Behavioral Intention Formation: The Interdependency of Attitudinal and Social Influence

Variables
Author(s): Michael J. Ryan
Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Dec., 1982), pp. 263-278
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488622
Accessed: 12-01-2016 10:16 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research
.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Behavioral Intention Formation:
The of Attitudinal
Interdependency
and Social Influence Variables

MICHAEL
J. RYAN*

Fishbeinand Ajzenhave proposeda theoryinwhichbehavioralintentionformation

is a functionof the separable effects of attitudeand the social norm.A variable
networkis deduced from their writingsthat explicitlymodels complex variable
interdependenciesnot previouslysubjectedto empiricaltesting.The findingsfrom
an experimentaltest supporta model in which normativevariables mediate the
effects of both cognitiveand normativeinformationon behavioralintentions.Im-
plicationsforthe theory'scentralequationsand for informationprocessingin gen-
eral are discussed.

Fishbein's (1967) model of behavioral intentions has
spawned extensive researchinvestigatingboth the the-
ory and its applications in a number of disciplines (see
reviews by Ajzen and Fishbein 1973; Farley, Lehmann,and
Ryan 1981). A good deal of this researchhas appearedin
the consumerbehaviorliterature,as reviewed by Ryan and
Bonfield (1975), and more recent work continuesto appear
(Ahtola 1976; Carnegie-MellonSeminar1978; Dickson and
Miniard 1978; Fishbein 1976; Glassman and Fitzhenry
1976; Lutz 1977, 1978a, 1978b; Miniardand Cohen 1979;
Miniardand Dickson 1979; Ryan 1978; Ryan and Bonfield
1980; Ryan and Etzel 1976; Ryan and Holbrook in press;
Ryan and Peter 1976). A majorconcernof recent work has
been that earlier regression testing did not capturethe the-
ory's richness. In this spirit, the present researchexpands
the theory's behavioral intention paradigmin order to ex-
plicitly model variable interdependencies not previously
examined. A structuralequation methodology (Jdreskog
and Sorbom 1978) is employedthat, in additionto modeling
complex interdependencies,explicitly considers measure-
ment error. The following sections outline the basic theory
and discuss its empirical supportand conceptualunderpin-
nings, propose a more complex general model, and report
on a behavioral intention formation experiment in which
informationabout attitudinaland normativebeliefs is ma-
nipulated.
*Michael J. Ryan is Associate Professorof Marketing,GraduateSchool
of Business Administration,The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
48109. Research was funded by the University of Alabama Faculty Re-
search Grant Committee and the Graduate School of Business Faculty
Research Fund, Columbia University. The author is indebted to Claes
Fomell, Morris B. Holbrook, Jerry C. Olson, Srinivas Reddy, and two
anonymous JCR reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this
paper.
263
FISHBEIN AND AJZEN'S THEORY
In relatingattitudesto behavior, Fishbein copes with the
traditional attitude-behavior discrepancy by arguing that
this gap is due to inadequateconceptualizationand mea-
surementand to the need to consider "other variables" in
additionto attitudes.He addressesthe issue of "other vari-
ables" by combining attitudewith a variable described as
the "subjective norm" (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, Chapter
7), which is designed to capture the social influences of
relevantothers. The basic Fishbeinparadigmis that behav-
ior is affected by behavioral intention which, in turn, is
affected by attitudeand the subjective norm.
The central equations in the theory appearas follows:'
B - BI= (Aact)w1 + (SN)w2 (1)
n
Aact= E Biai (2)
k
SN= NBjMCj (3)
j=1
where
B = overt behavior
'Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) have recently changed their algebraicsym-
bols. Althoughsome of theirnew notationappearsin recentresearch(e.g.,
Miniardand Cohen 1979), it is inconsistentwith the notationused in the
majority of published empirical studies. The new notation also equates
attitudinal(Be)and normative(NBj)beliefs by using the same notation(Be)
for both. Since a conceptualdistinctionis maintainedbetweenthese beliefs
and theirrespectiveoutcomes and referents,consistency suggests thatthey
also be distinguished symbolically. For these reasons the new notation
appears confusing, and the original model's symbols were used in this
paper.
? JOURNAL OF CONSUMERRESEARCH0 Vol. 9 0 December 1982

