649

British Journal of Social Psychology (2009). -18. 649-705

e 2009 The ftrish Psychological Society

mt^/im
^ ^ ^ ^

The British PsYChological <; ' H,

bOCiety

The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis
Mark Manning*
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
A meta-analysis investigated the effects of perceived injunctive (IN) and descriptive (DN) norms on behaviour (BEH) within the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) in a sample of 196 studies. Two related correlation matrices (pairwise and listwise) were synthesized from the data and used to model the TPB relations with path analyses. Convergent evidence indicated that the relation between D N and BEH was stronger than the relation between IN and BEH. Evidence also suggested a significant direct relation between D N and BEH in the context of TPB. A suppressor effect of IN on D N in its relation with BEH was also noted. Moderator analyses indicated that the DN-BEH relation was stronger when there was more time between measures of cognition and behaviour, when behaviours were not socially approved, more socially motive and more pleasant: results were mixed in the case of the IN-BEH relation. Results imply that IN and D N are conceptually different constructs. .

As social beings, normative pressure inevitably affects our behaviour. Social nonns influence the way we dress, how we vote, what we buy, and a host of other behavioural decisions. Social psychologists have been exploring the influence of social norms on behaviour for decades. From Asch's and Milgram s conformity- experiments (Asch, 19S6; Milgram, Bickman, & Beriowitz, 1969) through recent work by Cialdini and colleagues (Cialdini, Reno. & Kallgren, 1990; Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993), a substantial body of evidence has demonstrated that people conform to the judgments and behaviours of others. In experiments conducted by Cialdini and his colleagues (Cialdini et al., 1990; Reno et al., 1993), participants inferred behavioural norms for littering from environmental cues and acted in accord with these norms. The results highlight the fact that perceptions of norms, ratber than actual norms, can affect behaviour. Tlie relation between perceived norms and bebaviour has received much empirical support (Borsari & Carey, 2003; Campo, Brossard, Fnizer. Marchell, Lewis, & Talbot, 2003; Gomberg, Schneider, & Dejong, 2(K)I; Grube, Morgan, & McGree, 1986; Okun, Karoly, & Lutz,
* Correspondence should be addressed lo Mr Mark Manning, Department of Psychology, University of Massacbusetis, Amherst, MA OtOOZ, USA (e-moit mmanning@psych.umass.edu). t>OI: 10.1348/014466^8X393136

650

Maiii Manning

2002; Rimai & Real, 2005). However, one ofthe most influential models for predicting behaviour, the theor>'of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991), posits that rather than a direct relation between norm and behaviour, perceived nortns influence behaviour indirectly by way of behavioural intentions. Investigating the perceived norm-behaviour relation in tlie context of this theory offers insight not only into the strength of the relation, but also into the extent to which perceived norms may directly influence behaviour counter to theoretical expectations. The present study used meta-analytic path analyses to examine, the relation bet^veen two types of perceived norms (injunctive (IN) and descriptive (DN) norms; described below) and behaviour in the context of the TPB (Ajzen. 1991). The investigation explored the direct effects of IN and DN on behaviour as well as factors that may moderate the effect of subjective norms (SN) on behaviour.
The theory of planned behaviour

According to the TPB, the immediate antecedent of behaviour is the intention to pertbrm the behaviour (Figure 1). This behavioural intention is in turn a function of three major determinants: attitude towards the behaviour, perceived SN pertaining to the behaviour, and perceived degree of control over engaging in and ctJmpleting the behaviour (perceived behavioural control). The formation of attitudes (ATT), SN and perceived behavioural control (PBC) are respectively functions of behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs that a person holds with regards to the behaviour. Concernitig ATT, tlie set of accessible beliefs that a person holds about the outcome of a behaviour will determine the evaluation of

Figure I. Theory of planned behaviour.

Subjective norms and behaviaur 651

the behaviour, and thus influence tlie strength and direction of the ATT towards the behaviour. SN are a function of the normative beliefs that people relevant to the individual are perceived as having towards tbe behaviour coupled with the motivation of the individual to cotnply with the expected notins of these relevant persons. PBC is a function of the perceived factors that will influence the ability to engage in the behaviour coupled with the perception as to whether or not these factors will be present. in sbort, the TPB holds that favourable ATT, SN. and perceptions of control will lead to favourable intentions to engage in a given behaviour. Actual control over engaging in the behaviour is itself an important determinant. To the extent that individuals realistically appraise the amount of control that they have over the behaviour, the measure of PBC; can set^'e as a prox>- for actual control. Perceived control is expected to have a moderating effect such that intentions will be reflected in actual behaviour to the extent that perceived control is high. Tlie TPB has been applied successftiUy to a wide range of behaviours accounting for a sizable amount of variance (Armitage & Ckmner, 2001: Bamberg, Ajzen, & Schmidt, 2003; Hardeman. Johnston. Johnston, Bonetti, Wareham, & Kinmonth. 2002; Povey. Wellens, & Conner, 2001; Rise. Thompson. & Verplanken, 2003). Regarding the SN construct, the theory holds tbat the effect of SN on behaviour is fully mediated by behavioural intentions. In other words, SN are not expected to have a direct effect (DE) on behaviour but instead influetice behaviours indirectly through their effect on intentions.

Descriptive and injunctive norms

Two types of SN can be distinguished. IN are social pressures to engage in a behaviour based on the perception of what other people want you to do wbereas DN are social pressures based on the obser\"ed or inferred behaviour of others. Tliis distinction has been empirically supported (Cialdini ^i/., 1990; Deutsch & Gerard. 1955; Gruhc el aL, 1986; Larimer & Neighbours, 2005; Larimer. Turner, Mallett. & Geisner, 2004; Reno etal., 1993; Rhodes & Courneya, 2003; White, Terry, & Hogg, 1994). Within the TPB, tbe SN construct was originally conceptualized as an injunctive norm (Ajzen, 1991). Motr recently, however, Ajzen and Fishbein (200S) have recommended including both types of normative measures in constructing planned behaviour stirveys. DN and IN will therefore be considered separately in the analyses to follow.

Subjective norms-behaviour relation

In reviewing the SN construct in the planned behaviour context, Conner and Armitage (1998) have noted the lack of predictive power of the IN construct when predicting intention. Due to the paucity- of studies including DN in the planned behaviour context, conclusions regarding DN in this context are sparser. Recently, several investigators have included DN as predictors of intentions in the planned behaviour model (PBM; Fekadu & Kraft, 2002; MCiMUlan & Conner, 2(K)3; Okun et al.. 2002: Sheeran & Orbell, 1999b). Rivis and Sbeeran (2003) conducted a meta-anah'sis of DN in the planned behaviour context. Their analysis, based on 18 studies, demonstrated a significant relationship between DN and intention when controlling for otlier variables in the TPB. In that, these previous studies have investigated the effects of SN on intentions, to date,

652

Alork Manning

no planned behaviour mcta-ana lysis has explored the potential for differences in the effects of SN on behaviour in the planned behaviour context. Deutsch and Gerard (1955) have suggested that DN and IN refer to different sources of motivation. Regarding DN, it has been shown that perceptions of behaviours of others lead one to behave in similar manners (Asch, 1956; Milgram et al., 1969). Descriptive normative information ftinctions as a heuristic with regards to behavioural decisions offering cues as to what is appropriate behaviour iii a given situation (Cialdini et al., 1990; van Knippenberg, 2000). IN on the other iiand operate more through the role of motivation to comply with social sanctions (Ajzen, 1991 ; Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). To the extent that individuals are motivated to comply with perceived behavioural expectations of relevant referents, they avoid social sanctions. Though several studies have looked at the effect of one or botli types of norms on particular behaviours, there has yet to be a single meta-analytical review that compares the relationship between the two types of norms and behaviours across a spectrum of behaviours. Consequently, on a general level it is unknown whether one type of norm has a stronger effect on behaviour than the other it may be hypothesized that DN have a stronger effect on behaviour than IN because DN are activated in the immediate behavioural situation. Furthermore, processing of DN for behavioural decisions may require less cognitive effort relative to the prtx-essing of IN, in that DN may rely more on heuristic than systematic information-processing. Perhaps, this advantage contributes to efficient behavioural decision-making in line with descriptive normative information. In fact, researchers have shown that conditions that facilitate the use of heuristic information-processing lead participants to act more in line with DN (Hertel, Neuhof, Theucr, & Kerr, 2000). It is expected therefore, that DN will have a stronger effect on behaviour relative to IN.

Direct effect ofSN on behaviour

The TPB posits that the relationship between SN and beliaviour is illy mediated by behavioural intentions (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1973). However, a number of planned behaviour studies that have included normative constructs as a behavioural predictor have found direct effects of SN on behaviour (Christian & Abrams, 2004 Study 2; Christian & Armitage, 2002; Christian, Armitage, & Abrams, 2003; Okun et al., 2002; Trafimow & Finlay, 2001). In most research with the TPB, the effect of the normative component on intentions has received most attention (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Rivis & Sheeran, 2003) while the potential for a DE of SN on behaviour has received little empirical or meta-analytical scrutiny One reason to explore, the potential for a DE may be the hypothetical nature under which most people report cognitions pertaining to behaviour in planned behaviour studies. Hypothetical contexts may not accurately reflect the relations between cognitions and behaviours that are evident in real behavioural contexts (Ajzen, Brown, & Carvajal, 2004). Furthermore, when an individual reports an intention to engage in a particular behaviour in one instance, that behavioural intention may be subject to change from the instance it is formed to the moment when an opportunity for behavioural engagement arises (Ajzen, 1991). For example, in the classic linn (1965) study, hotel managers expressed little intent to allow Ciiinese couples to stay in their hotels, however allowed them to do so when the instance arose. It is less likely that perceptions of norms related to the behaviour will change over time. Con.sequently, there is the potential for reported normative perceptions to have stronger relations with behaviour compared w^ith relations between

Subjective norms and behaviour

653

reported behavioural intentions and behaviour. This may be reflected in the presence of a DE of SN on the particular behaviour. The present meta-analjtical synthesis provides the opportunity' to gauge the potential for a direct relation between SN and behaviour in the context of the TPB.
Variation in the magnitude of the SN^ehaviour relationship

