Which attitudinal factor describes the extent of how strongly an individual feels about an issue?
Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support . We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader. With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. Show
Already have an account? Log in Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Log in through your institution Purchase a PDFPurchase this article for $17.00 USD. How does it work?
journal article Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical ReviewJournal of Consumer Research Vol. 9, No. 3 (Dec., 1982) , pp. 287-300 (14 pages) Published By: Oxford University Press https://www.jstor.org/stable/2488624 Read and download Log in through your school or library Alternate access options For independent researchers Read Online Read 100 articles/month free Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Purchase article $17.00 - Download now and later Abstract The self-concept literature in consumer behavior can be characterized as fragmented, incoherent, and highly diffuse. This paper critically reviews self-concept theory and research in consumer behavior and provides recommendations for future research. Journal Information Founded in 1974, the Journal of Consumer Research publishes scholarly research that describes and explains consumer behavior. Empirical, theoretical, and methodological articles spanning fields such as psychology, marketing, sociology, economics, and anthropology are featured in this interdisciplinary journal. The primary thrust of JCR is academic, rather than managerial, with topics ranging from micro-level processes (e.g., brand choice) to more macro-level issues (e.g., the development of materialistic values). Publisher Information Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. 1. Description & Theoretical BackgroundNormative beliefs are individuals’ beliefs about the extent to which other people who are important to them think they should or should not perform particular behaviors. In general, researchers who measure normative beliefs also measure motivations to comply-how much individuals wish to behave consistently with the prescriptions of important others. Each normative belief about an important other is multiplied by the person's motivation to comply with that important other and the products are summed across all of the person's important others to result in a general measure that predicts subjective norms. Subjective norm is a predictor of intention to behave which, in turn, is a predictor of actual behavior. Thus, normative beliefs have two general uses. In the first place, normative beliefs aid in the prediction of other variables (subjective norm, intention, and behavior). Secondly, for those who wish to perform interventions, the measurement of normative beliefs provides information about where intervention efforts should be focused; efforts should be focused on those normative beliefs that the population of interest has and that are good predictors of subjective norm (and behavioral intention and behavior) rather than on beliefs that are not widespread in the population of interest or that are not good predictors of subjective norm. Normative variables have been an important concept in social psychology for at least a century. For example, LeBon (1895) documented an effect he called contagion-that people in a crowd are strongly affected by the beliefs, emotions, and behaviors of others in that crowd. However, the specific concept of normative beliefs did not gain prominence until the advent of Fishbein's theory of reasoned action (see Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975 for reviews). Fishbein proposed that the immediate determinant of behavior is behavioral intention. Behavioral intention is determined by a combination of attitude and subjective norm. Attitude, in turn, is determined by behavioral beliefs and evaluations whereas subjective norms are determined by normative beliefs and motivations to comply (as explained in the foregoing paragraph). Although various theorists have added variables to the theory (see Trafimow, 2000 for a review), normative beliefs have been, and continue to be, a crucial variable that is receiving an increasing amount of attention. There has been a considerable amount of controversy over whether normative beliefs are a concept that is distinct from behavioral beliefs (beliefs about the consequences of a behavior). The controversy stems from a higher level distinction between attitudes and subjective norms that is an assumption not only of the theory of reasoned action, but of several other important theories too (Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein, & Ajzen, 1975; Triandis, 1980; Fazio, 1990). Because normative beliefs (and motivations to comply) are presumed to determine subjective norms and behavioral beliefs (and evaluations) are presumed to determine attitudes, if it could be shown that normative beliefs and behavioral beliefs are really different names for the same construct, then this would constitute a strong argument against the distinction between attitudes and subjective norms and, by implication, the theory of reasoned action would be undermined. In fact, all theories that depend on the distinction between attitudes and subjective norms would be cast into doubt. In this vein, Miniard and Cohen (1981) showed that normative beliefs and behavioral beliefs are so similar to each other that they are really the same thing. For instance, consider the following two beliefs: "my father thinks I should go to college" and "if I do not go to college my father will disagree with me." According to the theory of reasoned action, the former belief is a normative belief (it is a belief about what my father thinks I should do) whereas the latter belief is a behavioral belief (it is a belief about a consequence arising from my father's likely reaction to my behavior). Yet, it could be argued that the difference between the two beliefs is more a matter of the wording and sentence structure than about the content. If this is so, then the distinction between the two types of beliefs is artificial and should be discarded. Throughout the 1980s this remained an unsettled issue and one that was usually argued on the basis of semantic arguments and correlations among theory of reasoned action variables. But recently, evidence has been obtained from a variety of research settings, including experimental paradigms, which have converged to provide strong support for the validity of the distinction (Trafimow, 1994; Trafimow & Fishbein, 1994a; 1994b; 1995; see Trafimow, 1998; 2000 for reviews). At the present time, the distinction is widely accepted and normative beliefs have an important place in theories of behavior and behavior change. 