This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
264
BJ = behavioralintention
Aact = attitudetoward behavioralact
Bi= the expectation(i.e., the probabilityor improb-
ability) that the performanceof a specific be-
havior will lead to an ith outcome
ai = the positive or negative evaluation of the ith
outcome
n = the numberof salient outcomes
SN = the subjectivenorm (i.e., overall perceptionsof
what relevant reference groups or individuals
think the actor should do)
NBj = the expectation(i.e., the probabilityor improb-
ability) that the performanceof a specific be-
havior is expected by a jth group or individual
MCi = the motivationto comply or not to comply with
the expectation of the jth group or individual
k = the numberof salient groups or individuals
wowI-= empiricallydeterminedstandardizedregression
coefficients
The predictive ability of Equation 1, incorporatingnor-
mative structure(>NBjMC1)instead of SN as the second
predictorvariable, has received empiricalsupportin a num-
ber of studies reviewed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1973) and
Ryan and Bonfield (1975). The parameter estimates for
Equation 1 excluding B were also found to be consistent
across 37 studies conductedin a varietyof situations(Farley
et al. 1981). The relationshipbetween Aact and >Biai has
been empiricallysupported(Ajzen and Fishbein 1972; Jac-
card and Davidson 1972), as has been the need to include
Aact as a moderatorof the >Biai and B! relationship(Lutz
1973; Ryan 1974, 1978). One experimental study (Lutz
1977) manipulatedBi and ai and demonstratedsubsequent
changes in Aact and B1. In contrast to the amount of re-
search investigatingthese issues, the variable networkhas
not been tested in its entirety, and only two studies (Glass-
man and Fitzhenry 1976; Miniardand Cohen 1979, 1981)
have investigated SN.2 Ryan (1978) also attemptedto de-
velop a social influence variable different from SN. The
results from these studies are reportedin the following dis-
cussion of the theoretical network within which Aact and
SN occur.
In terms of both change and formationprocesses, Fish-
bein and Ajzen (1975) consistently argue for a chain of
effects that proceeds from stimulusto 2Biaiand INBjMCj,
which influence Aact and SN, respectively. Aact and SN,
in turn, affect BI. A schematic representationof their for-
mation paradigmis shown in Figure A. WhereasFishbein
and Ajzen do not furnish an explicit conceptualdiscussion
20thers (Bagozzi 1981a, 1981b; Bentlerand Speckart1979, 1981) have
reportedtesting networks containing SN. However, they have employed
measuresthat deviate from Fishbein's operationalprocedures.These stud-
ies will be considered in the discussion section of this paper.
This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEJOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCH
FIGUREA
FISHBEINANDAJZEN'SINTENTION PARADIGM
FORMATION
~BLa Aact
Stimulus BI
Conditions
N8j SN 3
NOTE:AdaptedfromFishbeinand Ajzen(1975, p. 334)
of the relationshipsamong attitudinaland normativevari-
ables, a literal interpretationof Equation 1 and Figure A
has led othersto assume independence(Miniardand Cohen
1979, 1981; Ryan 1978; Ryan and Bonfield 1975). How-
ever, a close scrutinyof Fishbein and Ajzen's earlierwrit-
ings (1975; Fishbein 1976), togetherwith their more recent
positions (Fishbein and Ajzen 1981), 'suggests that the
schema may have served as an oversimplificationfor the
sake of elegance, or as a point of departure.
THE INTERDEPENDENCY OF
ATTITUDINAL AND NORMATIVE
VARIABLES
A numberof statementsAjzen and Fishbein make about
specific portionsof the model imply more complex variable
relationshipsthan those shown in Figure A. They consider
belief formationand change processes to be the main force
driving the model (1975, Chapter5). They call these an-
tecedents, which are described as prior subjective proba-
bilities that determineattitudes, primarybeliefs. The gen-
eral definition they assign to "belief," as incorporatedin
Equations2 and 3, involves the link an individualperceives
between any two concepts or objects. There are three types
of beliefs (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, pp. 131-135):
* Descriptive beliefs, derived from direct experience
* Informationbeliefs, formed by accepting informa-
tion from some source
* Inferentialbeliefs, derived througha process of in-
ference from descriptive, informational,or otherin-
ferentialbeliefs
The notion of inferentialbeliefs creates the possibility that
attitudinalbeliefs (B1)may be. formed from normativebe-
liefs (NBa),and vice versa. Fishbeinand Ajzen consistently
acknowledge this possibility in terms of the formationof
normative(1975, pp. 304, 306, 314) and attitudinalbeliefs
(1975, p. 304):
Not only may an item of informationto which a person is
exposed during an influence attemptaffect one of the deter-
minantsof the intention-say, the attitudetowardthe behav-
ior-but it may also have an impact on the second determi-
BEHAVIORAL
INTENTION
FORMATION
nant of intention, the subjective norm. Consider, for
example, a person who observes that his best friend receives
$5 for tutoringa student.Formationof this descriptivebelief
may lead him to inferthattutoringa studentis financially
rewarding, and this belief may in turn increase his attitude
towardtutoringa student. At the same time, the descriptive
belief may also lead the person to infer that his best friend
thinkshe should tutorthe student.This inferentialbelief may
increasethe subjectivenorm thatmost importantothersthink
he should tutor a student. Alternatively,once the person has
changed his attitude in a favorable direction, he may also
infer that most importantothersalso hold a favorableattitude
towardtutoringa studentand then make the furtherinference
that these referents think he should perform this behavior.
An influence attemptcan thus have an impact effect even if
it provides informationthat is directly relevantfor only one
determinantof intentions. The strengthand directionof this
kind of impact effect will depend on the extent to which the
two componentsare relatedand the directionof the relation-
ship (p. 402).
Yet Fishbein and Ajzen consistently maintainthat there is
utility in separatingattitudinaland normativevariables, de-
spite the possibility that they may be highly correlated
(Fishbein 1976; Fishbein and Ajzen 1981). This utility
would be more apparentif these variablescould be shown
to have differentialeffects within the context of the entire
model.
Evidence and Criticisms of Attitudinal-
NormativeIndependence
On the basis of the high correlationsreportedbetween
attitude and social influences and Aact changes that oc-
curredfollowing either Bi or NBj manipulations,Ryan and
Bonfield (1975) addressthe problemof developing a social
influence variable independentof attitude.BorrowingKel-
man's (1961) three processes of social influence-compli-
ance, identification, and internalization-they reason that
an actor, under the influence of anotherperson or group,
may play a role that is not congruentwith his own attitudes
toward a behavior. The motivation for playing the role
would be to attainrewardsunder the other's control (com-
pliance) or to meet the other's own role expectations(iden-
tification), regardlessof their compatibilitywith the actor's
value system (internalization).Ryan and Bonfield identify
this constructas social compliance(SC); however, attempts
to operationalizeit and show its independencefrom Aact
are equivocal (Ryan 1978).
Miniardand Cohen (1979) reportthat both SN and MC
were affected by manipulationsof normativeinfluence and
attitude, and criticize the theory for failing to separateat-
titudinaland normativevariables. They speculatethat their
findingsmay have been due to respondents'use of expertise
as a source of informationalsocial influence which, taken
as evidence about reality, would be incorporatedin atti-
tudes. Interestingly, their position is consistent with Fish-
bein and Ajzen's notion of belief formation-namely, that
a primaryattitudinalbelief may be inferredfrom other be-
liefs arising from a variety of external sources.
This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
265
Fishbeinand Ajzen (1981) questionMiniardand Cohen's
findingsby raising a numberof technical issues, which the
latter dispute (Miniard and Cohen 1981); they also claim
that the findings actually supportthe theory because it ac-
counts for attitudinal-normativeoverlap.3While the argu-
ments of each pair of authorsare quite complex, the main
dispute-involvesthe degree of separationbetween attitudes
and social norms, with Miniard and Cohen claiming that
the currentconceptualizationrendersthem inseparable,and
Fishbein and Ajzen holding that attitudesand social norms
have different effects in the model, depending on the sit-
uation under study. Although Fishbein and Ajzen cite em-
pirical support for their position, the cited studies do not
contain SN (as Miniard and Cohen point out). However,
Gur-Arie, Durand, and Beardon(1979) found that, as pre-
dicted, Aact was a strongerpredictorof intentionsfor opin-
ion leaders than was SN, while the weighting was reversed
for nonopinionleaders. Thus the study by Gur-Arieet al.,
which contains SN and accuratelypredictsrelative weight-
ing, supportsFishbein and Ajzen.
Fishbein (1976) has acknowledgedthat the social influ-
ence variablesare underdeveloped.The theory's conceptual
frameworkis sufficiently vague to serve its heuristicfunc-
tion.4 However, the acknowledgmentof complex attitudinal
and normative variable interdependencies suggests that
Equations 1, 2, and 3 may have outlived their usefulness.
Fishbein (1976) has maintainedthat regression is the best
estimation procedurecurrentlyavailable, despite its well-
known limitations. Fortunately,recent structuralequation
methodologies allow more complex modeling than do the
threecentralequations.Furthersteps in this direction,along
with the research setting used in this study, are discussed
in the following section.
A REFORMULATED OPERATIONAL
MODEL
Marketingresearchershave long recognized social influ-
ences on behavior (Bourne 1957) and on expected attitu-
dinal outcomes (Haley 1968). Attitudeis a centralconcept
in buyer behavior models (cf. Howard and Sheth 1969); it
is common to segment individuals on the basis of attitude
similarity within and dissimilarity between groups (Wind
1978). Based on a large body of communicationresearch
(McGuire 1973; Sternthal, Phillips, and Dholakia 1978),
attempts to influence attitude formation are often made
throughthe use of "expert" informants.For example, an
endorsementof flouridefrom a dental associationhas been
used to enhance the belief that decay preventionwill result
from the use of Crest toothpaste (Shuchman and Riesz
1975). Ryan (1974, 1978) found that attitude and social
influenceare quite good at predictingintentionsto purchase
toothpaste brands. Although attitudinal outcomes varied
3The last three pages of Miniardand Cohen's (1981) article is a post-
script answeringFishbein and Ajzen's (1981) criticism.
'See Kaplan (1969) for a discussion of the role of vagueness and am-
biguity in theory construction.
266
FIGUREB
PROPOSEDINTENTION
FORMATION MODEL
STRUCTURAL
N4
Xi 2
NOTE: Where ryij,,Bii= standardized path coefficients and (j=error terms (residual variances)
across brandsand situations(Ryan and Etzel 1976), "den-
tist" consistently emerged as a referent. Together with
these findings, the aforementionedargumentssuggest that
when intentionstowarda previouslyunknownphenomenon
are formed, and there is a key referent, variable relation-
ships will appearas shown in Figure B.5
The model is true to the Fishbein and Ajzen intention
formationparadigmshown in Figure A, with the exception
of the crossover relationships among attitudinaland nor-
mative variables (12 P21 and 342).The crossover rela-
tionships are, however, suggested in their writings. To be
specific, informationalimpact on behavioralintentionsoc-
curs only throughbelief formationandthe mediatingeffects
of attitudeand the social norm (,y11,P41'P54, and Y22 32
353). Furthermore,through the process of secondary and
inferentialbeliefs, informationmay affect beliefs otherthan
those toward which it is directed. Hence, cognitive infor-
mation (CI) aimed at attitudinalbeliefs (Bi) and normative
'To be consistent with LISREL (Joreskogand Sorbom 1978) notation,
the firstsubscriptreflectsthe variableto which and the second the variables
from which the path is drawn.
This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
information (NI) directed toward normative beliefs (NBj)
would affect both normativeand attitudinalbelief structure
formation (y11, Y21' Y12 Y22), The Y12 crossover effect is
likely to be strongwhere a normativereferent-say, a den-
tist-may serve as a source of informationin forming an
attitudinalbelief about, say, decay prevention.
Perhapsnormativebeliefs should be included merely as
additionalbeliefs (Bi) in attitudinalstructure.In this study,
however, they are expected to be related (P12' 21) but
separable. Attitudes may be formed on the basis of infor-
mation including that provided by an expert referent;they
may also be influenced by referentexpectations (McGuire
1973). Thus, normative beliefs (XNBjMCj)should influ-
ence Aact formation. Previous researchon toothpastepur-
chase intentionsalso found strongerAact than social influ-
ence beta weights (wo > w, in Equation 1; Ryan 1978),
plus a joint attitudinal social-influence effect (Ryan and
Peter 1976). Perhapstoothpaste,being privatelyconsumed
(cf. Bourne 1957), is more susceptible to internalthan to
external influences. Consequently, it is hypothesized that
Aact has a strongerdirect link than SN to BI (P54 > 53),
but that social influence variables also have an impact
BEHAVIORAL
INTENTION
FORMATION
throughAact mediation,which is reflectedin both the direct
(P53) and the indirect (r42) links. In addition, there is no
direct link between Aact and SN. The relationshipsprevi-
ously found between attitudinaland normativevariablesare
expected to be caused by belief interdependencies.If these
expected beliefs are the primarydeterminantsof Aact and
SN, once they are formed there is no reason to expect that
an internalizedpredisposition(Aact) would be relatedto an
external expectation (SN). That is, consistent with Kel-
man's processes discussed in the preceding section, nor-
mative beliefs (XNBjMCj)may be internalizedthroughthe
process of inferentialbelief formation,thus influencingat-
titudinalbeliefs (XBiai) and overall affect (Aact). However,
SN falls more in the domain of an actor playing a role,
motivated primarily by externally mediated rewards-a
type of social compliance. Thus SN is relatively more in-
dependentof internalpredispositionsthanthe variousbelief
formationprocesses.
The pragmaticadvantagesof the theoreticalmodel shown
in Figure B over the Fishbein and Ajzen approachare now
more apparent.The latterrelies on beta weights from Equa-
tion 1 to determine the relative influence of Aact and SN
on behavioral intentions. For example, the research cited
regarding relative normative-attitudinalprominence used
weights derived from OLS regression (Fishbein and Ajzen
1981; Gur-Arieet al. 1979; Miniardand Cohen 1979; Ryan
and Bonfield 1975). Using beta weights in this fashion as-
sumes that an interactioneffect is not present, despite the
fact that it has been demonstratedto exist (Ryan and Bon-
field 1980; Ryan and Peter 1976), due either to poor mea-
surement discriminantvalidity or to inherent variable re-
lationships. In addition, the beta weight analysis does not
provide very rich insights. For example, a small SN beta
weight may be interpretedas indicatingweak social influ-
ence effects on BI, when in fact it may have a strong in-
fluence throughthe mediatingeffects of Aact.
The empiricalportionof this paperutilizes an experiment
to test the model shown in Figure B. The hypothesized
model is comparedboth to simpler forms that more closely
captureFishbein and Ajzen's conceptualization(Figure A)
and to more complex alternatives.
METHOD
Sample and IntentionObject
Data were collected at two points in time, the first to
determine salient outcomes from which measures and an
experimentcould be designed, the second to administerthe
experiment.The panel constructedfor use in this study was
composed of 80 membersof various churchgroups located
in the SoutheasternUnited States. The panel memberswere
white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestanthousewives who were mar-
ried, had children living at home, and were predominantly
middle-agedmembers of the lower-middle social stratum.
All subjectsvolunteeredto serve in the experimentin return
for monetarydonationsto their respective churches.
The productchosen to representthe intentionobject was
This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
267
EXHIBIT
OUTCOMESAND REFERENTS
ELICITED
Bj Outcomes
B1 Price or economy
B2 Taste or flavor
B3 Cavityor decay prevention
B4 Fresh, pleasant breath
NB. Referents
NB1 Dentist
NB2 Children
NB3 Husband
toothpaste.A fictitious new brand,designated "Brand0,"
was used so that attitudesand normscould be formedsolely
from informationprovided in the experiment. Operation-
alization of the model involved the identificationof salient
outcomes and referents, the constructionof measuringin-
struments, and the design of written communications to
formulatemore positive attitudinaland,normativevariables
for experimentalversus control groups.
Salient Outcomes and Referents
Salient outcomes and referentswere determinedwith an
elicitationtechniquecommon to this type of research(Ryan
and Etzel 1976). The technique employed nondirective
questions to obtain free responses, which were then ana-
lyzed as to content and separatedinto groups on the basis
of common meanings. Questioning referred to outcomes
and referentsrelevant to the purchase and usage of tooth-
paste in general;Brand 0 was not mentionedto these sub-
jects. Naturalbreaks in the frequency of mentioned items
were used to separatesalient items, shown in the Exhibit,
from nonsalientitems. Consistentwith Haley's (1968) ben-
efit segmentationresearch, these housewives sought decay
prevention. The dentist referent found by Ryan and Etzel
(1976) also recurred.
Measures
The elicited outcomes and referents were used to con-
structBrand0 measures.A set of measureswas constructed
to consider belief (Bi and NBJ), evaluation (ai), attitude
toward the act (Aact), and behavioral intention (BI). The
single-item scales commonly used in this type of research
were modified to create multiple-item scales, in order to
obtain reliability estimates and avoid bias from adjective
specificity. The bipolar adjectives used in the Bi, NBj, and
BI scales included the single set of adjectives commonly
used in previous research(likely-unlikely; cf. Jaccardand
Davidson1972) andtwo additionalsets (probable-improbable
and possible-impossible). For example:
(B3) Brand0 toothpasteusagewouldlead to decaypreven-
tion:
possible impossible
268 THEJOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCH

(NB1) Withrespectto Brand0 toothpaste,my dentistwould employed, and attitudinaland normative structuralscores
expectme to purchaseanduse it: (:Biai and ENBJMCJ)were divided by the numberof sa-
probable -: .: - - : - : - : :- improbable lient items (four and three, respectively). Thus, BI, Aact,
and SN scores ranged from -3 to +3, and >Bi ai and
(BI) Whenit is introduced,I intendto buy Brand0 tooth-
paste: INBjMCj scores ranged from -9 to +9. Similarly con-
structedBi, ai, Aact, and BI measurespreviously had been
likely - - : - : unlikely shown to possess internal consistency and concurrentva-
The adjectivesused in the a, scales includedgood-bad and lidity (Ryan 1978).
two pairs taken from the Fishbein and Raven (1962) AB It should be noted that the measuresconfound purchase
scale-i.e., wise-foolish and beneficial-harmful. For ex- and usage. In this operational setting, the purchase act
ample: would be performed by the housewife, whereas the ex-
pected outcomes would accrue from family usage. While
(ad) Forme, low-pricedtoothpasteis: the distinction between purchase and usage intentions is
good _: .:- - :- :- : :- bad interestingin its own right, purchaseis necessaryto obtain
Aact was measuredby the same adjectivesas those used in usage in the present situation, and this confounding does
the ai scales, plus a fourthpair, rewarding-punishing,e.g.: not mitigate testing of the relationshipsshown in Figure B.
A similar criticism can be made concerningthe specificity
(Aact) My purchaseanduse of Brand0 toothpaste is: level of the outcomes and referentsthat were derivedat the
rewarding -: - _: - :- :- : :- punishing productlevel. In fact, Ryan and Etzel (1976) have shown
that outcomes change across existing toothpaste brands
Use of the same adjectives to measure different con- aimed at different market segments. However, previous
structs may result in common method variance. However, experience(Ryan 1974) revealedthatlaboratoryprocedures
a previous study (Schwartz and Tessler 1972) compared were not able to produce strong belief changes for existing
different measurementprocedures and provided evidence brandsfor which belief structureswere strongly in place,
indicatingthatthis possible artifacthas not favorablybiased as a result of usage and advertising. The proceduresused
the evidence supportingthis model. In addition, Ryan and in the present study attemptto overcome this methodolog-
Bonfield(1980) employedpersonalinterviewsduringwhich ical limitation by perceptually constructing an artificial
questionnaireitems were verballyadministeredand respon- brandthat varies in its ability to deliver expected outcomes
dents gave verbal replies throughthe use of rulers identi- and in its referentexpectations. Consequently,the research
fying scale points. In this case, although majordeviations investigates attitudeformation, not change (CarnegieMel-
from accepted practice were avoided, statementsusing the lon Seminar1978). When used to evaluatenew brandsprior
same adjectiveswere separatedfrom one another,and some to manufacture,such proceduresare referredto as concept
scale directions were reversed to lower the possibility of testing (Tauber 1977).
response-setbias.
Motivation to comply (MC.) and the subjective norm
(SN) were operationalizedwith single-item measures, fol- ExperimentalProcedures
lowing Fishbein's procedures(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), Booklets were designed to produce two levels each of
as follows: cognitive and normativeinformationas the result of a per-
suasive communication, after which the various measures
(MCI) Withrespectto toothpastepurchaseandusage: were presented. Subjects were told that the elicitation ses-
I wantvery I wantvery
much to - - :- : : much not to sion, which had taken place one month earlier, had deter-
mined that they were typical in terms of what they sought
do as my dentistexpects. in a toothpaste.In additionto standardinstructions,the first
(SN) to me wouldthink:
Mostpeoplewho areimportant page of the booklet contained the following statementof
I should _: : : : : :- I should not purpose:
purchaseBrand0 toothpastewhenit is available. Many of today's shoppers have called for more objective
product informationin advertisements.The purpose of this
Bipolar ( + 3 to -3) summativescoring was used for all study is to examine how shoppers like yourself use infor-
scales.6 To maintain scale perspective, each of the sum- mation from an impartialsource.
mative scores was divided by the number of scale items This booklet contains information from the testing of a
new brand of toothpaste. The information is accurate and
unbiased, having been derived solely for the company's use.
6Fishbein(1976) has recently suggested thatthe MCjstatementmay not In grantingpermission to use this information,the company
be viewed as bipolarby respondents.He maintainsthat bipolarscoring is has requested that it and the brand name be anonymous.
theoreticallyappropriateand suggests a modificationusing a negative an-
chor, such as "I want to do the opposite of ...." Miniardand Cohen Consequently, the brandwill be referredto as "Brand 0."
(1981) used this modificationand were criticized by Fishbein and Ajzen The booklet containeda page of text followed by a sum-
(1981) for not using unipolarscoring. The readeris referredto the sources
for details, but it seems safe to conclude that MCj's operationalizationis mary of information about Brand 0. Four forms of the
not a settled issue. booklet, identical in appearancebut each containing a dif-