The possibility of a DE of SN on behaviour within the TPB implies that there are two ways in which SN can affect behaviour. There can be the theoretically posited indirect effect on behaviour mediated through intentions, and there may be a DE on behaviour. The total effect therefore is the sum of these two effects. In accord with the prediction that DN have a stronger relation with behaviours compared to the INbchaviour relation, it is expected that the total effect of DN on behaviour is greater than the total effect of IN on behaviour. In addition to predicted differences between DN and IN in their effects on behaviour, there is the potential for differences in the magnitude of the effect within each t)'pe of norm. Compatibility' between measures of cognition and behaviour and the time between measurement of cognitions and l^haviour are expected to lead to differences in the magnitudes of the effects of SN on behaviour. Additionally, the potential moderating effect of three further variables will be explored; the level of social approval of the behaviour, the extent to which social motives underlie beliaviour. and the extent to which a behaviour is uselial versus pleasant may all contribute to variance in the relationship between norms and behaviour.
Compatibility

Elements of a particular behaviour can be defined in terms of the behavioural target, the action involved in the behaviour, the context in which the behaviour is performed, and the time at wliich it is performed. The relationship between cognitive predictors of a particular behaviour and engagement in the behaviour will be stronger if behavioural elements and cognitive assessment of the behaviour are compatible (Ajzen, 1996; Ajzen & Fishbein. 1977). That is to say., for instance, that if an investigator would tike to pretlict someone's propensity' to exercise 3 days a week for half an hour, measures should assess cognitions regarding exercising 3 days a week for half an hour rather than cognitions to be healthy, or some other general cognition regarding exercise. Tenned the "principle of compatibilit)'', it holds that measurements of planned behaviour variables must be compatible with the target behaviour in terms of target, action, context, and time. Given the effect of compatibility and the magnitude of the correlations between planned behaviour variables and behavioural measures, it is expected that studies where the cognitive and behavioural measures are fully compatible will feature stronger relations between SN and behaviour. It is also expected that among studies where measures are more compatible, the intention mediated relation between SN and behaviour will be stronger than any unmediated relation, in line with theoretical dictates, whereas among studies that are less compatible there will potentially be greater direct effects of SN on behaviour.
Time interval between measures of SN and behaviour

According to Ajzen ( 1991 ). cognitive precursors of behaviour that are measured closer to the target behaviour should be more predictive of behavioural engagement. Due to motivational considerations, measures of the intention to engage in a particular

654

Mark Manning

behaviour will var>' as a function of proximity to behavioural engagement CBandura & Schunk. 1981; Kamiol & Ross, 1996; Steel & Knig, 2006) in that tlie ftirther in the future is the potential behavioural engagement, the less predictive are intentions to engage in this behaviour. As Ibe relation between stated intentions and actual bebaviour decreases over time, tbe potential exists for SN to be relatively more predictive of bebaviour. Tbis potential is evident in light of the argument outlined above wherein SN pertaining to a behaviour are less likely to change over time compared to bcbavioural intentions. As such, it is expected that as the time between measurement of cognitions and behaviour increases, SN will be reflected to a greater extent in actual behaviour. Furthermore, as the relation between intentions and behaviour diminishes, it is likely tbat the DE of SN on behaviour wili be stronger as more time passes between measures of cognition and behaviour.

Social approval

It is proposed that social apprtival or disapproval of a bebaviour may influence tbe strength of tbe relations between SN and the behaviour Social approval refers to the extent to which society, in general, condones engagement in a particular behaviour. Following tbis conception, there is a distinction between whether society condones a bebaviour and whether someone perceives that important others whose opinions matter condone the behaviour. Though a behaviour may not meet with societal approval, significant others may well approve of engagement in the behaviour, and may also engage in the bebaviour themselves. For example, in a climate where smoking is not approved, it is conceivable that among a person's peer group smoking is expected and engaged n. Perceived smoking norms of the peer grtiup would be a source of normative ini()rmation regarding smoking behaviour. Indeed, perceptions of peer bebaviour have been shown to be significantly related to smoking (Simons-Morton, Chen, Abroms, & riaynie, 2004; Wang. Eddy, & Fitzhugh, 2000), alcohol and substance use (Borsari & Carey, 2001; Geckov & van Dijk, 2001; Wood, Read, Mitchell, & Brand, 2004), and delinquent behaviours (Simon, Dent, & Sussman, 1997; Sullivan, 2006). Based on tbe assumption tbat tbe propensit\' to rely on social cues of behaviourally relevant and signilicant others is stronger i()r behaviours that are not socially approved, it is hypothesized that the relation between SN and behavioural engagement will be stronger when bebaviours are not socially approved. The study will also explore whether the DE of SN on bebaviour is greater wben bebaviours arc not socially approved.

Social motives The extent to which social moti\'ations underlie decisions to engage in a behaviour may also moderate tbe relation between SN and behaviours. Social motives are psychological processes that guide cognitions and beliaviour in social situations (Fiske, 2003; Stevens & Fiske, 1995). Belonging, or the need to affiliate and bond with other people, is t>pically conceptualized as the core social motive; other motives (imderstanding, controlling, enhancing self and trusting) are thouglit to facilitate functioning in a social group (see Fiske. 2003). We can conceive that there is variation in the extent to which the motivation underlying behavioural engagement is social to the extent that the behaviour satisfies a social motive. Any bebaviour can be judged to fiilfil these needs to some extent; some behaviours may subjectively be judged to fulfil these needs to a greater extent than others. For example, for a person who likes to be social at parties.

Subjective norms and behaviour 655

drinking can be seen as a socially motivated behaviour. A person may exercise because they like to play team sports with their friends, and thus exercise can be conceptualized as a socially motivated behaviour. However, a different person may chose to exercise solely for the health benefits, in which case exercise can be seen as a less socially motivated behaviour. Though no studies have looked explicitly at the effect of social motivations on the relation hetween SN and behaviour or behavioural intentions, different t>'pes of motives have been shown to affect the extent to which people conform to social norms. Selfprotection motivation was shown to lead to increased conforming among participants ((iriskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006). Thougli there was no measure of perceived SN, this liighlighted the potential of norms being more related to overt behaviour under a particular motivational state. A separate study indicated that the more intrinsically motivated that 12 to 14-year-old children were to engage in exercise behaviours, the greater the perception of IN having to do with the behaviour (Hagger, ChatzLsarantis. & Biddle, 2(){)2). No studies were identified that examine, the effect that motivation underlying behavioural decisions have on the relation ljetween SN and behavioural intentions or behaviour; however, given that there is variation in the extent to which social motives are ascribed to behaviours within particular behaviours ( John,son & Johnson, 1996; Pool & Schwcgler, 2007), it is reasonable to infer that there is variation in the extent to which social motives are ascribed to behaviours between different behaviours. If behavioural decisions are more socially motivated, it is reasonable to assume that the person engaging in the behaviour has some recognition of the norms associated with the behaviour, and that these normative perceptions influence their intentions to engage in the behaviour as well their eventual behavioural engagement. Therefore, there should be stronger relations between SN and intentionsA^ehaviours where behaviours are more socially motivated, (iiven the flindamental nature of core social motives, it is also worthwhile to explore, whether behaviours whose motivations are rooted more in social needs might directly affect behaviour outside of stated behavioural intent. An exploratory hypothesis predicts that there may he stronger direct effects of norms where behaviours are more socially motivated.

Utility of behaviours

Further potential mcxlerators of the relation between norms and behaviour involve perceptions of whether a behaviour is useful or pleasant. Behaviours can either he categorized as utilitarian, in that they are viewed as practical and useful, orhedonic, in that they are more pleasant and satisfying ( Ilirschnian & Holbrook, 1986). Behaviours that are engaged in for more utilitarian ends involve more deliberate consideration and cognitive processing, while those engaged in for more hedonic purposes typical!)- satisfy short-term interests to a greater extent ( Hirschman & Holbrtwk, 1986; Kidwel! & Jewell, 2003). hi that more hedonic, or pleasant beliaviours involve less deliberation, it ma\' be tliat there is less of an effect of stated intent on actual behaviour, thus in essence making way for a greater effect of normative perceptions on actual behaviour, thus it is expected that the relation between SN and behaviour will be greater for behaviours that are seen as more pieasant than useful. Given that behaviours that are more utilitarian involve more cognitive processing, it is likely that the influence of normative perceptions on useful behaviours will be mediated by intentions in accord with the tenets of TPB. In contrast, engagement in behaviours that are more pleasant and that topically involve less cognitive processing nay bypass behavioural intentions to a greater extent, making these behaviours more apt to feature direct effects of

656

Mark Manning

SN on behaviour. Tlierefore, it is expected that there will be a greater DE of SN on behaviour among behaviours tliat are more pleasant.
Current study

The current study is a meta-anal>-tical synthesis tising path analysis to investigate the relationship between SN and behaviours within the TPB. Ctjrrelations among planned behaviour variables are used as measures of effect size. Studies tliat were included in the syntheses were restricted to tbe period beginning in 1996 and enditig in July 2006. Besides presenting a manageable quantity of studies from which to gather tiata, the studies were restricted to this period due to the fact that DN are a relatively new addition to the TPB CRivis & Sheeran, 2003; Sheeran & Orbell, 1999a, 1999b). It was rea.soned that suidies featuring IN should be gathered from the same relative tinie period; hetice, the window of the past decade was deemed appropriate. The particular hypotheses to be investigated are as follows: (1) The effect of DN on behaviour is expected to be laiger than the effect of IN on behaviour. (2) SN have a DE on behaviour. (3) The effects of SN on behaviour are larger when (3.1) there is greater compatibility between measures of cognition and behaviour, (3.2) there is a larger time interval between measures of SN and behaviottr (3.3), behaviours do not meet with .social approval (3.4) behaviours are more stK'ially motivated and (35) behaviours are more pleasant. (4) There will be ^eater direct effeets of SN on behaviour w^here (4.1) cognitions and beliaviours are less compatibly measured. (4.2) there is more time between measures of cognition and behaviour, (4.3) behaviours are not socially approved (4.4) beliaviours are more socially motivated and (4.5) behaviours are more pleasant.

