
are:

(1) the weights' ability to accurately represent the absence

or presence of salient attitudinal and normative influ-

ences, and

(2) whether the weights differ in their relative sizes in

expected ways.

Under the first criterion, the normative weight, for instance, should be

significant when normative influences are important determinants of

intentions. Similarly, this weight should not be significant when norm-

'ative influences are unimportant. Failure to confirm these expectations

would cast serious doubt upon the model's diagnostic utility. The

second criterion is less concerned with the accuracy of a particular

weight. Rather, the focus is on the relative magnitude of the weights.

Drawing upon some conceptual framework, one may hypothesize that a given

component should be more important (i.e., have a larger weight) in

situation A, while the remaining component should dominate intentions in

situation B. Note that support for one criterion does not automatically

imply support for the other. For example, one might be led to predict

that both sources of influence are important (Criterion 1), although

the attitudinal component should be more important than the normative

component (Criterion 2). If the results yielded a large significant

attitudinal weight but a small insignificant normative weight, only the

latter prediction would be supported.

Research examining the weights' accuracy has almost exclusively

relied upon the second criterion. Using the Prisoner's Dilemma game,

Ajzen (1971) and Ajzen and Fishbein (1970) told subjects to consider





themselves partners (cooperation condition) or to do better than the

other person (competitive condition). It was hypothesized that norma-

tive considerations would carry greater weight in the cooperation con-

dition while attitudinal considerations would be more important in the

competition condition. The observed patterns of regression weights

supported these predictions. Similar results derived from this experi-

mental paradigm are reported by Songer-Nocks (1976).

Wilson, Mathews, and Monoky (1972) found partial support for expec-

ted differences in the weights' relative magnitudes. As predicted, the

attitudinal component received a larger weight when the other person in

a buyer-seller dyad was described as being dissimilar to the subject.

The attitudinal component was also dominant when the other was described

as being similar, although it was expected that the normative component

would be of greater importance. One might question this latter hypothe-

sis since it is not evident that similarity by itself would provide some

unknown other with the social power necessary for dominating another's

behavior.

Evidence failing to support hypothesized differences in the compon-

ents' relative weights within a marketing context is reported by Ryan

(1978b) in which social influences were predicted to be more important

for Ultra Brite than Crest since the former's promotional activities

emphasized social interactions (e.g., the Ultra Brite user would receive

favorable reactions from others). The results contradicted this

hypothesis as the normative component weight was larger than the atti-

tudinal weight for Crest while the reverse was true for Ultra Brite.

The dominance of the normative component for intentions to purchase

Crest is not altogether surprising since respondents might report that





important others think they should use Crest and thereby avoid tooth

decay.

Evidence addressing the weights' accuracy in representing the pre-

sence or absence of salient normative and attitudinal influences is

virtually non-existent with the single exception of an investigation

reported by Miniard (1981). In the first of two experiments, the model

appropriately reflected the lack of salient normative influences (i.e.,

the normative weight was not significant). However, in the second

experiment where normative influences were salient, the normative com-

ponent weight achieved significance when the CNB.MC. formulation was
'employed and MC was calibrated at either a moderate or situation spe-

cific level, but failed to do so when MC was assessed at a global level

or when SN was used to operationalize the normative component. This lat-

ter finding casts doubt upon the accuracy of the model expressed in

equation 1 in detecting the presence of salient normative influences.
Indirect evidence concerning the accuracy of the component weights

can be attained by a comparison of the correlation and regression

analysis reported in several investigations. Such comparisons indicate

that the weights may not be accurately reflecting the true importance of

a given component as it is often the case that a component correlates

significantly with intentions yet receives an insignificant beta weight.

Fishbein (1966), for example, reported that males' attitude toward pre-

marital sexual intercourse had a significant correlation (r = .52,

p < .01) with their intention but received an insignificant weight in

the regression equation. The same result with respect to ENB.MC. is
reported by Ajzen and Fishbein (1972) where the normative component

weight was insignificant although CNB.MC. was significantly correlated









(r = .59, p < .01) with intentions. An extreme instance of these incon-

sistencies where behavior was the criterion is provided by Ajzen and

Fishbein (1970). As presented in Table 4 of their results, both AB and
NB were significantly (p < .01) related to behavior but neither measure

received a significant weight. The findings of Warshaw (1980) clearly

indicate reason for concern in using the model to analyze consumer's

purchase intentions as the regression and correlational analyses
involving the normative component were inconsistent in each of the four

product categories examined. Further examples of significant correla-

tions and insignificant weights can be found in Bonfield (1974), Green-

stein, Miller, and Weldon (1979), Harrell and Bennett (1974), Jaccard

and Davidson (1975), Pomazal and Brown (1977), Pomazal and Jaccard

(1976), Ryan and Bonfield (1980), and Schwartz and Tessler (1972).

It should be pointed out that evidence of a given component receiv-

ing a significant correlation but an insignificant weight cannot be

unambiguously interpreted as evidence against the weights' accuracy. It

may be the case that the component should not correlate significantly
with intentions. This perhaps counterintuitive situation could occur if

the theoretical system underlying the model produces overlapping con-
structs (i.e., model, components) and the measures used to assess these

constructs reflect this overlap. If, for example, the measure employed

to operationalize the normative component was sensitive to attitudinal
influences (i.e., the normative measure also tapped the attitudinal com-

ponent), the normative component might correlate with intentions even
when intentions are solely under attitudinal control. In such situ-

ations, the lack of a significant normative weight is quite appropriate.

However, the fact that the measure was inappropriately correlated with













































































L


intentions raises the issue of the measure's accuracy. Therefore, such

inconsistencies between the regression and correlational analyses

threaten the model's diagnostic usefulness, although one cannot unam-

biguously attribute it to the accuracy of either the measure or the

weight.





CHAPTER THREE
A PROPOSED MODEL

As previously argued, there is often a pragmatic need for under-

standing the extent a given behavior is based upon personal versus

normative considerations. Evidence generally supportive of an inten-

tions-behavior relationship, the postulated causal flow, and the suf-

ficiency of decomposing intentions into simply attitudinal and norma-

tive components was also presented. What is not offered by the Fish-

bein model is a basis for separating the personal and normative reasons

for behavior. The development of such a model is the goal of this

chapter.

It is perhaps useful in developing the following conceptualization
to first consider the manner in which referent others influence our

behavior. A fundamental distinction often drawn in the reference group

literature is the informational versus normative role others play in

our lives (see, for example, Deutsch and Gerard 1955, Festinger 1950,

Jones and Gerard 1967, Kelley.1952, an'd Thibaut -and .Str'ickiland .1956).

Throughout our existence, the opinions and actions of others are an

important source of information about our environment as well as about

ourselves. Just as with the information that is presented in a journal,

the information provided by others will, if accepted, become internal-

ized into the individual's belief and value systems. The behavioral

impact produced by informational social influence is not dependent upon
the behavior's visibility to the influencing agent since the information

is valued for its own sake. Further, much of the information gathered








44

from others will become disassociated from its source so that its influ-

ence upon behavior will continue to persist so long as the person

believes and retains the information even though the source of informa-

tion has been forgotten.

In contrast, others are often influential because of their ability

to mediate rewards and punishments which the person seeks to attain or

avoid. A person may, for example, publicly conform with the opinions

of her/his boss to avoid losing her/his job, even though s/he privately

disagrees with the employer's position. Unlike informational social

influence, the potential for normative social influence to alter beha-

vior is directly dependent upon the visibility of the behavior to the

influencing agent. While the person might suppress her/his own private

beliefs and agree with the boss when the boss is present, we would expect

the person to voice her/his own convictions when such expression would

escape the employer's awareness.

Consideration of others' ability to exert informational and norma-

tive influence is a critical step in the development of a behavioral

intentions model that attempts to separate personal versus normative

considerations. It seems clear that the inclusion of a broadly based

social influence construct (i.e., a construct representing both norma-

tive and informational influences) within a behavioral intentions model

already containing a construct representing the individual's personal or

private evaluation of the behavior will lead to overlapping model com-

ponents. This is because many of an individual's personal consider-

ations originate in the social environment. For example, the belief

"taking the medicine will cure my illness," while a product of the doc-

tor's .informational influence, is one consideration that would underlie










the person's private evaluation of taking the medicine.

Even if the conceptual domain of the normative component is restric-

ted to referent others' normative power, the development of unique atti-

tudinal and normative components also requires a narrower conceptual-

ization of the attitudinal component than is contained under the Fishbein

model. Within the Fishbein system, all behavioral considerations inclu-

ding those reflective of normative influence are incorporated into the

attitudinal component. Any behavioral outcome, even those that are

mediated by others, is viewed as a determinant of the Fishbein attitudi-

nal component. Such a conceptualization of attitude would thus lead

to a component that would tap normative social influence. Furthermore,

as argued by Miniard and Cohen (1981), "the traditional distinction

between complying with others for normative reasons and engaging in a

behavior because it is consistent with one's attitudes and values is

not only lost [in a conceptual framework such as that underlying the

Fishbein model], it is made trivial" (p. 12).

The following formulation therefore attempts to maintain a distinc-

tion between one's personal or private evaluation of a behavior and

one's evaluation of performing a behavior for normative reasons. This

proposed formulation will move beyond the "surface structure" distinc-

tions underlying the Fishbein model (which as previously indicated con-

tributes to the overlap among the components) by focusing on the person's

reasons (i.e., the particular consequences that the person considers)

for behavioral performance. The problem then becomes one of how these

various reasons or consequences are allocated into "attitudinal" and

"normative" components. The basis for distinguishing between these

components under the proposed system is whether a given consequence or





outcome is under the control of another. Consequences classified as

normative would be those mediated by others. Those consequences that

are not controlled by others would be placed into the attitudinal or

personal component. At a symbolic level, the proposed formulation can

be expressed as:

8 2 BI = (PE)w1 + (NE)Wi. (6)
where B is the behavior, BI is the intention to perform behavior B, PE

is the personal evaluation of performing behavior B (i.e., the evalu-

ation based solely on personal considerations), NE is the normative

evaluation of performing behavior B (i.e., the evaluation based only on

normative considerations), and w1 and w2 are empirically derived weights

representing the importance of the personal and normative components in

determining intentions.

In order to more clearly define the conceptual content of the pro-

posed attitudinal and normative components, it is perhaps useful to

relate these components to the processes of social influence discussed

by Kelman (1961). The first influence process, compliance, describes

a condition in which an individual accepts influence in order to

attain certain rewards or avoid certain punishments under the control of

others. Compliance processes would thus underlie those behavioral

consequences that are based upon the reactions or responses of relevant

others to the behavior. Such responses could range from overt actions

(e.g., "my parents will punish me if I do X") to the perceptions others

form about the actor as a result of the behavior (e.g., "others will

admire me if I do X"). Importantly, a consequence reflective of com-

pliance pressures need not explicitly state the role of important

others. For example, one might comply with the wishes of one's









employer in order to "avoid being fired from my job." While this con-

sequence does not explicitly identify the employer's mediating role,

it is clear that the employer's responses are instrumental in its

attainment.

Identification, Kelman's second process, occurs when an individual

adopts a viewpoint or behavior because it is associated with a self-

defining relationship to another person or group. Such influence is

accepted to maintain the individual's self-image rather than to evoke

some desired response from the referent. The referent simply serves as

a "real world" illustration of the desired self-image. In his discus-

sion on identification, Kelman states that the individual attempts to

meet the expectations of the referent. This has been incorrectly

interpreted as implying that the referent's overt reaction is an impor-

tant element of identification. For example, in an illustration of

identification-based influence, Smith (1976) states that "B behaves in

a manner complimentary to A in the hope that this pleases A" (p. 1089).

Both Kelman (1961) and French and Raven (1959) explicitly state that

the referent's reaction is inconsequential to the satisfaction gained

from such conformity. Smith's example seems more consistent with comp-

pliance-basedd influence since the referent's reaction represents the

desired outcome. Thus, when one conforms with such expectations to

achieve some desired response, we are dealing with influence based on

compliance; but when the person conforms with such expectations solely

because s/he believes them to be consistent with the desired self-

image, we are dealing with identification. Accordingly, consequences

such as "performing the behavior leads to being similar to referent X"

would reflect identification-based influence.





The final process, internalization, refers to the acceptance of

social influence because it is congruent with the individual's value

system and perception of reality (e.g., accepting expert information

from a trustworthy source). The individual changes her/his behavior

because s/he believes the change to have personal utility for herself/

himself and not to incur some response from the referent.

One can more broadly distinguish between the three processes by

which others influence our behavior on the basis of the reactions of

important others. Under compliance, others' responses are intricately

linked to the source of satisfaction from engaging in the behavior.

Such responses may simply play a mediating role in attaining a valued

outcome (e.g., pleasing the boss so as to avoid being fired from one's

job). Alternatively, a referent's reaction itself may be the desired

outcome (e.g, having my spouse perceive me in a favorable manner). In

contrast, identification and internalization represent influence pro-

cesses that are not dependent upon the person considering whether

others will be aware of her/his behavior and whether they would respond

in a desired fashion.

This distinction between the three processes is consistent with the

basis for separating the personal and normative components of the pro-

posed model. Achieving behavioral consequences under others' control

would require eliciting the appropriate overt or psychological response

from others. Thus, compliance-based influences represent the concep-

tual domain of the proposed normative component. The remaining proces-

ses of internalization and identification which are not manifested in

behavioral consequences involving others' reactions would be captured





by the proposed personal component. This component would, of course,
also represent those consequences of non-social origins (e.g., pur-

chasing a reasonably priced brand).

Thus, the impact of identification and internalization processes

would be registered through the personal component. This is because

the proposed formulation disregards, in a Lewinian sense, questions of
initial origin in favor of an emphasis on one's perception of the con-

temporaneous "location" of the forces. Many of the salient consequences
that would be labelled as "personal" may indeed be the result of past

social influences. While acknowledging the possible origins of a per-

sonal consideration, the present conceptualization partitions the

salient consequences that are considered at a particular point in time

on the basis of their relevance to others' reactions. Such a division

should reveal the emphasis individuals place upon personal versus social

goals in their behavioral decisions.

The proposed formulation does not, then, categorize salient con-

sequences as personal or normative simply on the basis of such surface-
level distinctions as whether social others are "involved" in the out-

come. As illustrated above, a consequence reflective of normative

influence need not explicitly identify the mediating role of others.

Further, it is possible for a personal consequence to involve important

others. For example, it may be the case that one of the consequences

underlying a particular act is that the behavior produces a favorable

outcome for others. Thus, a wealthy person may donate money to some

charity because s/he wishes to assist the needy. If this person valued

the consequence "help others" as an end to itself, it would be placed

into the personal category. If this consequence were valued, however,









because it was perceived as a means to eliciting favorable reactions

from others (e.g., others will think I am a kind and generous person),

it would then be classified as a normative consequence. Accordingly,

successful separation of the two components requires identifying

whether a given outcome is valued for its normative implications.

One important difference between compliance and the remaining

influence processes is behavioral visibility. Compliance is directly

dependent upon the extent to which important others will have knowledge

about the behavior. Since others cannot respond to behaviors they are

unaware of, private behaviors (i.e., ones that are not open to surveil-

lance by the relevant referents) should be unaffected by compliance-

based influences. A behavior's visibility is not a necessary condition,

however, for internalization and identification to occur. Therefore,

the value associated with a normative consequence should be sensitive


to the visibility of a given behavior

consequences should be unaffected by

This differential sensitivity to

be extremely useful in understanding

particular consequence. Consider the

discussed above, this outcome would b

helping others was valued for its own

normative if helping others is valued

favorable reactions from others. The


whereas the evaluation of personal

the behavior's visibility.

the behavior's visibility can

the source of value underlying a

consequence "help others." As

e categorized as a personal one if

sake but would be categorized as

because it leads to eliciting

means for identifying which of


these two sources of value underlies the consequence is available by

ascertaining the impact perceived visibility of the behavior would have

upon the person's evaluation of the "helping others" outcome. The value

associated with helping others as a means to an end (such as having









others make desired attributions about me) would directly vary with the

person's belief that others would be aware of her/his actions. Per-

ceived awareness would have no impact, however, on the person's evalu-

ation of the outcomes when helping others is valued for its own sake.

Particular care must be taken in the elicitation procedures

employed for identifying the salient consequences underlying a given
behavior since it is possible for a consequence that is truly normative

in nature to be operationalized in such a manner that totally obscures

its true basis of value. Asking subjects to list those product features

that they consider in choosing an automobile is unlikely to evoke nor-

mative consequences. Consequently, even when purchase behaviors involve

normative considerations, elicitation procedures may guide subjects to

verbalize such consequences in terms of product dimensions. Automobile

attributes such as styling or power may be important to a consumer

partly because of their normative implications (e.g., projecting a mas-
culine image to others), although it is possible for such dimensions to

have value for personal reasons (e.g., the person who needs a powerful

car because of a frequently occurring need to enter fast-moving traffic).

Specification of salient consequences at the attribute level may there-

fore lack the precision necessary for disentangling normative and per-

sonal considerations. Implementation of the proposed formulation would

require identifying the basis for an attribute's importance and thus
provide a clearer picture of consumers' motivations. As Calder and

Burnkrant (1977) point out, the representation of a normative conse-

quence at the attribute level can be misleading since the true source
of value satisfaction stems not from the product itself, but from the

consumer's believe about how others will perceive her/him.





Two additional points need to be made. First, the preceding dis-

cussion should not be construed as implying that the separation of

personal and normative influences can be easily achieved. Separating

these two sources of influence is a formidable challenge, even within

the confines of an experimental setting (e.g., Miniard and Cohen 1979).

Second, it is important to acknowledge that there are many ways to

"divide up the world." One basis of support for the proposed parti-

tioning procedure is the pragmatic value in understanding the extent

to which a given behavior is determined by the reactions of important

others versus considerations which are independent of such referent

reactions. Such information provides useful knowledge in deciding

whether a product should be positioned to the buyer as a means for eli-

citing favorable responses from others. The proposed division is also

consistent with the traditional distinction between complying with

others for normative reasons versus performing a behavior because it is

consistent with one's personal beliefs and values. In addition, confin-

ing the social influence component to simply compliance-based influ-

ences may in fact be necessary. The beliefs and values an individual

holds as a result of internalization and identification processes will

often become disassociated from their social sources. This is not the

case under compliance where, as noted by Miniard and Cohen (1979),

"there may be considerable value in the individual keeping his public

opinion or behavior separate from any discrepant private attitudes, in

the absence of surveillance or in an altered social reward structure

the individual's behavior might well change" (p. 104).












CHAPTER FOUR
METHOD

Research Goals

The purpose of the following experiment is to examine the adequacy
of the proposed model in representing and separating personal and norma-

tive reasons for engaging in a behavior. Toward this end, factors

thought to affect either the personal or normative components were

manipulated in an experimental setting. By varying an antecedent vari-
able of the normative component, for example, one can examine a norma-

tive measure's convergent validity through its sensitivity to the man-

ipulation. This same manipulation's impact upon a measure of personal

influence would also provide evidence concerning that measure's dis-

criminant validity (i.e., the measure's immunity to unwanted normative

influences). Support for the proposed model would be attained if per-

sonal (normative) measures displayed high degrees of sensitivity to the

manipulation influencing the personal (normative) component and low

degrees of sensitivity to the manipulation influencing the normative

(personal) component.

It is possible, of course, for some overlap among the components to

exist without substantively harming the model's diagnostic usefulness.

A certain level of multicollinearity could be tolerated before the com-

ponent weights become inaccurate in representing the existence of sal-
ient personal and normative influences. Consequently, a direct test









of the model's ability via the component weights to accurately identify

the presence of salient influences will be undertaken.

Overview

Subjects were led to believe that they were participating in an

experiment concerning group decision making. After reading case mater-

ials and receiving written communications supposedly from the group

leader and other group members, subjects completed a questionnaire and

recommended one of several alternative brands for market introduction.

Subjects were randomly assigned to the cells of a 2 (Attitude) x 2 (Nor-

mative) x 2 (Model) factorial design. The first manipulation, Attitude,

was intended to vary subjects' personal evaluation of the behavior

(i.e., recommending the same brand as the leader) by altering the suit-

ability of the brand recommended by the leader for market introduction.

For some subjects, the leader suggested a suboptimal brand whereas for

others the leader recommended a brand that was not inferior to the

remaining alternative brands. Subjects' personal evaluation of the

behavior should be more favorable when the leader recommends an optimal

brand than when a suboptimal brand is suggested by the leader.

The second manipulation, Normative, attempted to influence sub-

jects' normative evaluation of the behavior. The group in which the sub-

ject was a member was given the potential to exert normative influence

by means of rewarding those subjects choosing to comply with the group

leader (i.e., compliance was a necessary precondition for reward

eligibility). This reward took the form of a "group member award"

which for some groups was worth $20 whereas in other groups the award

was valued for its own sake. It was expected that subjects' normative

evaluation of the behavior would be more favorable when recommending





the same brand as the leader permitted the subject to receive a $20

reward than when the award was not given a financial value.

The final factor, Model, involved a measurement manipulation which

required varying the questionnaire subjects received during the experi-

ment. Part of the subjects responded to the questionnaire containing

the measures necessary for implementing the proposed model whereas the

remaining subjects completed a questionnaire containing the Fishbein

measures.

Subjects
Ninety-five male and female undergraduate marketing students par-

iticipated in the experiment as partial completion of class requirements.

Each experimental group consisted of five subjects.

Procedure and Independent Variables

Figure 2 contains a flow chart of the major stages of the experi-

ment. At the beginning of the session, subjects were given a handout

(Appendix A) explaining the purported purpose of the experiment and its

attendant procedures which the experimenter read aloud. The handout

began by stating that subjects were participating in a study of the fac-

tors (e.g., the communication patterns among the group, the time

allowed to reach a decision, the effect of group cohesiveness) which

influence group decision making and that they would form a marketing

consulting group that would make recommendations regarding the market

introduction of a new product.

Subjects were then informed that each person would be placed in a

separate room. It was explained that because friends often signed up

for the same session it was necessary to conceal their identities so










Subjects assembled in main room


Handout given to subjects and reviewed


Subjects go to separate rooms
and begin reading case materials


Experimenter enters room and:
(a) informs subject s/he is the last to send message
(b) delivers and explains supplemental material


Experimenter delivers fictitious
message from "leader"


Experimenter sequentially delivers fictitious
message from group members


Subjects write message which is given to
the experimenter for circulation to group


Subjects respond to questionnaire


Subjects record brand recommendation on appropriate form


Subjects reassembled in main room and debrief ed


Figure 2. Flowchart of the Experiment









that "friendship" would not influence the results. This isolation pro-

vided the control necessary, as explained below, for implementing the

various experimental manipulations and procedures. It was then

explained in the handout that the experimenter would randomly select

one of the participants to serve as a group leader. The major respon-

sibility of the leader was described as making an initial recommenda-

tion concerning which brand should be selected for market introduction.

Subjects were informed that, unless the experimenter told them other-

wise, they would be a group member. None of the subjects were in fact

selected as leader. This permitted utilization of all subjects as well

as allowing the control necessary for executing the experimental mani-

pulations.

The following section of the handout stated that a central factor

under investigation was the type and amount of communication that tran-

spired within the group. Subjects were told that their group would use

a particular communication pattern known as a "Sequential Communication

Network" which required the following restrictions: (1) each member

(including the leader) would be allowed to send one written message to

the rest of the group, (2) the message could not contain a question

requiring a direct response from the remaining members, (3) the

leader would send the first message, and (4) the communication order

for the remaining members would be randomly determined. Concerning this

latter point, subjects were informed that they would be told when it

was their turn to send a message.

Next, the case materials describing the marketing problem were out-

lined. A very general overview of the case materials was provided.

Subjects were told that they would be asked to recommend one of seven








alternative brands of dog food for market introduction. The following

section informed subjects that, upon completion of the case materials,

they would begin sending their communications through the experimenter.

Subjects were again reminded not to write their communication until

they had received the messages from those members who were selected to

go before them. Subjects were also instructed to print their messages

so as to minimize the chances that someone would recognize their hand-

writing.

Subjects were then told that, after they had completed studying the
case materials and had exchanged the various messages, the experimenter

would provide them with a questionnaire. Upon completion, they were to

place the completed questionnaire in an unmarked manila envelope

(explained to subjects as one of the procedures employed for maintain-

ing the anonymity of their responses). After responding to the ques-
tionnaire, subjects were to make their brand recommendation on the

appropriate form. The experimenter would collect these recommendations

and circulate them among the group. The leader would then tabulate

the results on a blank piece of paper.

The next section of the handout attempted to provide the group

with a power basis for exerting normative influence. It was decided

that one potentially viable basis would be to endow the group with the

ability to administer rewards. A similar power basis has previously

been employed (Kelman 1974) for investigating compliance processes.

The group's ability to reward the subject was explained to subjects
through the pretext that one factor under investigation was the effect

of group cohesiveness. The handout stated that, because of the









temporary nature of the group, it was unlikely that cohesiveness would

be as prevalent in an experimental group as it would be in more "nat-

ural" groups. Subjects were informed that it would be necessary to

compensate for this limitation by rewarding that member demonstrating

the highest level of "team spirit." This reward was labelled a "group

member award" and was to be given by the group through a voting system.

It was stated in the handout and reemphasized by the experimenter that

a person's vote should be based "solely upon a member's willingness to

work in a harmonious fashion and upon a member's loyalty to the group."

Subjects were instructed that their "selection should not be based upon

whether or not the person recommends, in your opinion the 'best' brand"

since "we have already examined this particular aspect in other groups."

Subjects were therefore told that they could not vote for someone

"unless he or she acts in a cohesive manner which, in this situation,

is defined as recommending the same brand as the leader." The experi-

menter also added that subjects should take notes when receiving the

communications since this might help them in making their voting deci-

sion. The nature of this "award" provided the major basis for imple-

menting the Normative (Norm) manipulation. In the Normative-strong

(Norms) condition where the group was expected to have a strong influ-
ence on subjects' behavior, the award was defined as a $20 cash prize.

The award was not given any monetary value in the Normative-weak

(Norm ) condition where the group's influence should be substantially
less.

Subjects were then informed that after the voting by group mem-

bers had been completed, they were to regroup in the main room and

turn in the various experimental materials. Subjects were told that









this would mark the end of the study and that any questions they might

have would be discussed at this time. The handout ended with a chrono-

logical review of the steps and procedures of the study.

At this point, the experimenter clarified any misperceptions sub-

jects had concerning the task and procedures. Subjects were then led

to separate rooms and began reading the case materials (Appendix B)

describing a producer of dog food who was considering the entry of a

new product into the canned dog food market. These materials contained

a breakdown of the market segments within the dog food market in terms

of the benefits sought by segment members. Three major segments were

'described: a price segment, a convenience segment, and a "multi-factor"

segment in which segment members considered several product dimensions

(i.e., the brand's appeal to dog, nutrition, price, and convenience)

in choosing a brand of dog food. It was stated that the company had

decided for various reasons to develop a brand specifically aimed at

this latter segment. Also included in the case material was a table

that summarized the ratings obtained from a sample of consumers drawn

from the selected target market of seven alternative brands (identified

alphabetically from A to G) under consideration by the company. For

each dimension, a brand received one of five possible ratings: very

high, high, average, low, and very low. The subject's task at this

point was to "think about which one of the brands you as the marketing
consultant personally believe would be most likely to be well received

by the multi-factor segment."

The Attitude (Att) manipulation was partly accomplished through

varying the ratings of the various brands under consideration for mar-

ket introduction. In the Attitude-favorable (Att ) condition where









subjects were expected to have a favorable attitude toward the leader's

brand, the brand (i.e., brand A) which would be recommended by the

leader received ratings of very high, high, low, and very high on the

appeal to dog, nutrition, price, and convenience dimensions, respec-

tively. Brand A's ratings were identical to the ratings assigned to

brand D and superior to the ratings of any of the remaining brands.

In the Attitude-unfavorable (Att ) condition where subjects were

expected to have an unfavorable (or at least a less favorable) atti-

tude toward the leader's brand, brand A received ratings of high, high,

low, and average on appeal, nutrition, price and convenience, respec-

tively. .Again brand A was identical to brand D and superior to all of

the remaining brands except for brand F. While brand A had a lower

price than F (i.e., low versus average), brand F received superior

ratings on nutrition (very high) and convenience (high). The two brands

were equivalent in the appeal to dog dimension. At this point one can-

not unambiguously argue whether A or F is superior since this would

depend on the relative importance of the product dimensions. Subjects

were provided, however, additional information (discussed below) con-

cerning the importance of these dimensions to target consumers which

clearly indicated the superiority of brand F.

While subjects were reading the case material, the experimenter

entered the room and told the subjects that s/he would be the last

member to send a communication. This was done so that subjects would

receive messages from the group prior to sending their message and thus

have a clear indication of the group's expectation for their behavior.

In the Norms condition, subjects were told that they should not per-

ceive that being the last to communicate would be a disadvantage in









terms of winning the award since the last person in the prior groups had

won the award more often than any other member. Subjects in the

Normw condition did not receive any information concerning their

chances at winning the award. This information concerning the likeli-

hood of receiving financial rewards was intended to further magnify the

differential impact of normative considerations between the Norm con-

ditions.

In addition, subjects were informed that the last member in this

group would receive more information than the rest of the group in the

form of a "supplemental report" which the experimenter then handed to

the subject. The experimenter then briefly described the contents of

the report and instructed subjects that they could not refer to this

report in their communications since to do so would arouse suspicions

on the part of the remaining group members. The information contained

in this supplement report (Appendix C) was varied between the Att con-

ditions and represented the final phase of this manipulation. This

report was intended to either confirm or disconfirm the adequacy of

the leader's brand recommendation. Subjects in the Attf condition
received a report which stated that target consumers attached the great-

est (and equal) importance to the appeal, nutrition, and price dimen-

sions with convenience being somewhat important. This information, in

conjunction with the brand ratings contained in the case materials,

clearly indicated that brands A or D (which were identical) were the

optimum choices. The supplemental report therefore acted to confirm

the optimality of the brand which the leader would recommend for market

introduction.









Subjects in the Attu condition, however, received a supplemental
report that disconfirmed the adequacy of the leader's brand recom-
mendation. In this version, nutrition was stated to be the most

important determinant of target members' brand selection and that a

brand should be very high in nutrition (recall that only F received

such a rating in this condition). Appeal to dog and price were

reported to be of the next greatest importance. Concerning price, it
was stated that although segment members preferred a low priced brand

(which brand A was), segment members "would pay more for a brand if

they believed they would get more for their money." This statement was

intended to lead subjects to the conclusion that although F was

more expensive than A, target consumers would prefer F since it pro-

vided the desired level of nutrition as well as being more convenient.

With respect to convenience, this factor was described as being of less

importance than the remaining dimensions although it was "still con-
sidered by consumers in making their purchase decisions." Therefore,

because the brand recommended by the leader (i.e., brand A) was an

optimal choice in the Attf condition and superior to the brand recom-
mended in the Attu condition, subjects' personal evaluation of brand A

was expected to be significantly more favorable in the Attf condition.
As noted above, subjects were led to believe that they were the

only person in the entire group to receive the supplemental report.
This deception was intended to "explain" the group's suboptimal brand

selection occurring in the Attu condition. If subjects perceived
that other members had access to the additional information, this would

create a situation in which the subject is confronted with a group

that unanimously supports a brand that is clearly inferior to another





alternative. In addition to the potential problem of enhancing sub-

jects' suspicions, such a situation could also induce normative con-

tamination in the Att manipulation. Since the group would make a

"better" choice in the Attf condition that in the Attu condition, sub-

jects' perceptions of the group's intelligence and abilities and thus

overall attractiveness could differ between the attitudinal conditions.

To the extent the group's basis for exerting normative influence

exceeds simply its financial power (i.e., the group's attractiveness is

a component of its normative power basis), it is possible that this

intended manipulation of attitude could alter the group's ability to

exert normative influence. This would severely threaten the soundness

of employing this manipulation for testing the attitudinal sensitivity

of a measure designed to capture the group's normative influence.

Therefore, by telling each subject that only s/he received the extra

information, the subject would hopefully "understand" the group's sub-

optimal selection in the Attu condition which in turn should minimize
the likelihood of normative contamination in the Att manipulation.

Measures aimed at determining whether this .manipulation did in fact

impact upon the group's normative influence potential are discussed in

the next section.

One possible danger in the implementation of this precautionary

procedure is that it may heighten the importance subjects attach to

attitudinal considerations, particularly in the Attu condition. Sub-

jects receiving this treatment might possibly infer that the experi-

menter expects them to go against the group and recommend the

best brand simply because the experimenter has provided them with

additional information that reveals the inadequacy of the group's





65

selection. Because of this and other concerns involving the potential

effect of the experimenter upon subjects' behavior, measures discussed

in the next section that will provide some indication of the experi-

menter's influence were included in the questionnaire.

After subjects had completed the case materials, the experimenter

reentered the room and delivered the leader's message recommending

Brand A. In the Attf condition, the message was:

I have decided to recommend brand A for the following reasons.

With today's economy, I think price will be a very important

factor in consumers' decisions. On this dimension, A, C, and

D are the best. C can be thrown out because it is inferior to

A on appeal and convenience. D is the same as A so my choice

between these two brands was arbitrary. Since none of the

remaining brands is ever superior to A on the other dimen-

sions, brand A seems to be the obvious choice.

Subjects in the Attu condition received the following communication from
the leader:

I have decided to recommend brand A for the following reasons.

With today's economy, I think price will be a very important

factor in consumers' decisions. On this dimension, brands A,

C, and D are the best. Brand C can be thrown out because it

is inferior to A on nutrition and convenience. Brand D is

the same as A so my choice between these two brands was arbi-

trary. Brand A is at least equal to any other brand in appeal

to dog. The only time A is inferior to another brand is to F.

While F is better in nutrition and convenience, it is also










more expensive. Since I think price will be the most

important decision factor, I would recommend brand A

over F.

Because this condition involved the recommendation of a suboptimal

brand, it was necessary to provide some sort of rationale for the lea-

der's selection.

During the next fifteen to twenty minutes, subjects received three

more messages presumably from the remaining group members. In the

Attf condition, the following communications were received in the same

order as presented:

I agree with the leader. Brand A gives the most for the

lowest cost. Therefore, I suggest that we recommend

brand A.


Since team spirit and togetherness are so important I

guess we should go along with the leader. I'll recommend

brand A.


I agree with the leader's reasoning and will support the

leader's recommendation.

Subjects in the Attu condition received the following set of communi-
cations:

I agree with the leader. If price is the key, then

brand A should do better than brand F. Therefore, I

suggest that we recommend brand A.