This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BEHAVIORAL
INTENTION
FORMATION 269

ferent descriptionof Brand 0, were randomly distributed TABLE 1

to subjects. The purpose was to producea 2 x 2 factorial
CORRELATIONALRESULTS
design with 20 subjects in each cell, by varying the infor-
mation pertainingto price and dentist expectations. Based Pooled within-cell correlation
on the previous discussion of inferentialbeliefs and on ear-
lier findings(Lutz 1975), it was expected that manipulating BI IB,a, Aact YNBjMCJ
the most frequently elicited attitudinaloutcome and nor-
mative expectationwould produce changes in the same di- 1B,A, .42
Aact .57 .66
rection in otherbeliefs, thus influencingthe entire structure INB,MCJ .51 .52 .69
(EB ai or INBJMCJ).The control group received the fol- SN .68 .40 .60 .55
lowing version:
In summary,"Brand0" is Pooled within-cell regression
1. The samepriceas competitivebrands. BI Aact 1B,a, SN INB,MCJ
R2 b~~1
2. Averagein tasteandflavorappeal. b2 3 b4

3. Averagein cavityprevention. .51 b .25b .53b

.29b .22b ,40b
4. Averagein breathfresheningandtoothbrightening. .72b .51 b .06c .51 b .Q9d

5. Endorsedby about50%of dentists. aStandardized regression coefficients

The following change was made for the cognitive infor-
mation experimentalgroup:
1. Pricedmuchlowerthancompetitivebrands,
and for the normativeinformationexperimentalgroup:
5. Endorsedby 90%of dentists.
No informationwas given about childrenand husbandref-
erents.
The next partof the booklet containedthe questionnaire.
Measureswere groupedin the following order:ai, MCj, Bi,
NBj, Aact, SN, andBI. While the orderingfollows the con-
ventional wisdom of proceeding from specific to general
construct measures, there is evidence that reversing this
proceduredoes not influence goodness-of-fittests (Miniard
and Dickson 1979).
Method of Analysis
The path coefficients shown in Figure B were estimated
with LISRELIV (J6reskogand Sorbom 1978). The primary
advantageof the structuralequation methodology over the
traditionalcentral equations (1, 2, and 3) is that it simul-
taneously estimates all path coefficients, including the
crossover paths, which are ignored in the regression ap-
proach.
The proposed model, as derived from the theory, is un-
deridentified. The identifying conditions for the LISREL
model usually differ from the classical rankand ordercon-
ditions, but in this case they are identical. To remove this
problem, I12 and I21 were constrainedto be equal. This
solution was chosen on the grounds that it would yield an
identified model while losing the least amount of useful
theoretical information;only directionality is lost, rather
than an entire path.
LISREL also has an advantageover the more traditional
proceduresin that it estimates measurementerrorand, be-
cause of its simultaneousestimationprocedures,allows ex-
bp < 0.001
Cp < 0.46
dp < 0.44
plicit incorporationof such error in the structuralmodel.
The measurementmodel for the endogenous variables is
shown in Figure C.7 Since a one-item measurewas used to
indicate SN, X8 and E8 must be constrainedto be equal to
one and zero, respectively. Like the structuralmodel, the
measurementmodel was specified a priorifrom the theory.8
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, pp. 229-235), on the other
hand, specified an unweighted additive model. Whetherit
is weighted or unweighted is an importantempiricalques-
tion; consequently, the model using individuallyestimated
Xivalues will be comparedto one with Xiconstrainedto be
equal for each construct.
Data Check
The data were examined to see whether they produced
results consistent with those from the extensive body of
correlational evidence. Correlationalresults adjusted for
experimentaleffects are shown in Table 1. The within-cell
7Since the exogenous variables (CI and NI) are merely dichotomous
levels of information, each produced by an experimentalmanipulation,
they have no measurementmodel.
8A more faithful representationof the operationalizationfor 2Biaiand
Y2NBjMCj is precludedby technical limitations.This would entail treating
each outcome and referentas a latentvariableindicatedby theirrespective
multiple belief measures. Thus, TBjaj and 2NBjMCjwould become sec-
ond-orderlatents. Unfortunately,a procedurefor estimatingsecond-order
endogenouslatents is not available. Thus in the presentoperationalization,
the measurementerrors (E.) refer to respective outcomes and referents.
Fishbein and Ajzen view belief structureas a composite and allow for
inconsistent beliefs. The present operationalization,which posits unidi-
mensional composites, presumesbelief consistency, which was borne out.
in the dataanalysis. Had the compositesbeen multidimensional,this would
have necessitated changing the model specification (for an example, see
Bagozzi 1981b). In the measurementof SN, the empiricalspecificationof
the constructwith one measure is a shortcoming.Unfortunately,the lack
of conceptualdevelopment precludesthe inclusion of other indicants.