Methods Locating relevant studies

Published studies were located by searching the Psychlnfo, PsychArticles and MedLine databases using tbe simple search term 'TPB\ Given the relative recency of the inclusion of DN in TPB, it was decided that the search would be restricted to articles published within the past 10 years (1996 - July 2006). Articles published in any journal, as well as dissertations, were considered for inclusion. Searching the Psychlnfo and PsychArticles databases collectively yielded 882 articles, while the MedUne database yielded 559 articles. To gather unpublished studies a message was posted on the Societ)" for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) listserv describing the study and tbe inclusion criteria and requesting data for the meta-analysis. Unpublished data from studies by the current author as well as studies from Icek Ajzen were included in the dataset.
Inclusion criteria

To be included in the meta-anahtical dataset. each study had to have a measure of the variables from the TPB, namely ATT. either IN or descriptive norm (T)N - collectively SN),

Subjective norms and behaviour 657

PBC, behavioural intention (INT) and a behavioural outcome measure (BEH). Given the interest in the relation between SN and BEH, only studies that included a measure of the relation between at least one of the norms with behaviour were included. Both continuous and dichotomous outcome measures were included. Where a sample had multiple behavioural outcomes, one outcome was randomly chosen. Studies that placed participants in a behavioural category were excluded (Coumeya, Plotnikoif, Hotz, & Birkett, 2001 wherein participants were grouped into exercise stage tnmsitions). Studies that did not have product terms for the belief and outcome evaluation components of planned behaviour constructs were excluded so that all constructs being compared were assessed at the level of direct or indirect measures of ATT, SN and PBC (Sideridis & Kaissidis-Rodaftnos, 2001; Sideridis & Padeliadu, 2001- belief strength and outcome evaluation as well as nonnative beliefs and motivation to comply were analyzed as separate variables).
Coding

Coding and data entry were completed by the autlior with the aid of several research assistants starting in August of 1996 and culminating in May of 2008. Wliere the coded categorical variables were subjective, inter-rater reliabilities (K), are reported; KS > .40 are considered indicative of acceptable inter-rater reliability. Subjective variables included whether the behaviour was socially approved or not socially approved, wbether the behaviour was socially motivated or not socially motivated and whether the behaviour was useful or pleasant. For judgments regarding social approval, coders were asked to make their own judgment as to whether the behaviour under investigation was socially approved. For judgments regarding social motivation and utility, the coders were instructed to consider who the participants in the suidy were, consider the behaviour that was being investigated, and then make a judgment as to the level of each variable (e.g. useful or pleasant) from the point of view of the participants. Tlierefore, each ct)der decided, for example, whether rec7cling was a socially acceptable behaviour, whether the motivation to recycle was socially motivated on the pan of the participants and whether the participants would \iew recycling as useftil or pleasant. For variables where there was an even number of coders (social approval), all discrepancies were resolved by the author; where there were an odd number of coders (social motives and utility) discrepancies were resolved by a majorit>^ rule. Inter-rater reliability social approval was acceptable (K = .88). Discrepancies were resolved by the author Inter-rater reliabilit>' for utility- was also acceptable (K ^ .56). Discrepancies were resolved by applying a majorit)' rule wherein each case was coded in accord with theraterswho agreed with each other. Two separate attempts were made to codeforsocial motivation. In thefirstattempt, tliree research assistants coded the variable into three separate leveLs (negligible social motives, moderate social motives, and high social motives), however, the inter-rater reliability was quite poor (K < .20). Three separate research assistants were recruited to recode the data, with the same coding instruction; however, the number of levels of the variables were reduced to two (high social motives and low social motives) in an attempt to force agreement. Nonetheless, inter-rater reliability amcMig the three raters was low (K .26). Disagreements were resolved with a majority' rule.
Study attributes

The author, publication year, and publication journal for each study were recorded. Participants' mean age and the proportion of males in the study were

658

Mark Mantling

recorded from each study. Wliether the study was concurrent or prospective was recorded. If the stud)' wa,s prospective, the time interval between measurement of the cognitive variables and measures of the behaviour was recorded. The sample size (AO for each .study was recorded. In some prospective studies, there were differences between sample size on the measure of the cognitive variables and the behavioural measure due to attrition. In these cases, to err on the side of a conservative overall sample size, the sample size based on the correlation of planned behaviour measures with behaviour was used. Studies were also coded for whether or not they were published and whether they were conducted in collaboration with or under the supervision of Icek Ajzen. Behavioural outcome measures were coded as either continuous or dichotomoas. Whether, the normative measure in the study was injunctive, descriptive, or a mixture of both was recorded. Another level of the variable included whether both types of norms were included separately in the study. Harvested statistics Reliability statistics for measures of each planned behaviour variable were collected from the studies. Where a construct was measured by a single Item there was no reliability statistic. In such instances the reliability was set to 1 to allow for the inclusion of the variable in corrections using the Spearman formula for disattenuation due to measurement error (discussed below). Median reliability for each variable was as follows; ATT = 0.83; IN - 0.80; DN = 0.69; PBC - 0.77; INT = 0.92; BEH = 1.00. Tlie bivariate correlation between each plamied behaviour variable was collected and used as a measure of effect size. Details regarding the calculation of the effect size measure are presented below. Where bivariate correlational data was not presented, efforts were made to retrieve the data from the study authors. Studies in which effect size measures were unavailable were excluded from the meta-analyses. Several .studies investigated. Hie TPB in the context of repeated behaviours. For these studies, correlations between the cognitive measures and the first prospective behavioural measure were used. This decision was due to the assertion that intentions are more predictive of behaviour when they are measured clcser in time (Ajzen, 1991). The exception to this procedure was in the case of repeated behaviours where the behavioural target was at the end-point of the repeated behaviour. For studies of tliis type, correlations between cognitive variables and the final measure of behaviour were used, as the behavioural measure at the target time point would correspond to the items used to assess planned behaviour variables (Sheeran & Orbell, 1999a, 1999b, where the target behaviour was taking Vitamin C pills for 3 weeks, and a behavioural measure was gathered at 10 days to check progress as well as at the 3 week end-point).

Pooling sample descriptive statistics In some cases, it was necessar)' to poo! correlations for planned behaviour variables. Correlations were pooled using averages weiglued by sample size. As there is currently no valid method to combine reliability statistics, reliability was not obtained for combined measures. Reliabilit}' stati.stics were available for 159 ATT measures, 149 IN measures. 12 DN measures, 10 mixed nomi measures, 155 PBC measures, 160 INT measures and 140 BEH measures. Attributes of cases that determined whether statistics were pooled include;

Subjective norms and behaviour

659

(1) where multiple referents (i.e. parents, friends, classmates, etc.) were used to assess SN and no composite SN was calculated from the separate items. In such cases referents were combined to get a measure of general subjective normative influence. Tbe exception was cases in which there were multiple measures of a particular type of norm, and one of the measure used general referents. In such cases, the statistics for the normative measure using general referents was used. (2) wben there were multiple samples for a study and the samples were not entered separately into the database. Samples were entered separately if there was a different behavioural outcome for each sample (Hagger et ai. 2006 wherein one sample was assessed on exercise behaviour and a separate sample was assessed on dieting behaviour; Abraham et al. 1999 wherein different malaria prophylactics were used by each sample) or if it was believed that there were attributes of tbe different samples tbat would affect the relationship between SN and behaviour (Hagger et al. 2005 wherein samples were from different cultLires). (3) when there were separate experimental conditions and full sample statistics were not available. In CMily one study was condition treated separately (Steadman et al.. 2002 wherein referents for SN were either individually elicited or modal referents were used).

Samples for analysis Two separate but related populations of studies were used for analyses. In one sample, each case was comprised of effect sizes from one behavioural outcome from eacb study that met tbe inclusion criteria (pairwise sample), this ensuring no violations of the assumptions of independence lor the meta-analjtical dataset by including any sample more than once regardless of whether that sample provided data on more than one outcome. The second sample was a subset of tlie first sample tbat contained only studies that featured relations among all the planned behaviour variables, including DN (listwise sample). Effect size measures iiivariate correlations (zero-order Pearson product-moment coefficients) between planned behaviour variables were gathered and used as measures of effect size. Following recommendations regarding correlation effect sizes (Johnson & Eagly, 2000), point biserial correlations were transformed into biserial correlations by multiplying tbem by 1.253. It was reasoned that any correlation of a SN with a dichotomous behaviour should be treated as a point biserial correlation, even if it were not so specified in the article. Under the assumption of a true dichotomy and not an artificially dichotomized continuous variable, Pearson's r is the same as a point biserial correlation. Given that a dichotomized behavioural measure in the planned bebaviour context is t>'picaily concerned witb whether or not a participant has engaged in a target behaviour, dicbotomous behavioural measures satisfy the condition of being a true dichotomy. The transformati<}n corrects for the attenuation due to tbe point biserial correlation. The correlations were further corrected for attenuation due to measurement errtir using the Spearman correction for attenuation (Spearman, 1904). Reliability statistics for variables that had single items were assigned a value of one. Correlations were then

660 Mark tAonnmg

corrected using the formula Kx'y ~ fxyi-Jr^^r^^ where /-.v y' is the corrected corrlation coefficient, r ^ is the attenuated correlation coefficient, and r^v and r,.j, are the reliabilities of the correlated variables. It should be noted that correlations > 1 are possible using the Spearman formula (for discussion see Charles, 2005; Muchinsky, 1996). Where reliability statistics were not availahle ior either variable, correction for attenuation was not performed (See Appendix A for example of effect si2e calculations). Overview of analysis To test hypotheses regarding the effects of SN on behaviour as well as the moderation of the effect of SN on behaviour, the following sequence was taken (details of which are described below): (1) Population effect sizes were calculated for the relation between all variables in TPB separately for the pairwise and listwise samples. The extent to which the effect sizes were homogenous was assessed. For each relation, an asses.sment was made of the extent to which the effect sizes were upwardly biased due to the propensity to not publish studies with minimal or null results by calculating the fail-safe JV. (2) The relation between each SN and other planned behaviour variables was descriptively compared separately for the pairwise and the listwise siiniples. (3) Using correlation matrices for the relations among the TPB variables, a liill TPB model, including DN, was tested with a path analysis separately for the pairwise and listwise samples. Tlie benefit of including a direct path from either IN, DN or botli to behaviour was assessed. (4) Moderators of the relation between SN and BEH within the TPB model were tested using multi-group comparisons in path analysis separately for the pairwise and listwise samples.