2. Using Normative Beliefs in Behavior Change ParadigmsUsing normative beliefs in the context of the theory of reasoned action A second strategy is to perform elicitation studies right away, to find out the relevant normative and behavioral beliefs. Then, using the data from the elicitation study as a basis, a questionnaire is constructed that includes all of the theory of reasoned action variables for use in the main study. The advantage of the second strategy is that it requires fewer steps (two steps instead of three). A disadvantage is that, because there is no a priori way to know whether both the attitudinal and normative pathways are relevant to the behavior of interest in the particular population of concern, both the elicitation and main studies have to include both pathways, and are consequently more complex. Regardless of which strategy is used, at least two types of useful information can be gleaned. In the first place, multiple regression analysis can be used to determine whether the attitudinal or normative pathway is most important for the behavior or population of interest. Secondly, for the purposes of intervention, those normative beliefs (or motivations to comply) that are most predictive of subjective norms (or behavioral intentions or behaviors) can be determined so that they can be the focus of an intervention. Using normative beliefs in the context of the theory of planned behavior Using normative beliefs in the context of within-participants research paradigms 3. Measurement and Methodological IssuesTo measure normative beliefs in a way that maximizes their ability to predict subjective norms (and behavioral intentions and behaviors), it is necessary to conform to the principle of correspondence. According to this principle, behaviors have four components. These are action, target, time, and context. For example, consider the behavior of attending a cervical cancer screening. The action is "attend," the target is "cervical cancer screening," the time is whenever the screening will take place (e.g., 2:00 next Tuesday), and the context might be "at the local health center." The key measurement point is that all of the variables one wishes to use must be measured so that all four components-action, target, time, and context-are precisely the same for the measures of all of the variables. Even a small deviation from perfectly correspondent measures can result in a dramatic decrease in the correlations between variables (Davidson & Jaccard, 1975; 1979). Suppose a researcher wishes to use normative beliefs to predict whether people will perform the behavior of "Attending a cervical cancer screening next Tuesday at 2:00 at the local health center." In addition, suppose the researcher has performed an elicitation study and has determined that "my doctor" is a relevant important other for the population of concern. The normative belief pertaining to "my doctor" could be measured as follows: "My doctor thinks I should (should not) attend a cervical cancer screening next Tuesday at 2:00 at the local health center." Participants would respond on a 7-point scale (ranging from -3 for an extreme score indicating "should not" to +3 for an extreme score indicating "should") that describes the extent to which the person believes the doctor thinks he or she should or should not perform the behavior. For the purposes of evaluating internal reliability, it may also be worthwhile to have additional similar items. Two examples might be as follows: "My doctor thinks it would (would not) be a good idea for me to….." or "My doctor would want (not want) me to …." These items should also be used with 7-point scales. Appendix A provides examples of items for measuring subjective norms, normative beliefs, and motivations to comply. Appendix B provides details about how to use the items to obtain summary scores for the variables and for using these summary scores for prediction and intervention. Researchers sometimes cannot narrow behaviors down to a specific time and context. In the cervical cancer case, it may be sufficient that people get a screening "anytime in the next 6 months," and the place where the exam is obtained may be unimportant. In this case, the normative belief pertaining to "my doctor" could be measured as follows: "My doctor thinks I should (should not) attend a cervical cancer screening any time in the next 6 months." But a cautionary note must be sounded here. Because the context is unspecified in the normative belief measure, it must similarly be unspecified in the subjective norm measure and, ultimately, in the behavior measure. The failure to have corresponding measures of the different variables will be likely to result in low correlations between them. This means, for example, that measuring behavior by going to a particular cancer screening center to assess who attended or did not attend the screenings that took place there during the relevant 6 month period is insufficient because participants might have obtained their screening someplace else. 4. Factors that Increase the Importance of Normative BeliefsIt may happen that a behavior is more under attitudinal than normative control. In this case, if attitudes are amenable to intervention, this would be the most straightforward strategy. However, it may be that attitudes are not amenable to intervention whereas normative beliefs are. Is there a way to increase the importance of normative beliefs? Thus far, there is support in the literature for two ways. Group identification Priming the collective self 5. Related ConceptsThere are several concepts that are similar to those presented earlier, but they are not exactly the same. Four that will be discussed here are descriptive norms, pluralistic ignorance, moral norms, and confidence in normative perceptions. Descriptive