This was not an easy decision to make, but since team

spirit and togetherness are so important, I guess we

should go along with the leader. I'll recommend brand A.


I agree with the leader's reasoning and will support the

leader's recommendation.

Thus, all subjects were confronted with a group that unanimously sup-

ported the leader's recommendation.

After receiving the messages and sending their own communication,

subjects responded to a questionnaire delivered by the experimenter con-

taining the measures necessary for operational izing either the Fishbein

or proposed model. The specific content of these questionnaires is dis-

cussed in the following section. Upon completion, subjects placed the

questionnaire in the unmarked envelope.

Subjects then recorded their brand recommendation on the appropriate

form. The experimenter then instructed subjects to reassemble in the

main room. After the various experimental materials were collected,

the experimenter probed for any suspicions subjects might have had,

followed by a description of the true purpose and procedures of the

experiment. Subjects were then paid $4 each, thanked for their parti-

cipation, and asked not to tell others who had yet to participate about

the experiment.

Questionnaires

Subjects received one of two questionnaires (Appendix D) that dif-

fered in whether they contained the measures necessary for operation-

alizing either the Fishbein or Miniard model and in the type of

instructions that preceded these measures. The measures unique to the









Fishbein questionnaire will first be presented, followed by a discus-

sion of the proposed model measures. The remainder of this section

will then address those measures common to both questionnaires.

The first two pages of the Fishbein questionnaire provided the sub-

ject with instructions concerning how to respond to a 7-point scale

(all scales consisted of seven response categories), that is, the

meaning of the various scale categories was defined with accompanying

example responses. Subjects were then asked to evaluate four beha-

vioral consequences (ei) of their brand recommendation on a scale

ranging from "good" (+3) to "bad" (-3). These four consequences were:

(1) meeting the needs of the target market, (2) winning the group mem-

ber award, (3) having the group acting favorably toward you (i.e., the

subject) and/or thinking favorably of you, and (4) having the experi-

menter acting favorably toward you and/or thinking favorably of you.

Subjects' evaluations of these consequences were measured at a behavior

specific level (e.g., Recommending a brand that would lead to conse-

quence X would be:). Next, subjects indicated for each consequence

the likelihood that recommending each of the alternatives would lead to

a particular outcome (bi) on scales with the endpoints "likely" (+3)
and "unlikely" (-3). Subjects then responded to the statement of

"My recommending Brand X would be:" for each brand on four evaluative

semantic differential scales (i.e., good-bad, foolish-wise, rewarding-

punishing, and harmful-beneficial) whose sum provided the estimate of

subjects' attitude toward the behavior (AB '
The following two measures assessed subjects' situation-specific

motivation to comply (MC) with the group and experimenter, respectively.










These measures were prefaced by "In this experiment" and ranged from

"I want to do" (+3) to "I want to do the opposite of" (-3). Normative

beliefs (NB) were then assessed for each brand on scales ranging from

"I should (+3) to "I should not" (-3). Finally, subjective norm (SN)

> belief scale.

The questionnaire for the proposed model began with slightly more

than one page of discussion concerning the distinction between "per-

sonal versus interpersonal considerations." Each of these consider-

ation types was defined and illustrated with an example. The next sec-

tion ("Questionnaire Content") of the instructions explained that the

questionnaire contained questions relevant to both personal and norma-
tive consequences and reemiphasized that subjects should try to keep

the two types separate in making their responses. The final section

presented the samie scale instructions contained in the Fishbein

questionnaire. These three sections required two and a half pages.
Two alternative assessment procedures were employed for operation-

al izing the proposed personal and normative components. The first

approach attempted to measure specific personal and normative conse-

quences associated with recommending the same brand as the leader. One

personal consequence meetingg the needs of the target market) and
three normative consequences (winning the group member award, having

the group acting favorably toward the subject and/or thinking favorably
of the subject, and having the experimenter acting favorably toward

the subject and/or thinking favorably of the subject) were assessed.

Subjects indicated the extent to which recommending each brand would









lead to a particular consequence on a scale with endpoints "leads to"

(+3) and "prevents" (-3). Subjects also reported the importance they

placed on these various personal and normative considerations in making

their brand recommendation decision on scales ranging from "absolutely

no importance" (0) to "the greatest importance" (+6).

The second measurement approach attempted to assess subjects' per-

sonal and normative evaluations at a global level. Rather than mea-

suring specific consequences, this approach essentially required sub-

jects to make some overall evaluation of the behavior taking into

account only personal or normative consequences. Two measures were

/employed for estimating each component. The first measure asked sub-

jects: "Suppose that you were to recommend brand A on the sole basis

of your own personal considerations. Given this, how favorable or

unfavorable would you then feel toward recommending brand A." Respon-

ses to this question were recorded on a scale ranging from "extremely

favorable" (+c3) to "extremely unfavorable" (-3). This measure thus

represented subjects' evaluation of the behavior gjveyl that only per-
sonal considerations were important in their decision. This measure

by itself is not sufficient, however, since one may personally feel

very favorable toward a given action and yet not perform the behavior

if other considerations (e.g., normative) that are more important

point in the opposite direction. Consequently, subjects were asked to

indicate how much importance they placed on their "own personal con-

siderations" in making their decision concerning which brand to recom-

ment on the same importance scale described above. Subjects' responses

to these two measures were multiplied to provide an overall estimate





of their personal evaluation toward recommending a given brand. A

similar set of two measures assessed subjects' normative evaluation

by replacing "personal" with "interpersonal."

The remainder of this section discusses measures common to both

types of questionnaires which followed the subjective norm measure of

the Fishbein questionnaire and the importance measures of the proposed

model questionnaire. First, subjects reported their intention (BI) to

recommend each of the brands on scales ranging from "likely" (+3) to

"unlikely" (-3). The following question asked subjects to enter the

letter of the brand they would recommend to the group. Subjects then

indicated the likelihood that they would win the group member award

if they were to recommend the same brand as the leader on a scale with

the endpoints "very likely" (+3) and "very unlikely" (-3). This mea-

sure provided a means for judging the effectiveness of providing sub-

jects in the Norms condition with information that the last member
received the award more often than any other member. Subjects were

then asked to evaluate "winning the group member award" on a scale

ranging from "very good" (+3) to "very bad" (-3). This would indicate

the extent to which the value of the award was successfully manipulated.

The next two measures were aimed at assessing subjects' attitude toward

or evaluation of the group. The first measure asked subjects to rate

their "feelings toward the group" on a scale ranging from "very favor-

able" (+3) to "very unfavorable" (-3). The second attitude measure

asked subjects to rate the group on five semantic differential scales

(healthy-sick, bad-good, wise-foolish, harmful-beneficial, clean-dirty)

that have previously been employed (Ajzen and Fishbein 1970) for a

similar purpose. The next question asked subjects to report how





favorable it would be for the group to have a favorable impression of

them on a scale with the endpoints "very good" (+3) and "very bad"

(3.These measures were intended to reveal whether any of the pre-

viously discussed normative contamination existed in the Att manipu-

lation. The next set of measures asked subjects whether they person-

ally thought a given brand was the best brand for market introduction.

Subjects recorded how strongly they agreed with the statement "I per-

sonally think that Brand A is the best brand for market introduction" on

a scale ranging from "strongly agree" (7) to "strongly disagree" (1).

This question was repeated for each brand. These measures permit a

test of the extent to which the Att manipulation was successfully

accomplished. The final measure asked subjects to compare brands A and

D (which received identical ratings in the case) on the basis of the

criteria provided in the case. Subjects recorded their response on a

scale ranging from "A better than D" (+3) to "D better than A" (-3) with

the scale midpoint labelled "A = D."













CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS

Overview

This chapter will begin with an examination of the evidence bearing

upon the appropriateness of using the experimental data for examining

the proposed model. This involves determining the extent to which the

true experimental procedures were successfully concealed and whether the

experimental manipulations did in fact vary personal and normative con-

siderations independently of one another. The effects of the experi-

mental factors on subjects' brand choice behavior and intentions will

also be presented.

The validity of the proposed measures in representing and separat-

ing personal and normative considerations will then be examined. As

elaborated below, features of the experimental design permitted three

different approaches to measure validation. The first approach tests

the measures' sensitivity to the experimental manipulations. Next, a

within-subjects analysis bearing on the validity of the personal com-

ponent measures is presented. The final approach examines the norma-

tive component measures' abilities to discriminate between subjects

differing in their acceptance of normative influence. Because of a

desire to see how the Fishbein model will perform in the present experi-

mental situation and to provide a useful benchmark for evaluating the

proposed model, the Fishbein model will also be examined. Note, how-

ever, that the experiment was designed for testing the adequacy of the









proposed model's separation and representation of the personal and nor-

mative reasons for behavioral performance. Since such a separation is

not a goal of the Fishbein model, the following results cannot be viewed

as addressing the Fishbein model's ability to distinguish between

beliefs about behavioral consequences and beliefs about the expecta-

tions of others.

The next section addresses the Fishbein and proposed models' pre-

dictive power. Examination of the component weights' accuracy in

identifying the presence of salient personal and normative consider-

ations is also undertaken. The following sections examine the relation-

ships between the alternative operationalizations of a given component

for both models. The final section focuses on the correlational evi-

dence relevant to the experimenter's potential influence on subjects'

behavior.

Evaluation of the Experimental Deception

With the exception of two persons, subjects did not give any indi-

cation that the deception was unsuccessful during the probing by the

experimenter or in their responses to questions relevant to this concern

that were contained in the questionnaire. Indeed, the verbal and facial

expressions made by many subjects when the true nature of the experiment

was revealed indicated a minimal level of subject suspicion.

Two subjects expressed doubt as to whether the messages received

during the communication stage of the experiment were actually from the

other members. One subject, knowledgeable in handwriting analysis,

identified the experimenter's handwriting in one of the messages

despite attempts to substantially alter the writing style. The second

subject had placed his communication in the envelope in a particular





manner. While subjects' messages were removed and reinserted prior to

returning the message in most cases, in this instance these procedures

were not followed. The subject detected that the message had not been

removed from the envelope and thus questioned the validity of the

experiment. Consequently, these two subjects were not included in the

analyses. Three other subjects were also dropped from the analyses.

One subject was removed since the subject responded to only a small por-

tion of the measures contained in the questionnaire. Two subjects

recommended brands that could not be justified on either a personal or

normative basis (i.e., the brands chosen were not the optimal selec-

tion for the target market and were in conflict with the leader's rec-

ommendation). These subjects were apparently either confused about the

meaning of the brand ratings or failed to adequately comprehend the case

materials.

Manipulation Checks

This stage of the analysis was concerned with establishing that the

Attitude (Att) and Normative (Norm) manipulations influenced subjects'

personal and normative evaluations toward recommending the same brand

as the leader. The former manipulation was expected to alter subjects'

personal evaluation by varying the suitability of the leader's brand

for the target market. Subjects should perceive a lower likelihood

that the behavior would lead to meeting the target market's needs when

the leader recommends a suboptimal brand. Subjects' personal evalua-

tion toward the behavior should therefore become less favorable as the

optimality of the leader's choice decreases.

Subjects' responses to the questions regarding whether they

believed brands A (ABEST) and F (FBEST) to be the "best brand for








market introduction" indicated that the Att manipulation was success-

fully accomplished. Subjects should give brand A (the leader's brand)

a higher rating in the Attf condition where brand A and its equiva-
lent, brand D, received the highest performance ratings from target

consumers than in the Attu condition where the performance ratings of
brand A were now inferior to brand F and to those obtained in the

Attf condition (as shown in the tables contained in Appendix B). Con-

versely, brand F should receive higher ratings in the Attu condition
than in the Attf condition. The pattern of the mean responses to the
measures (Table 2) supports these expectations. The results (Table 3)
of a 2 (Att) x 2 (Norm) x 2 (Model) ANOVA for each measure reveal that

these ratings did significantly (p <.001) vary between the Att condi-

tions. Interestingly, this manipulation had a stronger effect on sub-

jects' perceptions of brand F. This greater impact on brand F is to be

expected since the brand's ratings varied to a substantially greater

degree between conditions than did the ratings for brand A.
While the preceding analyses demonstrate that subjects' brand

evaluations varied in the intended manner between Att conditions, it is

also informative to determine whether brand A was perceived as inferior

to brand F in the Attu condition but was not perceived as inferior to

any brand in the Attf condition. The results generated by a series of
paired t-tests on subjects' responses to the ABEST measure and the
remaining "best brand" measures confirmed these expectations. In the

Attf condition, brand A was perceived to be significantly (p< .008)

higher than the remaining brands except for brand F which was perceived
to be significantly (p< .001) superior to brand A.




















Norms Normw

Measure Model Attf Attu Attf Attu

ABESTa F 6.78 5.00 6.90 4.80
P 7.00 5.17 6.88 4.78

F8ESTa F 2.78 6.63 3.60 6.80
P 3.80 6.72 2.50 7.00

LIKWINAWARDb F 1.33 1 .33 0.50 0.80
P 1.20 0.94 0.50 1.44

WINAWARDb F 2.33 1.69 1.10 0.40
P 2.10 2.11 0.50 0.67

ATTGRPC F 8.00 9.30 6.56 2.70
P 10.10 5.50 11.00 6.22

EVALGRPb F 1.78 1.31 2.00 0.10
P 1.80 1.06 1.63 0.67

FAVIMPb F 1.67 0.94 1.20 1.10
P 1.40 1.11 1.38 0.33


Table 2

Means for Manipulation Checks


aScale ranges from 7 to 1.
bcl agsfo 3t 3
CScale ranges from +35 to -35.


















MEASURE

ABEST FBEST
Effect p (,32 P (12


Att (A) .001 .34 .001 .72

Norm (B) .569 .875*

Model (C) .728 .715*

A x B .617 .331*

A x C .958 .943*

B x C .713 .058*

A x B x C .960 .015 .02

(n) (90) (90)

*Effect explained less than 2 percent of the measure's variability.


Table 3

ANOVA Results for Attitudinal Manipulation Checks





The potential for the Norm manipulation to influence subjects'
normative evaluation was based upon two factors. First, subjects in

the Norms condition were told that they had a very good chance at

winning the award if they supported the leader's choice while subjects

in the Normw condition were not given any information about their

chances at receiving the award. If was therefore expected that sub-

jects in the former condition would perceive a greater likelihood of

attaining this normative outcome (i.e., the award) given that they

recommended brand A. The second factor employed was whether or not the

financial award carried a monetary value. Subjects were expected to

attach greater importance to the normative outcome of receiving the

group member award when it was worth $20 than when it was not given any

financial value. Support for this manipulation's impact on the norma-

tive component would be attained if either or both of these factors

significantly differed between the Norm conditions.

The results involving subjects' estimates as to the likelihood of

winning the award if they supported the leader (LIKWINAWARD) indicate

that this perceptual factor did not vary between the Norm conditions.

Subjects' perceptions of the likelihood of receiving the award did not

differ between the Norm conditions (Tables 2 and 4). Overall, subjects

believed that it was more likely than unlikely (X = 1.02) that they

would receive the award if they recommended the same brand as the

leader.

Support for the Norm manipulation's ability to impact upon the
normative component was provided by subjects' responses to the measure

asking them how much they valued winning the group member award

(WINAWARD). While the award was favorably evaluated under both Norm

















ATTGRP EVALGRP FAVIMP WINAWARD LIKWdINAWARD

Effect p W2 2 p 2 2 p 2


Att (A) .005 .08 .001 .13 .030 .04 .202 .579*

Norm (8) .881 .086 .02 .232 .001 .27 .301*

Model (C) .668 ,835 .605 .835 .920 *

AxB 8 .072 .02 108 .02 .923 .920 .268*

A x C .743 .632 .742 .117 .839*

8B x C .105 .02 .561 .461 .602 .332*

A x 8 x C .688 .241 .147 .826 .501*

(n) (89) (90) (90) (90) (89)

*Effect explained less than 2% of the measure's variability.


Table 4

ANOVA Results for Normative Manipulation Checks





conditions (Table 2), subjects in the Norms cells attached greater

value to the award than those in the Normw cells (Table 4). Accord-
ingly, this manipulation should alter subjects' normative evaluation

of recommending brand A via the importance subjects attach to norma-
tive considerations.

The evidence presented thus far has only addressed the appro-

priateness of employing the experimental manipulations for examining
the convergent validity of the proposed personal and normative measures.

It is also desirable to use these manipulations for testing the mea-

sures' discriminant validity. Support for a normative measure's

immunity to personal influences would be attained, for example, if the

Att manipulation did not affect subjects' responses to the measure.

But before the results of such a test can be unambiguously interpreted,

it is necessary to establish that the manipulation varied only personal

considerations and is free of any normative contamination (i~e., that

the manipulation did not also vary some antecedent variable underlying

the normative component). As previously discussed, there is the poten-

tial for normative contamination in the Att manipulation since the

group supports an optimal choice in the Attf condition but a suboptimal
choice in the Attu condition. These differences in the group's "wis-
dom" may impact upon the group's overall attractiveness and desir-

ability. Consequently, subjects may place greater value on the group's
reactions when the group is more attractive which would in turn influ-

ence subjects' normative evaluation of the behavior supported. If

such normative contamination did not occur and a normative measure was

affected by the Att manipulation, then one could confidently infer

that the measure is unable to separate personal and normative





motivations. However, in the presence of such contamination, one cannot

unambiguously determine if a measure's sensitivity to the manipulation

indicates a lack of discriminant validity.

Evidence relevant to this concern was provided by subjects' respon-

ses to (1) the semantic differential measure of their attitude toward

the group (ATTGRP), (2) the measure asking them to rate the favorability

of their feelings toward the group (EVALGRP), and (3) the measure

assessing subject's evaluation of the group having a favorable impres-

sion of themselves (FAVIMP). Support for the existence of normative

contamination in the Att manipulation would be attained if subjects'

responses to these measures were affected by this manipulation. Unfor-

tunately, the manipulation did impact on each measure (Table 4) such

that subjects were more favorable toward the group and placed a greater

value on the group's impression in the Attf condition (i.e., when the

group supports the optimal brand). Thus, despite the efforts to prevent

such contamination (i.e., the use of the supplemental report), these

results suggest that the group's potential for exerting normative influ-

ence on the basis of its attractiveness differed between the Att con-

ditions. Accordingly, this manipulation cannot be unambiguously

employed for testing the discriminant validity of a measure which incor-

porates the importance associated with normative consequences. Despite

this limitation, the Att manipulation can be used to judge the dis-

criminant validity of "perceptual" normative measures since such mea-

sures (e.g., the extent to which the behavior leads to attaining some

normative outcome) only reflect the direction of normative influence

and not the importance of such influences as a motivating factor.

Because the Norm manipulation did not influence subjects' perceptions





of the brands' suitability (Table 3), its use for examining the dis-

criminant validity of attitudinal measures appears appropriate.

Mani ulations' Im act on Brand Choice and Intentions

Due to the nature of the experimental conditions, it was hypothe-

sized that the Att and Norm manipulations would have an interactive

effect upon subjects' brand choice and their intentions to recommend

brands A and F. Because brands A and D (which received identical rat-

ings) were the best suited for the target market in the Attf condition

and that normative influences always pointed toward brand A, subjects

in this condition should unanimously support brand A, regardless of the

magnitude of normative influences. Under Attu conditions (where F is
superior to A), however, support for brands A and F should be dependent

upon the level of the normative manipulation. When normative influ-

ences are relatively weak (i.e., the Normw condition), then brand F

should be more heavily supported than brand A. But when normative

influences are stronger (i.e., the Norms condition),a greater number of

persons should recommend brand A than in the Normw condition.

Table 5 contains the frequency in which brands A and F were cho-

sen (i.e., recommended) by subjects, while subjects' intentions to

recommend these brands are presented in Table 6. To test the impact

of the experimental manipulations on subjects' recommendations, choice

was represented by a dummy variable where a value of one was assigned

to those who recommended brand A and a zero was given to those who

supported brand F. Table 7 summarizes the ANOVA results for subjects'

brand choice and intentions. The hypothesized interaction was sup-

ported (p < .008) for choice as subjects in the Attf condition always
recommended brand A, almost unanimously (with the exception of a single

















Norms Nlorm

Attf Attu Attf Attu
f u f u
Model A F A F A F A F

Fishbein 9 0 8 8 10 0 1 9

Proposed 10 0 7 11 8 0 0 9


Table 5

Brand Choice by Experimental Condition


Note: Cell entries represent the number
either brand A or brand F.


of subjects recommending


















Norms Norms
Measure Model Attf Attu Attf Attu


BI-Brand A F 2.89 1.63 3.00 0.60
P 3.00 1.06 3.00 1.00

BI-Brand F F -1.67 2.13 -1.30 2.90
P -1.60 2.44 -2.00 3.00


;Table 6

Means for Behavioral Intention Measures


Note: Scale ranges from +3 to -3.


















.Choice BI-Brand A BI-Brand F

Effect p w2 P w2 P w2

Att (A) .001 .51 .001 .25 .001 .68
Norm (B) .003 .04 .410 .221*

Model (c) .356 .745 .945*

A x B .008 .03 .389 .283*

A x C .465 .757 .433*

B x C .965 .471 .465*

A x B x C .970 .445 .663*

(n) (90) (90) (90)

*Effect explained less than 2 percent of the measure's variability.


Table 7

ANOVA Results for Brand A Choice

and Behavioral Intention Measures









subject) supported brand F in the Att /Normw cell, and were fairly

evenly divided between the two brands in the Attu/Norms cell. Fur-

ther, significant main effects due to the Att aInd Norl~l factors were

detected. None of the remaining effects approached significance.

Surprisingly, the results for the intention measures failed to

replicate the choice findings. While subjects' intentions to recom-

mend brands A and F were significantly (p < .001) affected by the Att

factor, none of the remaining effects attained significance. This

inconsistency between choice and its hypothesized determinant is even

more mystifying since intentions and choice were highly related

(r = .73, p < .001). One possible explanation is that the scale did not

provide a sufficient range for subjects' responses. While the scale

consisted of seven categories, subjects' intentions to recommend brand

A were consistently on the positive end of the scale. Perhaps a scale

with a larger range would have displayed the expected sensitivity to

the experimental manipulations.

Additional evidence relevant to this issue was attained through a

comparison of subjects' brand intentions. Recall that in the case

materials, two pairs of brands received identical performance ratings.

Brands A and D were equivalent as were brands 8 and G. Although brands

A and D were identical in their potential for satisfying the needs of

the target market, they differed in their potential for evoking favor-

able normative consequences (i.e., only by recommending brand A could

the subject receive the group member award). If normative influences

were unimportant, subjects' intentions to recommend these two brands

should not differ. If, however, intentions for brands A and D did





significantly differ, then support for the impact of normative influ-

ences would be obtained. A paired t-test indicated that subjects

responding to the Fishbein questionnaire were significantly (p < .001)

more likely to recommend brand A (ji=1.96) than brand D (R=0.82).

Similarly, subjects receiving the proposed model questionnaire indi-

cated a significantly (p < .001) greater likelihood of recommending

brand A (X=1.82) than brand D (X=0.56). To further validate the mean-

ingfulness of these results, this analysis was also repeated for sub-

jects' intentions to recommend brands B and G. Since these two brands

were identical on both a personal (i.e., the two brands received the

same ratings) and normative (i.e., neither brand led to the group mem-

ber award) basis, subjects' intentions should have been the same for

both brands. As expected, subjects' intentions to recommend these

two brands did not significantly differ for either the Fishbein

(p > .471) or proposed model (p > .183) questionnaires.
Measure Validation

The Measures' Sensitivity to the
Experimental Manipulations_
The first approach employed for examining the proposed measures'

validity was to test the impact of the Att and Norm manipulations

upon subjects' responses to the measures. The means for the Fishbein

and proposed measures are presented in Tables 8 and 9, respectively.

Each measure was separately submitted to a 2 (Att) x 2 (Norm) fac-

torial ANOVA, the results of which are summarized in Tables 10 and 11.

Recall that the Att manipulation was shown to significantly alter

subjects' beliefs that brand A was the optimal choice. This indicated

that the perceived likelihood that recommending brand A would lead to






















1.00

2.60

2.70

2.80

-1.10

-0.80

-3.00

3.10

3.00

-0.60

0.20


16.97

10.56

2.33

1.38

1.22


Table 8

Means for Fishbein Model Measures by Experimental Conditions


Normw


u Attf Attu


Norm


Attf Att


+3/-3

+3/-3

+3/-3

+3/-3

+3/-3

+3/-3

+27/-27

+12/-12

+3/-3

+3/-3

+3/-3


2.89

2.67

2.33

3.00

1.44

1.44


Scale
Range


Measure


b.-meet needs

b.-award

b.-reactions

e.-meet needs

e.-award

e.-reactions

Cb.e.
1

AB
NB

MC

SN


2.25

3.00

2.44

2.94

0.31

1.19

10.25

5.81

2.94

0.63

0.88


3.00

2.70

2.70

2.90

-0.20

0.30

10.20

10.60

3.00

1.00

2.30










Table 9

Means for Proposed Model Measures by Experimental Conditions



Norms Normw
Sca le -
Measure Range Attf Attu Attf Att,

B -meet needs +3/-3 3.00 1.50 3.00 1.67
pc
I -meet needs 6/0 5.80 5.56 5.88 5.89
pc
PE/B +3/-3 2.90 1.61 2.88 1.44

IPC 6/0 5.70 5.28 4.63 5.67

13nc-award +3/-3 2.80 2.89 2.63 3.00
B c-reactions +3/-3 3.00 2.83 2.63 3.00
I -award 6/0 4.30 2.94 1.50 1.11
nc
I -reactions 6/0 3.90 3.33 2.13 2.22
nc
NE/B +3/-3 2.90 2.50 3.00 2.67

INC 6/0 4.30 3.11 3.13 1.22
















ANOVA Effects

Att Norm Interaction

Measure p U2 u2 P 2

bi-meet needs .001 .26 .029 .06 .026 .06
b.-award .544 .329 .322*

b.-reactions .858 .322 .867*

e -meet needs .371 .175 .02 .833*

ei-award .077 .05 .010 .12 .838*
ei-reactions .198 .002 .18 .401*

Cb ei .001 .17 .001 .20 .226*

As .001 .32 .245 .293*
NB .243 .238 .277*

MC .022 .10 .078 .05 .388*

SN .021 .09 .857 .078 .04

*Effect explained less than 2 percent of the measure's variability.


Table 10

ANOVA Results for Fishbein Model Measures




Full Text

PAGE 1

ON THE REPRESENTATION AND SEPARATION OF THE PERSONAL AND NORMATIVE REASONS FOR BEHAVIOR By Paul W. Miniard A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1981 --1

PAGE 2

To Vebb-<.e a.nd My Pa.1tew

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Professor Joel B. Cohen, who served as committee chairman for both my doctoral disserta tion and masters thesis. I have been very fortunate to have received his guidance and counsel during the past seven years. I hope that I will maintain the standards he has passed on to me. I was also fortunate to have Professors John G. Lynch, Jr.,~nd Barry R. Schlenker as committee members. Both of them provided useful and insightful contributions in the development and execution of this research. Appreciation is also due Professors Dipunkar Chakravarti and Alan G. Sawyer for their noteworthy assistance and concern. I am eternally indebted to my parents for their providing me with the means and instilling within me the desire to achieve this level of education. To my wife, Debbie~ I express my deepest appreciation for her support and understanding during the past few years. Without her and my parents, none of this would have been possible. Finally, I wish to thank the American Marketing Association and the Marketing Department of The Ohio State University for providing financial support for this research. ; ; ;

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............. .......... . . . . . . . . . iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................. vi ABSTRACT.................................................... viii CHAPTER ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE INTRODUCTION .................................... THE FISHBEIN BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS MODEL ........ The Relationship Between Intentions and l 4 Behavior..................................... 7 Examining the Hypothesized Causal Relations.... 12 The Model 's Sufficiency........................ 18 Measuring Attitudinal and Normative Influences. 24 Separating Attitudinal and Normative Influences......... .. ...................... 26 Accuracy of the Normative Measures........... 31 Accuracy of the Component Weights.............. 35 A PROPOSED MODEL .............................. METHOD ........................................ 43 53 Research Goals............................... 53 Overview..................................... 54 Subjects..................................... 55 Procedure and Independent Variables.......... 55 Questionnaires............................... 67 RESULTS ....................................... 73 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Evaluation of the Experimental Deception..... 74 Manipulation Checks.......................... 75 Manipulations' Impact on Brand Choice and Intentions........... ..................... 83 Measure Validation........................... 88 The Measures' Sensitivity to the Experimental Manipulations..................... 88 Brand Comparisons for Attitudinal Measures. 96 Compliers Versus Noncompliers..... .. ...... 106 iv

PAGE 5

Page Model Predictions............................ 113 Accuracy of the Component Weights............ 119 The Equivalence of Fishbein's Alternative Normative Operationalizations.............. 122 Relationships Among the Alternative Proposed Personal and Normative Representations..... 125 Experimenter's Influence on Subjects' Behavior................................... 127 SIX APPENDICES CONCLUSION ...................... ............. 132 A B C D INITIAL EXPERIMENTAL HANDOUT ..................... . CASE MATERIALS .................................... SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT .... .......................... QUESTIONNAIRES .................................... 138 147 154 159 REFERENCES......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH....................................... 183 V

PAGE 6

LI ST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE l Summary of Studies of Intention-Behavior Relationship...... 8 2 Means for Manipulation Checks........ .................. .. 77 3 ANOVA Results for Attitudinal Manipulation Checks.......... 78 4 ANOVA Results for Normative Manipulation Checks. .. .... .. .. 80 5 Brand Choice by Experimental Condition..................... 84 6 Means for Behavioral Intention Measures.................... 85 7 ANOVA Results for Brand A Choice and Behavioral Intention Measures.................................... 86 8 Means for Fishbein Model Measures by Experimental Conditions ............................................ 8:9 9 Means for Proposed Model Measures by Experimental Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 10 ANOVA Results for Fishbein Model Measures.................. 91 11 ANOVA Results for Proposed Model Measures.................. 92 12 Means and T-Test Results for Personal Belief Measure of a Brand's Ability to Meet Target Market's Needs......... 98 13 Means and T-Test Results for PE/B Measure.................. 99 14 Means and T-Test Results for Fishbein Belief Measure of a Brand's Ability to Meet Target Market's Needs......... lOT. 15 Means and T-Test Results for Fishbein Eb.e. Attitudinal Representation .................. .... ~.~.............. 102 16 Means and T-Test Results for Fishbein AB Measure........... 103 17 Means and T-Test Results for the Best Brand Measures Contained in the Fishbein Questionnaire............... 104 18 Means and T-Test Results for the Best Brand Measures Contained in the Proposed Model Questionnaire......... 105 vi

PAGE 7

TABLE PAGE 19 Means and T-Test Results Comparing Compliers Versus Noncompliers on Manipulation Check Measures. .... 109 20 Means and T-Test Results Comparinq Compliers Versus Noncompliers on Proposed Normative Measures...... 111 21 Means and T-Test Results Comparing Compliers Versus Noncompliers on Fishbein Measures................ 112 22 Regression and Correlational Results for Intentions to Recommend Brand A--Fishbein Model....... .... ... 115 23 Regression and Correlational Results for Brand A-Proposed Mode 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7 24 Regression and Correlational Results for Choice-Fishbein Model................................... 120 25 Correlations Testing the SN= E NB.MC. Relationship-Brand A ..................... .. ~................. 124 26 Correlations for Alternative Proposed Personal and Normative Representations........................ 126 27 Correlations Relevant to the Effect of Including the Experimenter Specific Measures in I:8 I ........ nc nc 128 28 Correlations Relevant to the Effect of Including the Experimenter Specific Measures in tbiei .......... 129 29 Correlations Relevant to the Effect of Including the Experimenter as a Referent in t ...... 130 vii

PAGE 8

I Abstract of The s is Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ON THE REPRESENTATION AND SEPARATION OF THE PERSONAL AND NORMATIVE REASONS FOR BEHAVIOR By Paul W. Miniard June 1981 Chairman: Joel B. Cohen Major Department: Marketing In marketing, there is often a pragmatic need for understanding the relative importance of the personal and normative considerations under lying purchase behavior. One widely examined approach to representing the relationship between behavior and attitudinal and normative factors is the Fishbein behavioral intentions model. Recent evidence and dis cussions, however, have revealed that the model is not suited for those seeking to distinguish between personal and normative reasons for beha vioral performance. The purpose of this research, therefore, is the development and evaluation of an alternative behavioral intentions model specifically designed to independently represent the personal and normative conse quences underlying behavior. This separation is essentially based upon the extent to which a given consequence involves how others will react (i.e., provide rewards or punishments) to the person's perform ance of the behavior. Those consequences involving such reactions would comprise the normative component while the remaining consequences viii

PAGE 9

would be placed into the attitudinal component. Such a partitioning would provide a model that identifies the extent to which the behavior was based upon personal versus compliance based reasons. Model evaluation was undertaken in an experimental setting in which personal and normative considerations were manipulated. Testing the sensitivity of the proposed model's operationalizations to these manipulations allowed determination of the amount of overlap among the components. The results provided strong support for the adequacy of the proposed model in representing the personal and normative motivations underlying behavior. Mixed evidence was obtained with respect to the proposed measure's separation of these two sources of influence. How ever, design features did allow determination as to whether or not a given component should receive a significant weight. This aspect of the research setting was particularly desirable since it permitted a test of the extent to which limitations in the model's ability to separate the two components would affect its accuracy in identifying salient sources of influence. This set of analyses clearly supported the model. These combined results suggest that the proposed model represents a promising approach to the identification of the personal and normative motivations underlying behavior. ix

PAGE 10

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION In today's marketing environment, many products are promoted on the basis of their potential social implications. Advertisements in which viewers are told or shown that product usage will lead referent others to form favorable perceptions of the product user and/or act favorably toward the user are quite common. Other products are posi tioned as a means for preventing others from forming undesirable per ceptions about the user. In both cases, the product's ability to sat isfy social or normative goals represents a primary selling point. Alternatively, some basis other than the normative outcomes of product usage can be employed for promoting a product. Some products are depicted as being consistent with the consumer's desired self-image while others are promoted on the basis of the product's performance on some important attribute. In these situations, the product is positioned in terms of its ability to satisfy goals more personal in nature (i.e., outcomes that are not mediated by others). One can therefore often distinguish between products that are positioned as a means to satisfying personal goals versus those that ful fill normative goals. Such positioning variations exist both between and within product categories. The success of any particular strategy is, however, directly dependent upon the importance consumers place upon personal versus normative considerations. Advertisements which stress personal considerations of product purchase and use (e.g.,

PAGE 11

2 getting a good buy for one's money) may be inappropriate when norma tive considerations (e.g., being admired by others) dominate consum ers' choice behavior. By the same token, focusing on normative rea sons for behavioral performance is likely to be ineffective when product choice is based upon personal considerations. Consequently, the success of such positioning and promotional strategies in part depends upon accurately identifying the existence and relative importance of the per sonal versus normative reasons underlying purchase behavior. One frequently employed approach to understanding the determinants of behavior is the Fishbein behavioral intentions model (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) which specifies a personal or attitudinal component and a social or normative component. Recent dis cussions (Fishbein and Ajzen 1981, Miniard and Cohen 1981) have revealed that distinguishing between the personal and normative reasons for behavioral performance is neither a goal nor an accomplishment of the Fishbein model. This lack of concern over such a separation is most clearly illustrated by the fact that all reasons for behavioral per formance are allocated to the "personal" component regardless of their personal or normative implications. Concerns centering about how important others will react if the behavior is or is not undertaken (e.g., my friends will admire me if I do X) are treated as representing personal rather than normative motivation under the Fishbein system. Thus, the Fishbein model appears to be inappropriate for those seeking to distinguish between the persvnal and normative motivations underlying behavior. The goal of this research is to develop and evaluate a behavioral intentions model that will independently represent the personal and

PAGE 12

3 normative considerations that determine a given behavior. Before turn ing to this alternative formulation, however, attention will first be given to the Fishbein model and research evaluating the model's useful ness as a diagnostic tool.

