The Prototype/willingness model

The PWM is a dual process model and was developed in relation to risky teenage behaviours such as smoking and alcohol use (Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998). It has also been used to predict health-promoting behaviours such as exercise and breakfast eating (Rivis, Sheeran, & Armitage, 2006). In contrast to the TPB, the PWM recognises the effects

of previous behaviour on attitudes, subjective norms and risk images (see Figure 13). Gerrard et al. (2002) explain the PWM is based on two primary assumptions about adolescent risk behaviour:

1. The importance of image (especially to adolescents). (The examples given by Gerrard et al. (2002) are that of typical drinkers and non-drinkers of alcohol.)

2. “…much adolescent risk behaviour is neither intended nor planned; instead, it is a reaction to circumstances that are risk conducive.” (Gerrard et al., 2002, p. 602) Risk image (prototypes) concern evaluations and perceptions people make about individuals who take part in risky activities. Risk image is assessed by considering two factors:

a) prototype evaluation (the degree of liking one has for a risk image) and; b) prototype similarity (the similarity of the image to oneself).

The other main difference between the TPB and the PWM is that two decision-making pathways are recognised in the PWM: the reasoned path via behavioural intention (BI) and the intuitive path incorporating behavioural willingness (BW), and it is these two paths that result in the risk behaviour. The BI pathway is similar to the pathway of the TPB and is framed as “what do you plan to do?” The BW pathway however, is framed as “what are you willing to do?” (Gibbons et al., 1998, p1125). The PWM also recognises some decisions made via the behavioural willingness (intuitive) pathway can influence decisions made by the behavioural intention (reasoned) pathway i.e. intended behaviours may arise out of reaction to circumstances. Cycling to school may involve both pathways and interactions between them.

Figure 13: The Prototype Willingness Model (Gibbons, Gerrard, Lane, Suls, and Wallston (2003))

Gerrard et al. (2002) explain the social reactive (BW) pathway is particularly relevant with respect to adolescent risk behaviour, as it is based on two primary assumptions about

adolescent risk behaviour; (i) the importance of image (especially to adolescents) and (ii) the notion that much adolescent risk behaviour is not intended or planned, but is instead a reaction to circumstances. Risk images are also relevant to cycling, as people who believe cycling is a dangerous activity may regard cycling as something they don’t want to do, whereas those who believe cycling improves a person’s health may be attracted to cycling. In addition, as with many activities, a social image is associated with cycling that may affect a person’s willingness to cycle. As explained by Erikson (1982), image is often very important to adolescents and consequently they are very aware of the social implications of their behaviour. As a result adolescents in particular may make decisions about cycling via intuitive pathways related to behavioural willingness, in addition to deliberative pathways concerning behavioural intentions. The PWM may provide a useful framework, in addition to the TPB, for predicting cycling behaviour due to the possible relevance of risk images and intuitive decision-making. However, as the PWM was developed in relation to risky teenage behaviour such as smoking, drinking of alcohol and sex, the decision-making processes, and the influence of willingness, may be very different to the decision-making process associated with cycling to school, and these differences need to be borne in mind when assessing its usefulness.

The PWM may be applicable when considering teenage cycling behaviour as it was

developed to explain adolescent, as opposed to adult behaviour: As discussed in section 3.2.5 adolescence is a time characterised by factors such as identity, self-esteem and peer

relationships that are not as relevant to other phases of life. Several researchers have concluded behavioural models and theories are best at predicting behaviour where they are used for purposes similar to those to which they were developed (as discussed in section 4.1 above). Therefore, there are likely to be advantages in using a model designed specifically in relation to the age group it was designed for. However, the PWM was not formulated in relation to adolescent cycling behaviour and therefore its applicability to cycling should be treated with caution.

A further difference between the TPB and the PWM is that subjective norm is assessed differently in each (Forward, 2009; Rivis et al., 2006). In the TPB, researchers agree it is assessed as an injunctive norm (what people ought to do), whereas in the PWM, although it is still referred to as “subjective norm”, it is assessed as a descriptive norm (what people do, or ‘peer’s behaviour’ as shown in Figure 13) (Forward, 2009; Rivis et al., 2006). As a result, for activities where descriptive norm is particularly influential, analysis in terms of the TPB may not be adequate. Therefore, if for example having a friend to cycle with (or at least knowing other friends who cycled) greatly influenced a person’s intention to cycle, then analysis using variables of the TPB could yield misleading results. Consequently, for some activities, consideration of descriptive norms as contained in the PWM is useful.

The influence of descriptive norms will vary with respect to different travel behaviours. Eriksson and Forward (2011) note some support for the importance of descriptive norms in relation to travel by bus and cycle but not by car. In countries such as New Zealand, where the percentage of people travelling by bus and cycle is low, Eriksson and Forward’s finding may be consistent with conclusions by Manning (2009) that descriptive norms are

particularly important for behaviours that are not socially approved of. Rivis and Sheeran (2003) also found for younger people, and health risk behaviours, a stronger link existed between descriptive norms and intentions. As this thesis concerns young people and some people consider cycling to be a health risk behaviour, Rivis and Sheeran’s finding also justifies the consideration of descriptive norms as contained in the PWM in this thesis.