Norms Pluralistic Ignorance Moral Norms Confidence in Normative Perceptions 6. ReferencesAjzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: The Dorsey Press. Allport, F. H. (1933). Institutional behavior. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Cialdin, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Davidson, A. R., & Jaccard, J. J. (1975). Population psychology: A new look at an old problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1073-1082. Davidson, A. R., & Jaccard, J. J. (1979). Variables that moderate the attitude-behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1364-1376. Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). San Diego: Academic Press. Finlay, K. A., Trafimow, D., & Moroi, E. (1999). The importance of subjective norms on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2381-2393. Finlay, K. A., Trafimow, D., & Villarreal, A. (2002). Predicting exercise and health behavioral intentions: Attitudes, subjective norms, and other behavioral determinants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 342-358. Fishbein, M. (1980). Theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In H. Howe & M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1979 (pp. 65-116). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. LeBon, G. (1895). The crowd. London: F. Unwin. Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). The role of moral norm in the attitude-behavior relation. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership, (pp. 11-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Miniard, P. W., & Cohen, J. B. (1981). An examination of the Fishbein behavioral intentions model's concept and measures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 309-329. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 243-256. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by unwitting actors. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 161-209). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Sheeran, P., Trafimow, D., Finlay, K. A., & Norman, P. (2002). Evidence that the type of person affects the strength of the perceived behavioural control-intention relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 253-270. Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). (Eds.) Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context: The Role of Norms and Group Membership. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Trafimow, D. (1994). Predicting intentions to use a condom from perceptions of normative pressure and confidence in those perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 2151-2163. Trafimow, D. (1998). Attitudinal and normative processes in health behavior. Psychology and Health, 13, 307-317. Trafimow, D. (2000). A theory of attitudes, subjective norms, and private versus collective self-concepts. In D. J. Terry and M. A. Hogg (Eds.) Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context: The Role of Norms and Group Membership, (pp. 47-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Trafimow, D. (2001). Condom use among American students: The importance of confidence in normative and attitudinal perceptions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 49-59. Trafimow, D. (2004). Attitude measurement. In Ronald Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, Vol 1 (pp. 233-244). Academic Press. Trafimow, D., & Finlay, K. A. (1996). The importance of subjective norms for a minority of people: Between-subjects and within-subjects analyses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 820-828. Trafimow, D., & Fishbein, M. (1994). The moderating effect of behavior type on the subjective norm-behavior relationship. The Journal of Social psychology, 134, 755-763. Trafimow, D., & Fishbein, M. (1994). The importance of risk in determining the extent to which attitudes affect intentions to wear seat belts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1-11. Trafimow, D., & Fishbein, M. (1995). Do people really distinguish between behavioral and normative beliefs? British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 257-266. Trafimow, D., Kiekel, P. A., & Clason, D. (2004). The simultaneous consideration of between-participants and within-participants analyses in research on predictors of behaviors: The issue of dependence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 703-711. Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In H. E. Howe & M. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1979 (pp. 195-259). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Ybarra, O., & Trafimow, D. (1998). How priming the private self or collective self affects the relative weights of attitudes or subjective norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 362-370. 7. Measures Appendix: AAppendix A gives examples of how to measure subjective norms, normative beliefs, and motivations to comply for the behavior of "attend a cervical cancer screening at 2:00 next Tuesday." In the examples below, I pretend that an elicitation study has been performed and that the important others in the population of interest have been determined to be doctors, spouses, fathers, mothers, and best friends. Appendix B explains how to use data obtained from these items. Measurement of Subjective Norms Make a check mark (X) on the appropriate blank for each item below. Most people who are important to me think I should_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________should not attend a cervical cancer screening next Tuesday at 2:00 at the local health center. Most people who are important to me think it