This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
270 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGUREC
FORMATION
INTENTION MODEL
MEASUREMENT
X1 ~~~Price I
Taste2
I I Decay E3
~~~~~~~~~~4
__ 6~~~~~~~4
6
-6

:NBjMC 6__ Children 6E

Husband E7

SN should-should not E8

Xg foolish-wise E9
Aact F good-bad E 0
x,,
X12 harm-benef icial E
reward-punish E 12

BI X1 improbable-probable E 14
XiN
possible-impossible E 5

NOTE:Whereel endogenousvariablemeasurementerrorsand XI= standardizedpathcoefficientbetweenan observedindicationand respectiveendogenousvariable

This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BEHAVIORALINTENTIONFORMATION 271

TABLE2
PARAMETER ESTIMATES, CRITICALRATIOS, RELIABILITIES,AND VARIANCE PROPORTIONS

Measurement model
Standardized Proportions of
factor Critical variance
loadings ratios Reliabilities extracted

Y.B,ai .87 .63

Price (X1).57 .32
Taste (X2) .89 5.49 .79
Decay (X3) .75 5.00 .56
Breath (A4).91 5.55 .83
INB,MCJ .83 .62
Dentist (A5) .86 .74
Children (X6) .67 6.69 .68
Husband (A7).82 8.92 .66
Aact .97 .88
Foolish-wise (Ag) .93 .83
Good-bad (X10).98 19.00 .96
Harm-beneficial (X11).94 15.79 .88
Reward-punishing (X12).91 14.30 .83
BI .93 .81
Likely-unlikely (X13).83 .69
Improbable-probable (X14).94 11.38 .91
Possible-impossible (X15).90 10.56 .83

Causal model Proportions of shared variance

Standardized Critical Structural Total

weights ratios model model

Exogenous paths
'Yii .10 1.03 1. IB,a. .60 .36
'Y21 .33 3.45 2. ENBJ MC, .47 .29
'Y12 .29 2.62 3. SN .67
'Y22 .29 2.92 4. Aact .78 .69
5. BI .71 .50
Endogenous paths
I12 .50 5.10
I21 .22 5.10
I32 .75 7.81
I41 .31 2.47
P42 .63 4.98
PM .45 4.74
P54 .48 4.88

correlationmatrixshows considerablepairwisecovariation.
The within-cell regression using Equation 1 (Aact and SN
to predictBI) producedresults (R2 = 0.51) consistent with
previous correlationalstudies (see reviews by Ajzen and
Fishbein 1973; Farley, Lehmann,and Ryan 1981; Ryan and
Bonfield 1975). The prediction of BI from YBiai and
ENBjMCjproduced an R2 of 0.29, which suggests that,
consistent with the theory, Aact and SN are better predic-
tors. Regardless of the set of predictors(Aact and SN or
EBiai and ENBjMCJ)used, the beta weights suggest that
the social influence variable predominates.When all four
predictorswere used, R2 increasedto 0.72 and, consistent
with the theory, b2 andb4 in Table 1 become nonsignificant,
thus indicatingthat Equation 1 produces a more parsimon-
ious fit. These findings suggest that the data are typical-
e.g., that nonsalient beliefs were not included and salient
beliefs were not excluded-and that furthertests are appro-
priate.
RESULTS
MeasurementModel Fit
A correlationratherthan a covariance matrix was ana-
lyzed because the matterof interestis the relative strengths
of the paths, not the predictedvalue of BI. Model testing
began by comparingthe overall goodness-of-fit statisticfor
the model when Kjwas estimated (X2l4 = 198.16, p <

This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
272
0.001) to the fit obtained when Xi was constrainedto be
equal for each construct(X22o= 216.28, p < 0.001). Fol-
lowing the procedure suggested by Bentler and Bonett
(1980), the difference between these two x2 values (X2 =
18.12) was statisticallysignificant(p < 0.01). This finding
suggests thatthe model utilizing unequalXivalues provides
a better fit. Consequently, the detailed results, shown in
Table 2, are for the model using unequally weighted con-
structindicators.
Since the measurementerrors (E) and structuraldistur-
bance (C) estimateshave little absolutemeaning, they were
used to calculatemore familiarreliabilityestimates(Werts,
Linn, and Joreskog 1974) and sharedand extractedvariance
proportions(Fornell and Larcker1981), which are conser-
vative analogs to explained variance. These estimates are
shown in Table 2. To serve as reference indicators, mea-
sures fixed to unit variancedo not have criticalratiovalues.
The critical ratios are distributednormally;hence any val-
ues greaterthan 1.65 (one-tailed)are statisticallysignificant
at the 0.05 level.
The measurement model results indicate that the con-
structsare well-specified. The reliabilityestimatesfor each
endogenous construct, which are identical to Cronbach's
(1951) alpha except for the relaxationof the assumptionof
equally weighted items, exceed acceptable values. More
revealing are the more conservative "proportionsof vari-
ance extracted," which indicatethe percentageof variance
in the constructsaccounted for by the measures. Whereas
the majorityof measurementvariance is accountedfor by
each of the four variablesfor which multiplemeasureswere
available, the multiplicative variables (YBiai = 0.63,
ENBjMCj = 0.62) explain a smaller amount of measure
variance than do the others (Aact = 0.88, Bi = 0.81).
While the individualmeasurereliabilitiesand loadings (Ki)
are uniformly high for the Aact and BI indicators,there is
more variationamong the multipliedvariable indicatorre-
liabilities and loadings. This is to be expected because the
bipolar adjectives composing the Aact and BI instruments
are meant to be parallelform items. On the other hand, the
weighted beliefs that compose EBiai and ENBjMCj,while
meeting the consistency presumptionof the latent variable
techniquein this instance, are composites based on distinct
outcomes and referents. It is interesting to note that the
price belief, which was directly manipulated,was the least
reliable and contained the smallest measure variance ac-
countedfor by cognitive structure(EBiai). Partof the price
belief error may be attributableto common method vari-
ance, which is discussed later.
Causal Model Fit
Under "Causal model" in Table 2, the proportionsof
shared variance are separatedinto those for the structural
model, which assume perfect measurement,and those for
the total model, which reflect the inclusion of measurement
error. These proportions, which are goodness-of-fit indi-
cators, show the amount of variance in the endogenous
variables accounted for by their respective predictors.The
dichotomous scoring of the exogenous variables (CI, NI)
This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEJOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCH
may account for the lower predictive ability of Equations
1 and 2 when perfect measurementis assumed. The differ-
ences in shared variance between the structuraland total
model are a direct reflection of the differing amounts of
measurementerror.9For example, when varioussources of
measurementerrorare removed, the model explains 71 per-
cent of BI variance.That this rathersimple model including
measurementerror("total model") explains 50 percentof
BI variance is a point in its favor.
With the exception of the path from "cognitive infor-
mation" to YBiai (yl 1; see Figure B), all path coefficients
were statisticallysignificant.An overall goodness-of-fitwas
obtained for a model with y,, constrainedto be equal to
zero (Xl25 = 199.25, p < 0.001), which was not statisti-
cally different (XI = 1.09) from the full model. This in-
dicates that deviating from the theoreticalmodel by drop-
ping y,, does not alter the fit. Since neither model yields
a superiorfit, parsimonydictates dropping yul solely on an
empirical basis. However, given the strong prior theory,
weak empirical disconfirmation, and additional analysis
concerning overall fit reportedbelow, -y1lwas retained in
the model. The position taken throughoutthis analysis is
that the proposed theoretical model serves as a reference
against which evidence is needed to produce acceptable
alternatives.The suspicion of measurementproblems, dis-
cussed in the next section, also has a bearing on the atti-
tudinalvariablerelationshipsand thus suggests that discon-
firmationof the EBiai-Aact link may be premature.
Having accepted unequally weighted measures and all
estimatedpath coefficients as the best representationof the
model proposed in Figure B, attentionturns to how well
the total model fits the data. The overall goodness-of-fit
statistic, shown in Table 3, suggests that the model does
not sufficiently explain all observed sample covariances
(Xl24 = 198.16, p < 0.001). However, use of the X2 as an
absolute index of fit is open to question, and there is some
agreementthat it should be used as a guide ratherthan as
a rule (see review by Bentler 1980). In the present study
the amount of explained variance supportsthe theoretical
model; however, the failure to reject the residual matrix
null hypothesis suggests that more is needed in terms of
variables, paths, and so on. Two considerationsneverthe-
less indicate that the proposed model is adequate.
First, consonant with the work of Maruyamaand Mc-
Garvey (1980), the mean absolute value of the differences
between the data and the model-reproduced correlation
matrix (excluding diagonal elements) was found to be
0.051, whereas the mean correlationwas 0.541. Thus, the
discrepanciesbetween observed and predictedrelationsare
small. However, the x2 value is sensitive to lack of fit
anywherein the matrix, and an examinationof the residual
matrix revealed that larger discrepanciesoccur in attempt-
ing to fit the data to the standardpsychometricassumption
that correlations among the measurement errors (Eij) are
zero. In fact, relaxing this assumptionfor 15 of the error
covariances selected on an empirical basis (for procedures
9For a discussion of the relationshipsamong reliability, extractedvar-
iance, and goodness-of-fit, see Fornell and Larcker(1981).
 FORMATION
INTENTION
BEHAVIORAL 273

TABLE 3 error, the overall interpretation of the structuralmodel,

CHI-SQUARE GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR VARIANTS OF which is of primaryinterestin this paper, does not change.
THE PROPOSED MODEL Hence the evidence presentedthus far is supportiveof the
model shown in FigureB. The analysesthatfollow consider
Degrees of discrepancies between correlated and uncorrelated mea-
freedom 2
Model surement-errormodels.
The second considerationinvolves nested formulations,
1. Proposed model (FigureB) 114 198.16a
which were compared to the proposed model following
More restricted: Bentlerand Bonett's (1980) suggestions and the precedents
1a. Removing P42 P12 116 259.91a set by Bentler and Speckart (1979, 1981). Data fit com-
1b. Removing P42 115 219.68a parisons (shown in Table 3), were made for three more
1c. Removing P12 115 226.77b restrictedmodels (la, lb, and 1c), which were obtainedby
Less restricted: constraining the crossover paths in Figure B to be zero,