PAGE 13

4 CHAPTER TWO THE FISHBEIN BEHAVIORA L INTENTIONS MODEL The Fishbein fonnulation postulates two determinants of behavioral intentions: a personal or attitudinal component and a social influence or normative co!llponent (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Symbolically, the model can be stated as: B BI = (AB)w 1 + (SN)w 2 ( l ) where Bis the behavior, BI is the behavioral intention to perform behavior B; AB is the attitude toward perfonning behavior B; SN is the subjective norm; and w 1 and w 2 are e111pirically determined weights. The first co111ponent, attitude toward the behavior (AB)' is the person's attitude toward perfoming a given behavior under a defined set of circumstances. In accordance with an ex pectancy-value formulation, a person's attitude toward a specific behavior is deterlllined by the per ceived consequences of perforllling the behavior and of the person's evaluation of these consequenc es This can be sylllbolically expressed as: n AB = t: b e., ( 2) i = l l l where b is the belief that performing behavior B leads to consequence or outcome i ; e is the person s evaluation of consequence i ; and n is the number of salient beliefs the person holds about performing behavior B. The second component, subjective norm (SN), represents the person's perception of what illlportant others think s /he should do. SN is in turn proposed to be a function of the person's beliefs that specific referent individuals or groups who are in1portant to her/him think s/he should or should not perfor!ll the behavior in question, and of

PAGE 14

5 her/his motivation to comply with these referents. These hypothesized determinants of SN can be symbolized as: n SN= I: j = l NB.MC J J (3) where NB is the normative belief (i.e., the person 1 s belief that refer ence group or individual j thinks s/he should or should not perform the behavior); MC is the person 1 s motivation to comply with referent j; and n is the number or relevant referents. The relative importance of these two components in determining intentions is expected to vary with the behavior, with the situation, and with individual differences between persons. Some individuals, for example, may be more "sensitive" to social demands and therefore may attach more weight to their normative considerations than other indivi duals. Similarly, behaviors that carry greater interpersonal signifi cance or that are visible to important others may be more susceptible to normative influences than behaviors that have less interpersonal implications or that are less observable. The component weights (w 1 and w 2 ), which are traditionally estimated by multiple regression procedures, are presumed to capture the importance of these two deter minants. The ability of the Fishbein model to accurately predict i ntenti ons has been substantiated for a variety of behavioral objects such as alcohol (Schlegel, Crawford, and Sanborn 1977), birth control pills (Davidson and Jaccard 1975), female occupations (Greenstein, Miller, and Weldon 1979), financial loans (Ryan and Bonfield 1980), marijuana (Bearden and Woodside 1978), swine flu vaccinations (Oliver and Berger

PAGE 15

6 1979), and toothpa s te (Wilson, Mathews, and Harvey 1975). However, such evidence alone is of limited value in evaluating a model of beha vioral intentions. Although examination of a model's predictive power represents one possible approach to verifying the relationships hypoth esized by the model, focusing on a model's predictive accuracy provides little evidence concerning the model's diagnostic utility. Since the real promise of any such formulation rests upon its ability to provide a greater understanding of the determinants that guide intentions and con sequently behavior, it would seem most sensible to employ criteria for model evaluation that directly examine a model's usefulness as a diagnos tic tool (i.e., the model's ability to provide insights into the exist ence and importance of those attitudinal and normative factors under lying behavior). Therefore, it is argued that before any model that identifies the determinants of behavioral intentions can be confidently employed for diagnostic purposes, several important criteria should be met. First, the usefulness of a model that identifies the determinants of intentions is dependent upon the relationship between intentions and behavior. Second, the causal relations hypothesized by the model should be vali dated. Third, the model should be fully identified in the sense that exogeneous variable (i.e., variables other than those postulated as the immediate antecedents of intention) will affect intentions only indi rectly (i.e., the exogeneous variables' influence on intentions is mediated by one or more of the postulated determinants). Fourth, the accuracy and independence of the measured used to operationalize the model's components should be established. Finally, the weights

PAGE 16

7 representing th e im po rtan c e of the hypoth e sized determinants of inten tions should b e valid. Each of th es e criteria is in turn discussed below. The Relationship Between Intentions and Behavior One major assumption of the Fishbein model is that "behavioral intentions are the immediate det e rminants of the corresponding overt behaviors" (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, p. 372). If behaviors were not predictable from intentions, then clearly there would be less value in specifying and validating a model which deco m poses intentions. Thus, establishing the existence of an intentions-behavior relationship as well as the factors that influence the magnitude of this relationship is of major importance In general, the assumption of an intentions-behavior relationship has been supported. Table l summarizes the results for a number of studies that have examined this relationship across a range of behaviors, research settings, and subject populations. While there is a consider able degree of variation in the magnitude of the intentions-behavior relationship, this relationship is significant (p < .05) in all but a single case (Fishbein 1966, male college students). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, pp. 368-372; Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, pp. 42-51) point out that the accuracy of predicting behavior from intentions will depend upon (l) the time between the measurement of intentions and the behavior's occurrence, (2) whether the intention measure corresponds directly to the behavioral criterion, and (3) the degree to which the person is able to act in accordance with h e r/his intention or without the assistance of others. The first factor

PAGE 17

8 Table 1 Summary of Studies of Intention-Behavior Relationship Time Investigato r (s) Behavior Subjects Interval r Ajzen (1971)a Choice in PrisonCollege < 1 hour .82 1 er' s Dilemma students game Ajzen & Fishbeina Choice in PrisonCollege < 1 hour .84* ( 1970) er's Oil emma students game Ajzen & Fishbeina Number of mesCollege < 1 hour .88* ( 197 4) sages sent to students coworkers Ajzen & Fishbeina Number of times College < 1 hour .50** (1974)' subject complied students with coworkers' instructions Bonfield (1974)b Fruit drink Dairy Not stated .44 purchase panel members Bowman & Fishbeinb Voting on nuclear General 1-2 weeks .89 (1978) power ballot propopulace posal Fishbein (1966)b Premarital sex Female 1 semester .68 college students Fishbein (1966)b Premarital sex Male 1 semester .39 college students Harrell & Bennettb Prescribing a Physician Up to 3 .40* (1974) given brand of panel months drug Jaccard, Knox, &b Voting for General 1 week .86* Brinberg (1979) presidential populace candidate King (1975)b Attending College 3 weeks .90 church students

PAGE 18

Table l Continued Time Investigator(s) Behavior Subjects Interval Oliver & Berger b Swine flu College Not stated (1979) shot students Oliver & Berger b Swine flu General Not stated (1979) shot populace Pomazal & Brown b Smoking Co 11 ege < l hour ( 1977) marijuana students Pomazal & Jaccardb Donating College l week (1976) blood students Ryan & Bonfieldb Financial loan University Up to 3 ( 1980) application faculty months & staff Schlegel ,Crawb Alcohol use High l month ford, & Sanborn school ( 1977) students Songer-Nocks a Choice in game College < l hour (1976) of chicken students Wilson, Mathews.a Choice in College < 1 hour & Monoky Prisoner's students (1972) Dilemma game Wilson, Mathews,a Toothpaste Housewives < l hour & Harvey selection (1975) Note: All correlations except for the correlation reported by Fishbein (1966) involving males are significant at the 05 level. alnvestigation employed an experimental methodology. blnvestigation employed a survey methodology. Represents average BI-B correlation. 9 r .34 .33 .71 .46 .33 .33* .69 .74* .90 ** Correlations reported are the results for post-test measures of intentions

PAGE 19

10 recognizes that a person's intentions are not "fixed" and that the opportunity for changes to occur will increase as the interval between assessment of intentions and performance of the behavior increases. Consequently, it is generally expected that the intentions-behavior relationship will decrease as the time interval increases. Support for this contention is provided in Table 1. Studies where the behavior's occurrence is temporally close to measurement of intentions typically find a stronger relationship than those involving greater time inter vals. A direct examination of this issue was undertaken by Fishbein, Loken, Chung, and Roberts (1978) in which the time between the measure ment of college women's intentions to smoke cigarettes and the beha vior's assessment was varied. The results indicated that the predic tive power of intentions increased as the time interval decreased. The correspondence concern deals with the extent to which the intention measure and behavior are equivalent in action, target, con text, and time elements. For example, intentions to purchase an auto mobile (a general target) should not be expected to accurately predict purchases of a particular automobile brand (a specific target). Similarly, a measure of intentions failing to specify a given time frame may not predict a behavior that is assessed within a finite amount of time. The final factor identified by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) is the extent to which the behavior is under volitional control. As reported in Table 1, Fishbein (1966) found females' intentions to engage in pre marital sex to be more strongly related to their subsequent behavior than for males. This result should be expected as females are more

PAGE 20

11 likely to encounter "willing others" than are males. Further evidence in the realm of blood donations that the intentions-behavior relation ship is influenced by the extent to which behavioral performance is dependent upon other persons and events is presented by Pomazal and Jaccard (1976). One issue that has received some attention in the literature is the sufficiency of relying solely upon intentions for predicting beha vior. According to the model, the relationship between some variable (including the attitudinal and normative determinants of intentions) pnd behavior should be completely mediated by intentions. Bentler and Speckart (1979) question, however, whether a cognitive construct such as intentions can fully mediate the influence of affect upon behavior. In examining this issue, the authors found AB exerted a direct (i.e., independent of BI) behavioral effect across three different alcoholic and drug consumption behaviors. Ajzen and Fishbein (1970) also report that BI was unable to mediate AB's influence upon behavior in one of two games involving the Prisoner's Dilemma paradigm, although BI did mediate the relationship between subjective expected utility and beha vior. In contrast, others (Fishbein, Bowman, Thomas, Jaccard, and Ajzen 1980; Oliver and Berger 1979; Ryan and Bonfield 19 8 0) have sup ported BI's ability to mediate the relationship between attitudes and behavior. Evidence bearing upon BI's sufficiency with respect to Fishbein's normative variables has been much more favorable. Most research has substantiated BI's mediating role (Ajzen and Fishbein 1970; Bentler and Speckart 1979; Ryan and Bonfield 1980). The single exception is

PAGE 21

reported by Oliver and Berger (1979) where intentions were unable to mediate the influence of I NB.MC upon behavior in one of two test J J situations. 12 Little research is presently available concerning Bi's ability to mediate the behavioral influence of exogeneous variables (i.e., vari ables other than those identified by the model). Since marketers have often relied upon such exogeneous variables (e.g., past purchase beha vior, demographics) for predicting purchase behavior, examination of BI's sufficiency relative to these typical marketing predictors would / fi 11 an important void in present kn owl edge. Those 1 few studies addres sing this concern have produced conflicting results~ Fishbein, Ajzen, and Hinkle (1980) report that supplementing intentions with several exogeneous variables (e.g., prior voting history, party identification) failed to produce significant increments in predicting voters' choices in the 1976 presidential election. In the realm of "helping" behaviors, Pomazal and Jaccard (1976) found intentions to substantially mediate the effects of traditional altruistic variables (e.g., dependency, guilt, social responsibility) on behavior. Bentler and Speckart (1979), however, found both past behavior and intentions necessary for predict ing future behavior in three behavioral domains Given that past pur chase behavior is frequently employed for predicting future purchase behavior, further investigation of th e relative predictive merits of prior behavior versus intentions seems d es irabl e. Examining the Hypothesized Cau s al Relation s Figure l contains the hypothesized c au s al netw o rk underlying the Fishbein model as depicted by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, p. 16). This

PAGE 22

[b.e. ... A 1 1 B ----..._BI B .. LNB .MC J J ... SN/ Figure l. Hypothesized Causal Flow Underlying the Fishbein Behavioral Intentions Model. 13

PAGE 23

14 causal system postulates that (1) change s in either b. ore. will lead 1 1 to changes in AB' (2) changes in either NB. or MC. will produce changes J J in SN, (3) changes in A 8 will create changes in BI when, as e x pressed in equation l, the attitudinal component re c eives a significant weight, (4) changes in SN will bring about c han g e s in BI when the normative component weight is significant, (5) the influence of [ b.e. upon BI 1 1 is mediated by AB' (6) the influence of r NBjMCj upon BI is mediated by SN, and (7) the influence of AB and SN upon Bi s mediated by BI. If the model is to be employed as a framework for devising behavioral change strategies, then it is of paramount importance that these causal relations be established (Lutz 1977). Such evidence also impacts upon the significance of other criteria for evaluating the model's diagnos tic promise. Suppose that attitudes and subjective norms were not causal antecedents of intention. Efforts to validate the component weights, which attempt to represent the components' relative importance in the formation (as opposed to prediction) of intentions within a given situation, would then be of little diagnostic value. Research addressing the hypothesized causal relations has employed a variety of methodological and analytical approaches. One approach has been to experimentally manipulate the postulated antecedents of a given criterion variable. If the manipulations significantly vary these ante cedents, one might then reasonably e x pect the criterion variable to demonstrate a similar s ensitivity. Several inve s tigations have provid e d support for the causal flow a s the e ff ec t s of e x p e rimental manipulati o n s upon int e ntion s and/or b e havio r wer e a lso r e fle c te d in th e attitudinal and norm a tive co m po nent s (A j z e n 1971, A j z e n a nd Fi s hb e in 1970, 1972, 1974; Ryan 1977). In co ntr a s t dat a p r ese n te d b y Miniard (19 8 1) reve a l s

PAGE 24

l 5 that significant variations in AB were not accompanied by significant variations in BI even though intention s were under attitudinal control (i.e the attitudinal component receiv e d a significant weight). Some attention has also been directed at the causal relations between the attitudinal and normative compon e nts and their hypothesized determinants. In an experiment manipulating b., Lutz (1975) reports l significant [ b.e. changes in each test situation but that AB changed in l l only three of the four test situations. Unsupportive evidence was provided in a separate experiment involving manipulation of ei where AB remained unaffected although I b.e. varied in two of the three test sit, l uations. Ryan (1977) reports that manipulations of NB influenced both I NB.MC. and SN. Finally, Miniard and Cohen (1979) found that manipuJ J lations altering MC also varied SN and BI. Evidence that antecedent and criterion variables display similar sensitivity to experimental manipulations provides only tentative sup port for the postulated causal flow. It is possible for such joint sensitivity to exist even when the presumed 11 antecedent" and "criterion" variables are unrelated. This would occur if these variables were determined by some other variable which was influenced by the experi mental manipulations. In order to eliminate this alternative explana tion, it is necessary to demonstrate that th e influen c e of the experi mental manipulation s on the criterion variabl e is m e diated by the ante cedent variable. Suppose, for e x ample that a manipulation alt e r e d both AB and BI. Support for A 8 s antecedent rol e w o uld b e attain e d if the experimental effect s on BI became in s i g nifi ca nt (or w e re a t lea s t attenuated) when thos e variation s in BI attributabl e to AB ar e removed.

PAGE 25

16 This could be accompanied via the regression model comparison proced ures employed by Lutz (1977) or through the step-down F statistic pre sented by Ryan (1978a). Research examining an antecedent's ability to mediate the influ ence of experimental manipulations on it s corresponding criterion has substantially supported the model. Ajzen and Fishbein (1970) and Songer-Nocks (1976) found experimentally induced variations in behavior to be strongly though not completely mediated by intentions. Similarly, the effects of manipulations upon intentions have been largely mediated by the attitudinal and normative component s (Ajzen and Fishbein 1970; Ryan 1977; Songer-Nocks 1976). While this evidence provides reasonable support for the hypothesized flow of effects, the fact that experimental manipulations often exert some independent influence on the criterion variables indicates that the antecedents are not accounting for all of the variance in the criterion variables that is induced by the manipula tions. Such findings call into question the model's sufficiency (i.e., whether the model has fully specified the determinants of intentions) and raise the possibility that an additional model component may be necessary to capture the unique influence of these experimental manipu lations. Several investigations have employed recent advancements in the analysis of correlational data for testing causal relationships. Path analysis techniques (Kerlinger and Pedhazur 1973), for example, are use ful for establishing a variable's mediating role. Examination of whether AB acted as the intervening variable between r, biei and Bl, for example, would involve testing the significance of the regression

PAGE 26

l 7 weights for [ biei and A 8 in a model with BI as the dependent variable. If the [ b.e. component received a significant weight, this would indi1 1 cate that [ b.e. had an influence upon BI above and beyond its influence 1 1 acting through A 8 Support for A 8 1 s mediating role would thus require the [ b e. regression weight to be insignificant. 1 1 Evidence relevant to intentions' ability to mediate the influence of the attitudinal and normative components upon behavior was presented above. With respect to the attitudinal component, Lutz (1977) and Ryan (1977) have shown AB to mediate the relationship between BI and Lb.e., although Oliver and Berger (1979) found AB unable to completely I 1 1 mediate this relationship in one of two situations. In a recent investigation of the postulated causal flow underlying the normative component, Miniard and Cohen (1981) found SN unable to mediate the [ NB.MC.-BI J J relationship. This set of results were predicted by the authors as they argued that SN, a perceptual construct, should only mediate the influence of NB, also a perceptual construct, and not MC, which is a motivational construct. While a significant and frequently substantial correlation between SN and [ NB.MC has often been reported (Glassman J J and Birchmore 1974; Glassman and Fitzhenry 1976; King and Jaccard 1973; Pomazal and Brown 1977; Pomazal and Jaccard 1976), without knowing the correlation between [ NBj and SN, it is impossible to evaluate the need for weighting NB by MC in predicting SN. A significant correlation between SN and [ NB MC. could occur if SN and [ NB were highly related J J J and MC approached a positive constant. Since most behavioral settings in which others are influential are likely to involve only positive referents (i.e., one is motivated to comply with the referents), it is

PAGE 27

18 probable that MC will often be positive with little variation across referents. In testing MC's relationship with SN under experimental con ditions in which MC varied, Miniard and Cohen (1981) found that weight ing NB by MC significantly decreased the prediction of SN thus indica ting that the relationship expressed in equation 3 is misspecified. Supportive evidence of SN's mediating role between L NB.MC. and BI J J is reported by Oliver and Berger (1979). This inconsistency with the findings of Miniard and Cohen (1981) may be attributable to difference s in MC variability. In the Oliver and Berger (1979) survey setting it 1 would appear that only positive others served as important referents. This would lead to small variation in MC which, as noted above, does not provide an adequate test situation for evaluating MC's relationship with SN. An alternative analytical technique for examining causal flows using correlational data was employed by Lutz (1978) in testing the Fishbein model. By comparing the discrepancies between predicted and actual correlations for nonadjacent pairs of variables in the postulated causal flow, one can evaluate the adequacy of a given causal ordering relative to alternative orderings. Examination of the total discrep ancy of various orderings revealed strong support for the configuration proposed by the Fishbein formulation, although it should be noted that only the causal chain involving the attitudinal component was examined. The Model's Sufficiency One of the diagnostic outcomes derived from the Fishbein model is the identification of the important determinants (as well as the determinants' relative importance) of intentions. Identifying which

PAGE 28

f 19 component is the most influential provides u se ful information in select ing the mo s t appropriate behavioral change strategy. But the validity of such statements as ''attitudes are the dominant determinant in the present setting" is directly related to the model's sufficiency; that is, the extent to which the model fully specifies the determinants of inten tions. Support for the model's sufficiency requires exogeneous vari ables (i.e., those other than the attitudinal and normative variables specified in the model) to affect intentions only indirectly through either component of the model. Thus, any variable related to inten tions should also be related to one of the model's components. Further, any relationship between such variables and intentions should be eliminated when the attitudinal and normative components are statistically held constant (e.g., the addition of an external variable into a regres sion model containing the model's variables should not produce a signi ficant increment in the prediction of intentions). Several approaches have been adopted for operationalizing these external variables. Survey-based investigations have examined the model's ability to mediate such exogeneous variables as religion, age, occupational prestige, and assorted personality and social constructs. In an early study of the model's sufficiency involving transplant donations, Schwartz and Tessler (1972) found a subset of these external variables increased the model's ability to predict intentions. Later investigations, however, have supported the model's mediational adequacy. In a study of family planning, Jaccard and Davidson (1975) found that the addition of external variables did not provide substantive pre dictive improvements. Similarly, after examining the predictive improve ment provided by 33 external variables, Schlegel, Crawford, and

PAGE 29

20 Sanborn (1977) concluded from their study of adolescent alcohol use that "present results could hardly be considered to provide a psycho logically meaningful basis for any revision of the Fishbein theory" (p. 428). Additional support for the model's sufficiency is provided by Pomazal and Brown (1977) and Pomazal and Jaccard (1976). Attention has also been directed at the model's ability to mediate the effects of the traditionally employed attitude toward an object (A 0 ) upon intentions. Some have shown that A 0 is mediated by the model's components (Ajzen 1971; Ajzen and Fishbein 1970, 1974; King 1975; Pomazal and Jaccard 1976) while other s have found the model unable to completely mediate the effect of A 0 on intention s (Ajzen and Fishbein 1969; Jaccard and Davidson 1975; Schwartz and Tessler 1972). Several investigations have demonstrated the impact of situational influences on consumers' intentions to purchase products (Belk 1974, 1975; Sandell 1968). One important question is whether attitudinal and normative variables can adequately capture the influence of situational factors on intentions. Miller and Ginter (1979) have demonstrated that a situation specific attitude model will provide a superior prediction relative to a non-situation specific model when behavior is susceptible to situational influences. The question still remains, however, as to whether these modifications fully mediated the impact of the situation. Sandell (1968) attempted to address this issue by assessing subjects' intentions to consume various products across a number of produce usage situations as well as their attitudes toward these products. The amount of variation in intentions explained by the situational desi g n factors was then compared to the variation explained by th e attitudinal measure. The attitudinal measure was found to e x plain a s ubstantially

PAGE 30

21 lower proportion of intentions' variation,which led Sandell to conclude that "methods of greater predictive power than offered by conventional preference and attitude measurement techniques should be pursued" (p. 408). The soundness of such a conclusion depends in part upon the ade quacy of the measure employed for representing subjects' attitudes. The particular operationalization used by Sandell asked subjects to pro vide "context-free" judgments of how much they liked a particular pro duct. That is, prior to responding to the various situational scenarios, subjects were asked to "place all alternatives on a one-dimensional preference scale from 'like extremely' to 'dislike extremely"' (Sandell 1968, p. 406). These global evaluations, which can be viewed as being reflective of subjects' attitude toward an object (A 0 ), were then used to predict consumption intentions across a wide range of situational settings. It has been convincingly argued, however, that reliance upon such global evaluations for the prediction of a specific intention or behavior is inappropriate (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Rather than predicting intentions to consume a product across a number of situations with a measure of subjects' general lik ing or disliking of the product, Sandell should have employed a measure of subjects' attitude toward consuming the product in each situation. Indeed, if one has reason to believe that the criterion of interest is susceptible to situational influences, then it would seem unreasonable not to modify the variables that are expected to predict this criterion accordingly. Viewed in this light, Sandell 's results are perhaps best viewed as evidence that a strong relationship between criterion and

PAGE 31

22 predictor variables should not be expected when these variables do not correspond in their levels of specificity. Another potential limitation of the study involves the degree to which social influences were operative in the situational scenarios. If social influences were an important determinant of intentions in some of the situations, then subjects should have responded to a norma tive measure as well as an attitudinal measure. Unfortunately, evidence concerning whether such influences did play a role in guiding subjects' intentions was not provided, thus leaving this concern unresolved. An alternative orientation to examining the model's ability to mediate situational influences has been to test the incremental pre dictive value of supplementing attitudinal measures with situational fac tors. Rokeach (1968; Rokeach and Kliejunas 1972), for example, postu lates that the prediction of behavior with respect to a given object within a particular situation is best achieved by the weighted sum of one's attitude toward the object plus one's attitude toward the situa tion. Symbolically, this can be stated as: B =AA = (w)A + (1-w)A OS O S O S (4) when B 0 s is the behavior with respect to object o within situations; A 0 is the attitude toward object o; As is the attitude toward situ ations; and w is an individually determined importance weight. In a recent examination of the Rokeach formulation, Bearden and Woodside (1978) found, contrary to the model, that A alone was superior 0 to A A in predicting marijuana usage intentions and reported past beha o s vior. Such a result is not altogether surprising as one can easily imagine settings where the model will produce inaccurate predictions.

PAGE 32

23 For instance, a person could be favorable toward both the object (i.e., marijuana) and the situation (i.e., attending the opera) but hold a negative evaluation of the behavior itself (i.e., u s ing marijuana while attending the opera). Clearly, as di s cussed before, a better estimation of this behavior would be attained by simply asking the per son h r r/hi s evaluation of engaging in th e behavior within the particu lar situation (i.e., AB) In a s imilar vein, Bearden and Wood s ide (1976) examined the incremental value of s upplementing attitude measures with situational fac tors in predicting consumers' intentions to purchase various brands of soft drinks across seven consumption situations (e.g., while entertain ing at home, during a work break, with an evening meal). To do this, the following model was tested: 1 2 3 1 2 3 Blj = [AOJw, + [Sh sh Sh]w2 + [Ao] [Sh sh Sh]w3, (5) where Blj is the behavioral intention toward brand j; A 0 is the atti tude toward the object (i.e, brand j); S~ is the likelihood of situ ation h occurring for the consumer; S~ is the likelihood of the con sumer using the product in situation h; S~ is the likelihood of the consumer using brand j in situation h; and w 1 w 2 and w 3 are empiri cally determined weights. A test of the situational factors incre mental value is thus provided by the significance of the w 2 and w 3 regression weights. The w 1 w 2 and w 3 weights were significant in 96 % 100 % and 71 % of the reported model te s ts, respectively. These find ings led the authors to conclude that s ituations are influential in the formation of behavioral intention s and that a b e tter understanding of choice behavior is possible if more than attitudinal m e a s ures are used to e x plain behavior" (p. 76 8 ).

PAGE 33

24 While the approach of testing the added value attained through the addition of situational predictors into a model containing an attitud inal predictor holds promise, this parti c ular investigation is suspect on several counts. First, as was the case in the Sandell (1968) study, the authors measured A 0 when AB should have been assessed. The second and perhaps most serious problem is that the particular oper ationalizations used to represent situational influences in the model (i.e., S~ S~ S~) essentially provide a derived measure of behav ioral intention. As such, it is not that surprising that the w 1 and ~ 2 weights achieved such a high rate of significance. To summarize, most investigations have supported the model's ability to mediate exogeneous variables in that very little incremental variation is explained when other variable s are incorporated into the model. Even in those cases where the model has not completely mediated the effects of external v a riables, it has greatly attenuated the relationship between these variables and intentions. E x isting evidence concerning the extent to which the model capture s situational influ ence s seems inadequate for reasons discussed above. Consequently, fur ther research in this area appears neces s ary. Measuring Attitudinal and Normative Influences Analysis of the mean responses to the attitudinal and normative measures is often undertaken for a variety of diagnostic reasons. Ryan and Bonfield (1980), for example, tested NB MC. compounds against zero J J in judging the normative influence e x erted by variou s ref e rent s Responses to the measures are also useful for understanding intentional and behavioral differences between persons. Comparing the responses to the various measures of those who do or do not intend to engage in

PAGE 34

25 the behavior allows one to identify the possible reasons for differ ences in intentions (see, for example, Bowman and Fishbein 1978; Jae card and Davidson 1972; Pomazal and Brown 1977; Pomazal and Jaccard 1976). The soundness of these analyses is directly dependent upon the validity of the measurements employed. If NB and MC do not accurately represent normative influence, then analyses such as those employed by Ryan and Bonfield (1980) would be misleading. Similar problems can occur for intenders-nonintenders comparisons. Let us assume (and, as shall be shown shortly, such an assumption seems warranted) that respon ses to the motivation to comply measure are influenced by one's atti tude toward the behavior (i.e., I want to comply with a referent who advocates a behavior I am predisposed toward and do not want to comply with a referent who supports a behavior I oppose). Suppose the true state of affairs is such that (1) intenders have a favorable attitude while nonintenders have an unfavorable attitude, (2) both intenders and nonintenders perceive others to favor their engaging in the beha vior, and (3) intenders and nonintenders place equal importance on others' expectations. Under the third condition, the motivation to comply measure should reflect equal normative influence between the two groups. However, if MC is sensitive to attitude, it is quite likely that intenders and nonintenders will differ in their responses to this measure. Such a result would lead to an incorrect conclusion about the reasons for intentional differences. Therefore, the accuracy and independence of the Fishbein measures represents a crucial concern. The following discus s ion will first address the adequacy of the formulation's conceptual and operational

PAGE 35

26 separation of attitudinal and normative influences. Attention will then be given to the normative measures' ability to accurately repre sent normative influences. Separating Attitudinal and Normative Influences As discussed by Miniard and Cohen (1981), many of the shortcomings in the Fishbein model's ability to isolate attitudinal and normative influence can be attributed to the manner in which Fishbein distin guishes between the two components of his model. Under the Fishbein system, structural rather than motivational properties represent the basis for determining whether a given belief is allocated to the atti tudinal or normative components. Beliefs that identify a referent's expectation regarding the behavior in question (e g., "My parents think I should attend college") are termed normative beliefs and incorporated into the normative component of the model. Beliefs that do not contain explicit referent expectation but which specify some consequence of per forming the behavior (e.g., "Attending college will lead to a better job"), even if this behavior outcome is normative or under the control of others (e.g., "Attending college will lead to receiving my parents' approval"), are labelled behavioral beliefs and placed into the atti tudinal component. Consequently, normative and personal motivations or reasons for engaging in a behavior are lumped together in the atti tudinal component. In addition, the beliefs "My parents think I should attend college" and "Attending college will lead to receiving my par ents' approval," while structurally different, may reflect a similar underlying concern with the parents' reaction. Thus, a given reason for performing the behavior may be represented in both model components.