Population effect size

Meta-analytical procedures outlined by Upsey and Wilson (2001) were used to synthesize population mean effect sizes. Calculations were performed using the Fisher Z transformations of the disattenuated effect size measures. All meta-analytical calculations were peribrmed using SPSS macros written by David Wilson and available at his website (http://mason.gniu.edu/ dwilsonb/ma.html). Population effect size was calculated using each effect size weighted by the inverse of its variance (standard error of the Fisher Z correlation -- random variance component). A confidence interval around the population effect size was calculated using the standard error of the population effect size, calculated as the square root of the sum of the inverse variance weights. Consistency of effect sizes was tested by assessing the homogeneity of the distribution of the effect size. The homogeneity test uses a Q statistic based on the weiglited variance of the effect sizes, and is distributed as a x^- A significant Q statistic indicates that variability around the effect size is lai^er than what would be expected if variance were due solely to sampling error associated with participants witiiin each unit of analysis. A random effects model was used in tlie calculation of the population effect size. In contrast to afixedeffects m(xlel, a random effects model follows the assumption that

Subjective norms and behaviour 661

there are sources of variance that are not attributable solely to participant level err(.)r within each study, but also to unidentified sources of variance that are randomly distributed across studies. The variance component in the random effects model therefore has two sources, one being the participant level variance in each study and the other being tbe random variance. The inverse variance weight is based on this overall >^riance term. Estimate of the rajidom error variance component of the total variance followed procedures outlined in lipsey and Wilson (2001).

File drawer problem

An iiilicrent problem in mela-analytical research is the upward bias in estimation of mean effect sizes due to publications featuring studies tbat have significant or larger effect sizes than unpublished studies. To index this publication bias. Ro.senthal s (1991) fail-safe N was calculated using the formula Nfeos = {J^Z/\.6A5)~-N, where AVso^ is the number of studies required with null results that would be necessary to extinguish a significant effect size at the level of .significance of p .05, '^Z is the sum of the Z scores for the effect size measure from each study and i\ is the total number of studies in the effect size distribution. A conservative estimate of the Z score for correlation effect sizes is calculated by the formula Z =

TPB path analysis

Using LKSREL 8.71 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2004), the synthesized population effect sizes were used to construct a TPB path analysis (Tigure 2). Four separate models were tested. An appended TPB model was specified which included DN as a predictor of INT. ' An IN direct model was specified such that there was a direct path from IN to BEH, and a DN direct model was specified such tbat there was a direct path from DN to BEH. An SN direct model was specified such that there was a direct path from both IN and DN to BEH. Correlations were specified among ATT, IN, DN, and PBC in all models. A significant improvement in mode! x', as indexed by a significant x^ change statistic, implies that the added parameters improve the model. It should be noted that there is a direct path modelled from PBC to BEH. Tbe TPB specifies tbat the relation between INT and BEH will be stronger when actual control is higlier; in other words, the relation will be moderated by actual control. However, in using PBC as a proxy for actual control, most researchers specify a direct path from PBC to BEH, thus controlling for the main effect of 'actual control. Though it did not assess the relation between intentions and PBC, a recent paper by Ajzen and Fishbein (2008) argued tbat in testing the significance of interaction terms in the TPB model, the strength of the main effects of one planned behaviour variable, coupled with restricted range of the second variable involved in the product term, makes it likely

' Given that DN is typically nol present in TPB models, the extent to which DN improved model fit indices end occounled for more variance in INT and BEH was ossessed. The data were fit to models in which DN was not allowed to covary with ATT. N and PC and was not allowed to be related to INTand BEH separately for the pairwise and iistwise matrices. The fit indices and variance accounted for in INTand BEH for these models were compared to the corresponding appended moels. where DN covaried with the other exogenous variables and was directly related to tNToniy. For the pairwise matrix, the model fit for the appended model was statistically improved, Ax^(4) = 303.66, p < 01. The appended model accounted for 1% more variance in INT, though it did not account for more variance in flH. For the fetwise model, the model fit for the appended model was oho statistically improved, ^x^(4) = ll.Sl.p < ,0i. The appended model accounted for 3% more variarKe in NT, while ft counted for no more variance in BEH.

662 Mark Manning

Figure 2. Meta-analytical pairwise TPB path model. The appended mode! did not include the dashed paths; the IN direct model included direct path from IN to BH, the DN direct model included direct path from DN to BEH, the SN direct model included direct paths from both IN and DN to BEH.

that the interaction term in the regression model itself will not be significant. It is tj'pical that among a given participant population the perceptions of the amount of control over engaging in a particular behaviour are similar, resulting in a restricted range for PBC measures. Consequently, interaction product terms between INT and FBC: are rarely used in PBMs, and though not explicitly specified by the theoretical model, a DE of PBC on behaviour is modelled. Given that there were no product terms between INT and PBC available for any of the studies, the mcta-anal>iical model followed TPB research conventions and included a direct path from PBC: to BEH in the path analyses." Ideally, a variance-covariance matrix would \it used as the input matrix in a path analysis. However, a synthesis ofthe covariance matrix was precluded in tliat measures of the components of TPB vary across different studies. Hence, pairwise and listwise correlation matrices were used as matrices of input. Se\'eral issues ought to be addressed regarding the use of meta-anal>i;ical correlation matrices, and in particular.

for lustrave purposes, a path analysis ofthe TPB model was fk wt^ioui a rea path from PC to BEH, Comparison of this model to the model that featured a direct path from P&C to BEH indicated that the addition of the direct path lead la significant improvement in modei fit. x'ih = 72.93, p < .OL

Subjective norms and behaviour

663

pairwise matrices. The use of a pairwise matrix leads to different sample sizes for each element of the matrix. In meta-anal)ticai path analyses, the use of the harmonic mean of the sample sizes across the different cells is recommended (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995).^ In using this approach one assumes that the parameter estimates are population values (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995), and consequently, standard errors and significance of parameter estimates are not reported. The use of a correlation matrix within a covariance modelling procedure introduces bias in the estimates of x" model goodness of fit statistic (Beretva.s & Furlow, 2(K)6; Cudeck, 1989). A recent simulation has demonstrated that model rejection rates are more conservative (1.30 - 1.56% in contrast to 5%) when correlation matrices are used (Beretvas & Furlow, 2006). Given that the x ' goodness of fit is also heavily biased by sample size and the magnitude of the correlations, and considering the range of sample size when aggregating studies within the meta-analyses and the magnitude of the correlations commonly associated with TPB. inferences as to the goodness of fit of each model to the data will be based on other indices of fit. hi particular, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; values less than .05 indicate good fit. and less than .08 indicates adequate fit), the normed fit index and the comparative fit index (respectively, NFI and C;FI; values above .95 Indicate good fit) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; values less than .08 indicate gMxl fit). Given that the same pairwise correlation matrix will be used between different models, the model x" statistics will be utilized between models to provide statistical evidence of model improvement; a significant x^ change statistic that accompanies the addition of parameters indicates that the model with added parameters is a better fitting model.

Moderation of effect ofSN on BEH

The moderating effects of compatibility; time between measures of cognition and behaviour, social approval, social motivation, and utit>' on tlie relations among SN and BEH were tested using multi-group path analysis. In tliis approach, studies within a sample are grouped based on the levels of a particular moderator and correlation matrices are calculated for each group. The resulting matrices are u.sed to fit a single between-group model with associated mtKlel fit indices for the entire model. Tlie models are specified such that specific parameters are either constrained to be equal across groups (invariant) or allowed to be freely estimated across groups (variant), with in.spection of model fit indices between different models leading to inferences regarding freeing additional parameters. The best fitting TPB model from the TPB path analysis was used for the nnxleration analyses. An invariant model was specified such that, with the exception of tlie residual variance in INT and BEH (the outcome variables), corresponding parameters were constrained to be equal between groups. A DE invariant model constrained the direct effects of SN on BEH between groups while allowing all other parameters to be estimated freely. Finally, a variant model allowed all parameters to be estimated freely. Significant improvement in model x" ^s we move from the invariant model to a DE invariant mode! indicate that the relations among the other planned ix-haviour variables tiiffer between groups. Further improvement in model fit indices when we free the

'For paifwrse correlation matrices as well as harmortic mean and N for each pairwise analyses, please contact the outhor.

664

Mark Manning

direct effects of SN on BEH in tbe variant modei indicates that the direct effects of SN on BEH also differ lietween groups.

Results
Descriptive statistics
Pairwise sample

One hundred and ninety-six behavioural outcomes were gathered from 152 separate studies. In choosing only one outcome from studies that featured multiple behavioural outcomes (so as to not violate assumptions of independence) 172 behavioural outcomes comprised the final meta-analytical dataset. The sample sizes ranged from 24 to 3.859 with a mean of 272.96 and a median of 163. Total aggregate sample size was 46,676. Among studies that reported age and gender, the mean age among participants was 31.19 CN = 107) with the aggregate sample being predominantly female (62.92%, N 150). Sample descriptive statistics are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Tbe list of studies included in the meta-analysis is presented in Appendix B"*. Data is missing w^bere a particular study attribute could not be determined from tbe article and could not be retrieved from the stud^'^s author Nineteen studies (11.05%) were unpublished. The majorit}' of the studies (81.56%) used injunctive items to assess the normative constructs. Nineteen studies (12.2%) assessed both types of norms (though correlations between IN and ON were only available for 12 such studies). Only two studies used solely DN. Seven studies assessed the normative cimstnict by combining injunctive and descriptive items in the composite measure (mixed norms, 4.07%). Due to the small number, no analyses were conducted with mixed norms. An assessment of the type of norm used wxs not possible for two (1.16%) studies in the d:taset. Most tvehaviours (85.47%) were measured i>rospectivel5' with a rar^e of time intervals from 0.05 to 2190 days and a mean of 101.82, median of 35 and mode of 14 days; data was not available for one study. A median split was performed and the variable was recoded such tliat studies were grouped according to those having no time between measurement of cognition and behaviour (concurrent studies), studies where the measure was less than 35 days apart (lower median) and studies where the measures were greater than 35 days apart (upper median).^Thirteen .studies that were measured prospectively did not report the time between measurement of cognitions and behaviour. Mo.st behavioural measures were continuous (75.00%) with one study not providing data. Most target behaviours were coded as socially approved (90.12%), useful (82.56%) and less socially movated (5349%).