id. Adding ,,3, p31 112 194.22a thereby producing models more in line with the one rep-
1e. Adding p,.3 113 195.20a resented in Figure A. In all three cases, the x2 values in-
1f. Addingp31 113 197.71b creased and the differences were statistically significant,
1g. Addingp., P31 112 194.22a
1h. Adding P. 113 194.23a suggestingpoorerfits thanthose obtainedwith the proposed
model. Five less restrictedmodels (ld-lh) were obtained
Alternative path: by replacing zero constraints with estimated crossover
1i. Replacing P42 with P, 1 114 205.50a paths; in all five cases, the small decreases in x2 values
were not statisticallysignificant. Thus the proposedmodel
Parameter significance tests is simpler and as viable as more complex alternatives.Re-
gardlessof statisticalsignificance, the fit decreasesobtained
1 vs. 1a. 2 61.75a
with the more restrictedmodels are of considerablygreater
1 vs. 1b. 1 21.52a
1 vs. 1c. 1 28.61a magnitudethan the fit increases obtained with the less re-
1 vs. 1d. 2 3.94 strictedmodels. An alternativemodel (li) replacingP42 with
1 vs. 1e. 1 2.96 343 produced a slightly poorer fit (Xl24 = 205.50, p <
1 vs. if. 1 .45 0.001) than the proposed model. The proposed model
1 vs. 1g. 1 3.94
1 vs. 1h. 1 3.93 standsup well when comparedto competing specifications.
a< 0.001
b < 0.01 Findings ConcerningVariableRelationships
Given supportfor the proposed model, the standardized
see Sorbom 1979) resulted in an acceptable fit (x99 = path coefficients for the causal model (Table 2) are of in-
105.63, p > 0.31). Since 10 of the 15 measurementerror terest. While the low weight estimated for Yii (0.10) in-
correlationsinvolved outcomes (El - E4) and attitudeitems dicates that the exogenous variable cognitive information
(E9 - E12) which, consistentwith acceptedprocedures,used had a small effect on cognitive structure(XBiai) relative to
the same set of evaluative adjectives, this finding suggests the effects of normative information(Y12 = 0.29), when
the presenceof common methodvariance. (Whenrestricted measurementerrorswere correlatedthese weghts were ap-
to these 10 E, x2 = 120.35, p > 0.13.) While this post proximatelyequal. Consequently,weight interpretationsare
hoc explanationis speculative, it is strongly reinforcedby tenuous. Nevertheless, the manipulationof normative in-
the finding that the structuralmodel interpretationdid not formation and the formation of normative structure(NS)
change significantly. The relative path coefficient values both had effects on cognitive structure,as did the manip-
remained largely unchanged, with the exception of in- ulation of its direct antecedent,cognitive information(CI).
creases in -Ylland P41and the statisticalsignificanceof the Normative structure(ENBjMCj)had approximatelyequal
-Yllpaths (p < 0.01) for both the 15 and 10 measurement- relationshipswith its hypothesizedcauses (Y21 = 0.33, Y22
error correlation models. These paths involve the latent = 0.29, and I21 = 0.22), includingcognitive information
variables (XBiai and Aact) with measurementerror inde- (Y21). Thus the expected crossover effects were present.
pendenciesthat have been called into question. These find- These findings are tempered by the unreliablemeasure of
ings, which empirically pinpoint the lack of overall fit, the price belief, which was the directly manipulatedbelief
suggest possible measurement problems and support the in attitudinalstructure, and by the possibility of method
overall good fit for the structuralmodel. In fact, removing variance.The introductionof correlatedmeasurementerrors
the measurementmodel completely to obtain a full infor- did increase the value of Y IIrelative to otherpaths, as well
mation maximum-likelihoodfit (i.e., assuming the latent as the reliabilityof price. While the process underlyingthis
variables to be perfectly measured, which is essentially a result is unknown, the result itself does not alter the con-
path analytic model) produces a X=2 = 10.14, p > 0.52. clusion regarding manipulation crossover effects even
Thus the lack of fit appearsattributableto method variance thoughrelative weight interpretationsinvolving y1I and 141
which, when introducedinto the model, causes a slight Yii are tentative.
and 041 inflation. With or without correlatedmeasurement The standardizedweights representingexogenous vari-

This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
274
able relationships(7Yii= 0.25) are generally smaller than
those representingendogenous variable relationships (,ij
= 0.48). These differences may be due to the attenuating
effects of the CI and NI binary scoring. The weights in-
volving the exogenous variables (yi) also serve as an ex-
perimentalmanipulationcheck (Bagozzi 1977) indicating
thatmain and interactiveexperimentaleffects were present.
For the endogenous variables, the relationshipbetween
the attitudinalvariables (P41 = 0.31 is weaker than that
between the normativevariables(P32 = 0.75). In addition,
normative structuremore strongly affects attitude (P42 =
0.63) than does cognitive structure(P41 = 0.31), although
their relative influences were equal with correlatedmea-
surementerror. Aact nevertheless appearsto be related to
both normativeand attitudinalvariables.On the otherhand,
SN is not related to attitudinal variables; the addition of
paths indicating such relationships (the less restricted
models in Table 3), did not significantly improve the fit.
While the normativevariables were expected to predomi-
nate in the predictionof behavioralintention(BI), viewing
the Aact and SN weights (P54 = 0.48, p53 = 0.45) in
isolation is misleading. Takentogether,the resultsfrom the
entire model suggest that CI and NI influence BI, and that
the effects of both CI and NI are mediated by normative
and attitudinalvariables. In addition, the effect of CI on
Aact is mediatedby both EB ai and XNBJMCJ, whereasthe
effect of NI on SN is mediated only by XNBjMCJ.These
findings supportthe contention that attitudinaland norma-
tive variables have separable roles in the model, despite
their interdependency.
DISCUSSION
It seems clear from the findings thatbehavioralintention
is not a function of parallel, independentsets or of insep-
arable attitudinaland normativevariables, but of a rather
complex set of interdependencies.The complex influences
that were found are consistent with Ajzen and Fishbein's
writings. The specific finding-that normative variables
more stronglymediatethe experimentaleffects of cognitive
and normativeinformationon intentionsthan do attitudinal
variables-is of minor importanceby itself; it follows the
expectation that an expert informant'sendorsementwould
influence subjects' organizationof new informationabout
an unfamiliarbrand. More to the point, this finding is apt
to be situation-specific,and will take on importantmeaning
only when it can be viewed with the results from studies
conducted in different situations (cf. Bentler and Speckart
1981). This first test of the complete Fishbein and Ajzen
intention formationparadigmreveals complex interdepen-
dencies among attitudinaland normative variables. Six
issues that emerge from this study's findings are discussed
in the following two sections. Four involve past findings
concerningaspects of the tested network;the fifth considers
those findings within the context of recent studies that have
examinedexpandedstructuralaspects of the model. Lastly,
implicationsfor the role of normativevariablesin consumer
information-processingresearchare discussed.
This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Implicationsfor BehavioralIntentionTheory
Test Methods. Previousmethodsused to test aspects of
this theory, based on independentOLS tests of models de-
rived from Equations 1 through3, do not providethe depth
of analysis necessary to capturethe complexity of the the-
oretical network. Given the availabilityof techniques such
as the one used in this paper, the centralequationsseem to
have outlived their purpose. This paper clearly demon-
stratesthe advantagesof path analytic procedures(see also
Dickson and Miniard 1978).
MeasurementError. The proceduresused in this paper
explicitly accounted for measurementerrorwhich, if pres-
ent and not acknowledged, can bias the structuralmodel.
Few of the previous studies investigatingthis theory have
reported reliability estimates or used multiple-item mea-
sures, much less isolated the effects of measurementerror.
When reliabilitieshave been reported,they have been high;
despite the high reliabilitiesreportedby Ryan and Bonfield
(1980), for example, measurementerrordid influence the
structuralmodel results. The existence of method variance
would contradictSchwartz and Tessler's (1972) findings,
which were obtained with less powerful analyses. It seems
reasonable that the similarity of items, together with the
simple paper-and-pencilformat, would produce common
method variance, thereby biasing latent variable relation-
ships upward, as suggested by the findings in this study.
Yet Bagozzi (1981b) and Ryan and Bonfield (1980) were
able to predict actual behavior that was observed indepen-
dently of the proceduresused to measurethe predictorvari-
ables. In fact, to avoid method variance, Bagozzi deviated
markedlyfrom Fishbein's notion of ai in his measurement
procedures;however, in subsequent analyses of his data,
he claimed convergent, discriminant,concurrent,and pre-
dictive validity (1981a) and also utilized a model in which
various expectancy-value and overall-affect measurement
errors were correlated (1982). Experimental approaches
comparingequivalentsamples, each utilizingdifferentmea-
sures that would be considered valid representations of
evaluation, would seem to be an appropriateway to begin
investigatingthe existence, nature,and impactof correlated
measurementerror.
Past Studies. The third implication for behavioral in-
tentiontheory follows directly from the firsttwo: past stud-
ies incorporatingsimpler analyses that supportthe theory
should be questioned, whether they supportit by manipu-
latingthe situation(Ajzen and Fishbein 1970), or by a priori
prediction of attitudinal or normative variable predomi-
nance (e.g., Gur-Arieet al. 1979; Wilson, Mathews, and
Harvey 1975). Ryan and Bonfield (1980) found that fewer
respondentswho scored low on normativeand high on at-
titudinalbeliefs, or vice versa, performedan overt behavior
than did those who scored either high or low on both mea-
sures. While this result is unusual enough to demand a
replication, it does suggest that there is much we do not
