Theory of planned behaviour (TPB)

The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) of Ajzen (1991) is perhaps the most influential and popular social-psychological model for explaining and forecasting human behaviour in a specific context (Ajzen, 2001). TPB as a model has been successfully tested in a wide range of contexts, disciplines, countries, (Myers & Horswill, 2006; Quintal, 2010) cultures and ages (Li, Frieze & Tang, 2010). In Malaysia, TPB has also been widely used to predict many different types of behavioural intention showing cultural adaptability and reliability.

TPB has been successfully applied in a wide range of social behaviour specifically in predicting ethical or unethical behaviour (Chang, 1998), e.g. predicting the intention to unauthorized copying of software, prediction of ethical decision-making of reporting misconduct of colleagues in the medical profession, consumer’s ethically questionable behaviour, exploring taxpayer’s intention to comply with laws and prediction of driver’s intention to commit driving violations and all these findings have supported the theory in predicting these intentions (Park & Blenkinsopp, 2009).

TPB is particularly suitable for explaining whistle blowing/reporting intentions, an action performed based on a highly complex psychological process (Gundlach, Douglas & Martinko, 2003). Similar studies related to reporting sexual harassment that have used TPB are: intention to report violence in the workplace (Natan, Hanukayev & Fares, 2011), whistle-blowing following sexual harassment (Gallus, 2010), reporting peer sexual harassment and abuse (Li, Frieze & Tang, 2010), whistle-blowing intentions among police officers (Park & Blenkinsopp, 2009), reporting child abuse (Feng & Levine, 2005), reporting abusive relationship (Bryne & Arias, 2004) and intention of abusive behaviour among a sample of male perpetrators of domestic violence (Tolman, Edleson & Fendrich, 1996). Recently, Chroni, Grigoriou, Hatzigeorgiadis & Theodorakis (2013) had used TPB in his study as a model to explain the preliminary exploration of student-bystanders’ intentions to stand up for a female peer who is targeted for sexual harassment.

Li, Frieze & Tang (2010) study explored middle to high school Chinese students’ intentions to protect themselves against peer sexual harassment and abuse and found the TPB model to be predictive for girls, while it partial predicted the boys’ intentions to protect themselves. Gallus (2010) in her PhD thesis illustrated the use of TPB on the intention to report sexual harassment by the individual. Gallus (2010) had demonstrated the multidimensional nature of the theory which allows for the consideration of both individual attitudes and attitudes of important others – in which both can contribute to a better understanding of reporting behaviour. As such, TPB is an appropriate framework in the current context of the study.

This study is one of few that have approached aspects of the sexual harassment phenomenon through the behavioural model of planned behaviour, which has been shown to have predictive utility in determining if a person will take action in diverse array of domains (Li, Frieze, & Tang, 2010; Goldberg, 2007; O’Leary-Kelly, Paetzold & Griffin, 2000). This approach may open up a new window toward the ‘easier said than done’ act of reporting sexual harassment in the case the victim itself (Chron, Grigoriou, Hatzigeorgiadis & Theodorakis, 2013).

The TPB posits that the proximal determinant of behaviour is intention, which reflects the extent to which a person wants to perform a behaviour and how hard they are willing to try in order to perform it (Ajzen, 1991). The three conceptually independent determinants of intention are attitude toward the behaviour, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control (Figure 3.3) (Ajzen, 1991). These determinants of behaviour intention are each based on an underlying belief structure (Figure 3.4) (Ajzen, 2001)

Figure 3.3 Theory of Planned Behaviour Model

Intention towards behaviour Attitude towards behaviour Subjective norms Perceived behavioural control Behaviour

Figure 3.4 - Constructs in the Theory of Planned Behaviour

Attitude

According to the theory of planned behaviour, attitude towards a behaviour is defined “as the degree to which a person has as favourable or unfavourable evaluation or appraisal of the behaviour in question” (Ajzen, 1991, p.188). In general, a person develops attitudes based on the beliefs he or she has about the behaviour under consideration by associating Feelings about behaviour Behavioural Beliefs ATTITUDE Experiential attitude Instrumental attitudes Normative beliefs – Others’ expectation Normative beliefs – others’ behaviour Control belief Efficacy Beliefs SUBJECTIVE NORMS Injunctive norms Descriptive norms PERCEIVED BEHAVIOUR CONTROL Perceived controllability Self-efficacy Intention toward behaviour Behaviour

that behaviour with certain consequences (Ponnu, Naidu & Zamri, 2008). If the associated outcomes are largely desirable, then the intent to perform the behaviour is stronger. If the associated outcomes are largely undesirable, then the intent to perform the behavior is weaker.