L/sw/se sample Eleven independent behavioural outcomes from 11 separate studies were available that contained relations among all the planned bebaviour variables. Tliere was a mean
"Nine studies {5.23%) wert conducted either in the lab of or in collaboration with tcek Ajzen. It may be argued that concurrent studies should be categoricalty excluded fram the meta-anaiyses given that, striafy speakjng, norms are predicting behaviour only in studies that are prospective. However, the research questions were not resincied to the prediction of behaviours from SN. faut rather were more concerned with the extent to whidt ttere was a relation between SN and behaviours. Thus, it was reasoned that valuable information could be gamered from indtiding studies that concurrentfy measured SN and behowour (which, stnafy speaking, is recollection of behaviour).

Subjective norms and behaviour

665

Table I . Pairwise sample descriptive data for categorical variables Frequency Type of norms tnjunctive Descriptive Both Mixed Missing Prospective Concurrent Prospective Missing Socially approved behaviour Not approved Approved Socially motivated behaviour Less socially motivated More socially motivated Utility Useful Pieasant Publication status Unpublished Published Behavioural measure Dichotomous Continuous Missing Percent

142 2 19 7 2 24 147

82.56 1.16 11.05 4.07 1.16

13.95 85.47 0.58 9.88 90.12 53.49 46.51

17 155
92 80 142 30 19

82.56 17.44
11.05 88.95

153 42 129 1

24.42 75.00 0.58

Note. N = 172, sample size of 209.27 CSD ^ 104.95), with a median of 225, a mode of 66 and a range from 66 to 461 participants. The aggregate sample size was 2,302 participants. All ofthe suidies were published, and only one study was measured concurrently. Among those measured prospectively, the mean time between measure of cognition and behaviour was 63.8 days (SD = 68.36), with a median of 21 days and a mode of 14 days. Only one study used a dichotomous measure of behaviour Of the 11 studies, nine studies were rated fully compatible, eight had behaviours that were socially approved, seven were more socially motivated and six were coded as useful.

Table 2.

ise sample descriptive statistics for continuous variables N Mean 31.19 37.08 101.82 272.96

SD
14.15 25.94 236.22 397.38

Median 28.20 40.25 35.00 163.00

Minimum 12.00 0.00 0.05 24.00

Maximum 75.10 100.00 2,190.00 3,859.00

Mean age Gender (percent males) Time^ Sample size

107 150 135 171

Note. ^Time interval between phases (in days).

666

Mark Manning

Population effect sizes Pairwise sample

The population effect sizes and accompanying statistics, including fail safe A', for planned behaviour variables are presented in Table 3. Regarding all the population effect sizes, the significance of the Q statistics indicates that there is si^iificant hetenjgeneity in each mean effect size distribution, which suggests the possibility of moderators of each bivariate relation. A closer comparison of the IN and DN relations with other TPB variables is presented in Table 4. Of note is the observation that, with the exception of relations with behaviour, the relation between IN and other planned behaviour constructs is greater than the relation between DN and the constructs. Tlie siuiation is reversed for the relations with behaviour, with DN having slightly larger relations with behaviour than IN (.34 vs. .28), which offers some support for the hypothesis that the relation between DN and BEH is stronger than tbe relation between IN and BEH. This is especially interesting given the lai^er relation of IN with INT when compared to the DN-INT relation (.51 vs. .40). The lai;er discrepancy between the IN-INT and the IN-BEH relation when compared lo the DN-lNT and DN-BEH relation may suggest that ihe DN-INT relation is reflected to a greater extent in the DN-BEH relation than the corresponding relations between IN-INT and IN-BEH.

Ustw/se samph

Tbe population effect sizes and accompanying statistics for planned behaviour relations for the Iistwise sample of studies that contained relations among all planned behaviour variables is presented in Tables 5 and 6. Of note, there is no significant heterogeneity in the relation between INT and BEH within the subsampie of studies, rj(l 1) = 12.52, p = .25. Tlie relations between both of the SN and ATT as well as PBC adheres to a similar trend as in the ftill sample in tbat their relations with IN are larger than their relations witb DN. However, in contrast to the results for tbe txill sample, the relation between IN and INT is only slightly larger than the relation between DN and TNT (.55 vs, .52). Contrar)- to the hypothesis, the relation between IN and BEH is relatively similar to the relation between DN and BEH (.41 vs. .40).

Comparison of population effect sizes

Given that effect sizes were calculated for attenuated as well as disattenauted correlations, and that a smaller sample of Iistwise correlations among all the planned behaviour variables was used, a crude comparison of the differences in the population effect sizes using the different methods and different inclu.sion criteria was conducted (Table 7). As was expected, all of the disattenuated effect sizes were larger than the corresponding attenuated effect size witbin each sample. No systematic differences were observed in the effect sizes between samples.

Bias in effect sizes

Using Ihe pairwise sample, meta-anahticai ANOVAs were used to discern the extent to which population effect sizes differed based on publication status (Table 8). A significant level of between-group variance in effect sizes, as indicated by a significant Q statistic, suggests tliat there is variation across the groups that is due to

Subjective norms and behaviour 667 Table 3. Pairwise population effect sizes for planned behaviour relations k ATT-IN ATT^N ATT-PBC ATT-INT ATT-BEH IN-DN IN-PBC IN-INT IN-BEH DN-PBC DN-INT DN-BEH PBC-INT PBC-BEH INT-BEH 157 14 157 162 163 12 155 160 156 16 17 17 159 165 165 Effect size .48 .40 .46 .63 .40 .59 .33 .51 .28 .21 .40 34 .56 .36 .56 - 95% CI 0.43 .30 .41 .60 .36 .39 .28 .46 .23 .06 .27 .23 .50 .30 .50 -h 95% CI 0.53 .50 .51 .66 .44 .74 .38 .56 .32 .35 .51 .45 .61 .42 .61 Z 15.39 7.12 15.46 28.52 19.52 4.89 M.73 17.79 12.38 2.67 5.72 5.67 16.24 li.07 15.36

Q
32S.04 47.60 401.43 447.13 589.54 28.11 457.75 462.63 516.34 54.05 58.75 73.73 360.78 659.12 622.54

FS-N 629,385 3,830 492,822 1,349,064 393.185 6.617 225.517 747.762 166.224 809 4.603 3.044 849.028 288.428 800.117

Nate, AH effect sizes significantly different from zero, p < .01; k. number of studies used to calculate effect size; all Q statistics significant, degrees of freedonn for Q statistics, k - I.

Table 4. Comparison of IN and DN relations with TPB variables for pairwise sample ATT IN DN .48 .40 PBC .33 .21 INT .51 .40 BEH .28 .34

Table S. Listwise population effect size for subsample of planned behaviour relations Effect size ATT-IN ATT-DN ATT-PBC ATT-INT ATT-BEH IN~DN IN-PBC IN-INT IN-BEH DN-PBC DN-INT DN-BEH PBC-INT PBC-BEH INT-BEH .59 .44 .34 .68 .50 .61 .31 .55 .41 .21 .52 .40 .49 .40 67 - 95% CI .44 .32 .13 .57 .42 .39 .09 .41 .25 .05 .39 24 -K95%a ,70 .55 .52 .77 .58 .76 .50 .66 .55 .36 .62 .54 .72 .63 .89

Z
6.60 6.51 3.15 8.74 10.35 4.72 2.75 6.72 4.79 2.58 7.04 4.61 2.85 2.59 2.77

Q
37.99 30.16 43.71 31.10 34.03 21.65 38.41 39.86 36.38 45.97 35.72 40.33 27.87 32.17 12.52

P
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .02 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .25

Failsafe-N 4.948 2,798 1,525 7,880 2.761 5.584 1.211 4.127 1.625 522 3.668 1,529 3,389 1,834 6,746

.io
.23

Note.k= \:dforQ=

ta

668

Mark Manning

Table 6. Comparison of !N and DN relations with TPB variables for listwise sample
ATT

PBC .31 .21

INT

BEH A\ .40

IN DN

.59 .44

.55 .52

Table 7. Comparison of effect sizes Pairwise sample

k

Listwise sample Attenuated

k

Disattenuated .48 .40 .46 .63 .40 .59 .33 .51 .28 .21 .40 .34 .56 .36 .56

Disattenuated

Attenuated

ATT-IN ATT-DN ATT-PBC ATT-INT ATT-BEH IN-DN IN-PBC IN-INT IN-BEH DN-PBC DN-INT DN-BEH PBC-INT PBC-BEH INT-BEH

157 14 157 162 163 12 155 160 156 16 17 17 159 165 165

.35 .30 .35 .52 .30 .41 .23 39 .20 .16 .30 26 .42 .26 .46

.59 .44 .34 .68 SO .61 31 .55 .41 2\ S2 ,40 .49 .40 .67

.43 .32 .27 .53 .37 .41 22 .40 .28 .18 .36 .28 .35 .26 .57

Table 8. Publication bias in effect sizes Published ATT-IN ATT-DN ATT-PBC ATT-INT ATT-BEH IN-DN IN-PBC IN-INT IN-BEH DN-PBC DN-INT DN-BEH PBC-INT PBC-BEH INT-BEH (+) = Positivebias () = Negativebias - = Nobias Note. Empty cells indicate absence of studies at one level of the variable that featured the relation.

Subjective norms and behaviour

669

more than sampling error. The ATT-BEH and the IN-BEH relations were lai^^er among studies that were published, 0 ( 0 - 4 . 6 5 , p < .05 and 0(1) =5.27, p < .05, respectively. For the ATT-BEH relations, studies that were published had a larger mean effect size (.41.fe= 145) than those that were not (.28, k - 18). For the IN-BEH relations, studies that were published had a larger mean effect size (.29, k = 139) tban those that were not (.13, k = 17). Significant bias existed in the opposite direction for the ATT-PBC relation, 0(1) = 12.96, p < .01. There were smaller effect si2es (.43, k= 138) among studies that were published compared to tliose that were not (.67, k = 19). Regarding larger IN-BEH and smaller ATT-PBC effect sizes for published studies, 17 of the 19 unpublished studies investigated behaviours that were coded as useful versus plea.sant. A meta-ANOVA indicated that there were marginally significant differences between popiation IN BEH effect sizes, 0(1) = 3.56, p - .06. and ATT-PBC effect sizes. Qi\) = 3.12, p = -08, bused on a bebaviours utility. The population effect size for IN-BEH was smaller when behaviours were useful (.26 vs. .36) while the population effect sizes for ATT-PBC were larger wben the behaviour was useful (.49 vs. .36). However, whether tbe behaviour was useful or pleasant did not moderate tbe magnitude of the population effect size for ATT-BEH relation. It should be noted that the direction of the bias is not consistent, indicating that there was no systematic bias among studies that were not published and that some other attributes of the unpublished studies migbt be leading to the bias in the effect size.