know about the interdependencyof attitudinaland norma-
BEHAVIORAL
INTENTION
FORMATION
tive variables. Previous studies, using simplermethodsthat
do not account for simultaneousrelationships, should be
used as guidance for furtherelaborationand research.
Interdependency. The interdependency of attitudinal
and normative belief variables that largely motivated this
researchraises the questionof whetherthese variablesought
to have been considered to be separate in the first place.
The holistic approachtaken in this study revealed different
mediating effects for these variables, thus supportingthe
utility of the "distinct but related" position. This evidence
is not without its limitations, however. The test for dis-
criminantvalidity-i.e., that the proportionof measure-
ment variance accounted for by the constructexceeds the
sharedvariancein the structuralmodel (Fornelland Larcker
1981)-was barely met (for >Biai, 0.63 > 0.60; for
2NBJMCJ, 0.62 > 0.47; for Aact, 0.88 > 0.78; and for BI,
0.81 > 0.71). However, the variablesthemselves were op-
erationalizedin a situationin which they were not expected
to be independent; thus, additional evidence should be
sought in situations where independence is theoretically
appropriate(see discussion by Fishbein and Ajzen 1981).
Elaborations of the present methodology should also be
pursued. Holbrook (1981), for example, has used tech-
niques such as conjoint analysis (to which the presentdata
are not amenable) in conjunctionwith path analysis to ex-
plore the mediatingeffects of beliefs. When combinedwith
structuralmethodsthatincorporatemeasurementerror,such
techniquesmay shed additionallight on the natureof atti-
tudinaland normativebelief interdependency.
Behavior. The present study did not include behavior,
although three studies that employed structuralmodeling
have includedit (Bentlerand Speckart1979, 1981; Bagozzi
1981b). Bentler and Speckartfound that behavior was di-
rectly influencedby attitudesand previous behavior in ad-
dition to being mediatedby intentions, and that the effects
of attitude and intention on behavior may depend on the
substantive domain under consideration. Unfortunately,
their results are severely limited by the use of retrospective
self-reports of behavior, commonly thought prone to de-
mandartifacts,andby Aact, SN, andB1 measuresthatdiffer
markedlyfrom Fishbein's procedures.While they did foot-
note Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, pp. 226-228) for examples
of acceptable measure alternatives,Bentler and Speckart's
measures do not resemble those examples. Their studies
also do not include attitudinalor normativebeliefs. Bagozzi
(1981b) found that intentions did mediate the
attitude-behaviorrelationshipand that past behavior atten-
uated the attitude-intentionrelationship. He reportedthat
SN did not have a separable effect (1981a, 1981b). Ba-
gozzi's SN measure does reflect the general theoretical
meaning, but it also introducesthe notion of a discussion
with valued others and uses "ought to-ought not to" as
bipolar anchors. Fishbein (1976) has claimed that subtle
deviations may change conceptual meaning and empirical
results. Unfortunately,there is no commonly accepted way
of measuringSN, which makes comparisonsamong the few
This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
275
studies that employ it difficult. (The previously cited Ryan
and Bonfield (1980) study did not employ simultaneous
estimationprocedures, nor did it include SN.) These three
structuralequation studies, togetherwith the presentwork,
provide guidance for elaboratingthe basic theory. Research
along these lines is importantto the field of consumerbe-
havior with regardboth to direct applicationsof the theory
(e.g., Engel, Blackwell, and Kollat 1978; Sternthal and
Craig 1982) and to the framework it provides for other
researchareas (e.g., Crosby and Taylor 1981; Mitchell and
Olson 1981).
ImplicationsBeyond Behavioral
IntentionTheory
The strong role of normativevariables found in this re-
searchhas implicationsbeyond behavioralintentiontheory;
indeed, it is congruentwith hypotheses and evidence out-
side the theory in question. For example, others have ar-
gued that attitudinaland normativeinfluences are interde-
pendent (Karlins and Abelson 1970; Krech, Crutchfield,
and Ballachey 1962; Sherif 1958), and empirical studies
have found that (1) normative informationwas more fa-
vorably evaluated if it supported the listeners' views
(Manis, et al. 1974); (2) respondentsmore readily accepted
an attitude in line with reference group majority opinion
(Cvetkovich and Baumgardner1973); and (3) respondents
were more likely to act in accord with stated attitudes if
such attitudes were consistent with the actions of others
(Norman 1975). Although these studies are not always di-
rectly comparable, they do support the general notion of
attitudeand social variable interdependency.
Inferential belief formation is hypothesized to have
caused the results of the present study. This process may
account for the widely observed finding that highly expert
sources producemore positive attitudestowardthe position
advocatedin a message than do less expert communicators
(Sternthal,Phillips, and Dholakia 1978). Despite previous
failure (Ryan 1978), it may be possible to develop a nor-
mative construct that reflects only Kelman's compliance
process and is thus independentof attitude (which would
then reflect the processes of identificationand internaliza-
tion); nevertheless, it seems more promising to accept in-
terdependency.This view suggests that normativevariables
may prove useful in extending informationacquisitionand
retrieval paradigms (cf. Bettman 1979). Consequently, it
seems useful to speculate about situationswhere attitudinal
and normativeinterplaywould be cued.
In general, cuing seems likely to occur when concept
learningis takingplace-e.g., in eitherlimited or extensive
problem solving (Howard 1977). There are a number of
accepted situations (cf. McGuire 1973) that increase this
likelihood, such as unavailabilityof product or brand in-
formation,the consumer'sdesire to abstract(Wright1975),
and the availabilityand credibilityof an informantsuch as
an opinion leader (Gur-Arieet al. 1979). In the lattercase,
beliefs may be formed on both an inferentialand an infor-
mational basis (cf. Minard and Cohen 1981). There are a
276
numberof accepted methods for increasingthe saliency of
relevant others (see Sternthal and Craig 1982) that may
enhance attitudinal-normative interplay (e.g., use of a
spokespersonwho is identifiedwith the product,brand, or
its usage situation).
In concept utilizations-for example, in some cases of
routine problem solving, or when informationretrieval is
internal (Bettman 1979)-there is general agreementthat
informationis selectively cued and that cuing may not be
entirely consistent over time. While both attitudinalout-
comes and normativereferentsare easily cued for familiar
brands in research settings (e.g., Ryan and Etzel 1976),
there is no researchthat suggests situationsin which such
cuing would occur in actual decision environments.How-
ever, Sternthalet al. (1978) provide a detailed review of
the conditions under which informantexpertise and trust-
worthiness have been found to affect social influence and
attitude, and this could serve as guidance for hypothesis
development.
CONCLUSION
This researchhas demonstratedthe usefulness of consid-
ering intentions as though they were formed from interde-
pendent yet separable attitudinaland normativevariables.
These findings are subject to the usual limitationsconcern-
ing generalizabilityand the possibility of demand artifacts
that is inherent in the tightly controlled artificial setting
employed. Some speculationhas also been offered to guide
future investigation into the different conditions and pro-
cesses that may give rise to differentmodel configurations.
A secondary objective involved the usefulness of
Joreskog's methodology for simultaneously examining
complex theoretical networks and the impact of measure-
ment error.With regardto measurementerror,the issue of
common method bias was reopened concerning the attitu-
dinal items. This is a fruitful area for future research, but
the present evidence is not sufficiently damaging to cause
us to question the theory's basic validity. Much less can be
said aboutthe normativevariables. In contrastto attitudinal
investigations, only a few studies have incorporatedSN,
and they appearto have used somewhatdifferentmeasures;
multiple SN indicators have yet to be developed. When
investigatingthese issues, researchersmust be careful not
to repeatthe errorsof the past (cf. Ryan andBonfield 1975),
which have largely involved inadequateattentionto rules
of correspondence. Fortunately, conceptual guidance is
abundant(Ahtola 1976; Fishbein 1976; Fishbein and Ajzen
1975, 1981; Lutz 1976; Miniard and Cohen 1981; Ryan
1978); there is a need to focus it primarilyon improved
conceptualizationand operationalizationof SN and its an-
tecedents.
[ReceivedNovember 1981. Revised July 1982.]
This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEJOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCH
REFERENCES
Ahtola, Olli T. (1976), "Toward a Vector Model of Intentions,"
in Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 3, ed. Beverlee B.
Anderson, Cincinnati:Association for ConsumerResearch,
481-484.
Ajzen, Icek and MartinFishbein (1970), "The Predictionof Be-
havior from Attitudinaland Normative Variables," Journal
of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 6, 466-487.
and Martin Fishbein (1972), "Attitudes and Normative
Beliefs as FactorsInfluencingBehavioralIntentions," Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 1-9.
and MartinFishbein (1973), "Attitudinaland Normative
Variables as Predictorsof Specific Behaviors," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 41-57.
Bagozzi, RichardP. (1977), "StructuralEquationModels in Ex-
perimentalResearch," Journal of MarketingResearch, 14,
209-226.
1a), "An Examinationof the Validityof Two Models
(198
of Attitude," Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16,
323-359.
(1981b), "Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior:A Test of
Some Key Hypotheses," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 607-627.
(1982), "A Field Investigation of Causal Relations
Among Cognitions, Affect, Intentions, and Behavior," un-
publishedworking paper, Institutefor Consumerand Behav-