Based on Ajzen (2002), there are two components of this attitude: instrumental which is based on knowledge i.e. behaviour beliefs and experiential which is related to feelings. The experiential aspect of attitudes focuses on the affective evaluation or overall feeling received from engaging in the behaviour i.e. how it feels to perform the behaviour for example is it pleasant or unpleasant (Byrne & Arias, 2004) whereas, the instrumental component reflects an individual’s belief/evaluation about the behaviour i.e. whether the behaviour achieves something, for example, is it useful or worthless.

Researchers using the Theory of Planned Behaviour generally tends to focus on instrumental attitudes, however, experiential attitude which is empirically separate are known to motivate behaviour, usually to a greater extent than instrumental attitude (Rhodes, Blanchard, & Matheson, 2006; Trafimow & Sheeran, 1998). However, there is nothing in the TPB that requires a focus on only instrumental outcomes or both attitudes in a single measure (Ajzen, 2011).

perform the behavior” (Ajzen, 1991).Subjective norm refers to the influence of one’s peers, family and referent others in performing the behaviour (Ajzen, 2002).

Based on Ajzen (2002) there are two components of subjective norms: injunctive and descriptive norms. The injunctive norms refers to the perception of what important others are expecting or otherwise pressuring the person to perform or not perform the specific behaviour and the extent to which the individual is motivated to comply with each particular important/significant others (Byrne & Arias, 2004). Descriptive norms refers to how other people who are important to the individual would feel if the individual engages in a target behaviour (i.e. reporting), coupled with the individual’s motivation to act in accordance with important/significant others’ beliefs (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) i.e. whether the individual believes his or her significant others would actually engage in the behaviour.

When considering important/significant others, the strength of relationships is taken into consideration, which is defined by the frequency and intimacy of contact. When relationships are casual, relatively weak ties are formed among the individual and significant others; hence, how significant others might feel if the individual engaged in a given target behaviour would have little impact (Lynch & Gomaa, 2003). When stronger relationships are formed, the impact would be greater, an individual tends to care more about how significant others will view his/ her behaviour (Lynch & Gomaa, 2003), i.e. the need to comply with the expectation of significant others. Jones (1991) indicates that the influence of social norms is positively related to psychological proximity (e.g., feelings of nearness) among an individual and his/ her significant others.

Rivis & Sheeran (2003) and Manning (2009) meta-analysis study on the effects of subjective norms on behaviour has suggested that both descriptive norms and injunctive norms refer to different sources of motivation, concluding that these two constructs ought to be treated separately. Descriptive norms information functions as a heuristic with regards to behavioural decisions, offering cues as to what is an appropriate behaviour in a given situation, i.e. leading one to behave in a similar manner. Furthermore, the descriptive norms enhance the variance explained in intentions after the other predictors in theory of planned behaviour have been taken into account (Rivis & Shreen, 2003).

Perceived behavioural control

The third antecedent to intention is perceived behavioural control, according to Ajzen ( 2002) which refers to people’s expectations regarding the degree to which they are capable of performing a given behaviour, the extent to which they have the requisite resources and believe they can overcome whatever obstacles they may encounter.

Perceived behavioural control has also been conceptualized as two separate components: self-efficacy is the extent to which an individual believes they have the internal resources to perform a behaviour (e.g., perceived skills and ability). Self-efficacy is concerned with judgements of how well one can execute the actions required to deal with prospective situations (Bandura, 1982). Self-efficacy also refers to the individual’s self-confidence in his or her ability to perform a behaviour (Compeau & Higgins, 1985). The second component is perceived controllability which refers to whether an individual

Measuring the perceived controllability construct requires assessing how participants perceive their opportunities and means.

According to the TPB, a behaviour or intention is dependent on how many resources and opportunities are available to an individual so that he or she can achieve a specific behaviour. As such the concept of perceived behavioural control was included to account for actions that are not always under the individual’s control (Ajzen, 1991) and is influential in predicting actual behaviour (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Ajzen, 2002).

Bandura (1986 & 1992 as citied in Armitage & Conner, 2001) has argued that perceived controllability and self –efficacy are quite different concepts. This distinction between the components of perceived behavioural control has also received considerable empirical support (Ajzen, 2002; Armitage & Conner, 1999; Manstead & van Eekelen, 1998; Trafimow, Sheeran, Conner, & Finlay, 2002) and meta-analyses of studies on general social behaviour show that self-efficacy is more closely associated with both intention and behaviour than perceived controllability (Armitage & Conner, 2001). While there is no clear evidence for which is to be preferred, self-efficacy is more clearly defined and operationalized than perceived controllability, advocating the use of measures of self-efficacy, in the prediction of intention and behaviour. (Armitage & Conner, 2001).

The general rule of TPB is that, the more favourable the attitude and subjective norm with respect to a behaviour, and the greater the perceived behavioural control, the stronger the individual’s intention to perform the behaviour under consideration.