Planned behaviour path analysis

Pairwise sample

Using the pairwise matrix, path analyses were used to fit the meta-analytical data to the PBM. Model fit indices of are presented in Table 9. As assessed by the fit indices, tbe appended model fit the data reasonably well. The addition of tbe direct path from IN to BEH did not lead to a significantly improved model as assessed by the change in x"- Ax^(I) = 1 27, p> .25. Furthermore, the parameter estimate for the DE of IN on BEH was close to zero (-.01). The addition of a direct path from DN to BEH lead to an improved model when compared to the initial appended model, Ax"(l) = 782.26, p < .01, witb a parameter estimate of .23 for the direct relation between DN and BEH. FinaUy, tbe addition of patbs from both SN to BEH led to further improvement in model fit compared to tbe DN direct model, Ax'(l) ^ 323.91, p < .01. Interestingly', when the model featured direct effects of both SNs on BHH, there was a negative DE o IN on BEH ( - .17) while there was a positive DE of DN on BEH (31). The pattern of results, wherein there is a positive bivariate relation between IN and BEH, and wherein the relation is negative when entered into a multivariate model wliile tbe relation between DN and BEH increases from .23 to .31 is indicative of a suppressor effect of the IN on the DNBEH relation wben IN is modelled as directly related to BEH. As assessed by tbe squared multiple correlations, this model accounted for 56.1% of tbe variance in INT and 37.5% of the variance in BEH. Parameter estimates for the fuU model (SN direct) are displayed in Figure 2. Tlie indirect effect of both IN and DN on BEH was .06.The total effect (sum of mdirect and direct effects) of DN on BEH was .37, while the total effect of IN on BEH was - . 1 1 , offering further evidence that the relation between DN and BEH is stronger than the relation between IN and BEH. and fiirther suggesting the

670

Mark Manning

Table 9. Model fit indices for pairwise TPB models -90% RMSEA 0.15 0.19 0.10 0.00

+ 90%
RMSEA 0.17 0.21 0.12 0.02 NFI 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.00 CFI 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.00 SRMR 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.00 INT^ 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 BEH' 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.38

Model x^ Appended IN direct DN direct SN direct 1,106.25 1,104.98 323.99 0.09

df
3 2 2 1

RM5EA 0.16 0.20 O.ll 0.00

Note. 'Multiple squared correlation for structural equation.

suppressing effect of IN, when directly related to BEH, on the relation between DN and BEH.

Ustwise sampte

Using the listwise correlation matrix comprised of 11 studies, path analysis was used to fit the data to the PBM. Model fit indices are presented in lable 10. Both the IN direct and DN direct models were improved models compared to tlie initial appended model (Ax^(l) = 7.32, p < .01 and Ax-^CD ^ 16.50, p<.Ol, respectively). While the SN direct model was not a significant improvement over the DN direct model, Ax'dJ = 0,92, p > .25, it was a significant improvement over the IN direct model, Ax^d) = 10.07, p < .01, suggesting that it is the addition of the direct path from DN to BEH, and not the direct path from IN to BEH, that accounts for tlie most improvement in model fit. The SN direct model accounted for 58.7% of the variance in INT and 46.6% of the variance in BEH. Parameter estimates for the model are presented in Figure 3. Given that a listwise correlation matrix was used with a consistent sample size for each element of the matrix (A^ 2302), statistical inferences can be made about the parameter estimates; all paths in the final model were significant except for the direct path from IN to BEH (.02, ris). Though evidence for a suppressor effect of IN on the DN-BEH relation was not evident in the listwise sample, given the suppressing effect of IN on the DN-BEH relation in the pairwise sample, the direct IN-BEH path was retained for all moderator analyses using the listwise sample so that more direct comparisons could be made. The indirect effect of IN on BEH was .04, while the indirect effect of DN on BEH was .13. Tlie total effect of DN on BEH was .19, while the total effect of IN on BEH was

Table 10. Model fit indices for listwise TPB model -90% RMSEA 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 -f90% RMSEA 0.08 0.09 0.07 O.H

Model x^ Appended IN direct D N direct SN direct 28.86 21.52 12.36 lt.44

df
3 2 2 1

RMSEA 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.07

NFt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

CFI
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

SRMR 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01

INT" 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59

BEH' 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.47

Noie. 'Multiple squared correlation for structural equation.

Subjective norms and behaviour

671

Figure 3. Meta-analytical listwise TPB path model. All parameter estimates are significant unless otherwise noted in the path diagram.

.06. offering consistent evidence that the relation between DN and BEH is stronger than the relation between IN and BEH in the context of TPB. In partial support of expectations, analyses from both samples support a direct relation between DN and BEH; conclusions regarding the DE of IN on BEH are less straightforward. Within the pairwise sample, there is a negative direct relation between IN and BEH, while in the listwise sample there is no significant direct relation between IN and BEH. In short, there is strong evidence for the presence of a DE of DN on BEH, while there is partial evidence for a suppressor effect when the DE of IN on BEH is modelled. The discrepancy on the part of the IN-BEH relation may l>e due to a comparatively small number of studies within the listwise sample compared to tbe pairwise sample. Erom a theoretical and methodological point of view, it is worthwhile to consider that the samples were drawn from two separate populations of studies; one featured studies that measured all the TPB variables and either IN or DN, and did not report correlations between all the variables; tlie other featured studies that measured all TPB variables including both IN and DN, and reported correlations among all the measured variables. The differences in the pattern of effects may be due to the some differing attributes of the studies that comprised each population that were not accounted for In the current study.

672

Mark Manning

Pairwise moderator analyses Using Ihe pairwise sample, multi-group path analyses were used to examine whether either the compatibility between measures of cognition and behaviour, the time between measurement of cognitive constructs and behaviour, whether a behaviour was coded as socially approved versus not socially approved, socially motivated versus not socially motivated and useful versus pleasant mcxlcrated tlie relations between SN and BEH. Fit indices for each model are presented in Table 11; SRMRs arc not presented as they were calculated within group. For all moderator malyscs, the model in which all parameters were free to be estimated proved to be tlie best fitting model according to the x^ change statistics, indicating thai the models in which the direct effects of SN on BEH were free to be estimated between groups were significant improvements over the models in which they were constrained to be equal between groups (which were in

Table I I. Results of moderator analysis for pairwjse sample Model x ' Compatibility Invariant DE invariant AXa-t. Variant Axb-c Time between Invariant DE invariant AXa b Variant Axb-c Social approval Invariant DE invariant Ax' b Variant Axb-c Social motives Invariant DE invariant AXa'-b Variant AXb-e Utility Invariant DE invariant AXa -b Variant Ax-c RMSEA - 9 0 % RMSEA + 90% RMSEA NFI CFI

901.45 42,10 859.35 28.95 13.15 1.248.68 310.64 938.04 30.50 280.141 1,764.84 265,39 1.499.44 36.71 228.69 345.14 215.07 130.07 23.09 191,98 1.080.74 164.90 915.84 29.65 135.24

20 4 16 2 2 39 10 29 3 7 20 4 16 2 2 20 4 16 2 2 20 4 16 2 2

0.09 0,05 0.05

0.09 0.03 0.04

0.10 0.06 0,07

0.97 1.00 1.00

0.97 1.00 1.00

0.10 0.10 0.05

0.09 0.09 0.04

0.10 O.ll 0.07

0.96 0.99 1.00

0.96 0.99 1.00

0.13 0.12 0.06

0.13 O.ll 0.05

0.14 0.13 0.08

0.94 0.99 1.00

0.94 0.99 1.00

0.06 O.ll 0.05

0.06 0,10 0.03

0.07 0.12 0.07

0.99 0.99 1.00

0.99 0.99 1.00

O.ll 0.10 0.06

O.ll 0,09 0.04

0.12 O.ll 0.08

0,96 0.99 1,00

0.96 0.99 1,00

Note. DE. direct effects of SN on BEH; AXa-b = X^ difference between invariant and DE invariant modei; Ax^-^ = X^ difference between DE invariant and variant; ail model x ' and Ax^ statistics significant, p < .01.

Subjective norms and behaviour 673

turn improved models compared to the ones in which all parameters were constrained between groups). Between-group parameter estimates for the final models are presented in Table 12, aiid comparisons of direct, indirect and total effects of SN on BEH are presented in Table 13-

Compatibility

As expected, when measures of cognitive variables were fully compatible with assessments of behaviour, there was a larger total effect of DN on BEH (.^'^ vs. .11); the expectation was not confirmed for the relation between IN and BEH. It was hypothesized that the SN-BEH relation would be mediated by INT to a greater extent when studies were fully compatible. Contrary to expectations, when examining the contribution of the direct and indirect effects to the magnitude of the total effects of SN on BEH among fully compatible studies, it is apparent that the direct effects of both IN ( .14) and DN (.23) on BEH contribute most to the total effects of each norm on BEH. Tliis pattern is not similar among behaviours that were less compatible; among those studies the indirect effect of IN (. 1S) contributes most to its total effect on BEH whereas tlie DEof DN (.16) contributes most to its total effect on BEH. Tlie most notable difference is the result that among studies that are less compatible both norms have positive total effects with BEH (.08 for IN and .11 for DN) whereas the total effect of IN on BEH is negative ( . 11) among studies that are more compatible. In the case of the direct IN-BEH relation, the relation is inversed regardless of whether the measures were coded as 'somewhat' or 'fuy' compatible. The model accounted for 56.6% of the variance in INT and 26-3% of the variance in BEH for studies that were somewhat compatible, and 56.1 % of the variance in INT and 36.6% of the variance in BEH among studies that were fully compatible.

