Attitude Towards the Behaviour

The TPB postulates that attitude towards the behaviour is based on a person‟s underlying behavioural beliefs, and refers to the degree to which the person has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation of the behaviour of interest (Beck & Ajzen, 1991). The Expectancy- Value Model, introduced in the earlier part of this section, provides a framework for understanding the relationship between the attitude a person holds and that person‟s underlying behavioural beliefs. The outcome expectancy is the belief that performing a certain behaviour will result in a certain outcome. The outcome value is the subjective value placed by an individual on that outcome. This suggests that an individual will be more motivated to perform a certain behaviour, when the individual perceives that behaviour to result in a positive or favourable outcome that is highly valued by the individual (Armitage & Christian, 2004). Therefore, it is apparent that only those outcomes that are valued are likely to impact on individuals‟ attitudes.

Attitude towards behaviour is a function of the product of an individual‟s salient beliefs, which represent perceived outcomes or other attributes of the behaviour (Conner & Sparks, 2005). Based on the expectancy-value conceptualisation, outcomes are composed of the multiplicative combination of the perceived likelihood that performance of the behaviour will lead to a particular outcome, and the evaluation of that outcome. These expectancy-value

73

components are subsequently summed over the various salient outcomes, which is algebraically displayed in the equation below:

∑

where A refers to the attitude towards the target behaviour, is the behavioural belief associated with performing the target behaviour which leads to some consequence i (thus

is the subjective probability that the behaviour has the consequence i), is the evaluation of consequence i, and p is the number of salient t consequences over which these values are summed (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Conner & Sparks, 2005; and Ajzen, 2012).

Conner and Sparks (2005) note that no assumptions are made that an individual performs the above calculation when faced with a decision about performing the target behaviour. Rather, the individuals are more likely to store the results of such considerations in their memory, which is then retrieved when required (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Ajzen (2012) notes that the assumption that attitudes are based on information accessible in memory suggests a degree of reasonableness. Whilst the Expectancy-Value Model considers beliefs to be quite accurate, the TPB Model also acknowledges that beliefs can be biased by a number of cognitive and motivational processes, and may be based on invalid or selective information, be self-serving or otherwise fail to reflect reality (Ajzen, 2012). Nonetheless, a set of beliefs once formed is accessible and offers the cognitive foundation from which attitudes are assumed to follow automatically in a reasonable fashion.

Individuals are considered to hold a sizeable number of beliefs about a particular behaviour or object; however, only a small subset is likely to be salient at any one time (Fishbein, 1967a; 1967b; and Ajzen, 2012). Therefore, despite possessing a large number of beliefs, it is mainly the salient beliefs that are considered to influence attitude. This leads to the issue of measuring salient beliefs. The TPB prescribes the use of individually generated salient beliefs, which involves asking respondents to describe the attitude object using a free- response format (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Conner and Sparks (2005) discovered that most studies tend to use modal salient beliefs based on pilot work, following the procedures outlined by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980). Studies examining the effect of individually generated and modal beliefs found a moderately strong correlation between modal behavioural beliefs and attitudes, compared to only a marginally significant correlation between individually

74

generated beliefs and attitudes (Rutter & Bunce, 1989; and Agnew, 1998; cited in Conner & Sparks, 2005). Whilst the use of individually generated beliefs is consistent with the TPB, the results suggest that its use does not appear to reduce measurement errors sufficiently in order to increase predictability of the behavioural model. Conner and Sparks (2005) conclude that the outcome of the study suggests that the extra effort used for the additional data collection required when using individually generated beliefs (as opposed to modal beliefs) is therefore not justified.

In terms of the current research, prior literature and related compliance theories were used to develop beliefs underlying attitudes towards tax compliance, instead of the recommended pre-testing prescribed by the TPB to elicit salient beliefs.58 The author considers that modal beliefs are not too dissimilar to beliefs identified in the prior literature (which are also grounded in theory). Further, a number of tax compliance studies based on the TPB demonstrated the successful use of beliefs based on prior literature and theory (Hanno & Violette, 1996; Trivedi et al., 2005; and Saad, 2009; 2011).

Another issue commonly raised, concerns the merits of using measures of instrumental (or cognitive) and affective (or experiential) attitudes. Ajzen (2002b) suggests the inclusion of both instrumental (for example, beneficial/harmful) and affective (for example, enjoyable/unenjoyable) attitude measures. However, in their earlier work, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980, p.55) maintain that attitudes may also be assessed by direct measures of attitudes (for example, by simply asking the respondent more direct questions about their attitudes). Lewis (1982) argues that the distinction between cognitive and affective attitudes are negligible, and maintains that the distinction between the two types of attitude “are even more blurred than those between tax evasion and tax avoidance.” Lewis (1982) further adds that the two terms need to be considered only as useful descriptive items, and not considered as hard and fast elements, although both terms need to be covered in comprehensive assessments of tax attitudes. This approach was also favoured by Zanna and Remple (1988, quoted in Conner and Sparks, 2005), for measuring attitudes. In their study, participants were provided with an opportunity to express their general evaluation of a particular behaviour without the researchers prejudging what the bases (for example, cognitive or affective) of that attitude might be.

58

Most tax compliance studies using the TPB developed beliefs based on prior literature or beliefs grounded in relevant compliance theories (Hanno and Violette, 1996; Trivedi et al., 2005; and Saad, 2009; 2011), while only one study used the prescribed elicitation process to determine the outcome beliefs that underlie taxpayers‟ attitudes (Bobek & Hatfield, 2003).

75

Ajzen (2001) considered the merits of using two distinct constructs, or whether these two constructs should be aggregated. Ajzen (2001, p.35) concludes that “individuals differ in their reliance on cognition versus affect as determinants of attitude, and that the two components also take on different degrees of importance for different attitude objects.” Based on the above discussion, the distinction between the two measures of intentions was ignored, and both affective and cognitive attitude measures were included in the behavioural intention construct in the current research model.