Reasoned Action Approach

The Reasoned Action Approach represents an extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior, which in turn was an expansion of the Theory of Reasoned Action. These theoretical models assume that attitudes are good predictors of behavior. It originated in the field of social psychology. Its impetus was to put forward an understanding of attitudes and how these connect to the behavior that is pursued. Broadly interpreted, the Reasoned Action Approach suggests that an individual is more likely to engage in a behavior if the attitude towards that behavior is positive, and if peers, friends or family members support and engage in that behavior. In addition to these factors, the extent to which a person feels capable of engaging in that behavior is also likely to influence the

48

outcome. The constructs of this theory are presented in Figure 3.2, based on the work by Fishbein and Ajzen (2011).

Source: Fishbein and Ajzen (2011)

Figure 3.2. Reasoned Action Approach

The Theory of Planned Behavior was developed with the intent to understand and predict behavior. It represents the work of two researchers, Martin Fishbein, a communications scholar, and Icek Ajzen, a scholar in the field of psychology. Their collaboration started in the 1960s and their goal was to develop a parsimonious model, which explains human social behavior (Gold, 2011). Their seminal work, the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1977), posits that an individual’s behavioral intention represents one of the better predictors of the individual’s behavior. This theory explains that behavioral intentions are determined by two factors: attitude towards behavior, and social norms. Ajzen (1985) expanded the Theory of Reasoned Action into what is known as the Theory of Planned Behavior, by adding a third factor which influences behavioral intentions – perceived behavioral control (Madden et al., 1992). In recent years, these two theories have been unified under the Reasoned Action Approach, which extended the theoretical model to include actual control as a determinant of behavioral intentions and behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2011). The key concepts of this approach are described in detail below.

49

1. Attitude towards behavior refers to whether the individual sees the behavior as favorable or not. Under this framework, attitude is categorized into instrumental (i.e., rewards) and affective attitude (i.e., feelings), which in turn is explained by a belief about the outcome of the behavior and an evaluation of that expected outcome. For example, let us assume that a farmer’s attitude towards the adoption of subsurface drip irrigation is “adoption of this practice represents a better alternative than the current irrigation system”. This represents the farmer’s attitude towards adoption. One possible pathway, by which this attitude was formed, might have had to do with the farmer holding the belief that “subsurface drip irrigation increases crop yields” and the evaluation of that belief “increasing crop yields would help my bottom line”. Fishbein and Ajzen (2011) caution that having these alignments in attitude can lead to the formation of a positive behavioral intention; however, while this condition is necessary in voluntary decision-making, it is not necessarily sufficient for the enactment of that behavior. This is especially the case when the attitudes are in relation to a general concept related to that behavior. In the above example of the agricultural producer, an equivalent of that would be that if the farmer had a positive attitude towards water conservation that would make the farmer more likely to adopt a water conservation technology for their agricultural production system. Two important distinctions need to be made in relation to this theory: (1) That attitude alone is a poor predictor of behavioral intentions and by extension, a poor predictor of behavior itself. (2) Attitude towards specific behaviors are better predictors of that behavior than of general attitudes.

2. Subjective norms represent the second factor determining behavioral intentions. They refer to the beliefs an individual holds in relation to others’ perception of the behavior – others whose opinions are important to the individual (i.e., family, friends, peers, etc.). Subjective norms are related to social norms and the position an individual takes in relation to those standards. Subjective norms are grouped into two normative beliefs. The first one is the individual’s perspective on others’ beliefs related to the behavior, and the second one is the individual’s motivation to comply or conform to that social norm (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2011). Let us use the farmer’s example again. Let us assume that the farmer’s subjective

50

norm is “adopting a subsurface drip irrigation technology on my farm is the appropriate thing to do”. One potential pathway of acquiring that belief could have evolved from “my neighbor, who is a more experienced farmer and thinks this is a good idea” and “his opinion is valuable to me, so I think I should listen to him”.

3. Perceived Behavioral Control refers to an individual’s perceived ability to follow through on the target behavior. An individual’s perception of how easy it is to perform behavior is referred to as a control belief, which represents the determinant of perceived control. This component was added to the theory in order to make the framework more general, in that it included situations where the power of choosing a certain behavior did not necessarily reside within the individual (Ajzen, 1985). In a comparison of the two theories, researchers found that perceived behavioral control improves intention and behavior prediction. This effect of the perceived behavioral control was seen in situations where “there was not complete volitional control” over the behavior (Madden et al., 1992). Conversely, in situations where individuals perceived that they had high levels of control regarding target behavior, there was no significant relationship found between perceived control and behavior (Madden et al., 1992). Using the farmer’s adoption of the subsurface irrigation system example, let us assume that the farmer has low perceived behavioral control “I cannot use this irrigation system on my farm”, which in turn can stem from control beliefs like “I do not have the necessary money and time to adopt this technology”.

4. Actual Control was the last component added to the model, which represents the individual’s actual capacity to enact the behavior. Actual capacity in this sense refers to the skills, abilities and environmental factors (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2011).

In summary, the Reasoned Action Approach assumes intentions are strong estimators of behavior; and in turn, they are determined by attitudes people hold regarding a given behavior of interest, other’s views of it, and the degree to which they feel capable of enacting that behavior. The theory does not directly link characteristics of individuals with behavior; however, it does mention the pathway, as Ajzen (2011) explains it as follows:

51

“The theory does not specify where these beliefs originated; it merely points to a host of possible background factors that may influence the beliefs people hold – factors of a personal nature such as personality and broad life values; demographic variables such as education, age, gender and income; and exposure to media and other sources of information. Factors of this kind are expected to influence intentions and behavior indirectly by their effects on the theory's more proximal determinants.” (Ajzen, 2011)

This theoretical framework was used by multiple scholars in their research intended to predict or understand factors affecting farmers’ adoption decision-making (Lynne et al., 1995; Lynne et al., 1988; Carr, 1988; Reimer et al., 2012). Lynne and colleagues evaluated the determinants of water conservation technology adoption, among strawberry growers in Florida. Their results show that the Theory of Planned Behavior provides a robust framework for understanding behavior, given situations where there are constraints on volition. The researcher argues that both perceived and actual control should be evaluated when trying to understand adoption behavior (Lynne et al., 1995). Carr (1988) looked at farmers’ attitudes in relation to preservation of shelterbelts on their farms. The researcher found that farmers’ positive general attitude towards protecting wildlife, was a poor predictor of decisions farmers made on their farms, which included the removal of the shelterbelts for economic reasons (Carr, 1988; Beedell and Rehman, 2000). Reimer and colleagues studied the perceptions of farmers in Indiana, in relation to the adoption of several beneficial management practices. Their research showed that there is a link between farmers’ perception of the beneficial management practice and the likelihood of those practices being adopted (Reimer et al., 2012).