Behavioural Intention

The objective of the TPB Model is to predict and understand a person‟s behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The influence of attitude, social pressure and PBC on behaviour is mediated through behavioural intention. An individual‟s behaviour is determined by the individual‟s intention (behavioural intention) to perform a given behaviour. The intention to perform the behaviour is an immediate antecedent of actual behaviour, and represents a person‟s motivation or decision to exert the necessary effort to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 2002a). The TPB suggests that intentions capture the motivational factors that influence a given behaviour (Beck & Ajzen, 1991). Intentions therefore measure how hard people are willing to try, and how much of an effort they would exert to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), or the self-instructions individuals give themselves to act (Triandis, 1977). Therefore, the stronger a person's intention to engage in a particular behaviour, or to achieve their behavioural goals, the more successful they will be in performing that particular behaviour or achieving the behavioural goal.

The TPB posits that a person‟s intention is determined by three conceptually independent determinants: a person‟s attitude towards the behaviour of interest; subjective norms; and PBC. This relationship can be stated algebraically as presented in the equation below:

where B is the behaviour of interest, BI is the behavioural intent, A is attitude towards performing the behaviour, SN is the subjective norm, PBC is the perceived behavioural

71

control, , w2 and are the relative weights of attitudes, subjective norms and PBC

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

The above equation illustrates that behaviour is a function of an individual‟s intention to engage in the behaviour of interest, which in turn is a function of: the individual‟s evaluation of performing the behaviour and its outcome; their perception of how referents would want them to behave and the motivation to conform to referents‟ expectations; and the perceived control the individual has over the behaviour. Further, the TPB identifies three key factors that can influence the magnitude of the relationship between intention and behaviour: the degree to which intention and behaviour correspond in their levels of generality or specificity; the stability of the intention; and the degree of volitional control available to the individual in undertaking the intended behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; and Ajzen, 2010). Tests of the TPB Model have confirmed the predictive validity of intentions. A number of meta-analytic reviews in various other areas of social behaviour have provided support to this relationship (Armitage & Conner, 2001).

Warshaw and Davis (1985) distinguish between two measures of intentions: measures of behavioural intentions (measured as the intention to undertake a behaviour); and measures of self-predictions (measured as the likelihood of performing a behaviour). The Warshaw and Davis (1985) study found measures of self-prediction to be a better predictor of behaviour than measures of behavioural intention. However, this seems to apply only when the behaviour is not under volitional control. When predicting volitional behaviour, there is little difference between the two measures in predicting behaviour (Warshaw & Davis, 1985). Sheppard et al.‟s (1988) meta-analysis revealed measures of self-prediction to be a better predictor of behaviour, whereas Armitage and Conner‟s (2001) meta-analysis, which considered the role of intentions, desires, and self-predictions within the framework of the TPB, found intentions and self-predictions to be better predictors of behaviour than desires. Armitage and Conner‟s (2001) analysis further observed that intentions and PBC have the most explanatory powers. Also, Armitage and Conner (2001) observed that the majority of the studies reviewed tend to use mixed measures of intentions, which include a combination of three measures (intention, self-prediction and/or desire). In most of these studies, all three measures were found to be highly correlated (Conner & Sparks, 2005). Consistent with the outcome of the above analysis, the present study used both measures; that is, measures of intentions and measures of self-predictions together in the research model.

In addition to holding a strong intention, there are other non-motivational factors which may assist or impede the performance of the behaviour. These non-motivational factors,

72

collectively referred to as „actual control‟ over the behaviour, could include lack of opportunities or the lack of the necessary resources or skills required to perform the target behaviour (Ajzen, 1985; and Beck & Ajzen, 1991). Therefore, if a person has a strong intention to engage in the target behaviour, and that person also has the opportunity or necessary skills and resources to perform that behaviour, then that individual should succeed in behaving as intended. The direct path from PBC to behaviour will therefore emerge when there is some agreement between perceptions of control and the person‟s actual control (Beck & Ajzen, 1991).

Beck and Ajzen (1991) acknowledged that in some situations, an individual may not be fully aware of what resources or skills may be needed to perform certain behaviour. However, the TPB is based on perceived, rather than actual behavioural control; it is this perception that is used to predict future behaviour. Therefore, if a person perceives that performing a target behaviour requires certain expertise and that person also believes that (s)he has that expertise, then that person will attempt the target behaviour. In summary, intention is a measure of a person‟s subjective probability that the person will engage in the behaviour, although it should be noted that the behaviour may be moderated by the direct effect of PBC.