The Importance of Subjective Norms for a Minority of People: between Subjects and within-Subjects Analyses

Intentions to perform most behaviors are more controlled by attitudes than by subjective norms. Yet subjective norms typically account for a significant, albeit small, proportion of unique variance in intentions. To explore the hypothesis that this effect can be explained largely by individual differences in the degree to which some people are apt to be more under normative control, subjects were asked to indicate their intentions, attitudes, and subjective norms toward performing 30 behaviors. Between-subjects and within-subjects analyses were performed. The within-subjects analyses revealed important differences in whether subjects are under attitudinal or normative control across the behaviors. Further, when "normatively controlled" subjects were excluded from the sample, the significant effects of subjective norms on intentions that were obtained in previous between-subjects analyses were eliminated, and the attitudinal effects were augmented. Finally, this individual difference was associated with the strength of the collective self;

[1]  James Jaccard,et al.  Toward an Understanding of Family Planning Behaviors: An Initial Investigation1 , 1972 .

[2]  Martin Fishbein,et al.  Understanding Public Reaction to Energy Proposals: An Application of the Fishbein Model1 , 1978 .

[3]  Attitudinal and Normative Dimensions of Opinion Leaders and Nonleaders , 1979 .

[4]  Joel B. Cohen,et al.  An examination of the Fishbein-Ajzen behavioral-intentions model's concepts and measures ☆ , 1981 .

[5]  Andrew R. Davidson,et al.  Predicting contraceptive behavior from attitudes , 1983 .

[6]  Richard L. Gorsuch,et al.  Moral obligation and attitudes: Their relation to behavioral intentions. , 1983 .

[7]  Terence A. Shimp,et al.  The Theory of Reasoned Action Applied to Coupon Usage , 1984 .

[8]  R. Oliver,et al.  Crossover effects in the theory of reasoned action: A moderating influence attempt. , 1985 .

[9]  Lynn E. Miller,et al.  Individual differences in attitudinal versus normative determination of behavior , 1986 .

[10]  Blair H. Sheppard,et al.  The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research , 1988 .

[11]  H. Triandis The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts , 1989 .

[12]  Martin Fishbein,et al.  The Relation Between Perceived Risk and Preventive Action: A Within-Subject Analysis of Perceived Driving Risk and Intentions to Wear Seatbelts , 1990 .

[13]  S. J. Kraus,et al.  Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature , 1990 .

[14]  D. Trafimow,et al.  Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. , 1991 .

[15]  James S. Baxter,et al.  Intention to commit driving violations: An application of the theory of planned behavior. , 1992 .

[16]  David Trafimow,et al.  The Moderating Effect of Behavior Type on the Subjective Norm-Behavior Relationship , 1994 .

[17]  D. Trafimow Predicting Intentions to Use a Condom From Perceptions of Normative Pressure and Confidence in Those Perceptions1 , 1994 .

[18]  David Trafimow,et al.  The Importance of Risk in Determining the Extent to Which Attitudes Affect Intentions to Wear Seat Belts , 1994 .

[19]  T. Singelis,et al.  The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals , 1994 .

[20]  Do people really distinguish between behavioural and normative beliefs , 1995 .

[21]  M. Hogg,et al.  Group Norms and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship: A Role for Group Identification , 1996 .