PAGE 36

27 The potential for overlap among the components is further illus trated by considering the model's treatment of informational social influences. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, p. 306) state that motivation to comply with a referent should capture all of the bases of social power, including expertise, discussed by French and Raven (1959). This implies, for example, that the influence resulting from the rational and convincing arguments of a trusted other who is valued solely for her/his knowledge on the particular topic should be reflected in the normative component. However, as Miniard and Cohen (1981) have argued, "the potential for confounding and double counting exists since these are precisely the factors that should have led to a greater likelihood of information acceptance and hence impact on the attitudinal component." It is clear from the above discussion that Fishbein has not attemp ted to conceptually distinguish between personal versus social motiva tions for engaging in a behavior. Indeed, one might argue that the two components of the Fishbein model represent two alternative measures of the same underlying construct (i.e., one's overall evaluation, inclu ding both personal and social considerations, of the behavior). While existing evidence demonstrating that both components significantly add to the prediction of behavioral intentions might be interpreted as con tradicting this contention, Birnbaum and Mellers (1979) have recently argued that this situation can occur when the model's components repre sent imperfect measures of the same construct. The potential for confounding or "double counting" is clearly reflected in the operationalizations employed for model implementation. In measuring normative beliefs, the re spo nd e nt is a ske d to indicate

PAGE 37

28 whether "Referent X thinks I should/should not perform behavior Y." In the situation where one has received valued information from an expert concerning some contemplated action, the person is likely to believe that the expert thinks s/he should perform the behavior, although such expert information will probably lead to the creation or change of beliefs that underlie her/his personal evaluation of the beha vior. Subjective norm, operationalized as "Most people who are impor tant to me think I should/should not perform behavior Y" (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975~ also fails to distinguish between others who are important for informational as opposed to normative reasons. The motivation to comply measure asks the person how much "I want to do/I want to do the oppo s ite of what referent X thinks I should do" (Fishbein 1976). Since the measure fails to identify the basis or motivation for "wanting to do what the referent thinks I should do," it cannot discriminate between wanting to comply because one believes the referent to be correct (i.e., informational social influence) versus wanting to comply to attain some social goal (i.e., normative social influence). A further problem with the motivation to comply measure lies in its potential sensitivity to the degree of consistency between the person's and the referent's desires. For example, a person may "want" to do what a referent thinks s/he should do whens/he has a favorable attitude toward the behavior to start with and the referent thinks s/he should perform the behavior or whens/he has an unfavorable attitude toward the behavior and the referent does not thinks/he should perform the behavior. Similar problems also exist in the measurement of the attitudinal component. Direct measures of A 8 have typically asked respondents to

PAGE 38

29 simply evaluate "performing behavior X" (see, for example, Ajzen and Fishbein 1969, 1970, 1972). Since respondents are not asked for their personal evaluation (i.e., how they feel about the behavior without taking into account the reactions of others to the behavior), it is likely that they will, to some extent, include normative consideration s in their responses. The potential for confounding is even more evident for the L biei estimate of attitude which, as discussed above, incor porates consequences that are normative in nature even though such con sequences should be captured by motivation to comply. As indicated above, there would seem to be a considerable potential for the Fishbein model to represent a given influence in both model components which would lead to a large amount of overlap among the com ponents. Evidence of such confounding is provided by numerous investi gations reporting a significant correlation between the two components. Bonfield (1974), for example, found a correlation of .67 between the two components. Ryan (1978b) reports correlations of similar magni tude between L NBjMCj and AB' although the degree of association between E b.e. and ENS.MC. was substantially lower. Further indication of the 1 1 J J components' overlap was provided by Oliver and Berger (1979) in which propositions that (l) AB is a function of both E b e. and L NB.MC. and 1 1 J J (2) SN is a function of both E NB MC. and L b .e. were tested via regresJ J l 1 sion analysis for the two different sa mpl es. Both propositions were supported for each sample. Most re ce ntly, War s haw (1980) found signi ficant relationships between A 8 and SN ran g in g from .36 to .5 8 across four product categories. While findings of s ignificant interr e lati o n s hip s among the mea sures are indicativ e of confounded compon e nt s s u c h results fail to

PAGE 39

30 identify which measure is inadequate or the basis of such inadequacies. To answer such questions, it is necessary to go beyond simple correla tions and instead look at a measure's sen s itivity to variations of a particular source of influence. An example of this orientation is reported by Ajzen and Fishbein (1972) where, in a role playing study, manipulations of others' expectations were found to significantly alter both NB and AB. Additional evidence regarding the overlap among the Fishbein model components is reported by Miniard and Cohen (1979). Manipulations of one's attitude toward an object had a significant impact upon subjects' responses to the AB' SN, and MC measures. Similarly, variations in a referent's influence potential (operationalized as whether or not infor mation describing the referent's manipulative intentions was provided to subjects) had a significant effect upon subjects' AB' SN, and MC respon ses. These findings confirmed the previously discussed suspicions that AB would incorporate normative considerations and that MC would be sensi tive to the favorability of the person's own attitude. Unfortunately, the generality of the finding that SN was affected by the attitudinal manipulation was constrained by the fact that explicit information was presented to subjects on only one referent. This may have encouraged inference processes, based partially on atti tude, regarding what "important others" believed the subject should do. Evidence bearing on SN's sensitivity to attitudinal influences when other's expectations are known is provided by a further analysis of the data reported by Miniard (1981). In a role playing e x periment, sub jects were provided information about their own evaluation of a behavior and, in s ome conditions, oth e r s ex pectation s for their

PAGE 40

31 behavior. In conditions where information regarding other s expecta tions was not given, subjects provided significant (p < .05) non-zero (i.e., not at the scale midpoint) SN responses in a manner consistent with their own personal evaluation of the product. Interestingly, this attitudinal contamination also occurred in the conditions where others' expectations were known. Further demonstration of the overlap between AB and SN is provided by Ryan (1977) in which attitudinal and normative manipulations significantly influenced both measures. AB was also shown to completely mediate the influence of the manipulations on SN which suggests that the AB served as an antecedent of SN in this experimental setting. Accuracy of the Normative Measures In addition to the apparent overlap among the components, there are presently some unresolved issues bearing upon the accuracy of the nor mative measures in representing normative influences. Lutz (1976) has pointed out that SN implicitly assumes one is motivated to comply with others and thus is unable to refect the influence of negative referent groups or individuals. Evidence of SN's inability to incorporate the motivational aspects represented by MC has already been discussed. It would therefore appear that SN will not accurately reflect normative influences when others are either unimportant or when one is motivated to do the opposite of what others expect. Interestingly, Ajzen and Fishbein (19 80 ) have recently suggested that MC should be assessed on a unipolar sca l e as opposed to the pre viou s ly suggested (Fishbein 1976) bipolar scale s in ce "people are unlikely to be motivated to do the opposite of what their salient referents think they should do" (p. 75). Whil e it i s certainly true

PAGE 41

32 that important others will usually serve as positive referents, it is also possible for others to represent negative referents (e.g., rebel lion against authority, reactance theory predictions). Assigning a negative referent a positive motivation to comply score (which would occur under unipolar coding) thus appears both atheoretical and counter intuitive. In addition, this alteration in the coding format would often artificially produce a positive relationship between SN and [NB.MC. since it would prevent MC from assuming negative values. To J J illustrate, suppose SN= +3, NB= +3, and MC= -3 for one individual and that SN= +2, NB= +2, and MC= -3 for another. In this situation (where MC is coded in a bipolar fashion), SN and NBMC would be nega tively correlated. However, if MC was treated in a unipolar fashion (e.g., MC was coded as +1 rather than -3), a positive correlation would be obtained. Another concern relevant to the accuracy of the MC measure is the appropriate level at which the measure should be calibrated. MC has typically been operationalized at a general level of specificity such that respondents are asked about their general tendency or willingness to comply with a referent. Glassman and Fitzhenry (1976) have criti cized a general level of specificity on the basis that, while a given referent may be generally important, "it is very likely that with respect to a specific behavior, this person's opinions may not be impor tant" (p. 479). Operationalizing MC at a general level, which is inde pendent of the particular behavior under investigation, seems inconsis tent with Fishbein's (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) arguments concerning the need for correspondence between predictors and criteria. This appears analogous to asking one to evaluate some

PAGE 42

33 consumption-related consequence (e.g., sweet taste) with specifying the product context (coffee versus soda). There appear, however, to be several potential advantages to using a general level of specificity. Ahtola (1976) has suggested that a general measure is statistically con venient since it allows MC to be independent of NB. Further, a general level should minimize the measure's sensitivity to the previously dis cussed problem of the degree of consistency between the person's and the referent's desires. One alternative level for calibrating MC is a situation specific level. That is, respondents would be asked to indicate how much they wanted to comply with a referent in the particular situation. While a situation specific level would meet the need for correspondence between predictor and criterion variables, it is also likely to be particularly sensitive to the degree of consistency between what the person wants to do and the behavior the referent prefers. Fishbein (1976) has stated that he is "leaning" toward a moderate level of specificity. MC would thus be measured with respect to a par ticular behavioral domain (e.g., how much a person wants to comply with a referent in regard to shopping behaviors). Such a level, however, would appear to be susceptible to the same potential shortcomings of the alternative levels. Not only may a moderate level fail to reflect a referent's influence in a given situation, it may also tap the atti tudinal component. Another problem lies in the sub j ectiveness involved in deciding what constitutes a moderate level. In sumnary, none of the existing rationale s advo c ating a particular level of specificity provides sufficient justification for the adoption of that level. A general level is perhaps better on op e rational grounds

PAGE 43

34 as it should avoid tapping normative beliefs and the attitudinal com ponent, but it appears inconsistent with Fishbein's arguments concern ing the need for correspondence between the criterion variable and its predictors Conversely, a situation specific level meets the need for correspondence but may enhance the amount of confounding in the measure. A moderate level does not appear to be a fairly sensible compromise since it lacks the desired degree of correspondence and still may reflect unwanted sensitivity to normative beliefs and attitudes. Scant evidence bearing on this issue is presently available. Glassman and Birchmore (1974) tested the effect of MC specificity upon the SN =tNBjMCj across seven contraceptive behaviors. In contrast, Miniard and Cohen (1981) found that LNBjMCj failed to correlate with intentions only when MC was calibrated at a general level. Thus, a gen eral level was predictively inferior to the moderate and situation spe cific levels, with the later levels yielding essentially the same predic tive power. Miniard and Cohen (1981) also tested the various levels' sensitivity to manipulations of attitudinal and normative influences. Expectations that MC's sensitivity to attitudinal influences would be an increasing function of the measure's situation specificity were not confirmed as all levels were equally affected by the attitudinal mani pulation. This finding may have been due, however, to the particular procedures of the study since prior to responding to MC subjects were aware of the particular s ituation under inve st igation. Miniard and Cohen thus suggested that it may be necessary to assess MC prior to dis closure of the behavioral context before a general and perhaps moderate level s in se n s itivity to attitudinal influences emerges. While this

PAGE 44

35 should enhance the levels' immunity to such influences, it may occur at the expense of their predictive power. In the beginning of this section, several illustrations were pre sented of the diagnostic problems created by measures that do not fully or distinctly represent the influences they presumably capture. The importance of sound measurements is further demonstrated below. Accuracy of the Component Weights One key validity concern is the model's ability via the component weights to correctly identify both the e x istence and relative impor tance of salient attitudinal and normative influences. If, for example, both attitudinal and normative influen c es were equally important in determining intentions, one would hope that the component weights would accurately represent this "state of nature Similarly, a given deter minant should receive a significant weight when the determinant is in fact important in guiding intentions and should not receive a s ignifi cant weight when it does not influence intentions. If this were not the case, then the diagnostic usefulness of the model would be limited. Several factors could threaten the a c curacy of the component weights and thus the model's diagnosticity. As noted above in the discussion of the model's sufficiency, the validity of statements concerning the com ponents' relative importance is dependent upon the degree to which the model fully identifies the determinants of intentions. An additional factor is the measures' accuracy in repre s enting attitudinal and norma tive influences. Recall that Miniard and Cohen (19 8 1) found SN unable to mediate the influence captured by MC upon intention s This implies that the normative component may be less accurat e when SN is used for representing normative influence s

PAGE 45

36 A major threat to the accuracy of the component weights is the existence of multicollinearity among the components. Regression pro cedures are typically employed for estimating the weights (i.e., beta coefficients) associated with each model component. However, the pre sence of multicollinearity makes the estimation and interpretation of such beta coefficiencies difficult (Green 1978, pp. 227-230; Johnston 1963, pp. 201-207). Tests for estimating the weights' significance are sensitive to the amount of overlap or multicollinearity among the pre dictors such that higher degrees of multicollinearity lower the likeli hood of rejecting the null hypothesis that beta equals zero. Multi collinearity can thus produce situations where important variables appear insignificant. Conversely, predictors that are unrelated to the criterion may appear important as reflected by a significant beta coef ficient. Such occurences have been discussed under the label of "sup pressor" variables (Cohen and Cohen 1975; Darlington 1968). Problems attributable to multicollinearity may also occur when the diagnostic goal is the determination of which component is more impor tant in a given situation. In this instance, it is necessary to test whether the beta coefficients differ in magnitude (Draper and Smith, 1966, pp. 72-77). As before, tests of this nature are sensitive to the presence of multicollinearity such that greater degrees of multicol linearity lower the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis that the betas are equal,which produces a more conservative test. Conse quently, the existence of overlap between the attitudinal and normative components impairs one's ability to identify their relative importance. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) have stated that the weight s associated with the attitudinal and normative components are ''proportional to

PAGE 46

37 their relative importance in the prediction of behavioral intentions" (pp. 302-303). However, such an interpretation is only valid when the components are independent. When the components are not independent, the overlap is arbitrarily distributed between the weights. There fore, the weights cannot be interpreted as being representative of the components' relative importance. As an illustration, consider one possible situation in which the attitudinal component incorporates much of the influence that should be reflected under the normative component but where the normative com ponent captures only that influence which it is intended to represent. In this case, the weight associated with the normative component will understate the true importance of that component while the attitudinal component weight will overstate the importance of this source of influ ence. Consequently, the weights would provide a distorted picture of the components' relative importance. In the preceding section, evidence was presented which indicated that a substantial amount of overlap presently exists among the Fish bein model components and that the Fishbein normative measures may pro vide inaccurate representations of normative influences. Such evidence is limited, however, ,n that it only establishes the potential for inaccurate weights. It may be that, even in the presence of such prob lems, the weights correctly reflect the salient influences. It would seem reasonable to expect, for example, that some degree of overlap among the components could exist without su b sta ntively harming the weights' accuracy. What is needed, then, is a direct test of this model issue.

PAGE 47

are: 38 Two possible criteria for evaluating the accuracy of the weights (1) the weights' ability to accurately represent the absence or presence of salient attitudinal and normative influ ences, and (2) whether the weights differ in their relative sizes in expected ways. Under the first criterion, the normative weight, for instance, should be significant when normative influences are important determinants of intentions. Similarly, this weight should not be significant when norm ative influences are unimportant. Failure to confirm these expectations would cast serious doubt upon the model's diagnostic utility. The second criterion is less concerned with the accuracy of a particular weight. Rather, the focus is on the relative magnitude of the weights. Drawing upon some conceptual framework, one may hypothesize that a given component should be more important (i.e., have a larger weight) in situation A, while the remaining component should dominate intentions in situation B. Note that support for one criterion does not automatically imply support for the other. For example, one might be led to predict that both sources of influence are important (Criterion l), although the attitudinal component should be more important than the normative component (Criterion 2). If the results yielded a large significant attitudinal weight but a small in s ignificant normative weight, only the latter prediction would be s upported. Research examining the weights' ac c ura c y has almo s t e x clusively relied upon the second criterion. Using th e Pri s oner's Dilemma game, Ajzen (1971) and Ajzen and Fishb e in (1970) told sub jec ts to consider

PAGE 48

39 themselves partners (cooperation condition) or to do better than the other person (competitive condition). It was hypothesized that norma tive considerations would carry greater weight in the cooperation con dition while attitudinal considerations would be more important in the competition condition. The observed patterns of regression weights supported these predictions. Similar result s derived from this experi mental paradigm are reported by Songer-No c ks (1976). Wilson, Mathews, and Monoky (1972) found partial s upport for expec ted differences in the weights' relative magnitudes. As predicted, the attitudinal component received a larger weight when the other person in a buyer-seller dyad was described as being dissimilar to the subject. The attitudinal component was also dominant when the other was described as being similar, although it was expected that the normative component would be of greater importance. One might question this latter hypothe sis since it is not evident that similarity by itself would provide some unknown other with the social power necessary for dominating another's behavior. Evidence failing to support hypothesized differences in the compon ents' relative weights within a marketing context is reported by Ryan (1978b) in which social influences were predicted to be more important for Ultra Brite than Crest since the farmer's promotional activities emphasized social interactions (e.g the Ultra Brite user would receive favorable reactions from others). The results contradicted this hypothesis as the normative component weight was larger than the atti tudinal weight for Crest while the reverse was true for Ultra Brite. The dominance of the normative compon e nt f o r intentions to pur c ha s e Crest is not altogether surprising since r e spondents might report that

PAGE 49

important others think they should use Crest and thereby avoid tooth decay. 40 Evidence addressing the weights' accuracy in representing the pre sence or absence of salient normative and attitudinal influences is virtually non-existent with the single exception of an investigation reported by Miniard (1981). In the first of two experiments, the model appropriately reflected the lack of salient normative influences (i.e., the normative weight was not significant). However, in the second experiment where normative influences were salient, the normative com ponent weight achieved significance when the I NBjMCj formulation was employed and MC was calibrated at either a moderate or situation spe cific level, but failed to do so when MC was assessed at a global level or when SN was used to operationalize the normative component. This lat ter finding casts doubt upon the accuracy of the model expressed in equation 1 in detecting the presence of salient normative influences. Indirect evidence concerning the accuracy of the component weights can be attained by a comparison of the correlation and regression analysis reported in several investigations. Such comparisons indicate that the weights may not be accurately reflecting the true importance of a given component as it is often the case that a component correlates significantly with intentions yet receives an insignificant beta weight. Fishbein (1966), for example, reported that male s attitude toward pre marital sexual intercourse had a significant c orrelation (r = .52, p < .01) with their intention but receiv ed an in s ignificant weight in the regression equation. The same result with respect to I NS.MC. is J J reported by Ajzen and Fishbein (1972) where the normative component weight was insignificant although I NBjMCj was significantly correlated

PAGE 50

41 (r = .59, p < .01) with intentions. An extrem e in s tance of these incon sistencies where behavior was the criterion i s provided by Ajzen and Fishbein (1970). As presented in Table 4 of their results, both AB and NB were significantly (p < .01) relat e d to behavior but neither measure received a significant weight. The findin gs of Warshaw (1980) clearly indicate reason for concern in using the model to analyze consumer' s purchase intentions as the regression and corr e lational analys es involving the normative component were incon s istent in each of the four product categories examined. Further examples of significant correla tions and insignificant weights can be found in Bonfield (1974), Green stein, Miller, and Weldon (1979), Harrell and Bennett (1974), Jaccard and Davidson (1975), Pomazal and Brown (1977), Pomazal and Jaccard (1976), Ryan and Bonfield (1980), and Schwartz and Tessler (1972). It should be pointed out that evidence of a given component receiv ing a significant correlation but an insignificant weight cannot be unambiguously interpreted as evidence against the weights' accuracy. It may be the case that the component should not correlate significantly with intentions. This perhaps counterintuitive situation could occur if the theoretical system underlying the model produces overlapping con structs (i.e., model, components) and the measures used to assess these constructs reflect this overlap. If, for example, the mea s ure employed to operationalize the normative component wa s sensitive to attitudinal influences (i.e., the normative mea s ure al s o tapped the attitudinal com ponent), the normative component might corr e lat e with intentions even when intentions are solely under attitudinal c ontrol. In s uch s itu ations, the lack of a significant normativ e w e ight is quite appropriate. However, the fact that the measure wa s inappropriately corr e lated with

PAGE 51

42 intentions raises the issue of the measure's accuracy. Therefore, such inconsistencies between the regression and correlational analyses threaten the model's diagnostic u se fulne ss, a lthough one cannot unam biguously attribute it to the accuracy of either the measure or the weight.

PAGE 52

CHAPTER THREE A PROPOSED MODEL As previously argued, there is often a pragmatic need for under standing the extent a given behavior is based upon personal versus normative considerations. Evidence generally supportive of an inten tions-behavior relationship, the postulated causal flow, and the suf ficiency of decomposing intentions into simply attitudinal and norma tive components was also presented. What is not offered by the Fish bein model is a basis for separating the personal and normative reasons for behavior. The development of such a model is the goal of this chapter. It is perhaps useful in developing the following conceptualization to first consider the manner in which referent others influence our behavior. A fundamental distinction often drawn in the reference group literature is the informational versus normative role others play in our lives (see, for example, Deutsch and Gerard 1955, Festinger 1950, Jones and Gerard 1967, Kell~y 1952, arid Thibaut an~ S tfickland lQS~). Throughout our existence, the opinions and actions of others are an important source of information about our environment as well as about ourselves. Just as with the information that is presented in a journal, the information provided by others will, if accepted, become internal ized into the individual's belief and value systems. The behavioral impact produced by informational social influence is not dependent upon the behavior's visibility to the influencing agent s ince the information is valued for its own sake. Further, much of the information gathered 43

PAGE 53

44 from others will become disassociated from its source so that its influ ence upon behavior will continue to persist so long as the person believes and retains the information even though the source of informa tion has been forgotten. In contrast, others are often influential because of their ability to mediate rewards and punishments which the person seeks to attain or avoid. A person may, for example, publicly conform with the opinions of her/his boss to avoid losing her/his job, even though s/he privately disagrees with the employer's position. Unlike informational social influence, the potential for normative social influence to alter behavior is directly dependent upon the visibility of the behavior to the influencing agent. While the person might suppress her/his own private beliefs and agree with the boss when the boss is present, we would expect the person to voice her/his own convictions when such expression would escape the employer's awareness. Consideration of others' ability to exert informational and norma tive influence is a critical step in the development of a behavioral intentions model that attempts to separate personal versus normative considerations. It seems clear that the inclusion of a broadly based social influence construct (i.e., a construct representing both norma tive and informational influences) within a behavioral intentions model already containing a construct representing the individual's personal or private evaluation of the behavior will lead to overlapping model com ponents. This is because many of an individual's personal consider ations originate in the social environment. For example, the belief "taking the medicine will cure my illness," while a product of the doc tor's informational influence, is one consideration that would underlie

PAGE 54

45 the person's private evaluation of taking the medicine. Even if the conceptual domain of the normative component is restric ted to referent others' normative power, the development of unique atti tudinal and normative components also requires a narrower conceptual ization of the attitudinal component than is contained under the Fishbein model. Within the Fishbein system, all behavioral considerations inclu ding those reflective of normative influence are incorporated into the attitudinal component. Any behavioral outcome, even those that are mediated by others, is viewed as a determinant of the Fishbein attitudi nal component. Such a conceptualization of attitude would thus lead to a component that would tap normative social influence. Furthermore, as argued by Miniard and Cohen (1981), 11 the traditional distinction between complying with others for normative reasons and engaging in a behavior because it is consistent with one's attitudes and values is not only lost [in a conceptual framework such as that underlying the Fishbein model], it is made trivial" (p. 12). The following formulation therefore attempts to maintain a distinc tion between one's personal or private evaluation of a behavior and one's evaluation of performing a behavior for normative reasons. This proposed formulation will move beyond the "surface structure" distinc tions underlying the Fishbein model (which as previously indicated con tributes to the overlap among the components) by focusing on the person's reasons (i.e., the particular consequences that the person considers) for behavioral performance. The problem then becomes one of how these various reasons or consequences are allocated into "attitudinal" and "normative" components. The basis for distinguishing between these components under the proposed system is whether a given consequence or

PAGE 55

46 outcome is under the control of another. Con se quenc es c lassified as normative would be those mediated by other s Those con s equences that are not controlled by others would be placed into the attitudinal or personal component. At a symbolic l e vel, the proposed for m ulation can be e x pressed as: B "BI = (PE )w l + (NE)w .. C. (6) where Bis the behavior, BI is the in te n t ion to perform behavior B, PE is the personal evaluation of p e rformin g be havior B (i.e., the e valu ati o n based s olely on personal consid e r at i o n s ), NE i s the normative evaluation of performin g behavi o r B (i. e th e evaluation based only on normative considerations), and w 1 and w 2 are e mp irically derived weight s repre s enting the importance of the per so nal and normative components in determining intentions. In order to more clearly d e fine the co n c eptual c ontent of the pro posed attitudinal and normative compon e nt s it i s perhaps u s eful to relate these components to the processe s of social influence discussed by Kelman (1961). The first influence pro c ess, compliance, d e scribes a condition in which an individual accepts influence in order to attain certain rewards or avoid certain punishments under the control of others. Compliance processes would thus underlie those behavi o ral consequences that are based upon the reaction s or re sp ons es of relevant others to the behavior Such re s ponses could range from overt actions (e.g., "my parents will punish me if I do X") to the p e rc e pti o ns others form about the actor as a result of th e b e havior (e.g., o th e rs will admire me if I do X"). Importantly, a co n s equ e nce r e fl e ctiv e of co pliance pressure s need not e x plicitly s tat e th e r o l e of im p o r tant others. For e x ample, one might comply with th e wi s h es o f on e s

PAGE 56

47 employer in order to "avoid being fired from my job." While this con sequence does not explicitly identify the employer's mediating role, it is clear that the employer's responses are instrumental in its attainment. Identification, Kelman's second process, occurs when an individual adopts a viewpoint or behavior because it i s associated with a self defining relationship to another person or group. Such influence is accepted to maintain the individual's self-image rather than to evoke some desired response from the referent. The referent simply serves as a "real world" illustration of the desired s elf-image. In his discus sion on identification, Kelman states that the individual attempts to meet the expectations of the referent. This has been incorrectly interpreted as implying that the referent's overt reaction is an impor tant element of identification. For example, in an illustration of identification-based influence, Smith (1976) states that 11 B behaves in a manner complimentary to A in the hope that this pleases A" (p. 1089). Both Kelman (1961) and French and Raven (1959) explicitly state that the referent's reaction is inconsequential to the satisfaction gained from such conformity. Smith's example seems more consistent with com pliance-based influence since the referent's reaction represents the desired outcome. Thus, when one conforms with such expectations to achieve some desired response, we are dealing with influence based on compliance; but when the person conforms with such expectations solely because s/he believes them to be consi s tent with the desired self image, we are dealing with identification. Accordingly, consequences such as "performing the behavior leads to being similar to referent X" would reflect identification-based influence.

PAGE 57

48 The final process, internalization, refers to the acceptance of social influence becau se it is congruent with the individual's value system and perception of reality (e.g., accepting expert information from a tru s tworthy source). The individual changes her/his behavior because s/he believe s the change to have personal utility for herself/ himself and not to incur some response from the referent. One can more broadly distinguish between the three processes by which others influence our behavior on the ba s is of the reactions of important others. Under compliance, others' responses are intricately linked to the source of satisfaction from engaging in the behavior. Such responses may simply play a mediating role in attaining a valued outcome (e.g., pleasing the boss so as to avoid being fired from one's job). Alternatively, a referent's reaction itself may be the desired outcome (e.g, having my spouse perceive me in a favorable manner). In contrast, identification and internalization represent influence pro cesses that are not dependent upon the person considering whether others will be aware of her/his behavior and whether they would respond in a desired fashion. This distinction between the three processes is consistent with the basis for separating the personal and normative components of the pro posed model. Achieving behavioral consequences under others' control would require eliciting the appropriate overt or psychological response from others. Thu s, compliance-based influen ces repr ese nt the concep tual domain of the proposed normative compo n ent. Th e remaining proces ses of internalization and identification which are not manifested in behavioral consequences involving others' reactions w ou ld be captured

PAGE 58

49 by the proposed personal component. This comp o nent would, of course, also represent those consequences of nons ocial origins (e.g., pur chasing a reasonably priced brand). Thus, the impact of identification and internalization processes would be registered through the personal component. This is because the proposed formul~tion disregards, in a Lewinian sense, questions of initial origin in favor of an emphasis on one' s perception of the con temporaneous "location" of the forces. Many of the salient consequences that would be labelled as "personal" may indeed be the result of past social influences. While acknowledging the possible origins of a per1 sonal consideration, the present conceptualization partitions the salient consequences that are considered at a particular point in time on the basis of their relevance to others' reactions. Such a division should reveal the emphasis individuals place upon personal versus social goals in their behavioral decisions. The proposed formulation does not, then, categorize salient con sequences as personal or normative simply on the basis of such surface level distinctions as whether social others are "involved" in the out come. As illustrated above, a consequence reflective of normative influence need not explicitly identify the mediating role of others. Further, it is possible for a personal consequence to involve important others. For example, it may be the case that one of the consequences underlying a particular act is that the behavior produces a favorable outcome for others. Thus, a wealthy person may donate money to some charity because s/he wishes to assist the needy. If this person valued the consequence "help others" as an end to itself, it would be placed into the personal category. If this consequence were valued, however,

PAGE 59

50 because it was perceived as a means to eliciting favorable reactions from others (e.g., others wi 11 think I am a kind and generous person), it would then be classified as a normative consequence. Accordingly, successful separation of the two components requires identifying whether a given outcome is valued for its normative implications. One important difference between compliance and the remaining influence processes is behavioral visibility. Compliance is directly dependent upon the extent to which important others will have knowledge about the behavior. Since others cannot respond to behaviors they are unaware of, private behaviors (i.e., ones that are not open to surveil lance by the relevant referents) should be unaffected by compliance based influences. A behavior's visibility is not a necessary condition, however, for internalization and identification to occur. Therefore, the value associated with a normative consequence should be sensitive to the visibility of a given behavior whereas the evaluation of personal consequences should be unaffected by the behavior's visibility. This differential sensitivity to the behavior's visibility can be extremely useful in understanding the source of value underlying a particular consequence. Consider the consequence "help others." As discussed above, this outcome would be categorized as a personal one if helping others was valued for its own sake but would be categorized as normative if helping others is valued because it leads to eliciting favorable reactions from others. The means for identifying which of these two sources of value underlies the consequence is available by ascertaining the impact perceived visibility of the behavior would have upon the person's evaluation of the "helping others" outcome. The value associated with helping others as a means to an end (such as having

PAGE 60

51 others make desired attributions about me) would directly vary with the person's belief that others would be aware of her/his actions. Per ceived awareness would have no impact, however, on the person's evalu ation of the outcomes when helping others is valued for its own sake. Particular care must be taken in the elicitation procedures employed for identifying the salient conseauences underlying a given behavior since it is possible for a consequence that is truly normative in nature to be operationalized in such a manner that totally obscures its true basis of value. Asking subjects to list those product features that they consider in choosing an automobile is unlikely to evoke normative consequences. Consequently, even when purchase behaviors involve normative considerations, elicitation procedures may guide subjects to verbalize such consequences in terms of product dimensions. Automobile attributes such as styling or power may be important to a consumer partly because of their normative implications (e.g., projecting a mas culine image to others), although it is possible for such dimensions to have value for personal reasons (e.g., the person who needs a powerful car because of a frequently occurring need to enter fast-moving traffic). Specification of salient consequences at the attribute level may there fore lack the precision necessary for disentangling normative and per sonal considerations. Implementation of the proposed formulation would require identifying the basis for an attribute's importance and thus provide a clearer picture of consumers' motivations. As Calder and Burnkrant (1977) point out, the representation of a normative conse quence at the attribute level can be misleading since the true source of value satisfaction stems not from the product itself, but from the consumer's believe about how others will perceive her/him.

PAGE 61

52 Two additional points need to be made. First, the preceding dis cussion should not be construed as implying that the separation of personal and normative influences can be easily achieved. Separating these two sources of influence is a formidable challenge, even within the confines of an experimental setting (e.g., Miniard and Cohen 1979). Second, it is important to acknowledge that there are many ways to "divide up the world." One basis of support for the proposed parti tioning procedure is the pragmatic value in understanding the extent to which a given behavior is determined by the reactions of important others versus considerations which are independent of such referent reactions. Such information provides useful knowledge in deciding whether a product should be positioned to the buyer as a means for eli citing favorable responses from others. The proposed division is also consistent with the traditional distinction between complying with others for normative reasons versus performing a behavior because it is consistent with one's personal beliefs and values. In addition, confin ing the social influence component to simply compliance-based influ ences may in fact be necessary. The beliefs and values an individual holds as a result of internalization and identification processes will often become disassociated from their social sources. This is not the case under compliance where, as noted by Miniard and Cohen (1979), "there may be considerable value in the individual keeping his public opinion or behavior separate from any discrepant private attitudes; in the absence of surveillance or in an altered s ocial reward structure the individual's behavior might well change" (p. 104).