would_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________would not be a good idea for me to attend a cervical cancer screening next Tuesday at 2:00 at the local health center. Most people who are important to me want me_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________do not want me to attend a cervical cancer screening next Tuesday at 2:00 at the local health center. Measurement of Normative Beliefs My doctor thinks I should_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________should not attend a cervical cancer screening next Tuesday at 2:00 at the local health center. My spouse thinks I should_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________should not attend a cervical cancer screening next Tuesday at 2:00 at the local health center. My father thinks I should_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________should not attend a cervical cancer screening next Tuesday at 2:00 at the local health center. My mother thinks I should_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________should not attend a cervical cancer screening next Tuesday at 2:00 at the local health center. My best friend thinks I should_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________should not attend a cervical cancer screening next Tuesday at 2:00 at the local health center. Measurement of Motivations to Comply Make a check mark (X) on appropriate blanks below to indicate how much you want to do what each of the people below want you to do. The scales range from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). In general, I want to do what my doctor thinks I should do: Not at
all_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________Extremely In general, I want to do what my spouse thinks I should do: Not at all_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________Extremely In general, I want to do what my father thinks I should do: Not at all_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________Extremely In general, I want to do what my mother thinks I should do: Not at all_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________Extremely In general, I want to do what my best friend thinks I should do: Not at all_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________:_________Extremely 8. Measures Appendix: BAppendix B explains how to use the data obtained using the items in Appendix A. There are three sections. The first section concerns the scoring of the data. The second section concerns the computation of subjective norms and ∑nimi. The third section concerns the prediction of subjective norms from ∑nimi. Subjective Norms Once the items have been scored and entered into a data file, the next step is to check on their internal consistency. This can be done in two ways. First, the items can be correlated (e.g., using the CORRELATIONS command on SPSS), and any items that are not highly correlated with the other items can be dropped out. Secondly, it is possible to compute Cronbach's alpha (e.g., using the RELIABILITY command on SPSS) to ensure that the items have high internal consistency. As a general rule of thumb, Cronbach's alpha should exceed .7. If Cronbach's alpha does not exceed .7, it might be desirable to drop out the worst item, which is the one that correlates least with the other items. Cronbach's alpha should then be re-computed to ensure that it exceeds .7. Assuming that the items are internally consistent, the next step is to actually compute the subjective norm value. There are at least two ways of doing this. The first way, and the simplest way, is to compute the mean of all of the items that compose the subjective norm. This mean, then, is the participant's subjective norm score. The second way is to perform a factor analysis on the subjective norm items. The factor analysis should result in only one factor. If not, it suggests that one of the items is not consistent with the others and should be dropped (see foregoing paragraph). If there is only one factor, the factor score can be saved, and used as the subjective norm score. Typically, the correlation between these two ways of computing subjective norms exceeds .95, and so either method can be used. Computing ∑nimi Scoring the normative beliefs and motivations to comply The next step is to use these scores to compute ∑nimi. This is done as follows. First, multiply the normative belief score for the first important other by the corresponding motivation to comply. For instance, suppose that the normative belief pertaining to the participant's doctor is +2 and the participant's motivation to comply with his or her doctor is +3. In that case, the product is 2 x 3 = 6. Similar computations for each of the important others should result in a single product for each of them. For example, in the case of the five important others mentioned in Appendix A, there should be five products. Finally, these products are added together and the result is a single number that represents ∑nimi for that participant. For an example of how to do these computations, suppose that a participant's normative belief scores are +3, +2, -2, 0, and -1, respectively,
for each of his or her important others. In addition, suppose that this participant's motivations to comply are +5, +2, +3, +1, and +3, respectively. In that case, ∑nimi = 15 + 4 - 6 + 0 - 3 = +10.
Predicting Subjective Norms from Normative Beliefs and Motivations to Comply As an example, suppose that the correlation between ∑nimi and subjective norms is .65, thereby indicating that normative beliefs and motivations to comply are good predictors of subjective norms. But the researcher wishes to know which particular normative beliefs and motivations to comply are most important for determining subjective norms. So the researcher performs the recommended multiple regression analysis, and finds regression weights for the normative belief-motivation to comply products pertaining to the doctor (.10), spouse (.61), father (.02), mother (.06), and best friend (.03). In this example, the normative belief-motivation to comply products pertaining to spouses better predict subjective norms than do any of those pertaining to other important others. Therefore, it would be better to focus intervention efforts on normative beliefs and motivations to comply that pertain to people's spouses than on those that pertain to doctors, fathers, mothers, and best friends. |