Time between measurement ofcogrittion and behaviour

As expected, the total effect of DN on BEH was strongest among the upper median of time between meiLsures of cognition and behaviour (.33) compared to the lower median (.21) and concurrently measured behaviour (.10). It is worthwhile to note also that the strength of the relation between INT and BEH diminishes as the time between measures of cognitions and BEH increases, confirmijig assertions that the relation between INT and BEH will become weaker over time, and in a sense make way for the SN to have a stronger relation with BEH. None the less, there were no apparent between-group differences for the total effect of IN on BEH. The magnitudes of the total effects of DN on BEH were most attributable to the size of the direct effects of DN on BEH within each group. An interesting result occurred with the contribution of the DE of IN on BEH to the overall total effect of IN on BEH: in each case, the larger contribution of the negative DE of IN on BEH served to lead to a small negative total effect of IN on BEH. The model accounted for 53-6% of the variance in INT and 59.3% of the variance in BEH among studies that were concurrent, 54.2% of the variance in INT and 35.8% of the variance in BEH among studies that were in the lower median, and 52.7% of the variance in INT and 26.5% of the variance in BEH among behaviours that were in the upper median. It should be ntrted that further analysis indicated a significant association between compatibility ratings and the time groups for the time between variable (x'^C2) = 7.31, p < .05); within the lower median, more cases than would be expected by chance were fully compatible (85.3%). However, given that cases in the upper median had stronger

674

Mark Aionnng
ro O
"* * o

r-t ro

p
O

(N p

p r>) 1 I

o U O

p p d

O-.

u- ro

P o O
p rM

^ ro

i/> p

^ LO * ro d

1^

ro

f^

<r ro

Ul ^

Subjective norms and behaviour 675 Table 13. Comparison of effects of SN on BEH for pairwise sample Direct effect CompatbUity Somewhat IN-BEH DN-BEH Fully IN-BEH DN-BEH Time between Concurrent IN-BEH DN-BEH Lower median IN-BEH DN-BEH Upper median IN-BEH DN-BEH Social approval Approved IN-BEH DN-BEH Unapproved IN-BEH DN-BEH Socio/ motives Less socially motivated IN-BEH DN-BEH More socially motivated IN-BEH DN-BEH Utility Useful IN-BEH DN-BEH Pieasant IN-BEH DN-BEH Indirect effect Total effect

-0.07 0.16 -0.14 0.23

0.15 -0.05 0.03 0.12

0.08 O.H -O.ll 0.35

-0.27 0.14 r -0.12 0.14 -0.07 0.30

0.23 -0.05 ; 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04

-0.04 0.10 -0.03 0.21 -0.02 0.33

-O.ll 0.14 0.04 0.39

O.ll 0.02 0.03 0.00

1'.

0.00 0.16 0.07 0.39

-0.01 -0.01 -0.21 0.32

0.09 0.07 0.10 0.02

0.08 0.06 -O.ll 0.34

-0.12 0.12 0.01 0.31

0.13 -0.01 0.04 0.07

0.01 O.ll 0.05 0.38

DN-BEH total effect, it is unlikely that the effect of the time between measures was spurious.
Social opprovQl

ln confirmation of hypotheses, the total effects of both IN and DN on BEH were stronger among behaviours that were not socially approved (.07 and .39, re.spectivety) compared to when they were approved (.00 and .16, respectively). Once more it is noteworthy that the magnitude ofthe total effect of both norms on BEH among socially unapproved

676

Mark Manning

behaviours (as well as the total effects of DN on BEH among socially approved Iw^haviours) is due in large part to the magnitude of the DE of the norms on BEH. In fact, results indicated that there was no Indirect effect of DN on BEH when behaviours are not socially approved, suggesting that DN may not be mediated by INT in tbose instances. It should also be noted that the lack of a total effect of IN on BEH for behaviours that were socially approved was due to the fact that the sum of the DE of IN on BEH (-.11) and the indirect effect of IN on BEH (.11) was equal to zero. The model accounted for 56.1% of the variance in INT and 27.6% of the variance in BEH for behaviours that were not socially approved, and 52.9% of the variance in INTand 34.5% of the variance in BEH for behaviours that were socially approved.

Social motives

In confirmation of hypotheses, behaviours that were more socially motivated featured stronger total effects of DN on BEH (.34 vs. .06); the hypotheses was not supported in the case of the IN BEH total effect. In fact, among behaviours that were more socially motivated, tiie strength of tbe negative DE of IN on BEH (-.21) ,served to produce a negative total effect of IN on BEH (-.11), which is indicative of a suppressor effect of IN. Among behaviours tbat were more socially motivated, the DE of DN on BEH contributed the most to the total effect of DN on BEH, whereas among behaviours that were less socially motivated, the indirect effect of DN on BEH contributed most to the total effects of DN on BEH, suggesting that INT will mediate the relation between DN and BEH to a greater extent for behaviours that are less socially motivated. The model accounted for 49.9% of the variance in INT and 33.5% of the variance in BEH among behaviours that were less socially motivated, and 57.1% of the variance in INT and 35-3% of the variance in BEH among behaviours that were more socially motivated.

Utility

As expected, the total effects of DN on BEH were larger among behaviours that were pleasant (-38) than among behaviour that were useful (.11). Somewhat consistent with hypotheses, the total efiects of IN on BEH were slightly larger for behaviours tbat were pleasant (.05) than for behaviours that were useful (.01). Note that the magnitude of tbe DE of IN on BEH (-.12) served to depress the magnitude of the total effect of IN on BEH for behaviours that were useful. Einaliy, consistent with previous analyses, the magnitude of the DE of DN on BEH contributed most to the total effect of DN on BEH for behaviours in both groups. The model accounted for 51.9% of tbe variance in INT and 34.0% of the variance in BEH among behaviours that were useful, and 59.6% of the variance in INT and 32.0% of tlie variance in BEH among behaviours that were pleasant. There was a significant association between ratings of utilit\' and social approval (X^l} = 55.20, p < .01) as well as between utilir>" and social motives (x'd) = 13.28, p < .01). More socially unapproved behaviours were rated as pleasant than would be expected by chance (82.4%), and likewise more socially motivated behaviours were rated as pleasant than would be expected by chance (76.7%). This raises the question as to whether the noted effects utility- on the relation between SN and BEH were due to the associations with socially unapproved and socially motivated behaviours or vice versa.

Subjective norms and behaviour 677

Tliough this catmot be ruled out. it cannot be answered here, as a primary study would be needed to test which moderator is responsible for the effect.
Brief discussion ofpairwise results

Despite the number of times where tliere was a negative total effect of IN on BEH. there were no cases in which there was a negative effect of IN on INT. Taken in conjunction with results from the full pairwise TPB model, as well as results from the moderator analyses among behaviours that were mtjre socially motivated and that were fully compatible, it is evident that the negative total effect of IN on BEH is due substantially to the large negative DE of IN on BEH. The strong negative parameter for the direct relation between IN and BEH miglit be taken as evidence of a suppressor effect, to be discussed further below. There were a few cases where there was a very small negative relation between DN and INT G"able 13), most notably among behaviours measured less compatibly with cognitions, when measures of cognitions and behaviour occurred concurrently, and among behaviours that were coded as useful. However, in each case, the magnitude of the DE of DN on BEH contributed to a positive total effect of DN on BEH. Furthermore, the values ofthe parameters ( - ,01 and .05) are so close to zero as to suggest that they would not be significant if they were not being treated as population parameters. In all between-group analyses w^ere there was a larger total effect of DN on BEH at a particular level of the moderator, it was the DE of DN on BEH that was contributing most to the increase in the DN-BEH relation. This suggests that more primary research investigating the DE of DN on BEH in the TPB context is warranted.
Listwise moderator analyses

Tlie moderator analyses were repeated using the listwise matrix. Results ofthe analyses are presented in Table 14. Given that there was only one concurrent study among the iistwise sample, the moderator analyses for the time between measures of cognition and behaviour only contained the lower and upper median for prospective studies. As there were only 11 studies in the listwise sample, tests of associations among the moderators ^verc not conducted. With the exception of the moderator analyses for compatibility, significant x'^ change statistics indicated that the fully variant model in which all paths were allowed to be estimated separately for each group was the best fit to the data. Concerning compatibility, results indicated that the DE invariant model was the best fit to the data; no improvement in model fit was observed in allowing the direct effects of SN on BEH to be freely estimated between groups. It should be noted that the RJMSEA for three of the final models were above the recommended .08 to indicate a good fitting model; however, given that the NFI and CFI were within acceptable bounds for all final models, the parameters are interpreted with due caution. Parameter estimates for the final models are presented in Table 15, and comparison of direct, indirect and total effects arc presented in Table 16.
Compatb'ility

The direct effects of SN on BEH were not free to be estimated between groups. However, in confirmation of hypotheses, the total effect of both DN and IN on BEH were greater among studies whose measures were fully compatible (.23 and .06, respectively) compared to tliose that were less compatible ( .01 ns and .08, respectively). In contrast to the results from the pairwise analyses, and in support of hypotheses, it was the

678 Morte Manning Table 14. Results of moderator analyses for listwise sample
Model x^ Compatibility Invariant DE invariant AXa-b Variant Axb-c^ Time between Invariant DE invariant AX-b Variant
AXb c

f
20 4 16 2

RMSEA

- 90% RMSEA

+ 90% RMSEA

NFI

CFI

262.46 13.12 249.34 11.31 1.81 442.47 85.47 356.99 63.15 22.33 1.049.10 437.26 611.84 241.38 195.88 212.89 1 10.84 102.05 52.81 58.03 469.27 92.98 376.29 7.83 85.15

0.10 0.04 0.06

0.08 0.02 0.03

O.il 0.07 0.10

0.97 1.00 1.00

0.97 1.00 1.00

2
20 4 16 2 2 20 4 16 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.13 O.ll 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.94 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.99 0.99

Social approval Invariant DE invariant AXa^ Variant Axb-c Social motives Invariant DE invariant Ax'-b Variant AXb-c Utility Invariant DE invariant Variant** AXb-c

0.18 0.27 0.30

0.17 0.25 027

0.19 0.30 0.33

0.88 0.95 0.97

0.88 0.95 0.97

2
2 20 4 16

0.09 0.15 0.15

0.08 0.13 0.12

0.10 0.18 0.18

0.98 0.99 0.99

0.98 0.99 0.99

2
2 20 4 16

0.14 0.14 0.05

0.13 O.il 0.02

0.15 0.16 0.09

0.95 0.99 1.00

0.95 0.99 I.OO

2
2

Nate. Except where noted, ail model }(^ and Ax' statistics significant, p < .01; f = ns; +* ^ p < .05.

magnitude of the indireei effeets of both IN and DN on BEH that contributed the most to the overall total effects of the norms on BEH. Tlie model accounted for 53-9% of the variance in INT and 40.2% of the variance in BEH in studies that were less compatible, and 61.1% of the variance in INT and 47.8% of the variance in BEH among behaviours that were more compatible.