PAGE 62

CHAPTER FOUR METHOD Research Goals The purpose of the following experiment is to examine the adequacy of the proposed model in representing and separating personal and norma tive reasons for engaging in a behavior. Toward this end, factors thought to affect either the personal or normative components were manipulated in an experimental setting. By varying an antecedent vari able of the normative component, for example, one can examine a norma( tive measure's convergent validity through its sensitivity to the manipulation. This same manipulation's impact upon a measure of personal influence would also provide evidence concerning that measure's dis criminant validity (i.e., the measure's immunity to unwanted normative influences). Support for the proposed model would be attained if per sonal (normative) measures displayed high degrees of sensitivity to the manipulation influencing the personal (normative) component and low degrees of sensitivity to the manipulation influencing the normative (personal) component. It is possible, of course, for some overlap among the components to exist without substantively harming the model's diagnostic usefulness. A certain level of multicollinearity could be tolerated before the c om ponent weights become inaccurate in representing the existence of sal ient personal and normative influences. Con se quently, a direct test 53

PAGE 63

54 of the model's ability via the component w e ights to accurately identify the presence of salient influences will be undertaken. Overview Subjects were led to believe that they were participating in an experiment concerning group decision making. After reading case mater ials and receiving written communication s supposedly from the group leader and other group members, subjects completed a questionnaire and recorrrnended one of several alternative brands for market introduction. Subjects were randomly assigned to the cells of a 2 (Attitude) x 2 (Nor mative) x 2 (Model) factorial design. The first manipulation, Attitude, was intended to vary subjects' personal evaluation of the behavior (i.e., recommending the same brand as the leader) by altering the suit ability of the brand recommended by the leader for market introduction. For some subjects, the leader suggested a suboptimal brand whereas for others the leader recommended a brand that was not inferior to the remaining alternative brands. Subjects' personal evaluation of the behavior should be more favorable when the leader recommends an optimal brand than when a suboptimal brand is suggested by the leader. The second manipulation, Normative, attempted to influence sub jects' normative evaluation of the behavior. The group in which the s ub ject was a member was given the potential to exert normative influence by means of rewarding those subjects choosing to c omply with the group leader (i.e., compliance was a necessary precondition for r e ward eligibility). This reward took the form of a "group member award" which for some groups was worth $20 whereas in other groups the award was valued for its own sake. It wa s expected that subjects' normative evaluation of the behavior would be mor e favorable when r ecomme nding

PAGE 64

the same brand as the leader permitted the s ubject to receive a $20 reward than when the award was not given a financial value. 55 The final factor, Model, involved a measurement manipulation which required varying the questionnaire subjects received during the experi ment. Part of the subjects responded to the questionnaire containing the measures necessary for implementing the proposed model whereas the remaining subjects completed a questionnaire containing the Fishbein measures. Subjects Ninety-five male and female undergraduate marketing students par1 ticipated in the experiment as partial completion of class requirements. Each experimental group consisted of five subjects. Procedure and Independent Variables Figure 2 contains a flow chart of the major stages of the experi ment. At the beginning of the session, subjects were given a handout (Appendix A) explaining the purported purpose of the experiment and its attendant procedures which the experimenter read aloud. The handout began by stating that subjects were participating in a study of the fac tors (e.g., the communication patterns among the group, the time allowed to reach a decision, the effect of group cohesiveness) which influence group decision making and that they would form a marketing consulting group that would make recommendation s r egar ding the market introduction of a new product. Subjects were then informed that each person would be placed in a separate room. It was explained that becau se friends often signed up for the same session it was necessary to con cea l their identities so

PAGE 65

56 I Subjects assembled in main room I + I Handout given to subjects and reviewed I Subjects go to separate rooms and begin reading case materials i Experimenter enters room and: (a) informs subjects/he is the last to send message (b) delivers and explains supplemental material Experimenter delivers fictitious message from "leader" Experimenter sequentially delivers fictitious message from group members i Subjects write message which is given to the experimenter for circulation to group I Subjects respond to questionnaire I t I Subjects record brand recommendation on appropriate form I I Subjects reassembled in main room and debriefed I Figure 2. Flowchart of the Experiment

PAGE 66

57 that "friendship" would not influence the results. This isolation pro vided the control necessary, as explained below, for implementing the various experimental manipulations and procedures. It was then explained in the handout that the experimenter would randomly select one of the participants to serve as a group leader. The major respon sibility of the leader was described as making an initial recommenda tion concerning which brand should be selected for market introduction. Subjects were informed that, unless the experimenter told them other wise, they would be a group member. None of the subjects were in fact selected as leader. This permitted utilization of all subjects as well as allowing the control necessary for e x e c uting the e x perimental mani pulations. The following section of the handout stated that a central factor under investigation was the type and amount of communication that tran spired within the group. Subjects were told that their group would use a particular communication pattern known a s a "Sequential Communication Network" which required the following restrictions: (l) each member (including the leader) would be allowed to send one written message to the rest of the group, (2) the message could not contain a question requiring a direct response from the remaining members, (3) the leader would send the first message, and (4) the communication order for the remaining members would be randomly determined. Concerning this latter point, subjects were informed that they would be told when it was their turn to send a message. Next, the case materials describing the marketing problem were out lined. A very general overview of the ca s e materials was provided. Subjects were told that they would b e ask e d to recommend on e of seven

PAGE 67

58 alternative brands of dog food for market introduction. The following section informed subjects that, upon completion of the case materials, they would begin sending their communications through the experimenter. Subjects were again reminded not to write their communication until they had received the messages from those members who were selected to go before them. Subjects were also instructed to print their messages so as to minimize the chances that someone would recognize their hand writing. Subjects were then told that, after they had completed studying the case materials and had exchanged the various messages, the experimenter would provide them with a questionnaire. Upon completion, they were to place the completed questionnaire in an unmarked manila envelope (explained to subjects as one of the procedures employed for maintain ing the anonymity of their responses). After responding to the ques tionnaire, subjects were to make their brand recommendation on the appropriate form. The experimenter would collect these recommendations and circulate them among the group. The leader would then tabulate the results on a blank piece of paper. The next section of the handout attempted to provide the group with a power basis for exerting normative influence. It was decided that one potentially viable basis would be to endow the group with the ability to administer rewards. A similar power basis has previously been employed (Kelman 1974) for investigating compliance processes. The group 1 s ability to reward the subject was explained to subjects through the pretext that one factor und e r investigation was the effect of group cohesiveness. The handout stated that, because of the

PAGE 68

59 temporary nature of the group, it was unlikely that cohesiveness would be as prevalent in an experimental group as it would be in more "nat ural" groups. Subjects were informed that it would be necessary to compensate for this limitation by rewarding that member demon s trating the highest level of "team spirit." Thi s reward was labelled a "group member award" and was to be given by the group throu g h a voting system. It was stated in the handout and reemphasized by the experimenter that a person's vote should be based "solely upon a member's willingness to work in a harmonious fashion and upon a member' s loyalty to the group." Subjects were instructed that their "selection s hould not be based upon whether or not the person recommends, in your opinion the 'best' brand" since "we have already examined this particular aspect in other groups." Subjects were therefore told that they could not vote for someone "unless he or she acts in a cohesive manner which, in this situation, is defined as recommending the same brand as the leader." The experi menter also added that subjects should take notes when receiving the communications since this might help them in making their voting deci sion. The nature of this "award" provided the major basis for imple menting the Normative (Norm) manipulation. In the Normatives trong (Norms) condition where the group was expected to have a strong influ ence on subjects' behavior, the award was defined as a $20 ca s h prize. The award was not given any monetary value in the Normativ e -w e ak (Normw) condition where the group's influ e n ce s hould be substantially less. Subject s were th e n inform e d t hat aft e r th e voting by g roup mem ber s had been c om p leted, they w e r e t o r eg rou p in th e main r oo m and turn in th e variou s ex p e rim e ntal m ate ri a l s S ub jec t s w e r e t o ld that

PAGE 69

60 this would mark the end of the study and that any questions they might have would be discussed at this time. The handout ended with a chrono logical review of the steps and procedures of the study. At this point, the experimenter clarified any misperceptions sub jects had concerning the task and procedures. Subjects were then led to separate rooms and began reading the case materials (Appendix B) describing a producer of dog food who was considering the entry of a new product into the canned dog food market. These materials contained a breakdown of the market segments within the dog food market in terms of the benefits sought by segment members. Three major segments were described: a price segment, a convenience segment, and a "multi-factor" segment in which segment members considered several product dimensions (i.e., the brand's appeal to dog, nutrition, price, and convenience) in choosing a brand of dog food. It was stated that the company had decided for various reasons to develop a brand specifically aimed at this latter segment. Also included in the case material was a table that summarized the ratings obtained from a sample of consumers drawn from the selected target market of seven alternative brands (identified alphabetically from A to G) under consideration by the company. For each dimension, a brand received one of five possible ratings: very high, high, average, low, and very low. The subject's task at this point was to "think about which one of the brands you as the marketing consultant personally believe would be most likely to be well received by the multi-factor segment." The Attitude (Att) manipulation was partly accomplished through varying the ratings of the various brands under consideration for mar ket introduction. In the Attitude-favorabl e (Attf) co ndition where

PAGE 70

61 subjects were expected to have a favorable attitude toward th e leader's brand, the brand (i.e., brand A) which would be recommended by the leader received ratings of very high, high, low, and very high on the appeal to dog, nutrition, price, and convenience dimensions, respec tively. Brand A's ratings were identical to the ratings assigned to brand D and superior to the ratings of any of the remaining brands. In the Attitude-unfavorable (Attu) condition where subjects were expected to have an unfavorable (or at least a less favorable) atti tude toward the leader's brand, brand A received ratings of high, high, low, and average on appeal, nutrition, price and convenience, respec tively. Again brand A was identical to brand D and superior to all of the remaining brands except for brand F. While brand A had a lower price than F (i.e., low versus average), brand F received superior ratings on nutrition (very high) and convenience (high). The two brands were equivalent in the appeal to dog dimension. At this point one can not unambiguously argue whether A or Fis superior since this would depend on the relative importance of the product dimensions. Subjects were provided, however, additional information (discussed below) con cerning the importance of these dimensions to target consumers which clearly indicated the superiority of brand F. While subjects were reading the ca s e material, the e x perimenter entered the room and told the subjects thats/he would be the last member to send a communication. This was done s o that subje c t s would receive messages from the group prior to s endin g their message and thus have a clear indication of the group's e x pectation for their behavior. In the Norms condition, subjects were told that they s hould not per ceive that being the last to communicate would be a disadvantage in

PAGE 71

62 terms of winning the award since the last person in the prior groups had won the award more often than any other member. Subjects in the Normw condition did not receive any information concerning their chances at winning the award. This information concerning the likeli hood of receiving financial rewards was intended to further magnify the differential impact of normative considerations between the Norm con ditions. In addition, subjects were informed that the last member in this group would receive more information than the rest of the group in the form of a "supplemental report" which the experimenter then handed to the subject. The experimenter then briefly described the contents of the report and instructed subjects that they could not refer to this report in their communications since to do so would arouse suspicions on the part of the remaining group members. The information contained in this supplement report (Appendix C) was varied between the Att con ditions and represented the final phase of this manipulation. This report was intended to either confirm or disconfirm the adequacy of the leader's brand recommendation. Subjects in the Attf condition received a report which stated that target consumers attached the great est (and equal) importance to the appeal, nutrition, and price dimen sions with convenience being somewhat important. This information, in conjunction with the brand ratings contained in the case materials, clearly indicated that brands A or D (which were identical) were the optimum choices. The supplemental report therefore acted to confirm the optimality of the brand which the leader would recommend for market introduction.

PAGE 72

63 Subjects in the Att condition, however, received a supplemental u report that disconfirmed the adequacy of the leader's brand recommendation. In this version, nutrition was stated to be the most important determinant of target members' brand selection and that a brand should be very high in nutrition (recall that only F received such a rating in this condition). Appeal to dog and price were reported to be of the next greatest importance. Concerning price, it was stated that although segment members preferred a low priced brand (which brand A was), segment members "would pay more for a brand if they believed they would get more for their money." This statement was intended to lead subjects to the conclusion that although F was more e~pensive than A, target consumers would prefer F since it pro vided the desired level of nutrition as well as being more convenient. With respect to convenience, this factor was described as being of less importance than the remaining dimensions although it was "still con sidered by consumers in making their purchase deci s ions." Therefore, because the brand recommended by the leader (i.e., brand A) was an optimal choice in the Attf condition and superior to the brand recom mended in the Attu condition, subjects' personal evaluation of brand A was expected to be significantly more favorable in the Attf condition. As noted above, subjects were led to believe that they were the only person in the entire group to receive the supplemental report. This deception was intended to "explain" the group's suboptimal brand selection occurring in the Att condition. If subjects perceived u that other members had access to the additional information, this would create a situation in which the subject is confronted with a group that unanimously supports a brand that i s clearly inferior to another

PAGE 73

64 alternative. In addition to the potential problem of enhancing sub jects' suspicions, such a situation could also induce normative con tamination in the Att manipulation. Since the group would make a "better" choice in the Attf condition that in the Attu condition, sub jects' perceptions of the group's intelligence and abilities and thus overall attractiveness could differ between the attitudinal conditions. To the extent the group's basis for exerting normative influence exceeds simply its financial power (i.e., the group's attractiveness is a component of its normative power basis), it is possible that this intended manipulation of attitude could alter the group's ability to exert normative influence. This would severely threaten the soundness of employing this manipulation for testing the attitudinal sensitivity of a measure designed to capture the group's normative influence. Therefore, by telling each subject that only s/he received the extra information, the subject would hopefully "understand" the group's sub optimal selection in the Att condition which in turn should minimize u the likelihood of normative contamination in the Att manipulation. Measures aimed at determining whether this inanipulation did in fact impact upon the group's normative influence potential are discussed in the next section. One possible danger in the implementation of this precautionary procedure is that it may heighten the importance subjects attach to attitudinal considerations, particularly in the Att condition. Subu jects receiving this treatment might possibly infer that the experimenter expects them to 00 again s t the group and r ecomme nd the best brand simply because the experimenter has provided them with additional information that reveals the inad eq uacy of the gro up's

PAGE 74

65 selection. Because of this and other concerns involving the potential effect of the experimenter upon subjects' behavior, measures discussed in the next section that will provide some indication of the experi menter's influence were included in the questionnaire. After subjects had completed the case materials, the experimenter reentered the room and delivered the leader's message recommending Brand A. In the Attf condition, the me s sage was: I have decided to recommend brand A for the following reasons. With today's economy, I think price will be a very important factor in consumers' decisions. On this dimension, A, C, and Dare the best. C c an be thrown o ut becau s e it is inferior to A on appeal and conv e nience. Di s the s ame as A so my choice between these two brands wa s arbitrary. Since none of the remaining brands is ever superior to A on the other dimen sions, brand A seems to be the obvious choice. Subjects in the Att condition r e ceived the following communication from u the leader: I have decided to recommend brand A for the following reasons. With today's economy, I think price will be a very important factor in consumers' decisions. On this dimension, brands A, C, and Dare the best. Brand C can be thrown out because it is inferior to A on nutrition and convenience. Brand Dis the same as A so my choice between these two br a nds was arbi trary. Brand A is at least equal to any other brand in appeal to dog. The only time A i s inferi o r to anoth e r brand i s to F. While Fis bett e r in nutrition and c o nveni e nc e it is al s o

PAGE 75

more expensive. Since I think price will be the most important decision factor, I would recommend brand A over F. 66 Because this condition involved the recommendation of a suboptimal brand, it was necessary to provide some sort of rationale for the lea der's selection. During the next fifteen to twenty minutes, subjects received three more messages presumably from the remaining group members. In the Attf condition, the following communications were received in the same order as presented: I agree with the leader. Brand A gives the most for the lowest cost. Therefore, I suggest that we recommend brand A. Since team spirit and togetherness are so important I guess we should go along with the leader. I'll recommend brand A. I agree with the leader's reasoning and will support the leader's recommendation. Subjects in the Attu condition received the following set of communi cations: I agree with the leader. If price is the key, then brand A should do better than brand F. Therefore, I suggest that we recommend brand A.

PAGE 76

Thi s was not an easy decision to make, but s in ce team spir it and togetherness are so important, I guess we should go along with the leader. I'll re co mmend brand A. I agree with the leader's reasoning and will support the leader's recommendation. 67 Thus, all subjects were confronted with a group that unanimously sup ported the leader's recommendation. After receiving the messages and sending their own communication, subjects responded to a questionnaire delivered by the experimenter con taining the measures necessary for operationalizing either the Fishbein or proposed model. The specific content of these questionnaires is dis cussed in the following section. Upon completion, s ubjects placed the questionnaire in the unmarked envelope. Subjects then recorded their brand recommendation on the appropriate form. The exper imenter then in s tructed s ubjects to reassemble in the main room. After the various experimental mat er ial s were collected, the experimenter probed for any suspicions subjects might have had, followed by a description of the true purpose and procedures of the experiment. Subjects were then paid $4 each, thanked for their parti cipation, and asked not to tell others who had yet to participate about the e x periment. Questionnaire s Subjects received one of two questionnaire s (Appendix D) that dif fered in whether they contained the measures nec essary for operation alizing either the Fishbein or Miniard mod e l and in the typ e of instructions that preceded these measur es. The measures unique to the

PAGE 77

68 Fishbein questionnaire will first be presented, followed by a discus sion of the proposed model measures. The remainder of this section will then address those measures common to both questionnaires. The first two pages of the Fishbein questionnaire provided the sub ject with instructions concerning how to respond to a 7-point scale (all scales consisted of seven response categories); that is, the meaning of the various scale categories was defined with accompanying example responses. Subjects were then asked to evaluate four beha vioral consequences (ei) of their brand recommendation on a scale ranging from "good" ( +3) to "bad" (-3). These four consequences were: (1) meeting the needs of the target market, (2) winning the group mem ber award, (3) having the group acting favorably toward you (i.e., the subject) and/or thinking favorably of you, and (4) having the experi menter acting favorably toward you and/or thinking favorably of you. Subjects' evaluations of these consequences were measured at a behavior specific level (e.g., Recommending a brand that would lead to conse quence X would be:). Next, subjects indicated for each consequence the likelihood that recommending each of the alternatives would lead to a particular outcome (b.) on scales with the endpoints "likely" (+3) and "unlikely" (-3). Subjects then responded to the statement of "My recommending Brand X would be:" for each brand on four evaluative semantic differential scales (i.e., good-bad, foolish-wise, rewarding punishing, and harmful-beneficial) whose sum provided the estimate of subjects' attitude toward the behavior (A 8 ). The following two measures assessed subjects' situation-specific motivation to comply (MC) with the group and experimenter, respectively.

PAGE 78

69 Th ese m e asur es w e re prefaced by "In thi s exper iment" and ranged from "I want to do" (+3) to "I want to do the opposite of" (-3). Nonnative beliefs (NB) w ere th e n assessed for ea ch br a nd on sca le s ranging from "I should (+3) to "I should not" (-3). Finally, subjective norm (SN) ~ as mea s ur ed for eac h brand on a scale id e ntical to the normative b e li e f scale. Th e q u es tionn a ir e for the proposed model began with slightly more than one page of discussion concerning th e di st in ct ion b e tween "p er sona l ver s u s int erperso nal c on s id era tion s ." E ac h of th ese co n s ider ation types was defined and illu s trat e d with an exa mpl e Th e next sec tion ("Que s tionnair e Content") of th e in s tru c tion s explained that the questionnaire co nt a in ed questions r e l e vant to both personal and norma tiv e co ns eq u ences and reemphasized that s ubj ects s hould try to keep th e two t ypes sepa r ate in 111akin9 th e ir r espo n ses Th e final section pre se nted th e sa m e sca l e instru c tions co nt a in ed in the Fishbein questionnaire. Th ese thr ee sect ion s required two an d a half pages. Two alternative assessment procedures w ere employed for operation al i zing th e proposed persona 1 a nd n or mativ e co111po n e nts. The first approach attempted to 111 eas ure spec ific personal and normative conse quences as soc i a t e d with recommending the sa m e brand as the leader. One personal consequence (111 eet ing th e n eeds of th e tar ge t market) and thr ee normativ e co n seq u e n ces (winnin g th e gro up member award, having the group ac tin g favorably towa r d th e s ub ject a nd/or thinking favorably of th e subject, a nd h a ving th e exper iment er ac tin g favorably toward the s ubject and/or thinking favorably of th e s ubj ec t) were a ss es se d. Subjects indic ated the extent to whi c h reco111111ending eac h brand would

PAGE 79

70 lead to a particular consequence on a scale with endpoints "leads to" (+3) and "prevents" (-3). Subjects al so reported the importance they placed on these various personal and normative considerations in making their brand recommendation decision on scales ranging from "absolutely no importance" (0) to "the greatest importance" (+6). The second measurement approach attempted to assess subjects' per sonal and normative evaluations at a global level. Rather than mea suring specific consequences, this approach essentially required sub jects to make some overall evaluation of the behavior taking into account only personal or normative consequences. Two measures were 1 employed for estimating each component. The first measure asked sub jects: "Suppose that you were to recommend brand A on the sole basis of your own personal considerations. Given this, how favorable or unfavorable would you then feel toward recommending brand A." Respon ses to this question were recorded on a scale ranging from "extremely favorable" (+3) to "extremely unfavorable" (-3). This measure thus represented subject~ evaluation of the behavior given that only per sonal considerations were important in their decision. This measure by itself is not sufficient, however, since one may personally feel very favorable toward a given action and yet not perform the behavior if other considerations (e.g., nonnative) that are more important point in the opposite direction. Consequently, subjects were asked to indicate how much importance they placed on their "own personal con siderations" in making their decision concerning which brand to recom ment on the same importance sca l e de s cribed above. S ubject s re spo nse s to these two measures were multiplied to provide an overall estimate

PAGE 80

of their personal evaluation toward r ec omm e nding a given brand. A similar set of two measure s as s e ss ed subject s n o rmative evaluation by r e placing "personal II with "interpersonal." 71 The remainder of this section di s cu sses mea s ures common to both types of questionnaires which followed the subjective norm measure of the Fishbein questionnaire and the importance measure s of the proposed model questionnaire. First, subjects reported their intention (BI) to recommend each of the brands on scales ranging from "likely" (+3) to "unlikely" (-3). The following question asked subject s to enter the letter of the brand they would recommend to the group. Subjects then indicated the likelihood that they would win the group member award if they were to recommend the same brand as the leader on a scale with the endpoints "very likely" (+3) and "very unlikely" (-3). This mea sure provided a means for judging the effectiveness of providing sub jects in the Norms condition with information th a t the last memb e r received the award more often than any other member. Subjects were then asked to evaluate "winning the group member award" on a scale ranging from "very good" (+3) to "very bad" (3 ) This would indi c ate the e x tent to whi c h the value of the award wa s s ucce ss fully manipulated. The n e xt two measures w e re aimed a t a s ses s in g subj e cts' attitude toward or evaluation of the gr oup. Th e first mea s ur e as ked s ubj ec t s t o rate their "feelin g s toward the g roup" o n a sca l e r a n g ing from "very f a vor able" (+3) to "v e ry unf a vorable" ( 3). Th e seco nd atti t ude m e a s ur e asked s ubject s to rate the g rou p on fiv e se m a n t i c differential sc a l es (healthy-sick, bad-good, wi s e-fooli s h harmful-b e n e ficial c l e an-dir ty ) that have previou s ly b ee n em p loy e d (Aj ze n and Fi s hb e in 1 9 7 0 ) f o r a similar purpose. The n ex t question a ske d s ub jects to r epo r t how

PAGE 81

72 favorable it would be for the group to have a favorable impression of them on a scale with the endpoints "very good" (+3) and "very bad" (-3). These measures were intended to reveal whether any of the pre viously discussed normative contamination existed in the Att manipu lation. The next set of measures asked subjects whether they person ally thought a given brand was the best brand for market introduction. Subjects recorded how strongly they agreed with the statement "I~ sonally think that Brand A is the best brand for market introduction" on a scale ranging from "strongly agree" (7) to "strongly disagree" (l). This question was repeated for each brand. These measures permit a test of the extent to which the Att manipulation was successfully accomplished. The final measure asked subjects to compare brands A and D (which received identical ratings in the case) on the basis of the criteria provided in the case. Subjects recorded their response on a scale ranging from "A better than D" (+3) to "D better than A" (-3) with the scale midpoint labelled "A= D."

PAGE 82

CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS Overview This chapter will begin with an examination of the evidence b e aring upon the appropriateness of using the experiment a l data for e x amining the proposed model. This involves determinin g the e x tent to which the true experimental procedures were successfully co ncealed and wheth e r the experimental manipulations did in fact vary personal and normative con siderations independently of one another The effects of th e e x peri mental factors on subject s brand choic e behavior and intention s will also be presented. The validity of the proposed measur es in r e pre s entin g and separat ing personal and normative consideration s will then be examin e d. As elaborated below, features of the e x periment a l de s ign permitt e d three different approaches to measure validation. The first approach t es ts the mea s ure s sensitivity to the experimental manipul a tion s Next, a within-subjects analysis bearing on the validity of the personal com ponent measures is pr e sented. The final approach e x amines th e norma tive component measures' abilitie s to di s criminate between subject s differing in their acceptance of normativ e influenc e Be c au se of a desire to see how the Fishbein model will perform in the present experi mental situation and to provide a useful benchm a rk for e valuating the proposed model, the Fishbein model will also b e ex amined. Note, how ever, that the experiment was d e signed f o r t es ting th e ad eq uacy of the 73

PAGE 83

74 proposed model's separation and representation of the personal and nor mative reasons for behavioral performance. Since such a separation is not a goal of the Fishbein model, the following results cannot be viewed as addressing the Fishbein model's ability to distinguish between beliefs about behavioral consequences and beliefs about the expecta tions of others. The next section addresses the Fishbein and proposed models' pre dictive power. Examination of the component weights' accuracy in identifying the presence of salient personal and normative consider ations is also undertaken. The following sect ions examine the relation ships between the alternative operationalization s of a given component for both models. The final section focu ses on the correlational evi dence relevant to the experimenter' s potential influence on subjects' behavior. Evaluation of the Experimental Deception With the exception of two persons, subjects did not give any indi cation that the deception was unsucce ss ful during the probing by the experimenter or in their responses to questions relevant to this concern that were contained in the questionnaire. Indeed, the verbal and facial expressions made by many subjects when the true nature of the experiment was revealed indicated a minimal level of subject s uspicion. Two subjects expressed doubt as to whether the messages received during the communication stage of the experiment were actually from the other members. One subject, knowledgeable in handwriting analy s is, identified the experimenter's handwriting in one of the messages despite attempts to substantially alt e r the writin g sty le. The second subject had placed his communication in the e nv e lop e in a particular

PAGE 84

75 manner. While subjects' messages were removed and rein s erted prior to returning the message in most cases, in this instance these p r ocedures were not followed. The subject detected that the message had not been removed from the envelope and thus questioned the validity of the experiment. Consequently, these two subjec ts were not included in the analyses. Three other s ubjects were als o dropped from the analyse s One subject was removed since the subje c t r e sponded to only a small por tion of the measures contained in the que s tionnaire. Two s ubjects recommended brand s that could not be justified on e ither a personal or normative basis (i.e., the brands c hosen wer e n o t t he optimal selec tion for the target market and were in conflict with the leader's r e ommendation). These subjects were apparently either confused about the meaning of the brand ratings or failed to adequately comprehend the ca s e materials. Manipulation Checks This stage of the analysis was concerned with establishing that the Attitude (Att) and Normative (Norm) manipulations influenced subjects' personal and normative evaluations toward recommending the same brand as the leader. The former manipulation was expected to alter subjects' personal evaluation by varying the suitability of the leader's brand for the target market. Subjects should perceive a lower lik e lihood that the behavior would lead to meetin g th e target market's needs when the leader recommends a suboptimal brand. S ub j ect s per s onal evalua tion toward the behavior s hould therefor e b e com e les s favorabl e a s the optimality of the leader' s choice d ec r e a ses Subje c t s re s p o n ses t o th e q u es ti o n s r eg ardin g wh e th e r th e y believed brand s A (ABE S T) and F (FBE S T) to b e t h e "b es t br a nd for

PAGE 85

76 market introduction'' indicated that the Att manipulation was success fully accomplished. Subjects should give brand A (the leader's brand) a higher rating in the Attf condition where brand A and its equiva lent, brand D, received the highest performance ratings from target consumers than in the Attu condition where the performance ratings of brand A were now inferior to brand F and to those obtained in the Attf condition (as shown in the tables contained in Appendix B). Con versely, brand F should receive higher ratinqs in the Attu condition than in the Attf condition. The pattern of the mean responses to the measures (Table 2) supports these expectations. The results (Table 3) pf a 2 (Att) x 2 (Norm) x 2 (Model) AN0VA for each measure reveal that these ratings did significantly (p < .001) vary between the Att condi tions. Interestingly, this manipulation had a stronger effect on sub jects' perceptions of brand F. This greater impact on brand Fis to be expected since the brand's ratings varied to a substantially greater degree between conditions than did the ratings for brand A. While the preceding analyses demonstrate that subjects' brand evaluations varied in the intended manner between Att conditions, it is also informative to determine whether brand A was perceived as inferior to brand Fin the Att condition but was not perceived as inferior to u any brand in the Attf condition. The results generated by a series of paired t-tests on subjects' responses to the ABEST measure and the remaining "best brand" measures confirmed these ex pee ta ti ons. In the Attf condition, brand A was perceived to be significantly (p < .008) higher than the remaining brands except for brand F which was perceived to be significantly (p < .001) superior to brand A.

PAGE 86

77 Table 2 Means for Manipulation Checks Norms Norm w Measure Model Attf Att Attf Attu u ABESTa F 6.78 5 .00 6.90 4.80 p 7.00 5. 1 7 6.88 4.78 FBESTa F 2.78 6.63 3.60 6.80 p 3.80 6. 72 2.50 7.00 LI KWINAWARDb F 1. 33 l. 33 0. 50 0.80 p 1. 20 0.94 0.50 1.44 WINAWARDb F 2.33 1. 69 l. l 0 0.40 p 2. l 0 2 11 0.50 0.67 ATTGRPc F 8.00 9 30 6.56 2.70 p l O. l 0 5 50 11. 00 6.22 EVALGRPb F l. 78 1. 31 2.00 0. 10 p l. 80 l. 06 l. 63 0.67 FAVIMPb F l.67 0.94 l. 20 l. l 0 p l. 40 l. 11 l. 38 0.33 aScale ranges from 7 to l. bScale ranges from +3 to -3. cScale ranges from +15 to -1 5.

PAGE 87

78 Table 3 AN0VA Results for Attitudinal Manipulation Checks MEASURE ABEST FBEST " Effect p ul 2 p w2 Att (A) .001 .34 001 72 Norm (B) .569 .875 Model ( C) 728 .715 A X B 61 7 331 A X C .958 .943 B X C .71 3 .0 58 A X B X C .960 .015 .02 ( n ) (9 0 ) r go) *Effect explained less than 2 percent of the mea s ure's variability.

PAGE 88

79 The potential for the Norm manipulation to influence subjects' normative evaluation was based upon two factors. First, subjects in the Norms condition were told that they had a very good chance at winning the award if they supported the leader' s choice while subjects in the Norm condition were not given any information about their w chances at receiving the award. If was therefore expected that subjects in the former condition would perceive a greater likelihood of attaining this normative outcome (i.e., the award) given that they recommended brand A. The second factor employed was whether or not the financial award carried a monetary value. Subjects were expected to attach greater importance to the normative outcome of receiving the group member award when it was worth $20 than when it was not given any financial value. Support for this manipulation's impact on the norma tive component would be attained if either or both of these factors significantly differed between the Norm conditions. The results involving subjects' estimates as to the likelihood of winning the award if they supported the leader (LIKWINAWARD) indicate that this perceptual factor did not vary between the Norm conditions. Subjects' perceptions of the likelihood of receiving the award did not differ between the Norm conditions (Tables 2 and 4). Overall, subjects believed that it was more likely than unlikely (X = l .02) that they would receive the award if they recommended the same brand as the leader. Support for the Norm manipulation's ability to impact upon the normative component wa s provided by subjects' responses to the m eas ure asking them how much they valued winning the gro up member award (WINAWARD). While the award wa s favorably evaluated under both N orm

PAGE 89

8 0 Table 4 ANOVA Results for Normative Manipulation Checks ATTGRP EVALGRP FAVIMP WINAWARD LI K l ~ I NAW / \ R D -~--" "' " Effect p w2 p w 2 p w2 p w 2 p w2 Att (A) .005 .08 .001 13 .030 04 .202 .579 Norm (B) 881 .086 02 .232 001 .27 301 Model (C) .668 835 .605 .835 .920 A X B .072 02 108 .02 .923 .920 .268 A X C .743 .632 .742 117 839 8 X C 105 .02 .561 461 .602 332 A X B X C .688 .241 147 .826 501 ( n) (89) (90) (90) (90) ( 8 9) *Effect explained less than 2 % of the mea s ure's variability.

PAGE 90

81 conditions (Table 2), subjects in the Norms cells attached greater value to the award than those in the Normw cells (Table 4). Accord ingly, this manipulation should alter subjects' normative evaluation of recommending brand A via the importance subjects attach to norma tive considerations. The evidence presented thus far has only addressed the appro priateness of employing the experimental manipu lation s for examining the convergent validity of the proposed personal and norm ati ve mea s ures. It is also desirable to use these manipulation s f or testing th e m ea s ures' discriminant validity. Support fo r a n ormat iv e measure's immunity to personal influences would be attained, for example, if the Att manipulation did not affect subjects' responses to the measure. But before the r es ults of such a test can b e unambiguously interpreted, it is nece ss ary to establish that the manipulation varied only personal consid er ation s and is free of any normativ e contamination (i.e., that the manipulation did not also vary some antecedent variabl e underlying the normative component). As previously di sc ussed, there is the poten tial for normative contamination in the Att mani p ulation since the group supports an optimal choice in the Attf condition but a suboptimal choice in the Attu condition. These difference s in the group's "wis dom'' may impact upon the group's overall attractiveness and desir ability. Consequently, subjects may place greater value on the group's reactions when the group is more attractive which would in turn influ ence subjects' normative evaluation of the behavior s upported. If such normative contamination did not occur and a normativ e measure wa s affected by the Att manipulation, th e n o n e co uld confidently inf er that the measure i s unabl e to sepa rat e persona l a nd normativ e

PAGE 91

82 motivations. However, in the presence of such contamination, one cannot unambiguously determine if a measure's sensitivity to the manipulation indicates a lack of discriminant validity. Evidence relevant to this concern was provided by subjects' respon ses to (1) the semantic differential measure of their attitude toward the group (ATTGRP), (2) the measure asking them to rate the favorability of their feelings toward the group (EVALGRP), and (3) the measure assessing subject's evaluation of the group havinq a favorable impres sion of themselves (FAVIMP). Support for the ex istence of normative contamination in the Att manipulation would be attained if subjects' responses to these measures were affected by this manipulation. Unfor tunately, the manipulation did impact on each measure (Table 4) such that subjects were more favorable toward the group and placed a greater value on the group's impression in the Attf condition (i.e., when the group supports the optimal brand). Thus, despite the efforts to prevent such contamination (i.e., the use of the supplemental report), these results suggest that the group's potential for exerting normative influ ence on the basis of its attractiveness differed between the Att con ditions. Accordingly, this manipulation cannot be unambiguously employed for testing the discriminant validity of a measure which incor porates the importance associated with normative consequences. Despite this limitation, the Att manipulation can be used to judge the dis criminant validity of "perceptual" normative measures since such mea sures (e.g., the extent to which the behavior leads to attaining some normative outcome) only reflect the direction of normative influenc e and not the importance of such influences as a motivating factor. Because the Norm manipulation did not influence s ubjects' perceptions

PAGE 92

of the brands' suitability (Table 3), its use for examining the dis criminant validity of attitudinal measures appears appropriate. Manipulations' Impact on Brand Choice and Intentions 83 Due to the nature of the experimental conditions, it was hypothe sized that the Att and Norm manipulations would have an interactive effect upon subjects' brand choice and their intentions to recommend brands A and F. Because brands A and D (which received identical rat ings) were the best suited for the target market in the Attf condition and that normative influences always pointed toward brand A, subjects in this condition should unanimously support brand A, regardless of the magnitude of normative influences. Under Attu conditions (where Fis superior to A), however, support for brands A and F should be dependent upon the level of the normative manipulation. When normative influ ences are relatively weak (i.e., the Normw condition), then brand F should be more heavily supported than brand A. But when normative influences are s tronger (i.e., the Norm s condition),a greater number of persons should recommend brand A than in the Normw condition. Table 5 contains the frequency in which brand s A and F were cho s en (i.e., recommended) by subject s while s ubjects' intentions to recommend the s e brand s are pre se nted in Table 6. To test the impact of the experimental manipulations on subjects' recommendations, choice was represented by a dummy variable where a value of one was assigned to those who recommended brand A and a zero was given to those who supported brand F. Table 7 s ummarize s the AN0VA results for subjects' brand choice and intention s. The h ypot he s ized interaction was sup ported (p < .00 8 ) for choice a s subjects in the Attf condition always recommended brand A, almo s t unanimously (with the excep tion of a s ingle

PAGE 93

Table 5 Brand Choice by Experimental Condition Norms Norm w Attf Att Attf Att u u Model A F A F A F A F Fishbein 9 0 8 8 10 0 9 Proposed 10 0 7 11 8 0 0 9 Note: Cell entries represent the number of subjects recommending either brand A or brand F. 84

PAGE 94

85 Table 6 Mean s for Be havioral In t en t ion M e a s ur es N orms Norm s Measure Model Attf A tt u Attf A tt u BI-Brand A F 2 .89 1.63 3.00 0.60 p 3.00 1. 06 3.00 1. 0 0 BI-Brand F F -1. 67 2. 13 -1. 30 2 .90 p -1. 60 2.44 -2.00 3.00 Note: Sea 1 e ranges from + 3 to 3.

PAGE 95

Effect Att (A) Norm (B) Model (c) A X B A x C B X C A X B X C ( n) Table 7 AN0VA Results for Brand A Choice and Behavioral Intention Measure s Choi c e BI-Brand A A A p w2 p w2 001 51 001 2 5 .003 .04 .410 .356 .745 .008 .03 3 8 9 .465 .757 .965 471 .970 .445 (90) (90) *Effect explained less than 2 percent of the measure's 8 6 BI-Brand F A p w 2 .001 .6 8 .22 1 9 4 5 283 .4 3 3 .465 .663 (90) variability.