ioral Research, University of the Saarland,West Germany.
Bentler, Paul M. (1980), "MultivariateAnalysis with LatentVari-
ables: Causal Modeling," AnnualReview of Psychology, 31,
419-456.
and Douglas G. Bonett (1980), "Significance Tests and
Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of CovarianceStructures,"
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
and George Speckart (1979), "Models of Attitude-Be-
havior Relations," Psychological Review, 86, 452-464.
and George Speckart(1981), "Attitudes 'Cause' Behav-
iors: A StructuralEquationAnalysis," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 40, 226-238.
Bettman, James R. (1979), An InformationProcessing Theoryof
ConsumerChoice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bourne, Francis S. (1957), "Group Influence in Marketingand
Public Relations," in Some Applications of Behavioral Re-
search, Chapter 6, eds. R. Likert and S. P. Hayes, Paris:
UNESCO.
Carnegie-MellonUniversityMarketingSeminar(1978), "Attitude
Change or Attitude Formation?An UnansweredQuestion,"
Journal of ConsumerResearch, 4, 271-276.
Cronbach, Lee J. (1951), "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal
Structureof Tests," Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Crosby, Lawrence A. and James R. Taylor (1981), "Effects of
Consumer Information and Education on Cognition and
Choice," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 8, 43-56.
Cvetkovich, George, and Steve R. Baumgardner(1973), "Atti-
tude Polarization: The Relative Influence of Discussion
Group Structureand Reference Group Norms," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 159-165.
Dickson, Peter R. and Paul W. Miniard(1978), "A FurtherEx-
aminationof Two LaboratoryTests of the ExtendedFishbein
Attitude Model," Journal of Consumer Research, 4,
261-266.
BEHAVIORAL
INTENTION
FORMATION
Engel, James F., Roger D. Blackwell, and David T. Kollat
(1978), ConsumerBehavior, Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
Farley, John U., Donald R. Lehmann, and Michael J. Ryan
(1981), "Generalizingfrom 'Imperfect'Replication," Jour-
nal of Business, 54, 597-610.
Fishbein, Martin (1967), "Attitude and the Predictionof Behav-
ior," in Readings in AttitudeTheoryand Measurement,ed.
MartinFishbein, New York: John Wiley, 477-492.
(1976), "Extending the Extended Model: Some Com-
ments," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, ed.
Beverlee B. Anderson, Cincinnati:The Association for Con-
sumer Research, 491-497.
and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and
Behavior:An Introductionto Theoryand Research, Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
and Icek Ajzen (1981), "On ConstructValidity: A Cri-
tique of Miniard and Cohen's Paper," Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 17, 340-350.
and BertramH. Raven (1962), "The AB Scales: An Op-
erational Definition of Belief and Attitude," Human Rela-
tions, 15, 35-44.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker(1981), "Evaluating Struc-
tural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
MeasurementError," Journal of MarketingResearch, 18,
39-50.
Glassman,MyronandNancyFitzhenry(1976), "Fishbein
's Sub-
jective Norm: TheoreticalConsiderationsand EmpiricalEvi-
dence," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, ed.
Beverlee B. Anderson,Cincinnati:Associationfor Consumer
Research, 477-480.
Gur-Arie, Oded, Richard M. Durand, and William 0. Beardon
(1979), "Attitudinaland Normative Dimensions of Opinion
Leaders and Nonleaders," Journal of Psychology, 101,
305-312.
Haley, Russell (1968), "Benefit Segmentation:A Decision Ori-
ented ResearchTool," Journal of Marketing, 32, 30-35.
Holbrook, Morris B. (1981), "Integrating Compositional and
DecompositionalAnalyses to Representthe InterveningRole
of Perceptions in Evaluative Judgments," Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 18, 13-28.
HowardJohn A. (1977), ConsumerBehavior:Applicationof The-
ory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
and Jagdish N. Sheth (1969), The Theory of Buyer Be-
havior, New York: John Wiley.
Jaccard,James H. and Andrew R. Davidson (1972), "Towardan
Understandingof Family Planning Behaviors:An Initial In-
vestigation," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2,
228-235.
Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom (1978), LISREL:Analysis of
Linear StructuralRelationships by the Method of Maximum
Likelihood, Version IV, Release 2, Chicago: National Edu-
cational Resources, Inc.
Kaplan,Abraham(1964), The Conductof Inquiry, San Francisco:
Chandler.
Karlins,Marvinand HerbertI. Abelson (1970), Persuasion, New
York: Springer.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1961), "Processes of Opinion Change,"
Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57-78.
Krech, David, RichardS. Crutchfield,and Egerton L. Ballachey
(1962), Individual in Society, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lutz, RichardJ. (1973), "Cognitive Changeand AttitudeChange:
This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
277
A Validation Study," unpublishedPh.D. Dissertation, Uni-
versity of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
(1975), "First-Orderand Second-OrderCognitive Effects
in AttitudeChange," CommunicationResearch, 2, 289-299.
(1976), "Conceptual and OperationalIssues in the Ex-
tended Fishbein Model," in Advances in Consumer Re-
search, Vol. 3, ed. Beverlee B. Anderson, Cincinnati:As-
sociation for ConsumerResearch, 469-476.
(1977), "An ExperimentalInvestigationof Causal Rela-
tions Among Cognitions, Affect, and BehavioralIntention,"
Journal of ConsumerResearch, 3, 197-208.
(1978a), "Rejoinder," Journal of ConsumerResearch,
4, 266-270.
(1978b), "Rejoinder," Journal of ConsumerResearch,
4, 276-278.
Manis, Melvin, S. Douglas Cornell, and JeffreyC. Moore (1974),
"Transmissionof Attitude-Relevant InformationThrough
a CommunicationChain," Journal of Personalityand Social
Psychology, 1, 81-94.
Maruyama, Geoffrey and Bill McGarvey (1980), "Evaluating
Causal Models: An Application of Maximum-Likelihood
Analysis of StructuralEquations," Psychological Bulletin,
87, 502-512.
McGuire, William (1973), "Persuasion, Resistance, and Attitude
Change," in Handbookof Communication,ed. I. S. Pool et
al., Chicago: Rand McNally, 216-252.
Miniard, Paul W. and Joel B. Cohen (1979), "Isolating Attitu-
dinal and Normative Influences in Behavioral Intentions
Models," Journal of MarketingResearch, 16, 102-1 10.
and Joel B. Cohen (1981), "An Examinationof the Fish-
bein-Ajzen Behavioral Intentions Model's Concepts and
Measures," Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 17,
309-339.
and Peter R. Dickson (1979), "Item Order Effects in
Expectancy-ValueAttitudeInstruments,"in EducatorsCon-
ference Proceedings, eds. N. Beckwith et al., Chicago:
AmericanMarketingAssociation, 44, 4-8.
Mitchell, Andrew A. and Jerry C. Olson (1981),"Are Product
AttributeBeliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects
on Brand Attitude?" Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
312-332.
Norman, Ross (1975), "Affective-Cognitive Consistency, Atti-
tudes, Conformity, and Behavior," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1, 83-91.
Ryan Michael J. (1974), "An Empirical Test of a Predictive
Model andCausalChainDerivedFromFishbein'sBehavioral
IntentionModel and Applied to a PurchaseIntentionSitua-
tion," unpublishedD.B.A. dissertation,University of Ken-
tucky, Lexington, KY.
(1978), "An Examinationof an AlternativeForm of the
Behavioral Intention Model's Normative Component," in
Advancesin ConsumerResearch, Vol. 5, ed. H. Keith Hunt,
Ann Arbor:Association for ConsumerResearch, 283-289.
and E.H. Bonfield (1975), "The Fishbein Extended
Model and ConsumerBehavior," Journal of ConsumerRe-
search, 2, 118-136.
and E. H. Bonfield (1980), "Fishbein's IntentionsModel:
A Test of Externaland PragmaticValidity," Journal of Mar-
keting, 44, 82-95.
and Michael J. Etzel (1976), "The Natureof Salient Out-
comes and Referents in the Extended Model," in Advances
278
in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 3, ed. Beverlee B. Anderson,
Cincinnati:Association for ConsumerResearch, 485-490.
and Morris B. Holbrook (forthcoming), "Importance,
Elicitation Order, and Expectancy X Value," Journal of
Business Research, in press.
and J. Paul Peter(1976), "Two OperationalModifications
for Delineatingthe Relative Strengthof Attitudinaland Social
Influenceson PurchaseIntentions," in EducatorsConference
Proceedings, ed. K. L. Bernhardt,Chicago: AmericanMar-
keting Association, 39, 147-150.
Schwartz, Shalom H. and RichardC. Tessler (1972), "A Test of
a Model for Reducing MeasuredAttitude-BehaviorDiscrep-
ancies," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24,
225-236.
Sherif, Muzafer (1958), "Group InfluencesUpon the Formation
of Norms and Attitudes," in Readings in Social Psychology,
eds. E. E. Macoby, et al., New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Shuchman, Abrahamand Peter C. Riesz (1975), "Correlatesof
Persuasibility:The Crest Case," Journal of MarketingRe-
search, 12, 7-11.
Sorbom, Dag (1979), "Detection of CorrelatedErrorsin Longi-
This content downloaded from 14.139.242.60 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:16:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEJOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCH
tudinalData," in Advancesin Factor Analysisand Structural
EquationModels, eds. K. G. J6reskogand D. Sorbom,Cam-
bridge, MA: Abt Books, 171-184.
Sternthal,Brian and C. Samuel Craig (1982), ConsumerBehav-
ior: An Information Processing Perspective, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lynn W. Phillips, and Ruby Dholakia (1978), "The Per-
suasive Effect of Source Credibility: A Situational Analy-
sis," Public Opinion Quarterly, 286-314.
Tauber, Edward M. (1977), "Forecasting Sales Prior to Test
Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 41, 80-84.
Werts, C. E., R. L. Linn, and K. G. J6reskog, "Interclass Re-
liability Estimates: Testing StructuralAssumptions," Edu-
cational and Psychological Measurement,34, 25-33.
Wilson, David T., H. Lee Mathews, and James W. Harvey
(1975), "An Empirical Test of the Fishbein Intention
Model," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 1, 39-48.
Wind, Yoram (1978), "Issues and Advantages in Segmentation
Research," Journal of MarketingResearch, 15, 317-337.
Wright, Peter (1975), "ConsumerChoice Strategies:Simplifying
vs. Optimizing," Journal of MarketingResearch, 12, 60-67.