Modeling Personal and Normative Influences on Behavior

The Fishbein behavioral intention model combines all beliefs about the consequences of an act into a single attitude component. We propose a new model that separates personal and nonnative reasons for engaging in behavior. Two studies permitted multiple tests of the model's validity. The results support the model's potential for distinguishing between personal and normative motivations underlying behavior and illustrate the value of such distinctions for understanding behavior. P ersonal attitudes and social influences have long been recognized as playing important roles in consumer decision making. Research examining these two determinants of choice has focused largely on one (e.g., attitude-behavior relationships) to the exclusion of the other (e.g., referent influence, social power). Consequently, little work has been done concerning the relative role each plays in decision making. Identifying the relative importance of each for a given action (e.g., adolescent smoking behavior, adoption of innovations) should be a useful step toward understanding why the behavior occurs and in considering the likely effects of alternative behavior change strategies. A pioneering cognitive approach to integrating these two determinants of choice into a single conceptual framework is the Fishbein behavioral intention model (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Within this model, all beliefs about the consequences of behavioral performance (and their associated affect) are combined into an attitude component, whether they pertain to the deepest personal conviction or to the rewards of expedient compliance. Beliefs about referent expectations (whether the referent thinks s/he should or should not engage in the behavior) are treated separately (combined into the normative component) and are considered to reflect social influences with respect to the behavior under study. Thus the Fishbein model does not seek to separate personal from normative