PAGE 96

subject) supported brand Fin the Attu/Norl\ cell, and were fairly evenly divided between the two brands in the Att /Norm cell. Furu s 87 ther, significant main effects due to the Att r1nd N o ri n factors were detected. None of the remaining effects approached significance. Surprisingly, the results for the intention measures failed to replicate the choice findings. While subjects' intentions to recom mend brands A and F were significantly (p < .001) affected by the Att factor, none of the remaining effects attained significance. This inconsistency between choice and its hypothesized determinant is even more mystifying since intentions and choice were highly related (r = .73, p < .001). One possible explanation is that the scale did not provide a sufficient range for subjects' responses. While the scale consisted of seven categories, subjects' intentions to recommend brand A were consistently on the positive end of the scale. Perhaps a scale with a larger range would have displayed the expected sensitivity to the experimental manipulations. Additional evidence relevant to this issue was attained through a comparison of subjects' brand intentions. Recall that in the case materials, two pairs of brands received identical performance ratings. Brands A and D were equivalent as were brands Band G. Although brands A and D were identical in their potential for satisfying the needs of the target market, they differed in their potential for evoking favor able normative consequences (i.e., only by recommending brand A could the subject receive the group member award). If normative influences were unimportant, subjects' intentions to recommend these two brands should not differ. If, however, intentions for brands A and D did

PAGE 97

88 significantly differ, then support for the impact of normative influ ences would be obtained. A paired t-test indicated that subjects responding to the Fishbein questionnaire were significantly (p < .001) more likely to recorrrnend brand A (X=l.96) than brand D (X=0.82). Similarly, subjects receiving the proposed model questionnaire indi cated a significantly (p < .001) greater 1ikelihood of recomnending brand A (X=l.82) than brand D (X=0.56). To further validate the mean ingfulness of these results, this analysis was also repeated for sub jects' intentions to recommend brands Band G. Since these two brands were identical on both a personal (i.e., the two brands received the same ratings) and normative (i.e., neither brand led to the group mem ber award) basis, subjects' intentions should have been the same for both brands. As expected, subjects' intentions to recommend these two brands did not significantly differ for either the Fishbein (p > .471) or proposed model (p > .183) questionnaires. Measure Validation The Measures' Sensitivity to the Experimental Manipulations The first approach employed for examining the proposed measures' validity was to test the impact of the Att and Norm manipulations upon subjects' responses to the measures. The means for the Fishbein and proposed measures are presented in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. Each measure was separately submitted to a 2 (Att) x 2 (Norm) fac torial ANOVA, the results of which are summarized in Tables 10 and 11. Recall that the Att manipulation was shown to significantly alter subjects' beliefs that brand A was the optimal choice. This indicated that the perceived likelihood that recommending brand A would lead to

PAGE 98

89 Jable 8 Means for Fis h bein M ode l Measures by Experimenta l Conditions Norm Norm s w Sca l e Measure Range A ttf Att Attf Att u u b.-meet needs +3/-3 l 2.89 2.25 3.00 l. 00 b.-award +3 / -3 2 67 l 3.00 2 70 2.60 b. reactions l +3/ 3 2.33 2 44 2 70 2.70 e.-meet needs l +3/ 3 3.00 2.94 2.90 2.80 e.-award +3/-3 l. 44 0 31 -0 20 l. l 0 l e -reactions +3/-3 l. 44 l. 19 0.30 -0 80 l L b e. 1 1 +27 / -27 1 6 97 10.25 l O. 20 -3 00 AB +12/ -1 2 l O. 56 5.8 1 l O 60 3 l 0 N B + 3/-3 2.33 2.94 3 00 3.00 MC +3 / -3 l. 38 0.63 l. 00 0.60 S N +3 /3 l. 2 2 0.88 2.30 0 20

PAGE 99

90 T a ble 9 M ea n s f or P r oposed Mode l M easures by Exper i mental Conditio n s N orms N orm w Sca l e Meas u r e Ran g e A ttf Att Attf Att u u B m ee t needs +3 /3 3 0 0 1. 50 3 00 1. 6 7 pc I -me e t n e e ds 6/0 5.80 5.56 5 88 5 89 p c P E/B +3 /3 2 90 1 6 1 2 88 1. 44 IPC 6 /0 5.70 5.28 4.63 5 6 7 13 -award nc +3/3 2 80 2 8 9 2 63 3 00 Bncr e ac tions + 3 /3 3 0 0 2 83 2 .63 3.00 I -aw a rd 6/0 4. 30 2 9 4 1 50 1.11 nc Inc-reacti o ns 6/0 3.90 3.33 2. 1 3 2 22 NE/8 +3/-3 2.90 2 50 3 00 2 6 7 INC 6/0 4.30 3.11 3. 1 3 1 22

PAGE 100

Table 10 ANOVA Results for Fishbein Model Measures ANOVA Effects Att Norm Interaction A A A Measure p w2 2 p w2 p w b.-meet l needs 001 .26 029 06 .026 06 b;-award .544 329 .322 bi-reactions .858 322 .867 e;-meet needs 371 .175 .02 .833 e.-award .077 .05 .010 12 .838 l e;-reactions 198 .002 18 401 ~b.e. 001 17 001 .20 .226 l l AB .001 32 .245 .293 NB .243 .238 .277 MC .022 l 0 .078 .05 388 SN 021 .09 .857 .078 04 *Effect explained less than 2 percent of the measure's variability.

PAGE 101

9 2 Table 11 ANOVA Results for Proposed Model Measures ANO VA Effects Att Norm Interaction A A Measure p w 2 p w2 p w2 Bpc-rneet needs 001 34 75 l .785 Ipc-rneet needs 393 186 .02 .446 PE/B .001 37 .691 .794 fPC .557 394 .001 1 2 Bnc-award .415 .703 .65 8 B -reactions .755 nc .684 .093 04 I -award l 38 02 nc .001 .20 .465 Inc-reactions .586 .017 11 .560 NE/B 114 .04 .557 .889 INC 01 3 l 0 .008 l 3 541 *Effect explained less than 2 percent of the measure's variability.

PAGE 102

93 the attainment of the personal consequence "m ee tin g the m arke t's n ee ds" would differ between the two Att condition s Ac co rdingly, both models' belief measure for this specific consequ e nce s hould be affe c ted by this manipulation. Similarly, Fishbein's A 8 measure (which is party deter mined by this belief) and the proposed PE/B measure (i.e., the personal evaluation of the behavior given behavioral performance), which incor porated subjects' beliefs about personal con seq uence s s hould also be influenced by this manipulation. The previously demonstrated purity (i.e., the lack of attitudinal contamination) of the Norm manipulation allows an unambiguou s test of the personal measures' discriminant validity. Support for the dis criminant validity of a personal measure would be attained if subjects' responses to the measure were not influenced by this manipulation. In contra st, because Fi s hbein's attitudinal component does not attempt to distingui s h between personal and normative consequences, the Norm manipulation should impact upon the A 8 mea s ure. Similarly, the r b.e. 1 1 mea s ure, which includes the normative outcomes of winning the award and the group' s reaction as well as the personal outcome of meeting the tar get market's needs, should also be affected by th e Norm manipulation. The results provided strong support for the proposed personal measures' convergent and discriminant validity. As predicted, the PE/Band con s equence specific personal belief (B -meet needs) pc measures were significantly (p < .001) affected by th e Att manipulation while the Norm main effect did not attain significance for any of the personal measures. A significant (p < .001) interaction was detected for the global measure representing the importance

PAGE 103

94 of personal considerations (IPC). While subjects' responses to the measure in the Att condition were unaffected by the Norm manipulation, u subjects' responses in the Attf condition reported placing more importance on personal considerations when normative influences were greater (i.e., in the Norms condition). This result is counterintui tive since one might expect that, if the IPC measure was sensitive to normative influences, subjects would attach less importance to personal considerations as nonnative influences increased. The Fishbein measures for A 8 I biei, and the behavioral belief that recorrrnending brand A leads to meeting the target market's needs (bi meet needs) were, as predicted, influenced (p < .001) by the Att mani pulation. A significant (p < .03) interaction also occurred for this latter measure. When brand A was the best brand (i.e., the Attf con dition), subjects' responses to the measure were unaffected by the Norm manipulation. In the Att condition (i.e., where brand A was a subu optimal brand), however, subjects reported that the brand was better suited for the target market when strong normative influences were pre sent (i.e., the Norms condition) than when normative influences were weaker (i.e., the Normw condition). This interaction may simply reflect a ceiling effect. Whereas there existed room for elevation in subjects' beliefs that brand A would satisfy the target market under Attu conditions, subjects' responses were at the stale maximum in the Attf/Nor"w cell which prevented the opportunity for increases to occur in the Attf/Norms cell. As expected, the tlorm factor had a signifi cant (p < .001) impact upon the [b.e. measure. Surprisingly, normal l tive contamination was not detected in the A 8 measure as the Norm factor failed to reach statistical significance (p .2).

PAGE 104

-------------As previously discused, the Norm manipulation was shown to only vary the value of the group member award. Measures representing the importance of normative considerations should therefore be sensitive 95 to this manipulation. In particular, support for the convergent valid ity of the consequence specific normative measures assessing the importance of "winning the tions from the group" award" (I -award) and e liciting favorable reac nc (I -reactions) and the more global measure rep nc resenting the importance of normative considerations (INC) would be attained if the Norm factor impacted upon sub jec ts' re s pon s es to these measures. The Norm manipulation can also be employed for testing the convergent validity of Fishbein's MC measure. Given that the Norm con ditions differed in the reward power of the group and that motivation to comply has been conceptualized as reflecting all bases of social power, this manipulation should have a significant impact on subjects' responses to the MC measure. The results provided strong support for the convergent validity of the proposed normative importance measures as a significant (p < .02) Norm main effect existed for each measure. Sup port for the MC measure was less favorable as the Norm main effect was only marginally significant (p < .079). Tests concerning the discriminant validity of the proposed norma tive measures are constrained by the previously discussed possibility of normative contamination in the Att manipulation. Since the Att manipulation was found to impact upon some factors which underlie the group's influence potential (e.g., subjects' attitude toward the group), this manipulation cannot be unambiguously employed for examining the proposed normative importance measures. It is possible, however, to

PAGE 105

9 6 employ the manipulation for testing the propo s ed p e r c eptual normative measures. The results substantiated th e se p e r ce ptual mea s ur es di s criminant validity as the Att manipulation did no t s ignific a ntly (p > 1) influence s ub j ects' respon se s t o eith e r th e NE / 8 or th e c on sequence s pecific normative belief mea s ur es a ssess in g th e ex tent t o which recommending brand A led to "winnin g t h e award" (B -award) and n c "eli c itin g favorable reactions from th e g roup" ( B -r e action s ). n c For the Fi s hbein perceptual mea s ur e s (i. e ., N B and S N), onl y SN wa s s i g n i ficantly (p < .022) affe c ted b y t h e A tt m a ni p ulation. The Att manipulation's failure to influ e n c e N B i s no t s ur p ri s in g s inc e the group's e xp ectation was quite evident g iv e n th e m ess a g es s ub je ct s received from the group. However b ec au s e s ub j e cts w e r e unabl e to dis cuss with their "important other s what they s hould do and since it i s highly unlikely that such expectations pree x i s ted in memor y s ubjects' responses to the SN measure must have been based u p on s om e inferential process. Apparently, subjects inferred that important others w e re more likely to think they should recorrmend brand A when brand A wa s an opti mal choice (i.e., Attf conditions) than when brand A was a suboptimal choice (i.e., Attu conditions). Brand Comparisons for Attitudinal Measures Recall that brands A and D received id e ntical pe r forman c e ra t ings in the ca s e materials as did brands Band G. B ecau se e a c h brand pair is id e ntical in meeting the needs of the targ e t mark e t, s u b j ec t s s hould not differ in their re s ponses to the con s equ e n ce s p e cifi c p e r s on a l belief (B -meet needs) and PE/B mea s ur es for e a c h brand pa ir. S u b pc je cts migh t respond more favorably toward b rand A t han brand D

PAGE 106

97 measures, however, since normative influences point toward this brand (i.e., recommending brand A leads to the group member award while Brand D does not). Such response differences would indicate the pre sence of normative contamination. To substantiate that any observed differences are due to subjects including normative considerations, subjects' responses to the same measures for brands Band G were also compared. Since these two brands are identical on both a personal and normative basis, subjects' responses should be the same for both brands. If this were not the case, then the meaningfulness of any differences between brands A and D would be questionable. Therefore, for each experimental cell and across cells, paired t-tests were conducted for the two pairs of brands (i.e, brand A versus brand D and brand B versus brand G). These analyses cast an unfavorable light upon the proposed measures' discriminant validity. Tables 12 and 13 contain the cell means and the significance level of the t-tests for the Bpc and PE/B measures, respectively. Collapsed across the experi mental cells, subjects reported that brand A (X=2. 13) was better suited (p < .018) than brand D (X=l.87) for meeting the target market's needs even though there was no difference between brands Band G. Since sub jects' responses were essentially equivalent for two brands (Band G) where personal and normative influences were identical but differed for the two brands (A and D) where only personal influences were the same, it appears that some normative contamination is pre se nt in a measure which links a behavior with a personal outcome. The s e findings were replicated when this same analysi s was undertaken for the Fishbein belief measure of a brand's ability to meet th e targ e t mar k et's needs

PAGE 107

Table 1 2 M ea n s and T-Te s t Results for Per so nal Belief Mea s ure o f a Brand's Ability to Meet Tar get Market's N ee d s E xpe rimental Tr ea tment s Means Mean s Att Norm n Brand A Brand D p Brand B Brand G Favorable Strong 10 3.00 2.80 16 8 l. 70 l.00 Favorable Weak 8 3.00 3.00 .9 99 l. 50 l. 13 Unfavorable Strong 18 l. 50 l.00 .046 -2.28 -2.33 Unfavorable Weak 9 l. 67 l. 56 .594 -0.67 -0. l l Across Across 45 2. 13 l.87 .017 0.40 0.24 Note: Scale ranges from +3 to -3. 98 p 11 l 197 331 .247 351

PAGE 108

q g Table 13 Means and T-Test Results for PE/B Mea s ure E x perimental Treatments Means Mean s Att Norm n Brand A Brand D p Brand B Brand G p Favorable Strong 10 2.90 2.80 5 91 l. 30 0.60 13 2 Favorable Weak 8 2.88 2.88 .999 1.00 0 75 170 Unfavorable Strong 18 1. 61 1.11 108 -0.56 -0. 83 2 05 Unfavorab 1 e Weak 9 1. 44 1.22 .347 -0.78 -0.44 3 97 Across Across 45 2.09 1.82 .050 0.09 -0. 16 117 Note: Scale ranges from +3 to -3.

PAGE 109

1 on (Table 14). The results for the PE/B measure al s o revealed the pre sence of some normative contamination. Brand A (~=2.09) was overall rated more favorably (p < .05) than Brand D (X=l.82). The brand B ver sus G comparisons again failed to detect any statistically significant ( p > l ) di ff ere n ce. Fishbein's AB and [ b.e. attitudinal representations were also sub, 1 mitted to this analysis. Since both measures do not attempt to separate personal and normative considerations, it was expected that brand A would receive a superior rating on these measures. As shown in Tables 15 and 16, this expectation was partly confirmed. Response differences were detected for only the A 8 measure (p < .001). The validity of these findings is supported by the fact that the measures were equiva lent for brands Band G which, as noted above, were identical on both a personal and normative basis. These brand comparisons were also undertaken for the Att manipula tion check measures asking subjects their agreement with the statement "I personally think brand Xis the best brand for market introduction." Tables 17 and 18 contain these results for the Fishbein and proposed model questionnaires, respectively. Subjects' responses for brands B and G were equivalent for both questionnaire versions. However, col lapsing across cells, subjects rated brand A significantly superior to brand D for both the proposed model (p < .008) and Fishbein (p < .001) questionnaires. Thus, the existence of normative contamination was not confined to only the Fishbein and proposed measures. The above findings where subjects rated brand A more favorably than its equivalent brand Dare interpreted as reflecting the existence

PAGE 110

Table 14 Means and T-Test Results for Fishbein Belief Measure of a Brand's Ability to Meet Target Market's Needs Experi men ta 1 Treatments Means Means Att Norm n Brand A Brand D p Brand B Brand Favorable Strong 9 2.89 2 89 999 0 .7 8 0.33 Favorable Weak 10 3.00 3.00 .99 9 l. l 0 0 70 Unfavorable Strong 16 2.25 1. 44 03 8 -0.63 -0. 38 Unfavorable Weak 10 l.00 0.70 343 -1. 00 -0.90 Across Across 45 2.27 l. 91 0 22 -0.04 -0 ll Note: Scale ranges from +3 to -3. l O l G p l 04 104 300 859 6 8 5

PAGE 111

Table 15 Means and T-Test Results for Fishbein Y: b/ ~ ; Attitudinal Representation Experimental Treatments Means Att Norm n Brand A Brand D p Brand Favorable St rong 9 16.67 l 0. 89 1 65 2 .7 8 Favorabl e W e ak 10 10. 20 1 0 l 0 .960 3.50 Unf avorab 1 e Stro ng 16 l O. 25 4.81 1 9 1 -3. 88 Unfavorable Weak 10 -3.00 4. 10 1 8 4 1. 50 Across Acro s s 45 8 .5 8 7.04 .464 -0. 82 Note: Scale ranges from + 2 7 to -27. 10 2 Means B Brand G p -3.33 647 2 .50 .063 3 31 .485 1. 30 .879 -1. 00 .704

PAGE 112

1G3 Table 16 Means and T-Test Results for Fishbein AB Mea s ure E xp e ri men ta 1 Treatments Means Means Att Norm n Brand A Brand D p Brand B B rand G p Favorable Strong 9 10. 56 3.33 039 -2. 8 9 -3. 2 2 .681 Fa vorab 1 e Weak 10 10.60 8. 30 03 2 -0.70 1. l 0 364 Un fa vorab 1 e Strong 16 5. 81 2. 9 4 03 9 2 .00 -1. 44 .453 Un favorab 1 e Weak 10 3. 10 3.00 .94 8 -4.70 5 8 0 .247 Across Across 45 7.22 4.22 001 2 .49 -2. 2 0 .nos Note: Scale ranges from +12 to -12.

PAGE 113

Table 17 Means and T-Test Results for the Best Brand Measure s Contained in the Fishbein Questionnaire Experi men ta 1 Treatments Means Means Att Norm n Brand A Brand D p Brand B Brand Favorable Strong 9 6.78 5.89 .086 3.33 2.89 Favorable Weak 10 6.90 6.40 015 3.70 3.80 Unfavorable Strong 16 5.00 4.44 155 2. 38 2.56 Un favorable Weak 10 4.80 4.30 138 2.70 2.40 Across Across 45 5.73 5. 13 001 2.93 2 87 Note: Scale ranges from 7 to 1. 1 0'1 G p l 04 811 .423 193 .636

PAGE 114

Table 18 Means and T-Test Results for the Best Brand Measures Contained in the Proposed Model Questionnaire Experimental Treatments Means Means Att Norm n Brand A Brand D p Brand B Brand Favorab 1 e Strong 10 7.00 6.40 .260 4. 30 4. 10 Favorable Weak 8 6.87 6. 13 .020 2.75 2.63 Unfavorab 1 e Strong 18 5. 1 7 4.50 111 3.06 3. 1 7 Unfavorab 1 e Weak 9 4.78 4.67 347 2.56 2.78 Across Across 45 5.80 5.24 .007 3. 18 3.20 Note: Scale ranges from 7 to 1. l 05 G p .555 685 .495 .447 .855

PAGE 115

106 of normative contamination in the personal measures. An alternative explanation for these results, however, i s t hat such differences simply refl ect subjects' attempts to "ju s tify" their se le ct ion of brand A over brand D. Thi s explanation seem plausible since subjects responded to the se measures after sending their communication which contained their brand choice. If such behavior justification influences were operative, one would expect those subjects supporting brand A to enhance their rating s of this brand relative to brand D. Fortunately, it is possible to test this alternative explanation. As shown in Table 5, many subjects in the Att c ondition (where brand u A was inferior to brand F) recorrmended brand F. If these subjects differed in their ratings of brands A and D, then it could only be attri buted to nonnative contamination. A comparison of the A and D brand ratings for subjects recommending brand F versus those recommending brand A thus allows a determination of whether response differences are due to normative contamination as opposed to behavior justification pressures. Since brand A received higher ratings than brand D regard less of whether or not the subject recorrmended brand A, the behavior justification explanation is not supported by the results. In addition, the magnitude of these differences were quite similar regardless of the subject's brand choice. It would therefor e appear that the differ ences found under this validation approach can be confidently taken as being reflective of normative contamination in the personal measures. Compliers Versus Noncompliers The final approach for examining the measures' construct validity is related in concept to the "group differences" method discussed by Cronbach and Meehl (1955). This approach involve s testing for re sp ons e

PAGE 116

l 0 7 differences between groups that differ on so m e dimen s ion relevant to the mea s ure's domain. In the present cont ex t, it is pos s ible to assign subject s in the Attu / Norms condition on the ba s is of their brand choi ce s to either a "complier" group (i.e., tho s e who recommended brand A) or a "noncomplier" group (i.e., those who s upported brand F). Clearly, normative influences had a greater impact on subjects who complied with the group than on those who did not comply. B e cause subject s in both the c omplier and noncomplier groups were exposed to the same normative pressures, the observed behavioral variations are attributable to dif ferences in the importance subjects placed upon normative considerations. Support for the proposed normative importance measures' convergent validity would require that compliers and noncompliers differ in their responses to these measures. Similarly, responses to the MC measure should also vary between the two groups. But before examining the various normative measures' ability to discriminate between compliers and noncompliers, comparisons of the two groups' responses to various manipulation check measures provides use ful evidence concerning the validity of the present procedure. The first measure, LIKWINAWARD, asked subjects the likelihood of winning the group member award given they supported the leader's recornnendation. Compliers and noncomp1iers should provide essentially the s ame response to this measure since each subject was given the s ame information about the probability of receiving the award. The remaining measures asse s sed those factors indicative of the importance subject s attached to normative considerations. The first two measures asked subjects the value associated with the normative c on s equences "winning the award"

PAGE 117

1 08 (WINAWARD) and "having the group hold a favor a ble impr es sion of the sub ject" (FAVIMP). Compliers should repor t a mor e favorable evaluation of these two outcomes than noncomplier s Th e remaining two measure s assessed subjects' feelings (EVALGRP) and attitude toward the group (ATTGRP). It was expected that compli e r s would hav e more favorabl e attitudes and feeling s toward the group than non c ompliers. The results for these manipulation check mea s ure s are summarized in Table 19. As expected, the two group s did not differ in their per ceptions of the likelihood of receiving th e award g iven they s upported the leader's selection. The results for the remaining measures pro vided mixed support for establishing that the groups differed in the importance they attached to normative concerns. While the mean re s pon ses for each measure were always in the e x pected direction (i.e., com pliers receiving higher scores), only two of the four measures reflec ted a significant (p < .05) difference Surprisingly compliers and noncornplier.s did not significantly (p > .14) differ in the value associated with winning the award. This finding is perhaps due to the measure's "insensitivity" since subjects were asked to evaluate this normative outcome in a context-free manner (i.e., "winning the award" versus "recommending a brand that leads to winning the award"). As detailed below, the two groups did differ in their evaluation of this consequence when behavior specific mea s ure s were employ e d. Difference s did occur for the mea s ure of th e valu e a ss o c iated with th e group having a favorable impres s ion of th e s ub jec t (p < .01 2 ) and the semantic differential mea s ure of attitud e toward th e gr o up (p < .0 0 1 ). Com plier s reported a more favorabl e attitud e toward the g roup and att a ch e d

PAGE 118

Hl9 T ab l e 1 9 Mea n s and T-T es t Resu l ts Compari n g Comp l ier s V ersus N oncomp li ers o n M a n ipu l at i o n C h eck M eas u res Mea n s S ca l e Me a s u re R a n ge Comp li ers Noncomp li ers p LI K W IN AW ARD +3 /3 1. 0 7 1. 17 85 4* WINAW A RD + 3/-3 2. 1 3 1. 7 4 1 42** FAVIMP + 3/-3 l. 47 0 68 0 11 * ATTGRP +15/-15 9. 2 0 3 4 7 .00 1* EVALGRP +3/-3 1.47 0.95 1 3 0* *Two-tailed t-tes t. **One-tailed t-test

PAGE 119

greater value to the group's perception of them s elves. Compliers' and noncompliers' responses to the remaining group attitude measure (EVAL GRP) did not significantly (p > 1) differ, although the means are in a direction consistent with the pattern of the semantic differential measure. Overall, these results do suggest that the groups differed in the importance they attached to normative consideration s However, it should be noted that because subjects responded to these measures after making their behavioral choice it is possible that these differences were p roduced by the behavior rather than these differences leading to variations in behavior. For example, the act of compliance may have caused subject to have a more favorable attitude toward the group rather than a subject s with a more favorable attitude being more likely to comply. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine which expla nation hold s in the present situation. Tables 20 and 21 contain the results for the proposed and Fi s hbein measures. These comparisons supported th e proposed global (INC) and consequence specific (I ) importance measure s convergent validity as nc compliers reported placing significantly (p < .009) greater importance on nonnative considerations than did noncomplier s Similarly, the two groups' responses to Fishbein's ei measure s involving normative con s quences significantly (p < .03 for "winning the a1,-1ar d' and p < .059 for "receiving favorable reactions from the group") differed in the expected direction. This analysis failed to support the MC measure's convergent validity as compliers and noncompli e rs were equivalent (p > .26) in how much they "wanted to comply." Thi s finding c a s t s doubt upon the measure's ability to a c curately r e pr ese nt normative motivation

PAGE 120

Table 20 Means and T-T est Result s Comparing Compliers V ersus Noncomp li ers on Proposed Normative Mea s ures Mean s Scale Measure Range Compliers Noncompliers B -award +3/ 3 2.71 3.00 nc B -reactions +3/-3 3.00 2.73 n c NE/B +3/-3 2.86 2.27 I -award nc 6/0 5.43 l. 36 I -reactions nc 6/0 4. 71 2.46 INC 6/0 5.29 l. 73 111 p .356 082 177 001 .008 001

PAGE 121

Table 2 1 Means and T-Test Results Comparing Compliers V ersus Noncompliers on Fi s hb e in Mea s ures Means Scale Measure Range Complier s Noncompliers NB +3/-3 3.00 2.88 SN +3/-3 1. 50 0.25 MC +3/-3 1.00 0.25 bi-award +3/-3 3.00 3.00 b.-reactions +3/-3 2.00 2.88 1 e.-award +3/-3 1. 50 -0.88 1 e.-reactions +3/-3 1.88 0.50 1 11 2 p 351 l 07 .266 .999 208 .029 .058

PAGE 122

and may reflect some interpretive ambiguities among subjects in the measurement wording (e.g., "wanting" to comply). 113 Consistent with the manipulation check measure indicating that subjects were similar in their perceptions of nonnative influence, the two groups did not significantly (p > .08) ctiffer in their responses to the proposed consequence specific perceptual normative measures or the Fishbein b. measures involvinq normative outcomes. Further, compliers 1 and noncompliers were equivalent (p > .35) in their normative beliefs about the group's expectation for their behavior. Interestingly, group differences did approach significance (p < .108) for the SN measure such that compliers reported more strongly that important others thought they should recommend brand A (the same brand a s the leader). This finding provides a further indication of the inferential nature of sub jects' responses to the SN measure. Compliers apparently inferred that their important others would favor a behavior they intended to under take while noncompliers did not make any inference about others' expec tations. Model Predictions This section addresses the predictive power of the Fishbein and proposed formulations. The models' prediction of intentions will first be examined, followed by an inspection of their accuracy in pre dictinq subjects' choice (i.e., the brand subjects recommended for mar ket introduction). The discussion will focus on the results obtained by collapsing across the experimental cells for several reasons. First, the sample size of most cells is rather s mall, a problem that is avoided by aggregation across cells. Further, many of the measures

PAGE 123

11 pos s e ss ed little variation within a given cell. Inde e d it wa s often the case that analy ses could not be und e rtaken for a particular ce ll since there wa s no variation in either int e ntion s or choice for that cell. In conduc t ing either correlational and regres s ion analy se s for experimental data, it is often advisable to ad j u s t for m ea n diff er ences between experimental cells prior to col lap si ng across the cells and undertaking the analyses. Such 11 pooled" analyses e liminate the shared variation among measures arising from their similar sensitivity to the experimental treatments. However, this adjustment for mean differences does eliminate some of the measures' variability and con sequently can understate the relationship between two measure s Because variance restrictions already exist for certain experimental cells, the use of pooled procedures would only add to s uch problems. Consequently, adjustments for mean differences were not undertaken for the correlational and regression analyses. Table 22 presents the regression and correlational results per taining to the Fishbein model's ability to predict subjects' int e tion s toward recommending brand A. Because AB wa s highly correlated (r = .81, p < .01) with intention s regr ess ion model s (i. e ., mod e l s l and 2 in Table 22) containing thi s particular attitudinal operationali zation provided a very accurat e predi c tion of int ent ion s Replac e ment of the AB measure by the [ biei formulation conta inin g only t h e m eet ing the target market' s needs co n s equence (mod e l s 5 and 6) s ubstan tially reduced the model's predictive power (from exp lainin g appro x mately 66 percent of the variation in int e n t ion s to 35 percent).

PAGE 124

11 S Table 2 2 Regression and Correl at ion a 1 Results for Intentions to Recommend Brand A--Fishbein Model Model n R B l R 2 rl r2 rl2 ( 1 ) AB+ SN 45 .81* .86* 11 8 1* 31 ** .49* ( 2) AB + I:NB. MC. J J a 44 .8 2* .76* l 5 .80* .40* .3 2** (3) b 45 .42** .29** 26 .3 5* .31** .24 E b .e. + SN l l ( 4) b a 44 .45** .23 .32** .34** .40* .34** E b.e. + rnB .Mc. l l J J (5) C SN 45 .59* .54* 11 .5 8* .31** .36* E b.e. + l 1 ( 6) C a 44 .59* .50* 16 .5 8* .40* .47* E b.e. + ENB.MC. 1 1 J J alncludes only the group as a referent. blncludes the consequences of meeting the target market's needs, winning the award, and the group's reaction. clncludes only the consequence of meeting the target market's needs *p < 01. **p < 05.

PAGE 125

11 C Since Fishbein would include all salient consequences in the f biei formulation regardless of their attitudinal or normative ba s is, the two normative consequences involving normative outcomes (i.e., winning the award and the group's reaction) were included with the prior con sequence in deriving the I biei index and the analyses were repeated. Regression models (models 3 and 4) containing this particular I b.e. l l operationalization provided a significant (p < .05) and virtually equivalent prediction of intentions, but were less accurate than those models (models 5 and 6) using the single consequence of meeting the target market's needs index. This decrement in predictive accuracy can be attributed to the inclusion of the normative consequences since the biei product for winning the award consequence was barely significantly correlated (r: .25, p < .05) with intentions and the b.e product for l l the group's reaction consequence did not significantly correlate (r = .07, p > .33) with intentions. Table 23 summarizes the regression results for the proposed formu lation. Two models were developed for predicing intentions and choice. The first predictive model employed the global (i.e., aggregating across specific consequences) measures of the personal and normative components. Thus, subjects' responses to the PE/B (NE/B) measure were weighted by their responses to the IPC (INC) measure for estimating the personal (normative) component. The second model was implemented using the personal and normative consequence specific measures. Each belief about the attainment of a given consequence was weighted by the consequence's importance in the behavioral decision. For the per sonal component, only the "meeting the target markets' n e eds"

PAGE 126

71 7 Table 23 Regression and Correlational Results for Brand A--Proposed Model Model n R s B 2 rl r2 rl2 ( 1 ) PE+ NEa 45 .70* .47* .34** .64* .57* .49* ( 2) r PE + LNEa 45 .74* .60* .28** .69* .47* .3 2** (3) PE+ NEb 45 .73* .39* .46* .62* .65* .49* (4) r PE + LNEb 45 .68* .5 5* .25** .63* .43* .32** Note: PE and NE refer to the global measures of the components where E PE and E NE denote the consequence specific assessments of the components. aModel with intentions as criterion. bModel with choice as criterion. *p < 01 **p < 05

PAGE 127

118 consequence was employed while the "winning the award" and the "group's reactions" consequences were used to estimate the normative component. Both proposed model forms provided a significant (p < .01) and virtually equivalent prediction of intention which was somewhat less than the predictions generated by those Fishbein models employing the AB estimate of the attitudinal component. This is perhaps attributable to the potentially greater measurement error produced by the proposed model measures resulting from their attempt to orthogonally represent constructs which are jointly captured by the AB measure. The proposed model forms did produce predictions that were superior to these pro. duced by the Fishbein models using the E b.e. index for operationalizing 1 1 the attitudinal component. In marked contrast to the weak relationships between intentions and the Fishbein measures involving specific normative outcomes, the proposed measures of these consequences pro duced substantially superior relationships with intentions (r = .45, p < .001 for winning the award and r = .43, p < .002 for the group's reaction). Fishbein and Ajzen (1976) have argued that adequate prediction of behavior by attitudinal and normative components should only be expected when a strong relationship between intentions and behavior is observed. Consequently, this relationship was examined before testing the models' accuracy in predicting behavior. This required the cre ation of a dummy variable for choice where a subject received a value of one if s/he recommended brand A and a zero if s/he recommended brand F. Given that choice is a dichotomous variable and intentions is a continuous variable, a point-biserial correlation was employed to

PAGE 128

119 estimate their relationship. This correlation was .73 and was highly significant (p < .001) for subjects responding to the questionnaire con taining the Fishbein model measures. A significant (r = .72, p < .001) behavior-intentions relationship was also established for subjects responding to the questionnaire containing the proposed model measures. Given this strong relationship between intentions and behavior, exam ination of the models' prediction of behavior is appropriate. Table 24 contains the regression results for the various Fishbein model versions using choice as the criterion. Each version yielded a compatible and significant (p < .01) prediction of choice. Similar to the findings where intentions was the criterion, those model forms (models l and 2) employing AB yielded higher predictions than those utilizing Lb;e; (models 3 through 6). Results bearing upon the pro posed formulation's accuracy in predicting behavior are summarized in the bottom half of Table 23. Both model versions provided compatible and significant (p < .01) predictions of choice which were similar in magnitude to the predictions of the Fishbein model forms. Accuracy of the Component Weights While the preceding section examined the Fishbein and proposed models' predictive validity, this section will focus on the models' ability via the component weights to correctly identify the existence of salient attitudinal and normative influences. But before judgments of the weights' validity can be undertaken, it is first necessary to demonstrate that a particular source of influence did in fact impact upon subjects' intentions and choice. Evidence indicating that the attitudinal component should receive a significant weight was provided

PAGE 129

l 2Cl Table 24 Regression and Correlational Result s for Choice--Fi s hbein Model Model n R B l B 2 rl r2 rl2 ( l ) AB + SN 45 .80* 78* .03 .80* .41* .49* ( 2) AB + r. NB MC J J a 44 82* 73* .21** .79* .44* .3 2 ** (3) b [ b.e. + SN l l 45 .64* .51* 28** .58* .41* .24 (4) b a 44 .63* .47* .28* .57* .44* .34** [ b .e. + LNB .MC. l l J J ( 5) C r: b.e. + l l SN 45 .62* .50* .23 .58* .41* 36* (6) C a 44 .61* .47* .22 .57* .44* .47* [ b .e. + t NB .MC. l l J J alncludes only the group as a referent. blncludes the consequences of meeting the target market's needs, winning the award, and the group's reactions. clncludes only the consequence of meeting the target market's needs. *p < 01 **p < .05

PAGE 130

l 21 by those analyses showing that intentions and choice were highly affected by the attitudinal manipulation. This same set of analyses also demonstrated that the normative manipulation significantly altered s ubjects' brand choice, but not their brand intentions. The impact of normative influences upon subjects' intentions was documented, however, by the comparison of subjects' intentions to recommend brands A and D. Support for the accuracy of a model's component weights therefore requires that both components receive a significant regression weight in the prediction equation. Turning first to the Fishbein models with intentions as the criterion, a rather dismal view of the normative weight's ability to identify intentions' susceptibility to compliance based influences is revealed (see Table 22). The normative weight failed to attain significance in any of the model forms where SN was used to operationalize the normative component even though SN did cor relate significantly (r = .31, p < .05) with intentions. Similarly, when [ NBjMCj was employed for representing normative influences, the normative weight was insignificant in two models (models 2 and 6) of the three Fishbein model forms examined although [ NB.MC. also corJ J related signficantly (r = .40, p < .01) with intentions. In the single case where [ NB.MC. did produce a significant normative weight (model J J 4), the attitudinal component weight failed, for the first time, to attain significance. A very different set of inferences about the determinants of intentions is indicated by the proposed model forms (see Table 23). The regression weights of the attitudinal and normative components were significant (p < .05) for both model ver s ion s These re s ults fully

PAGE 131

support the accuracy of the proposed formulation in identifying the existence of salient personal and normative motivation. 122 The results bearing upon of the Fishbein model's component weights change somewhat when choice rather than intentions is employed as the cri terion (Table 24). In each of the six model ver sio n s examined, the attitudinal component received a significant (p < .01) weight. When the normative component was operationalized by SN, the normative weight was insignificant (p > .05) in two model version s (models l and 5) and significant (p < .05) in the remaining model version (model 3). The normative weight was significant (p < .05) in two of the three tested model versions containing [ NB.MC (models 2 and 4). J J The regression analyses for the proposed model (Table 23) involving subjects' brand choice provided further support for the component weights' validity. The component weights were s ignificant (p < .05) in both model ver s ions. In sum, then, these findings shed a favorable light on the proposed model's diagnostic utility as the personal and normative weights attained signficance in eveJ:t model ver s ion tested. On the basis of the present findings, it would appear that the proposed model represents a promising ap pro ach to identify the existence of salient personal and normative reasons for b e havior a l performance. The Equivalence of Fishbein's Alternative Normativ e Operationalizations As previously discussed, there is some doubt regarding the valid ity of the hypothesized relationship between SN and [ NBjMCj since SN does not appear capable of representing motivation to comply. One approach to examining the relationship was to compute correlations between SN and r NB .MC and between SN and r NB.. If SN do es capture J J J MC, then the weighting of NB by MC should not attenuate the prediction

PAGE 132

1 23 o f SN. Table 25 contain s these correlations for eac h experimental cell and acr os s experimental cells. While the overall S N E NB correlation J was highly s ignifi ca nt (r = .63, p > .001) t he o v e rall SN E NB MC co rJ J re lati on did not significantly differ from zero (r = .05, p > .37). Employing a z test for the difference between two correlations from the sam e sample (Ro scoe 1975), a s i g nificant (z = 3 15, p < .002) difference was found between the two correlations. Thu s, in contradiction to the hypothesized normative relationship, weiqhtin g NB by MC sign ifi ca ntly de creased the prediction of SN. The second approach to testing the SN= r NB MC relationship involved J J examining the hypothesized causal flow among the two norm a tive representations and intentions. If SN does mediate the influ e nce of MC upon inten tions, then the addition of E NB.MC. into a reoression model already conJ J J taining SN as a predictor variable should not produce a significant increment in the prediction of intentions. This prediction was not supported as the standardized partial regression weights for both SN ( B = .28, p < .05) and rNBjMCj ( s = .38, p < .01) attained significance. To pinpoint the source of this predictive increment (i.e., wheth er NB or MC was driving the effect), this analysis was repeated except that NB was not w e ighted by MC. In this instance, the SN component received a significant weight ( B = .41, p < .05) whereas the r NB component did not ( B = -.26, p > .1 ). Essentially J the same pattern of regression re s ults wa s al so obse rved when subjects brand choice replaced intentions as the criterion. Both S N ( s = .37, p < .01) and E NB.MC ( B = .4 2 p < .01) again r ecei ved significant weight s in J J the prediction equation. Replacem e nt of E NS MC. by r NB. r es ulted in S N J J J receivin g a significant positive wei g ht ( R = 52, p < .01) while E NB J received a significant ne gat ive w e ight ( B = -. 30, p < .0 5 ) e v e n though r, NB j

PAGE 133

Table 25 Correlations Testing the SN= r. NB.MC Relationship--Brand A J J Experimental Treatments Att Norm n Measure r p Favorable Strong 8 r.NB MC, J J -.24 .286 LNBj .76 01 5 Favorable Weak 10 r. NB .MC. J J .00 .500 r.NB, * J Unfavorable Strong 16 r.NB.MC .21 .222 J J r.NB J .50 .025 Unfavorable Weak 10 r. NB. MC. J J -.54 .052 r.NB * J Across Across 44 r. NB.MC. J J .05 371 r.NB. .63 001 J *Statistics could not be computed since r. NB. lacked any variability. J l 2 1

PAGE 134

125 did not correlate significantly with choice (r = -.09, p > .l ). This inconsistency between the regre s sion and correlationa l results indi cates that [ NBj acted as a suppressor variable (Cohen and Cohen 1975) in the prediction equation. In sum, these analyses further s ub stantiate the findings of Min iard and Cohen (1981) that SN does not adequately represent an indivi dual's motivation or willingness to accept normative influences. It appears that the hypothesized SN= r NBjMCj is misspecified and that SN is likely to misrepresent normative influences when "important" others act as a negative reference group or are uninfluential. Relationships Among the Alternativ e Proposed Personal and Normativ e Representations Recall that two measurement a pproach es were taken to operational izing the components of the propo s ed formulation. One approach in volved assessing subjects' perceptions of specific persona l and normative con sequences that might result from their choice and the i mporta nce of such consequences in their decision. The second approach aggregated across consequences and attempted to represent subjects' global person al and normative evaluations of the behavior. The question considered at this point is the equivalence of these alternative measurement approaches. Correlations were computed between the globa l representat i ons (e. g., PE/B. IPC) and the corresponding consequence specific measures (e.g., [ 8 I ) and are summarized in Table 26. Focusing on the carpc pc relations computed by aggregating across the experimental cells, the results strongly support the equivalence of the alternative personal (r = .80, p < .001) and normative ( r = .76, p < .00 1) measures.

PAGE 135

Experimental Att Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Across Table 26 Correlations for Alternative Proposed Personal and Normative Representations Treatments Attitude a Normative b Norm n Correlations p Correlations Strong l 0 -.37 144 .90 Weak 8 -.35 197 19 Strong 18 85 .001 89 Weak 9 .84 .003 76 Across 45 .80 001 76 aCorrelation between PE/B-IPC and [ Bpclpc bCorrelation between NE/BINC and [ Bncinc 12 6 p 001 322 001 .009 001

PAGE 136

1 2 7 Note that the personal correlations for the Attf conditions are con trary to what one might expect. These negative corre l atio n s are attri butable, however, to the extreme restrictions in the measures' varian ce that occ urred under these conditions. Experimenter's Influence on Subjects' Behavior Up to this point, the potential influen ce of the experimenter upon subjects' behavior has been ignored. Recall that measure s assessing the possible impact of the experimenter were included in both the Fi s bein and the proposed model questionnaires. In particular, both in str ments contained measures asking subjects to rate "having the experimenter acting favorably toward you and/or thinking favorably of you" on either a good-bad (Fishbein questionnaire) or importance (proposed model ques tionnaire) scale and the extent to which recommending each brand would lead to this outcome. In addition, NB and MC measure s were in c luded in the Fishbein questionnaire for the experimenter. If the exper imenter ser ved as a sa lient referent in the experimental setting, it would then be n ecessary to modify the preceding regression and correlational analyses to account for the influence. Table s 27 through 29 contain the results of correlational analyses bearing upon the impact of the experimenter. While the measures assessing the influen ce produced by the experimenter's reaction corre lated s ignifi ca ntly (p < .05) with subjects' int e ntion s to recommend brand A and was marginally (p < .l) related to their brand c h o ic e in th e proposed model questionnaire (Table 27 ), these measures were unr e la ted to the intentions and choice of subjects receiving th e Fishbein questionnaire (Table 28). Further evidence of the exper iment er s relative unimportance is presented in Table 29 wher e ~ NB .MC. for the J J

PAGE 137

Measure NE/8 INC BI CHOICE Table 2 1 Correlations Relevant to the Effect of Including the Experimenter Specific Measures in I B I nc nc n 45 45 45 IS I nc nc a .76* .47* .43** IS I b IB I nc nc nc nc .27*** .71* 36** .51* 21 .42** C alncludes the nonnative consequences of winning the award and the group's reaction. b Includes only the normative consequence of the e x perimenter s reaction. clncludes the normative consequences of winning the award, the group's reaction, and the experimenter's reaction. *p < .001 **p < .01 ***p < 05 1 28

PAGE 138

Measure BI CHOI C E Table 28 Correlations Relevant to the Effect of Including the Experimenter Specific Measure s in ;, b.e l l n 45 45 a Z:: b e l l .3 5 ** 58 11 -.09 C Z:: b.e l l .30*** 5 2* ainclude s t he consequences of meetin g t h e t ar g et m a rket's need s winning the award, and the group's rea c tion. blncludes only the consequen c e of the expe rim e nter' s r e action. clncludes the consequences of meeting the target market's needs, winnin g the award, the group's reaction, and the e x perimenter's reaction. *p < 001 **p < 01 ***p < .05 1 2 9

PAGE 139

---------Measure SN BI CHOICE Table 29 Correlations Relevant to the Effect of Including the Experimenter as a Referent in E NB MC J J n 44 44 44 INB .MC. J J .05 .40** .44* a b INB .MC. J J 12 01 .02 aincludes only the group as a referent. bincludes only the experimenter as a referent. cincludes both the group and experimenter as referents. *p < 001 **p < .01 ***p < .05 13 0 n rn .Mc J J C -.02 .33*** 39**

PAGE 140

l?, l experimenter fail ed to co rr e lat e s i g nifi ca n t l y with eit h er subjec tiv e norm, int e ntions, or choice. Tabl es 27 28 and 29 also prese nt th e r es ult s d emo n s trating the incr e mental pred i ct iv e effect of incorpor ating these experimenter specifi c mea s u res int o the z. B I 1. b.e., and n c nc 1 E NB MC formulations, respectively. Th e inclu s ion of these meas ure s J J did not in a single instance significantly ( p > 2 ) improve the predictive power of any of the formulations. Thu s, it would seem sa fe to assume that the experimenter's influence was minimal in the present experimental context.

PAGE 141

CHAPTER SIX CONCLU SIO N The findings of this investigation provide very strong support for the proposed model's accuracy in estimating the personal and normative consequences motivating behavior. The different tests of the proposed measures' convergent validity consistently produced favorable results. Evidence addressing the measures' ability to s eparate these two sources of influen ce was limited to the proposed personal measures as the possibility of normative contamination in the attitude manipulation prevented an unambiguous assessment of the proposed normative measures' discriminant validity. The two approaches to examining the discriminant validity of the personal measures yielded conflicting re s ults. While the measures' insensitivity to the normative manipulation supported their discriminant validity, some normative contamination was found in the personal perceptual measures under the brand comparisons approach. Even though the findings suggest that the proposed model did not com pletely separate the attitudinal and normative influences operative in this particular setting, an adverse impact upon the model's diagnostic utility was not observed. The model correctly identified the presence of salient personal and normative considerations as both component weights attained significance. This was true regardless of the measurement approach employed for operationalizing th e component s (i. e ., consequence specific versus global measures) and whether intention s or behavior was the criterion. 1 32

PAGE 142

133 The results bearing upon the Fishbein formulation demon s trate the inappropriateness of the model for those interested in distinguishing between the personal and normative reasons for behavioral performance. The SN measure was unaffected by the normative manipulation which was shown to vary normative motivation. Even the MC measure was only margin ally influenced by this manipulation. Further reason to doubt the accur acy of the SN and MC measures in representing normative motivation was provided by the comparison of compliers and nonconipliers as these two groups did not differ in their responses to MC and only marginal differ ences were detected for SN. Limitations were also detected for the AB measure. While the measure was affected by only the attitude manipula tion, the results generated by the brand comparisons procedure revealed that the measure did incorporate normative influences. Evidence indica ting that Fishbein's consequence specific attitudinal representation ( r biei) confounds personal and normative reasons was provided by the measure's mutual sensitivity to the Att and Norm manipulations. The analyses of the component weights' accuracy revealed further weaknesses in the Fishbein model as the various model version s generated inconsistent inferences about the determinants of subjects' brand intentions and choice. Indeed, the model based upon Fishbein's central equation (i.e., AB+ SN) did not assign a significant weight to the normative component for either intentions or choice. The present investigation also provided evidence relevant to the hypothesized relationship between SN and ;. N8 MC .. Contrary to this relaJ J tionship, the weighting of NB by MC significantly attenuated the prediction of SN. Further, SN did not mediate the influence of MC upon inten tions or choice. These results confirm the findings of Miniard

PAGE 143

1 3 4 and Cohen (1981) and suggest that SN is unlikely to adequately represent the influence exerted by others. One interesting set of issues which this research sheds light on is the need and feasibility of attaining completely unique measures (i.e., measures that capture only the influence they are intended to represent without incorporating other influences). While it is conceptually desir able that non-overlapping measures be employed for operationalizing a given model's components, some level of contamination may exist without harming the model's diagnostic usefulness. For example, despite some overlap among the proposed model measures, the model did accurately identify the existence of salient personal and normative considerations. Clearly, then, the presence of some contamination may be acceptable at a pragmatic level. Even if completely independent measures were necessary, it may simply be the case that some degree of overlap will exist. Support for this statement comes from the findings concerning the sensitivity of various attitudinal perceptual measures to normative influences. Recall that two of the measures asked subjects to indicate the extent to which a given brand would meet the needs of the target market and their agreement with the statement that a particular brand was the best brand for market intro duction. One might expect such straightforward measures of perception to be unaffected by normative influences. Such was not the case as subjects rated the brand leading to favorable normative outcomes (i.e., brand A) superior to an alternative brand (i.e., brand D) that was identical on the four product dimensions considered by the target market. These results suggest that some degree of overlap may be unavoidable.

PAGE 144

13 5 Although this particular study substantiated the utility of the pro posed formulation for representing and separating the personal and norma tive considerations that guide behavior, further investigation of the model will of course be necessary. Particular emphasis might be given to exam ining the measures used to provide global estimates of the personal and normative components of the proposed model. Recall that these global estimates were partly based upon measur es that a s ked sub j e c t s their personal (PE/8) and normative (NE/8) evaluation of the b e havior giv e n behavior per formance. The s e measures were then multipli c ativ e ly co m bin e d with measures estimating the importance subjects attach e d to p e r so nal (IPC) and norma tive (INC) considerations. Two potential resear c h i ss ue s c an be identified at this point. First, it might be worthwhile to con s i d er the feasibility of using a single measure to represent at a global level the per s onal and normative components rather than the dual mea s ur e ment approach employed in this study. Second, while the subje c ts used in thi s inve s ti g ation (i.e., college students) were apparently able to handle su c h conditional formats, it remains to be seen if other populations (e.g., person s without a college education) are able to do so. Evidence relevant to the discriminant validity of the proposed norma tive measures is also needed. Because of the normative contamination that apparently existed in the attitudinal manipulation, the present investigation was not able to address this issue. One can anticipate that a major challenge for those interested in this m e asurement concern will be the development of a 11 pure 11 manipulation of the importance attached to normative considerations.

PAGE 145

1 36 Finally, research relevant to the pragmatic justification of the model and its basis of separation would seem de s irabl e If the model is to be c onfidently employed for identifying the importance of personal and normative considerations in consumer' s purchase and usage of products, then it will be neces s ary to specifically inve st igate thi s model issue. This could involve, for example, the a priori determination of products whose purchase is based upon normative considerations (e.g., socially conspicuous products). Support for the model would then require that the normative component weight attain significance. Ideally, such tests would be undertaken for products known to differ on both per so nal and normative dimensions.

PAGE 146

APPENDIX A INITIAL EXPERIMENTAL HANDOUT

PAGE 147

HANDOUT FOR NORMATIVE S TRON G CO NDITION S PURPOSE OF THE S TU D Y The study you are about to rarticipat e in i s o n e p a rt o f a n ongoing research program that i s inv es ti gat in g t h e influ e n ce of vari o u s factors upon group decision making You an d th e r es t o f th e pe opl e gathered here will act as a mark e ting co n s ultin g g r o u p th a t ha s rec e ntly been hired to make recommendations regardin g th e ma r ket in tro du c ti o n of a new product. Your assistance will allow us t o d ete rmin e how th e deci s ions made by a group are affect e d b y s u c h f acto r s a s: (l) the amount of time a gr oup i s a ll o we d to r eac h a decision, (2) the fl o w and a m ount of communi c a t i o n t h at i s p e rmit t ed among the g r o up, a nd (3) the v a lue of g r o up coh es iv e n ess o r "toget h e rn ess. F o r e x ampl e t h e c o ndition s for on e gro u p m i g h t b e (l) th e g rou p would b e all o w e d as m uch time a s d es ir ed to r eac h a decis i o n and ( 2 ) n o c on s t r aint s o n co m m uni c ation pattern s w o uld b e impose d Th e co ndition s for an o th e r gr oup, h o w e v e r, mi g h t be (l) th e gro u p w o uld b e g iv e n a limi t ed a m ount o f time to make their d ec i s i o n an d ( 2 ) t h e fl o w o f co muni c ation within th e g roup would b e se v ere l y co n stra in ed It i s pos sibl e that y ou m a y q ue s tion why a p a rti c ul a r co n st r a int 1 s im p o se d upon your g r ou p s u c h as for e xa mpl e n o t b e in g a ll o w ed to co mmuni ca te with other group member s How e v e r, in o rd e r f or u s t o kn o w h o w mu c h influence a given factor su c h a s communi c a t i o n a m o n g me mb e r s h as o n group decision making, it is n e ces s a r y to co m pare t h e d e c i s i o n s m a d e by groups that differ on this particul a r fa ct or. Onl y t h e n will w e b e able to accurately asse s s the role a g iv e n f acto r p l ay s in t h e dec i s ion 13 8

PAGE 148

1 39 making process. A precise description of the experimental task and procedures, including the particular constraints that will be impo sed for your group, is provided below. PROCEDURES Preserving Confidentiality In any research, the inve st igator ha s the responsibility of main taining the confidentiality of participants' responses. Therefore, many of the procedures described throughout this handout are intended to preserve the anonymity of your answer s. In addition, because friends often s ign up for the same session, we have found that it is necessary to conceal the id e ntity of each per son. This is done to eliminate any differences between the gro ups that might occur as a result of differences in the degree o f familiarity among members. To do this, each of you will be placed in a separate room and assigned a name (e.g., Person M, Person B, etc.) that you are to use for the remainder of the experiment This separation of the group will also allow us to control the com munication flow among the group. The particular communication con straints that will exist for your group are described in a later sec tion. Inside the Room Once inside the room, you will find a n alphabetical l etter on the wall above the d esk Thi s i s the l etter you will u se for identifying yourself. Time Allow ed For your gro up, there will n ot b e any time co n s traint s That i s you will be allow e d a s much time as you n ee d in making your d ec i sio n.

PAGE 149

Group Leader After each person has been placed in a s eparat e room on e of you will be randomly selected by me to serve as group leader. Unles s you are told otherwise, you will serve as a group member in the e x periment. The group leader will be responsible for making an initial recommenda tion concerning which brand should be selected for market introduction. Another responsibility of the leader is discussed below in the section entitled "Making Your Recommendation." Communication Patterns As stated earlier, we are interested in seeing how different types of communication patterns influence a group's decision making. We have already completed several series of studies in which various types of communication patterns have been allowed. In one set of studies, for example, group members were allowed to communicate as often as they wished with any other member in the group. In the present study, how ever, we wish to focus on a more controlled flow of communication. For your group, we will be using a particular communication pattern known as a Sequential Communication Network that requires the following con ditions: (l) Each member (including the leader) will be allowed to send one written message to the rest of the group. (2) You cannot ask a question in your message that requires a direct response from the remaining members. (3) The leader will send the first message. The order in which the remaining group members will send their mes sages will be randomly determined and you will be told when it is your turn.

PAGE 150

141 Case Materials Before receiving the variou s communications from the l eader and group members, you are to open Pa cket A and r e ad the case materials insid e The case is very short (4 pages) and i s concer ned with the introduction of a new brand of canned dog food. Included in this material is a description of the product features that are important to consumers in various market segments. The final portion of the case discusses seven alternative brands. You will e ventually be asked to recommend one of the alternatives for market in trod u ctio n. Sending and Receiving Communications Upon completion of the case materials, group members will begin sending through the experimenter their communications to each other. Do not write your message until you have received the comm uni cat ion s from those members who were selected to go before you. To send a message, you are to use the Members' Communication Form. In order to minimize members' opportunity to recognize a friend's han dwriti ng, please print your message. Finally, make sure you place the message in the envelope provided. The Questionnaire After you have reviewed the case materials and the gro up communica tion process is complete, I will provide you wi th a questionnaire. Thi s questionnaire will give u s f ee dback regarding your e valuation of the alternative brands and the decision reached. B e cau s e your an s wers to the s e questions will help us to ach i e v e a great e r understanding of your decision making process, please take your time in comp l eting the ques tionnaire. If something in the que s tionnair e i s not c l ear, be sure to

PAGE 151

142 check with the experimenter. As part of the pro c edures to maintain con fidentiality, please place the questionnaire in the unmarked envelope provided upon completion. Making Your Recommendation You will then be asked to mark your recommendation for which brand should be recommended on the Brand Recommendation Form and to place this form in the provided envelope. These forms will then be circulated among the group, with the leader being the last person to receive these forms. The reason for circulating these forms is discussed below in the "Group Member Award" section. The leader will then tally the results and record them on a blank piece of paper. Group Member Award As indicated earlier, one of the factors under investigation is group cohesiveness. In particular, we are interested in examining one characteristic that often determines a person's value to a group that is, the degree to which the person supports the group regardless of her or his own personal opinion. Because of the temporary nature of the group, it is unlikely that this characteristic would be as preva lent in your group as it would be in more "natural" groups. To com pensate for this, we have decided to have the group s elect one member who ha s demonstrated the highest level of "team spirit." Your selec tion should not be based upon whether or not the per s on r e commends, in your opinion, the "best" brand. Whil e a p e r s on' s ability to make the "best" decision is oft e n an important elem e nt in determining a person's contribution to a group, we have already e x amin e d this particular aspect in other group s For your group, w e want you to ba s e your

PAGE 152

I 143 judgment solely upon a member's willingn e s s to work in a harmonious fashion with the rest of the group and upon a member's loyalt y to the group. Therefore, you cannot vote for someone unl ess he or s he acts in a cohesive manner which, in this situation, i s defined as recommend ing the same brand as the leader. While other approaches could and have been used, we will use a voting system based on agreeing with the leader in this experiment. Information concerning whether or not a given member acted in a cohesive manner (i.e., recommended the same brand as the leader) will be available when the Brand Recommendation Forms are circulated among the group. The person who receives the group member award will receive a $20 cash prize. To select the recipient of the group member award, each of you will be asked to record on the Voting Form a person, other than yourself, who you believe has shown the greatest team spirit. I will collect these forms and tabulate the results. In the case of a tie, the money will be split accordingly. Regrouping After you have voted on the group member award, you are to come back here with the unmarked envelope containing the questionnaire you com pleted. This will mark the end of the st udy. The money for the group member award will then be distributed. Any questions you might hav e will, of course, be answered. Summary Let us briefly review the variou s steps and procedures of the st udy in the order by which th e y will occur: Step l: Each person i s assigned to hi s /her own priv Jte room. Step 2: A leader will be randomly selected.

PAGE 153

Step 3: Group members will read the case materia l s contained in Packet A. Step 4: After you have completed t h e case materials, I will deliver the leader' s message contai nin g her/his brand recommendation Step 5: Group members will then se nd o n e message to the group using the Member' s Communication Form. The order in which members send these messages will be randomly determined. Step 6: The questionnaire which you are to answer will then be delivered. When completed, put the questionnaire into the unmarked envelope. Step 7: Members will record their brand recommendation on the appropriate form, which will then be circulated among the group. The leader will then tabulate and turn in the results. Step 8: The group will then cast their votes for the group member award. Step 9: The entire group will reassemble he re and turn in the questionnaires. The money for the group member award will then be distributed. 144

PAGE 154

145 HANDOUT FOR NORMATIVE WEAK CONDITIONS This handout was identical to the one given subjects under Norma tive Strong conditions except that all references to a financial reward were deleted.

PAGE 155

APPENDIX B CASE MATERIALS

PAGE 156

CASE SETTING Mark e ting Problem General Foods was an acknowledged lead e r in the pet food industry. Its Gaine s and Gainesburger products wer e s om e o f the strongest brands in dry and semi-moist dog food products. In c ann e d dog food sales, how ever, General Foods had no leader s hip position. With canned dog food sales occupying a major share of the mark e t, it wa s vital that General Foods have a strong canned dog food entry in the m a rket place. Your role in this exercise is to select a new produ c t f o r entry into the canned dog food market. The next section, Market Segments, discusses the various segments comprising the canned dog food market. The final section, Alternative Brands for Market Introduction, provides detailed information concern ing target consumers' rating of the alternative brands. Market Segments Within the dog food industry, competitors have begun to realize that there are many important differences between consum e rs of canned dog food. Thus, segmenting the market i s a very common practice in the industry. Whereas the early stages of the industry's development were characterized by products designed to appeal to the entire market, recent product introductions were clearly positioned toward a particu lar market segment. Recent data have revealed that a n e w product' s likelihood of success was much greater wh e n it wa s aimed at a particu lar se gment rather than the entire mark e t. Top management therefore believed that segmenting the market wa s an e sse ntial step for product development and introduction. 147

PAGE 157

148 It has been the company's experience that the benefits sought by consumers are a very useful method for segmenting the market. This involves asking consumers what are the important product character istics that they consider in purchasing the product. This list of pro duct characteristics are then used in a questionnaire which asks people to rate the importance of each characteristic. Consumers are then segmented on the basis of the number and type of characteristics which they consider in selecting a brand of canned dog food. On the basis of this procedure, the following three market segments were identi fied: l. "PRICE" segment For this group of consumers, price was the only important factor. They believed that the dog would "eat anything." so they always bought the cheapest brand available. These people tended to have lower incomes and less attachment to the dog than the remain ing segments. 2. "CONVENIENCE" segment Consumers in this segment tended to be above average income families who owned a dog for their children's pleasure. The parents had little involvement with the dog, and the housewife (who was responsible for buying and serving the dog food) selected the brand which was most convenient for her to use. 3. "MULTI-FACTOR" segment Unlike the preceding segments where choice was based on a brand's performance on a single dimension, this segment contained those indivi duals who felt that several factors were important in

PAGE 158

c h oos in g a brand o f dog f ood Consumers in thi s seg ment felt that the following f actors were important: appea l to do g nu trit i o n pr i ce, and con v e nien ce 1 49 Th e "MULTI-FACTOR" seg ment repre se nt s t h e most attracti v e mark e t for the compa n y Al thoug h it i s n ot the l argest segment i t i s t h e o n e seg me nt whose n ee d s a re not currently being se rv e d. Each of the remaining se gm e nt s hav e several brands currently ser vin g their n eeds, and these companies have d emo n str at e d a v ery defensive approac h in maintaining their positions. Therefore, top management ha s decided that, in cons id ering the investment necessary to successfully e nter eac h of the seg ments, the "MULTI-FACTOR" segment should be the mo st profitable and will be the one which the company will go after. Alternative Brands for Market Introduction Presented on the last page is a ta ble li st ing the seven alternative brands, identified by the letter s A through G, that are currently being considered for introduction int o the "MULTI-FACTOR" segme nt. List ed for e ach brand is a summary rating of the brand's performance on the four dimensions (app e al to dog, nutrition, price, and co nvenien ce ) considered important by mem b e r s o f the "MULTI-FACTOR" seg ment. On e of five pos sib l e ratings w ere used to describe t h e brands' performance on the v ar o u s dimen s i o ns. Th e five possible ratings wer e: VERY HIGH, HIGH, AVERA GE, LOW and VERY LOW. Th ese r ati ng s w ere o btain e d from a v ery lar ge numb e r o f co n s um ers in the "MULTI-FACTOR" segme n t who w e re ran doml y se l ected a n d had agre e d to u se eac h of th e brands for a prespec ifi e d amou n t o f time.

PAGE 159

1 50 At this point, we would now lik e yo u t a k e a f e w minut e s and think about which o n e of the abo v e brand s you a s th e marketing con s ultant pers o nally believe would be most l ik e l y to b e w e ll r e ceiv e d by the "MULTI-FAC TOR" segment.

PAGE 160

l 51 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ATTITUDE FA V ORABLE CO NDITIO N Dim e nsion s Brands Appeal to Dog Nutrition Price Convenience A Very High High L ow V ery High B Very High High Av erage Average C High High Low High D Ve ry High High Low Very High E Very High High Hi g h Average F High High Avera ge Very High G Very High H igh Av erage Av erage

PAGE 161

l 52 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ATTITUDE UNFAVORABLE CONDITION Dimensions Brands Appeal to Dog Nutrition Price Convenience A High High Low Average B High High Hi g h Low C High Average Low Low D High High Low Average E Average High Av erage Av e rage F High Very High Average High G High High Hi g h Low

PAGE 162

APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

PAGE 163

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR ATTITUDE FAVORABLE CONDITIONS A s mentioned in the original report, consumers w e re asked to rate the importance of various product dimension s that they consider in pur chasing a brand of dog food. This report pres e nt s these importance ratings as well as any special considerations target consumers might have for each of the following dimensions: appeal to dog, nutrition, price, and convenience. Appeal to dog refers to a number of dimensions which focus on the dog's satisfaction with the product. This dimension was tied with the nutrition and price dimen sions for being the most important. The higher the brand's appeal to the dog, the more likely it would be chosen. As might be expected given their concern over a brand's appeal to the dog, target members also considered a brand's nutrition level in making their purchase decisions. Nutrition was considered to be equal in importance to appeal to dog and price. The higher a brand's nutrition level, the more likely it would be chosen. The price of the brand was found to be eq ually as important as the brand's appeal to the dog or nutritional content in target consumers' brand selection. M em ber s of this segment preferred a brand that was low priced. Th e lower a brand's price, the more likely it would be chosen. The final dimension considered by c on s um ers in this segment was convenience. The factor wa s l es 2 important to segment members than the remaining dimensions, although it 154

PAGE 164

1 55 was still considered by consumers in makin g their pur c ha se decisions. The higher a brand's convenience th e g r eate r the likelihood it wou l d be chosen. A summary of this information i s pro vi ded in the table below. Th e first table column list s the four dim e n s i on s discussed abov e whil e th e second column reports the impor tance o f e a c h dimen s ion to t a rget con sumers in making their brand se l ect i ons. Th e final co lu mn, CONSTRAINTS, summarizes the specia l c on s ideration s co n s um e r s h a v e for eac h d im ens ion. DIMENSION App e al to D og Nutrition Pri ce Convenience SU MMARY TABLE OF THE DECI S ION FACTOR S USED BY "MULTI-FACTOR" S E GM ENT IMPORTANCE CONSTRAINTS V ery Important Th e hi g h e r the b e tter V ery Imp or tant Th e higher the better V ery Im po rtant The l owe r the better Somewhat important Th e hi g her the better

PAGE 165

15 6 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR ATTITUDE UNFAVORABLE CONDITIONS As mentioned in the original report, consumer s w e re asked to rate the importance of various product dimen sio n s that they cons id er in pur chasing a brand of dog food. Thi s report presents these importance ratings as well as any special consideration s target consumers might have for each of the following dimension s: nutrition, appeal to dog, pric~ and convenience. The most important dimension in target members' brand selection was the nutritional content of the product. Members of this segment reported a very strong preference for brands that received a rating of Very High on this dimension. In fact, if a given brand was inferior to another brand on one of the remaining dimensions but was superior in nutritional content, then the brand possessing the highest nutrition was almost always preferred. Appeal to dog refers to a number of dimension s which focus on the dog's satisfaction with the product. This dimension, while not as important as nutrition, was s till very important in target members' brand se l ect ion. The higher the brand's appeal to the dog, the more likely it would be chosen. The price of the brand was found to be as equally as important as the brand's appeal to the dog. Memb e r s of this segment preferred a brand that wa s l ow p ri ced although they would pay more for a brand if they b e li e v e d that they would get more for their mon ey

PAGE 166

The final dim e n sio n considered by cons um e r s in t hi s segment was convenienc e Thi s factor was l ess important to segment members than the remaining dimensions, although it was still considered by consumers in makin g their pur chase decisions. The higher a brand's convenience, the greater the likelihood that it would be chosen. l 57 A summary of this information is provided in the table below. The first table column lists the four dimen s ion s discussed above, while the second column reports the importance of each dimen s ion to target con sumers in making their brand selection s The final column, CONSTRAINTS, summarizes the special considerations consumers have for each dimension. DIMENSION Nutrition Appeal to Dog Price Convenience SUMMARY TABLE OF THE DECISION FACTORS USED BY 11 MULTI-FACTOR" SEGMENT IMPORTANCE Extremely Important Very Important Very Important Somewhat Important CONSTRAINTS Brand should be VERY HIGH in nutrition The higher the better The lower the better The higher th e better

PAGE 167

APPENDIX D QUEST ION NA IRES

PAGE 168

PROPOSED MODEL QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTION S Personal Versus Interpersonal Considerations It is quite common for us to find ourselves having to make a decision that requires us to consider not only our own per s onal desires, but how important others will react to our deci s ion as well. If we were to list all the considerations that are taken into account in such decisions, we could then distinguish between two major "types" of con siderations: "personal" and "interper sona l". Interpersonal considererations are those concerns you have about how those who are important to you will react to your decision. For e xa mple, in deciding what clothes to buy, one typically important consideration is how others will act and/or think of you as a result of what you wear. On the other hand, those concerns that do not involve consideration of how important others will react represent personal considerations which refer to our own private feelings. Returning to the clothes example, one might also consider the price and/or durability of the clothing in deciding what to purchase. As a further illustration of the difference between personal and interpersonal considerations, the following example is provided: One Friday evening your sp ouse suggests that the two of you should go see the movie playing at the local theater. Its been a long hard week for you and you were hoping to spend a quiet evening at home. In addition, you are not very excited about the movie that is playing at the theater. However, the last couple of time s when your spo u se had made sim ilar suggestions, the two of you have not go ne out because you were not "in the mood." You know that your spouse i s really looking forward to going out this evening and that your spouse will be very upset with you if the two of you sta y home again. 159

PAGE 169

160 In this example, personal considerations (such as wanting to stay home and not liking the movie) might lead you to reject your spouse's sug gestion. On the other hand, interpersonal considerations (such as how your spouse will react to you) might lead you to accept your spouse's suggestion. Whether or not you would accept your spouse's suggestion would ultimately depend upon the relative importance you attached to personal versus interpersonal considerations in thi s s ituation. Questionnaire Content In this questionnaire you will find s ome questions about the vari ous considerations you might have in deciding which brand of dog food to recommend. Some of the questions involve personal considerations such as how you would evaluate the variou s brands in tenns of their ability to meet the needs of the target market. Other questions are concerned with interpersonal considerations such as, for example, how the group would react to your recommending a particular brand. Because we are trying to keep these two types of considerations separate, please do not let your answers to considerations of one type be influ enced by the considerations you have of the other type. Scale Instructions In responding to the questions in this questionnaire, you will be asked to provide your answers on scales similar to those shown on this page. Let us go through an illustration of how these scales should be used. Suppose that you were asked how you would feel about recommending a brand of dog food for market introduction that appeals to the dog on a 7-point scale ranging from "good" to "bad." If you felt that

PAGE 170

1 61 recommending such a brand would be either extremely good or extremely bad, then you should place a checkmark as s hown below: good!__:_: : : : : bad good : : : : : :_l bad If you felt that recommending the brand would be moderately good or moderately bad, you should place your checkmark as follows: good _:_X :_:_:_:_:_ good _:_:_:_: _:_ X : bad bad If you felt that recommending the brand would be slightly good or slightly bad, you should check: good_:_:!__:_: : : bad good _:_:_:_:_X : : bad Finally, if you felt that recommending the brand would be neither good nor bad, or if you believe the scale to be irrelevant, then check the neutral category of the scale as shown: good : : : X : : : bad Many of the scales on the following pages will, of course, have different scale adjectives. For example, instead of the good-bad adjective, some scales will use such adjectives as likely-unlikely or probable-improbable. Despite these change s in the scale adjectives, the 7 scale categories s hould be interpreted as described above. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE ASK THE EXPERIMENTER BEFORE CONTINUING ON. IF NOT, PLEASE TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE AND BEGIN.

PAGE 171

16 2 1. Please indicate the extent to which re c omm e nding e ach of the fol low ing brands leads to or prevents recommendin g a brand t hat will meet the needs of the target market: Brand A: leads to prevents ---Brand B: leads to preven ts -----Brand C: leads to . preven ts -----Brand D: leads to prevent s ---Brand E: leads to preven ts ------Brand F: leads to prevent s ----Brand G: leads to -----prevents 2. Suppose that you were to reconmend a brand on the sol e b a s is of your own ersonal considerations (e.g., a brand's ability to meet the needs of the target market Given this, how favorable or unf a vorable would you then feel toward reconrnending ea c h of th e following brands? Brand A : extremely favorable e xt rem e l y unfavorable -----Brand B: e x tremely favorable e x trem e l y unfavorable ---Brand C : extremely favorable e xtrem e l y unfavorable -----Brand D: e x tremely favorable ex t rem e l y unfavorable -Brand E: extremely favorable e x trem e 1 y unfavorable ----Brand F: e x tremely favorable e x treme 1 y un fa vorab 1 e Brand G: e x tremely favorable ----e x tremely unfavorable ---------3. Plea s e indicate the extent to whi c h re c omm e nding each of the follow ing brands leads to or prevents your h a vin g a c hance at winning the group member award : Brand A: leads to . -----pr e v e n ts B rand B: 1 eads to prev e n ts -----Brand C: leads to prev e nt s ----Brand D: leads to preven ts ---Brand E: leads to prevents . . ------Brand F: leads to prevent s Brand G: leads to -----prevent s . ------4. Please indi c ate the extent to whi c h r ec onmen ding each of the fo 11 owing b rands 1 eads to or prevents the group acting favorablt toward you and/or thinking favorably of you: Brand A: leads to prevent s ---Brand B: leads to pr e vent s -Brand C: leads to p revent s Brand D: leads to ---. prevent s --Brand E: leads preven ts to . ----Brand F: leads to prevent s Brand G: leads to ---. prevent s ----

PAGE 172

163 5. Please indicate the extent to which recomnending the following brands leads to or prevents the experimenter acting favorably toward you and/or thinking favorably of you: Brand A: leads to prevents -------Brand B: leads to prevents ----Brand C: leads to prevents ----Brand 0: leads to prevents ------Brand E: leads to prevents ----Brand F: leads to . prevents -------Brand G: leads to prevents -----6. Suppose that you were to select a brand on the sole basis of inter personal considerations (e. g . how others would react to your recorrrnendation such as whether or not the group would vote for you). Given this, how favorable or unfavorable would you then feel toward recommending each of the following brands? -Brand A: extremely favorable . extremely unfavorable . ------Brand B: extremely favorable -------extremely unfavorable Brand C: extremely favorable extremely unfavorable Brand 0: extremely favorable -----extremely unfavorab 1 e ------Brand E: extremely favorable extremely unfavorable -------Brand F: extremely favorab 1 e . ---extremely unfavorable Brand G: extremely favorable ------extremely unfavorable ttThis next set of questions will ask you how much importance you will t;place on personal and interpersonal considerations in deciding which ;;brand to recomnend. 7. In making your decision concerning which brand to recorrrnend, how much importance will you place on meeting the needs of the target market? absolutely no importance :_: : : : : the greate st importanc e 8. In making your decision concerning which brand to re c ommend, how much importance will you place on having a chance at winning the group member award? absolutely no importance :_: : : : : the greatest importance 9. In making your decision concerning which brand to recomnend,how much importance will you place on having the group act favor a bly toward and/or think favorably of you? absolutely no importance : : _ : _ : __ : _ : the g r eate s t impor ta nce

PAGE 173

164 10. In making your decision concerning which brand to recommend, how much importance will you p l ace on h a vin g the experime nter act favorab l y toward you and/or think favor ab l y of you? absolutely no importance : : : : : : t h e g r eatest import a nce 11. In making your deci s i on concerning whi c h brand to recommend, how much importance will you place on your own pe rsonal considerations ( e g., a brand's ability to meet the n ee d s of the target market)? abso lut ely no importance : : : : : : the greatest importanc e 12. In making your decision concerning which brand to recommend, how much importance will you place o n int e rper so nal considerat ion s (e .g ., how others would react, bein g v oted the group member a wa rd )? 13. 14. 15. ** ** 1 6. absolutely no importance : : : _: : : the gre ate s t importance ;;we would now like for you to tell u s how li ke l y it is that you will !!recommend each of the alte rn ative brands to the group a s well as ;;which brand you will finally recommend to the group. How likely is it that you will recommend each of the following brands? Brand A: 1 i ke 1 y ----unlikely Brand B: 1 i k e 1 y -----unlikely Brand C: li kely unlikely -----Brand 0: likely unlikely -----Brand E: likely unlike ly ------Brand F : likely unlikely -----Brand G: li ke ly ----------unlikely Which brand will you recommend (en ter letter)? Is the brand you indicated in the preceding question the same brand that you will recommend to the group on th e M ember s Brand Recommendation Form? If not, why the difference? The ne xt few questions concern the group. If y o u recommended t h e same brand as t h e l eader, how likely i s it that you would win the group memb er award? v ery lik e ly : : : : : : v ery unlike l y 17. Winning the group member a w ard would be: ve ry good . . . . . . -----v ery bad

PAGE 174

18. I would rate my feelings toward the group as being: very favorable_:_:_:_:_:_: very unfavorable 19. The group is: healthy : : : : : : sick bad _:_:_: :_: :_ g ood wise_:_:_: :_:_: foolish ----harmful : : : : : : beneficial ------clean :_: : : : : dirty 165 20. How good or bad is it to you for the group to have a favorable impression of you: very good :_:_: : : : very bad !! These next few questions deal with the individual brands. 21. I personally think that Brand A is the best brand for market introduction. strongly agree :_:_: : : _:_ strongly disagree 22. I personally think that Brand Bis the be s t brand for market introduction. strongly agree_:_:_ : _:_: : strongly disa g ree 23. I personally think that Brand C is the best brand for market introduction. strongly agree_:_:_:_:_:_: strongly disagree 24. I personally think that Brand Dis the be s t brand for market introduction. strongly agree_:_:_:_:_:_:_ stron g ly di s a g ree 25. I personally think that Brand Eis the best brand for market introduction. strongly agree_:_:_:_:_: : _ strongly disagree 26. I personally think that Brand Fis the best brand for market introduction. strongly agree_:_:_:_:_: : strongly di s a g ree 27. I personally think that Brand G is the best brand for market introduction. strongly agree_: : _:_ : : : s t rongly disa g ree

PAGE 175

28. Which of the following two brands, if eith e r, do y ou think is superior on the basis of the criteria provided in the c ase? Brand A versus Brand D A better than D : : : : : : D bett e r than A -----A=D 16 6 29. In developing experiments, researchers often try to create a study that not only addresses important issues, but that is interesting and involving for the persons participating in the experiment. Sometimes, however, the study is not as interestin g a s it should be and the participants do not take the study as s e riously as we would like. If you did not find this study very interestin g and thus were not careful in answering the q ue s tion s in this q uestionnair e, please tell us below. If this is the ca se, we would al s o appr e ciate your telling us the rea s ons for your feeling thi s way. 30. Do you have any thoughts about the e x perim e nt that you wi s h t o express? 31. In the beginning of the questionn a ir e w e as k e d yo u ab o ut se v e r a l personal and interpersonal consid e rati o n s t h a t you mi g ht hav e in making your choice. Were there any con s i de ration s oth e r than those listed in the beginning that were imp o rtant to y o u in making your decision? If s o, what w e re th e y?

PAGE 176

F,ISHBEIN QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS 167 In this questionnaire you will find a number of questions about the various considerations you might have in deciding which brand of dog food to recommend. In responding to the questions in this question naire, you will be asked to provide your answers on scales similar to those shown on this page. Let us go through an illustration of how these scales should be used. Suppose that you were asked how you would feel about recommending a brand of dog food for market introduction that appeals to the dog on a 7-point scale ranging from "good" to "bad If you felt that recommend ing such a brand would be either extremely good or extremely bad, then you shou ld place a checkmark as shown below: good !_ : : : : : : bad good : :_: : : : X bad If you felt that recommending the brand would be moderately good or moderately bad, you shou ld place your checkmark as follows: good _: X :_: : : : good _: :_: : : X : bad bad If you felt that recommending the brand would be sli9.b.1.l.1_ good or slightly bad, you should check: good _: : X : : : : bad good : : : : X : : bad

PAGE 177

f 16 8 Finally, if you felt that recommending the brand would be neither good n or bad, or if you believe that the sc a l e to be i rre levant, then check the neutral category of the sc ale: good : : : X : : : bad Many of the scales on the following pages will, of co ur se, have different scale adjectives. For example, in s tead of the good-bad adjective, some scales will use such adject iv es as likely-unlikely or probable-improbable. Despite these c hang es in t he sca l e adjectives, the 7 scale categories should be interpret ed as described above. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE ASK THE EXPERIMENTER BEFORE CONTINUING ON. IF NOT, PLEASE TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE AND BEGIN.

PAGE 178

l. Recommending a brand that would meet the n eeds of the target market would be: good : : : : : : bad 2. Recommending a brand that would lead to your h a ving a c hance at winning the group member award would be: good : : : : : : bad 16 9 3. Recommending a brand that would lead to the group acting favorably toward you and/or thinking fa v orably of you would be: good : : : : : : bad 4. Recommending a brand that would l ead to t h e experimenter acting favorably toward you and/or t h inking favorably of you would be: good_:_: : : : : bad 5. How likely is it that recommending each of the following brand s would lead to meeting the needs of the target market? Brand A: Brand 8: Brand C: Brand D: Brand E: Brand F: Brand G: li kely : : : : : : unlikely likely=:=:=:=: = : = : = unlikely li ke ly : : : : : : unlikely likely_:_:_:_: : : unlikely likely_:_:_:_: :_:_ unlikely likely_:_:_:_:_:_:_ unlikely li ke ly =:=:=:= : =:=:= unlikely 6. How likely is it that recommending each of the following brands would lead to your having a chance at winning the group member award? Brand A: like 1 y ------unlikely Brand B: likely -----unlikely Brand C: like 1 y unlike l y -----Brand D: l i ke l y ------unlikely Brand E: likely unlikely ----Brand F: 1 i ke 1 y --------unlikely Brand G: 1 i ke 1 y unlikely ------7. How lik e ly is it that recommending eac h of the following brand s would lead to the group acting favorably toward you and/or thinking favorably of you? Brand A : 1 i ke 1 y unlike l y -------Brand B: likely unlikely -----Brand C: likely unlikely -----Brand D: lik e ly unlikely -----Brand E: 1 i ke 1 y unlikely ---Brand F: 1 i ke 1 y unlikely ---Brand G: 1 i ke 1 y unlike l y ---

PAGE 179

170 8. How likely is it that recommending each of the following brands would lead to the experimenter acting favorably toward you and/or thinking favorably of you? Brand A: Brand B: Brand C: Brand D: Brand E: Brand F: Brand G: likely_:_:_:_:_:_:_ unlikely likely : : : : : : unlikely likely_:_:_:_:_:_:_ unlikely likely============= unlikely likely : : : : : : unlikely likely_:_:_:_:_:_:_ unlikely likely============= unlikely 9. My recommending Brand A would be: good : : : : : : bad foolish_:_:_:_:_:_:_ wise rewarding_:_:_:_:_:_:_ punishing harmful_:_:_:_:_:_:_ beneficial --------10. My recommending Brand B would be: good _:_:_:_:_:_:_ bad foolish : : : : : : wise rewarding_:_:_:_:_:_:_ punishing harmful_:_:_:_:_: ___ beneficial -------11. My recommending Brand C would be: good _:_:_:_:_:_:_ bad foolish : : : : : : wise rewarding_:_:_:_: _ :_: punishing harmful_:_:_: __ :_:_ beneficial -------12. My recommending Brand D would be: good _:_:_:_:_:_:_ bad foolish : : : : : : wise rewarding_:_:_:_:_:_:_ punishing harmful_:_:_:_:_:_:_ beneficial 13. My recommending Brand E would be: good _:_:_:_:_:_:_ bad foolish : : : : : : wise rewarding_:_:_:_:_:_:_ punishing harmful_:_:_:_:_:_:_ beneficial 14. My recommending Brand F would be: good _:_:_:_:_:_:_ bad foolish : : : : : : wise rewarding_:_:_:_:_:_:_ punishing harmful_:_:_:_:_:_:_ beneficial

PAGE 180

15. My recommending Brand G would be: 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 21. 22. good : : : : : : bad foolish_:_:_:_:_:_:_ wise rewarding_:_:_:_:_:_:_ punishing harmful_:_:_:_:_:_:_ beneficial In this experiment I want to do_:_:_:_:_:_:_ I want to do the opposite of what the group thinks I should do. In this experiment I want to do :_:_:_:_: :_ I want to do the opposite of what the experimenter thinks I should do. The group thinks I should : : : : : : ------recommend Brand A. The group thinks I should : : : : : : --------recommend Brand B. The group thinks I should : : : : : : ------recommend Brand C. The group thinks I should : : : : : : ------recommend Brand D. I should not I should not I should not I should not I should : : : : : : I should not ------recommend Brand E. l 71

PAGE 181

17 2 23. The group thinks I should I should not -----recommend Brand F. 24. The group thinks I should I should not -----recommend Brand G. 25. The experinenter thinks I should I should not --------recommend Brand A. 26. The experimenter thinks I should : . I should not -------recommend Brand B. 27. The experimenter thinks I should I should not ------recommend Brand C. 28. The experimenter thinks I should : : I should not -------recommend Brand D. 29. The experimenter thinks I should . : I should not -------recommend Brand E. 30. The experimenter thinks I should I sho uld not -------recommend Brand F.

PAGE 182

, n 31. The experimenter thinks I should : . I should not ----recommend Brand G. 32. Most people who are important to me think that I should I should not -----recommend Brand A. 33. Most people who are important to me think that I should I should not ---recommend Brand B. 34. Most people who are important to me think that I should : I should not -----recommend Brand C. 35. Most people who are important to me think that I should I should not -----recommend Brand D. 36. Most people who are important to me think that I should . . I should not ------recorm1end Brand E. 37. Most people who are important to me think that I should : : I should not ---------recorrmend Brand F. 38. Most people who are important to me think that I should : I should not -------recommend Brand G.

PAGE 183

174 !!We would now like for you to tell u s h o w lik e ly it i s th at you will !!recommend each of the alternative brands to the group as w e ll a s !!which brand you will finally recommend to the gr oup 1. How likely is it that you will recommend each of the following brands? Brand A: likely -----unlikely Brand 8: likely -----unlikely Brand C: 1 i ke l y -------unlikely Brand D: likely -----unlikely Brand E: l i ke l y ------unlik e ly Brand F: likely unlikely -----Brand G: 1 i ke 1 y ---unlikely 2. Which brand will you recommend (enter letter)? 3. Is the brand you indicated in the preceding question the same brand that you will recommend to the group on the Member's Brand Recom mendation Form? If not, why the difference? !!The next few questions concern the group. 1. If you recommend the same brand as the leader, how likely i s it that you would win the group member award? v ery 1 i kely : : : : : : 2. Winning the group member award would be: very good : : : : : : v e ry unlikely very bad 3. I would rate my feelings toward the group a s being: very favorable_: : : : : : 4. The group is: healthy : : _: : : : bad : : : : : : -----------wise : : : : : : -----harmful : : : : : : -----clean : : : : : -----v e r y unfavorable si ck good fooli s h beneficial dirty

PAGE 184

S. How good or bad is it to you for the group to have a favorable impression of you? very good :_: :_:_: :_ very bad !!The next few que s tions deal with the individual brands. l. I personally think that Brand A is the best brand for market introduction. strongly agree : :_: : : : strongly disagree 2. I personally think that Brand Bis the be s t brand for market introduction. strongly agree : : : : : : strongly disagree 3. I personally think that Brand C is the best brand for market introduction. strongly agree : : : : : : strongly disagree 4. I personally think that Brand Dis the best brand for market introduction. strongly agree : : : : : : strongly disagree 5. I personally think that Brand Eis the best brand for market introduction. strongly agree _: :_: :_: : strongly disagree 6. I personally think that Brand Fis the best brand for market introduction. strongly agree _:_:_: :_:_: strongly disagree 7. I personally think that Brand G is the best brand for market introduction. strongly agree _: : : _ : : : strongly disagree 8. Which of the following two brands, if either, do you think is superior on the basis of the criteria provided in the case? Brand A versus Brand D A better than D : : : : : : D better than A --A = D 175

PAGE 185

176 *In developing experiments, researchers often try to create a study that not only addresses important i ss ues, but that is interesting and involving for the per s on s participating in th e experiment. Sometimes, however, the study is not as interesting as it should be and the participants do not take the s tudy as seriously as we would like. If you did not find thi s study very interesting and thus were not careful in an s wering the questions in this questionnaire, please tell u s below If thi s is the case, we would appreciate your tellin g u s the r e a so n s for your feeling this way. *Do you have any thoughts about the experiment that you wish to express?

PAGE 186

1 77 REFEREN C ES Ahtola, Olli T. (1976), "Toward a Vector Model of Intentions," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, ed. Beverlee B. Anderson, Cinc1nnati, OH: Association for Consumer Re s earch, pp. 4 8 1-4. Ajzen, leek (1971 ), "Attitudinal vs. Normative Messages: An Investi gation of the Differential Effects of Persuasive Communications on Behavior," Sociometry, 34, 263 80. Ajzen, leek, and Fishbein, Martin (1969), "The Prediction of Behavioral Intentions in a Choice Situation," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 400-16. Ajzen, leek, and Fishbein, Martin (1970), "The Prediction of Behavior from Attitudinal and Normative Variables," Journal of Experi mental Social Psychology, 6, 466-87. Ajzen, leek, and Fishbein, Martin (1972), "Attitudes and Normative Beliefs as Factors Influencing Behavioral Intentions," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 1-9. Ajzen, Icek,and Fishbein, Martin (1974), "Factors Influencing Inten tions and the Intention-Behavior Relation," Human Relations, 27, 115. Ajzen, leek, and Fishbein, Martin (1977), "Attitude-Behavior Relation ships: A Theoretical Analysis and of Empiri c al Research," Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888 91 8 Ajzen, leek, and Fishbein, Martin (19 8 0), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bearden, William O.,and Woodside, Arch G. (1976), "Inter a c t ion of Con s umption S ituations and Br a nd A t titudes," Journal of A p plied Ps ychology, 61, 764-9. Bearden, William 0., and Wood s ide, Ar c h G. (1 9 7 8 ), S itu a tional and E x tended Attitud e Models as Predi ct ors of Ma r ijuana In t ention s and Reported Behavior," Journal of Social P s ychology, 106, 5 7-67. Belk, Russell W. (1974), "An Explor a tor y A ssessme n t of Situational Effects in Buyer Behavior," Journal of Mar ke ting Res e arch, ll, 156-63. Belk, Russell W. (1975), "Situational Variabl es a nd Con s umer B e ha vior," Journal of Consumer Re se arch, 2 1 57 -64. ---,

PAGE 187

l 7 11 Bentler, P.M., and Speckart, George (1979), 11 Models of Attitude-Behavior Relations," Psychological Review, 86, 452-64. Birnbaum, Michael H., and Mellers, Barbara A. (1979), 11 Stimulus Recog nition May Mediate Exposure Effects, 11 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 391-4. Bonfield, E.H. (1974), "Attitude, Social Influence, Per s onal Norm, and Intention Interactions as Predictors of Brand Purchase Behavior, 11 Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 379-89. Bowman, Carole H., and Fishbein, Martin (1978), ''Understanding Public Reactions to Energy Proposals: An Application of the Fishbein Model, 11 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 319-40. Calder, Bobby J., and Burnkrant, Robert E. (1977), "Interpersonal Influ ence on Consumer Behavior: An Attribution Theory Approach, 11 Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 29-38. Cohen, Jacob, and Cohen, Patricia (1975), A~plied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis for the Behaviora Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cronbach, Lee J., and Meehl, Paul E. (1955), "Construct Validity in Psychological Tests, 11 Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302. Darlington, Richarrl B. (1968), "Multiple Regression in Psy c hological Research and Practice," Psychological Bulletin, 69, 1618 2. Davidson, Andrew R., and Jaccard, James J. (1975), 11 Population Psy chology: A New Look at an Old Problem," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1073-82. Deutsch, Morton, and Gerard, Harold B. (1955), "A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influence Upon Individual Judgment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-36. Draper, Norman R., and Smith, Harry (1966), Applied Regression Analysis. New York: John Wiley. Festinger, Leon (1950), "Informational Social Communication," Psycho logical Review, 57, 271-82. Fishbein, Martin (1976), 11 Sexual Behavior and Propositional Control, 11 Paper presented at the Psychonomic Society meetings, St. Louis. Fishbein, Martin (1976), "Extending the Extended Model: Some Com ments," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3 ed. Beverlee B. Anderson,Cincinnati, OH: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 491-7.

PAGE 188

179 Fishbein, Martin,and Ajzen, leek (1975), Belief, Attitude Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Re s earch. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Fishbein, Martin, and Ajzen, leek (19 8 1 ), 11 0n Construct Validity: A Critique of Miniard and Cohen's Paper," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press. Fishbein, Martin, Ajzen, leek, and Hinkle, Ron (1980), "Predicting and Understanding Voting in American Elections: Effects of External Variables," in Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior~ eds. leek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 174-95. Fishbein, Martin, Bowman, Carol H., Thomas, Kerry, Jaccard, James J., and Ajzen, leek (1980), "Predicting and Understanding Voting in British Elections and American Referenda: Illustrations of the Theory I s Genera 1 ity, 11 in Understanding Attitudes and Pre di cti ng Social Behavior, eds. leek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 196-216. Fishbein, Martin, Loken, B., Chung, J., and Roberts, S. (1978), Smoking Behavior Among College Women. Report prepared for the Federal Trade Commission, University of Illinois. French, John R. P., and Raven, Bertram ( 1959), "The Bases of Social Power," in Studies in Social Power, ed. Darwin Cartwright, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 150-167. Glassman, Myron, and Birchmore, M. (1974), "The Relationship Between Subjective Norms and Normative Beliefs," Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois. Glassman, Myronj and Fitzhenry, Nancy (1976), "Fishbein's Subjective Norm: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 3, ed. Beverlee B. Anderson, C1nc1nnat1, OH: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 477-80. Green, Paul E. (1978), Analyzing Multivariate Data. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press. Greenstein, Marsha, Miller, Richard H., and Weldon, David E. (1979) "Attitudinal and Normative Beliefs as Antecedents of Female Occupational Choice," Personality and Social Psychology B ulletin, 5, 356-62. Harrell, Gilbert 0., and Bennett, Peter D. (1974), "An Evaluation of the Expectancy Value Model of Attitude Measurement for Physician Prescribing Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, ll, 269-78.

PAGE 189

1 8 0 Jaccard, James J., and Davidson, Andrew R. (197 2 ), "Toward an Under standing of Family Plannin g Behavior s : An Initial Inve s tiga t ion,11 Journal of Applied Social P s y c hology, 2, 22 83 5. Jaccard, Jame s and Davidson, Andrew R. (1975), "A Comparison of Two Models of Social Behavior: Re s ults of a S urvey Sample, 11 Sociometry, 38, 497-517. Jaccard, James, Knox, Richard, and Brinberg, David (1979), 11 Prediction of Behavior from Beliefs: An Exten s ion and Test of a Subjective Probability Model 11 Journal of Per s onalit y and Social Psychology, 37, 1239-48. Johns ton, John ( 1963), Econometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hi 11. J9nes, Edward E., and Gerard, Harold B. (1967), Foundations of Social Psychology! New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kelley, Harold H. (1952), 11 The Two Functions of Refer e nce Groups," in Readings in Social Psychology, (2nd edition) eds. Guy E. Swanson, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley, New York: Holt, pp. 410-4. Kelman, Herbert C. (1961 ), "Processes of Opinion Change, 11 Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57-78. Kelman, Herbert C. (1974), "Compliance, Identification, and Internal ization: Three Processes of Attitude Change, 11 in Readings in Attitude Change, eds. Samuel Himmelfarb and Ali c e H. Eagly, New York: John Wiley, pp. 218-27. Kerlinger, Fred N., and Pedhazur, Elazar J. (1973), Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Kin g George William (1975), 11 An Analysis of Attitudinal and Normative Variables as Predictors of Intentions and Behavior, 11 Speech Mono graphs, 42, 237-44. King, George William, and Jaccard, James J. {1973), "The Relationship Between Behavioral Intention and Attitudinal and Normative Vari ables,11 Paper presented at the S peech Communication Association, New York. Lutz, Richard J. (1975), "Chan g ing Brand Attitud e s Throu g h Modification of Cognitive Structure, 11 Journal of Consumer Resear c h, l, 49 59. Lutz, Richard J. (1976), "Conceptual and Operational Issu es in th e Extended Fi s hbein Model," in Advan ces in Consum e r Re se arch, Vol. 3, ed. Beverlee B. Anderson, C hi c a g o: A ss o c iation for C on s um e r Research, pp. 469-76.

PAGE 190

Lutz, Richard J. (1977), "An Experimental Inv es tigation of Causal Relations Among Cognitions, Affect, and Behavioral Intention," Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 197-20 8 Lutz, Richard J. (1978), "Rejoinder," Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 266-71. Miller, Kenneth E., and Ginter, James L. (1979), "An Investigation of Situational Variation in Brand Choice Behavior and Attitude," Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 111-23. Miniard, Paul W. (1981 ), "Examining the Diagnostic Utility of the Fish bein Behavioral Intentions Model," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, ed. Kent B. Monroe, Washington, D.C.: Associa tion for Consumer Research, in press. Miniard, Paul W., and Cohen, Joel B. (1979), "Isolating Attitudinal and Normative Influences in Behavioral Intentions Models," Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 102-10. Miniard, Paul W., and Cohen, Joel B. (1981), "An Examination of the Fishbein Behavioral Intention Model's Concepts and Measures," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press. Oliver, Richard L., and Berger, Philip K. (1979), "A Path Analysis of Preventive Health Care Decision Models," Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 113-22. Pomazal, Richard J., and Brown, James D. (1977), "Understanding Drug Use Motivation: A New Look at a Current Problem," Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 18, 212-22. Pomazal, Richard J., and Jaccard, James J. (1976), "An Informational Approach to Altruistic Behavior," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 317-26. Rokeach, Milton (1968), Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rokeach, Milton, and Kliejunas, Peter (197 2 ), "Behavior as a Function of Attitude-Toward-Object and AttitudeToward Situation," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 194-201. Roscoe, J.T. (1975), Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Rinehart and Winston Ryan, Michael J. (1977), "An Experimental Test of the Expanded Beha vioral Intention Model," Unpubli s hed manuscript, Columbia University. Ryan, Michael J. (1978a), "Analyzing Models ~-.iith Multiple-Outcome Variables," Decision Sciences, 9, 596-611.

PAGE 191

182 Ryan, Michael J. (1978b), "An Examination of an Alternative Form of the Behavioral Intentions Model 1 s Normative Component," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, ed. H. Keith Hunt, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 283-299. Ryan, Michael J., and Bonfield, E.H. (1980), "Fishbein's Extended Model: A Test of External and Pragmatic Validity," Journal of Marketing, 44, 82-95. Sandell, Rolf Gunnar (1968), "Effects of Attitudinal and Situational Factors on Reported Choice Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, 5, 405-8. Schlegel, Ronald P., Crawford, Craig A., and Sanborn, Margaret D. (1977), "Correspondence and Mediational Properties of the Fishbein Model: An Application to Adolescent Alcohol Use, 11 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 421-30. Schwa rt z S ha 1 om H an d Te s s l e r R i ch a rd C ( l 9 72 ), 11 A Te s t o f a Model for Reducing Measured Attitude-Behavior Discrepancies," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 225-36. Smith, Peter B. (1976), "Social Influence Processes and the Outcome of Sensitivity Training," Journal of Personality and Social Psy chology, 34, 1 0 87-94. Songer-Nocks, Elaine (1976), "Situational Factors Affecting the Weight ing of Predictor Components in the Fishbein Model," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 56-69. Thibaut, John W., and Strickland, Lloyd H. (1956), "Psychological Set and Social Conformity," Journal of Personality, 25, 115-29. Warshaw, Paul R. (1980), "A New Model for Predicting Behavioral Inten tions: An Alternative to Fishbein," Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 153-72. Wilson, David T., Mathews, H. Lee, and Harvey, James\~. (1975), "An Empirical Test of the Fishbein Behavioral Intention Model 11 Journal of Con s umer Research, l, 39-48. Wilson, David T., Mathews, H. Lee, and Monoky, John F. (1972), "Atti tude as a Predictor of Behavior in a Buyer-Seller Bargaining Situation: An Experimental Approach," in American Marketing Association Combined Conference Proceedin~s, eds. Boris W. Becker and Helmut Becker, Chicago: American Mar eting Association, pp. 390-5.

PAGE 192

1 83 BIOGRAPHICAL SK ETCH Paul W. Miniard was born October 13, 1952 in Chincoteague, Virginia. He received his B.S. and M.A. in Marketing at the University of Florida and is currently a faculty member in the Marketing department at The Ohio State University. To date, he has publish e d the following articles: Miniard, Paul W. (1981 ), "Examining the Diagnostic Utility of the Fishbein Behavioral Intentions Model," in Advances in Consurrer Research, Vol. 8., ed. Kent B. Monroe, Washington, D.C.: Association for Consumer Research, in press. Miniard, Paul W., and Cohen, Joel B. (1981), "An Examination of the Fishbein Behavioral Intention Model's Concepts and Measures," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press. Cohen, Joel B., Miniard, Paul W., and Dickson, Peter R. (1980), "Information Integration: An Information Processing Per spective," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, ed. Jerry C. Olson, San Francisco: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 161-70. Miniard, Paul W., and Cohen, Joel B. (1979), "I so lating Attitudinal and Normative Influence s in Behavior Intentions Models," Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 102-10. Miniard, Paul W., and Dick s on, Peter R. (1979), "Item Order Effects in Expectancy-Value Attitude Instrum e nt s ," in 1979 Educators' Conference Proceedings, Serie s # 44, eds. Neil

PAGE 193

Beckwith, Michael Hou st on, Rob ert Mittel staedt Kent B. Monroe, and Scott Ward, Ameri ca n Marketing A ssoc iation, pp. 4-8. Dickson, Peter R., and Miniard, Paul W. (1 978 ), "A Furth er Examination of Two Laboratory Tests of the Extended Fi s bein Attitude Model," Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 261-6. 184

PAGE 194

I certify that I have read this study and that in my op1n1on it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Jo e l B. Cohen, Chairman Professor of Marketing I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly pr e sentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a di s sertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. John G. Lynch, Jr. A s si s tant Profesior of M arke t ing I certify that I have ready this study and that in my conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly pre s eptation fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a di s ser,.atjon for of Doctor of Philosophy. / This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Depart ment of Marketing in the College of Business Administration and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June 1981 Dean for Graduate Studies and Research

PAGE 195

UNI VE RSI T Y OF FL O R I D A l l l llllllll lll l ll llllllllllll lllll l lll l l l ll lll l 11111111111111111 3 1262 08553 5838

PAGE 196

UNI VE RSI T Y OF FL O R I D A l l l llllllll lll l ll llllllllllll lllll l lll l l l ll lll l 11111111111111111 3 1262 08553 5838