Time between measurement of cognition and behaviour

Among studies that were in the lower median of time between measurement of cognitions and behaviours, the total effect of IN on BEH was larger than among studies that were in the upper median (.18 vs. .10). Tiie reverse was observed for the relation l>etween DN and BEH; the total effect of DN on BEH was larger among studies that were in the upper median (.29 vs. - . 0 2 ns), thus, partially confirming the hypothesis on the part of DN that the relation between SN and BEH would be

Subjective norms and bebaviour 679

I UJ m Z

p d

p dd

ro O

p tn

p < N

dd

dd

X
UJ 0

p d

dd

dd

dd

dd

o o o d d

o 00 o d d

CO ro

o O d d

o d d

o o d d

LU

to

ro
d

r d d

ro

ro ro h* Ul

d d

Ul

ro

ro O

ro

ro

d d
C Q

d d

dd

o.

Z O

o r-i d

CO

o rN d

r-i ro

d d

pp dd

p dd

p dd

O.

E o

h-

-O

fN

dd

dd

dd

o. p

S *3 O
u

i
>5 -^

EE
ut

ce E E

> O
Op.

03 _>

ai

o Q

'0 0 0

O 3

i- 5! S

680

Mark Manning

Table 16. Comparison of effect sizes of SN on BEH for listwise sample Direct effect Compatibility Somewhat IN-BEH DN-BEH Fully IN-BEH DN-BEH Time between Lower median IN-BEH DN-BEH Upper median IN-BEH DN-BEH Social approval Approved IN-BEH DN-BEH Unapproved IN-BEH DN-BEH Social motives Less socially motivated IN-BEH DN-BEH More socially motivated IN-BEH DN-BEH Utility Useful IN-BEH DN-BEH Pleasant IN-BEH DN-BEH Note. +, ns. Indirect effect Total effect

0.02+ 0.07 0.02+ 0.07

-ao3+^
0.01* 0.04 0.16

- 0.01 + 0.08 0.06 0.23

0.13 -0.05+ 0.07 0.17

0.04 0.03 0.03 0.12

0.18 -0.02+ 0.10 0.29

-0.02* -0.03+ 0.14 0.50

0.08 0.15 0.01+ -0.02

0.06+ O.ll 0.15 0.48

-0.14 - 0.05^ 0.08 0.10

0.12 0.16 0.01^ 0.12

- 0.02+ O.ll 0.10 0.22

-0.06 -0.01 + 0.12 0.21

0.08 O.ll 0.03 O.ll

0.02+ 0.10 0.15 0.32

stronger as more time passes between measures of cognition and BEH. The DE of both IN and DN on BEH contributed most to the total effect of SN on BEH among studies in the upper median. Interestingly, tlie DE of IN on BEH also contributed most to the total effect of IN on BEH among studies in the lower median. Inconsistent with the pairwise analysis, the relation between INT and BEH remained relatively the same as more time passed between mesures of cognition and BEH. The model accounted for 56.5% of the variance in INT and 32.4% of the variance in BEH from studies that were in the lower median and 57.5% of the variance in INT and 37.5% of the variance in BEH among studies that were in the upper median.

Subjective norms and behaviour

681

Soda/ approval

Consistent with expectations, the total effect of both IN and DN on BEH was stronger among behaviours that were not socially approved (.15 and .48, respectively) compared to those that were socially approved (.06 ns and .11). Among behaviours tbat were socially approved, the majority of the total effect was due to the indirect effect of the norms on BEH. Among behaviours that were not socially approved, the majority of the total effect was due to the DE of both IN and DN on BEH. Results indicated that the indirect effect of DN on BEH is almost negligible among s<Kially unapproved behaviours, suggesting once again the DN-BEH relation may not be mediated by INT to the extent that it is among beliaviours that are socially approved. Tlie model accounted for 56.0% of tbe variance in INTand 27.8% of the variance in BEH among behaviours that were not socially approved and 62.5% of the variance in INTand 61,4% of the variance in BEH among behaviours that were socially approved.

Sacial motives

In confirmation of hypotheses, the total effects of both IN and DN were greater among behaviours that were more socially motivated (.10 and .22, respectively) compared to behaviours that were less socially motivated ( - .02 ns and .11, respectively). The direct and indirect effects of DN on BEH contributed relatively equally to the total effect among behaviours that were more socially motivated. However, among less socially motivated behaviours, tbe indirect effect of DN on BEH contributed most to the total effect of DN on BEH. Recall that among the pairwise samjale similar results were observed among behaviours that were less socially motivated, while :imong those that were more socially motivated the DE of DN on BEH contributed the most to the total effect. The model accounted for 595% of the variance in INT and 53.2% of the variance in BEH among behaviours that were less socially motivated and 59.1% of the variance in INTand 45.3% of the variance in BEH among behaviours that were more socially motivated.

Utititf

Where behaviours were pleasant, the total effects of both IN and DN on BEH were greater (.15 and .32, respectively) compared to when behaviours were useful (.02 ns and .10 respectively). Where they were pleasant, the DE of both IN and DN on BEH contributed most to their total effects on BEH. (Conversely, where tbey were useful, the indirect effect of IN and DN on BEH contributed most to the total effect of the norms on BEH. The model accounted for 64.0% of the variance in INTand 54.6?^ of the variance in BEH among behaviours that were useful and 51.9% of the variance in INT and 40.0% of the variance in BEH among behaviours tbat were pleasant.

Discussion PrevioLLs meta-analyses have investigated the relationship between SN and intentions regarding different kinds of behaviour (Conner & Armitage, 1998; Rivis & Sheeran. 2003) or with regard to a particular behaviour (Albarracin, Johnson, Fisbbein. & Muellerleile, 2001 ; Borsari & Carey. 2003; Hausenblas. Carrn. & iMack, 1997; Schulze & Whittmann, 2003; Sheeran & Taylor, 1999). However, no meta-anal>1ical studies have compared the total effects of IN and DN on behaviour, nor have previous meta-analyses

682

Mark Manning

investigated the potential for a DE of SN on behaviour. The current study undertook both tasks. Two separate but related mcta-anal)tical samples were used in the study. One sample featured any effect sizes from planned behaviour studies that met inclusion criteria, while a restricted s:miple featured only studies that had relations among all planned behaviour variables, including DN. While the 'populations' from which the studies were sampled are clearly related, they are not directly comparable. In other words, when examining differences in the patterns of results that were found, it is worthwhile to consider that diverging patterns of results docs not suggest that one or the other pattern of results is questionable or misleading, hut rather may be a feature of the different population from wliich the studies were sampled. In particular, there is a rather small sample of studies that have cxajnincd UN in the context of the TPB. Perhaps as more studies are conducted with this construct included,, the restilts from two populations may overlap to a greater extent. With regard to DN and IN and their bivariate relations with other planned behaviour variables, pairwise population effect size comparisons indicated that there was little difference between the two norms on most of the variables except for behaviour. A similar difference was not found when examining the more restricted listwise sample of effect sizes. However, w^hen the PBM was fit to the effect size data utilizing both pairwise and listwise samples, the total effect of DN on behaviour was greater than the total effects of IN on behaviour in both cases. In sum, three of four instances offer converging evidence that, as hypothesized, the descriptive norm-behaviour relation was stronger than the E behaviour relation. M

Modelling a direct effect of subjective norms on behaviour

Path anah .ses were used to model tiie TPB relations with DN as an additional predictor in the model, and with direct effects from SN to behaviour, separately for the pairwise and listwise samples. In both cases, the best fitting models featured the direct effects of SN on behaviour. The pairwise effect .size matrix did not allow for inferences regarding the parameters within the model; however, inferences using the listwise analyses indicated that the direct relation between DN and behaviour was significant whereas the direct rciaiion between IN and behaviour was not. In fact, the results indicated that it was the addition of the DE of DN on behaviour within the listwise sample tliat lead to significant model improvement. Both set of analyses indicate that there is potential utility in mcxlelUng a direct path from DN to behaviour in ihc PBM. An unexpected suppressor effect was noted in the pairwise path model. Despite its positive bivariate relation with behaviour, when the direct path from IN to behaviour was modelled along with the direct path from DN to behaviour, there was a negative DE of IN on behaviour, as well as a negative total effect of IN on behaviijur. A suppressor effect occurs when the suppressor variable (IN) shares more variance with the unexplained variance in a separate predictor (DN) than it does with the outcome itself (behaviour). The negative parameter estimate is indicative of the "suppression" of the unexplained variance (for discussion of suppressor effects, see Darlington, 1968; see also Maassen & Bakker, 2001). Given that thisfindingwas tmexpected, the explanation of this effect is speculative. It may be that inasmuch as descriptive normative perceptions may directly lead one to behave in line with those perceptions, it does so more tor individuals who do not perceive simultaneous injunctive expectations from important others. Take for example an instance in which two individuals report similar perceptions that a lot of their peers are exercising. For the individual who does not

Subjective norms and behaviour

683

simultaneously perceive tbat important others want liim or her to exercise (low IN), the perceptions that all peers exercise (descriptive norm) will have more of an effect on their behaviour than someone who perceives that important others want him or her to exercise (high IN). Accounting ft>r the injunctive normative perceptions in tbe relation between DN and behaviour helps to clear up the noise' tbat is attributable to simultaneous perceptions of IN; the unexplained variance in DN in its relation with behaviour is suppressed and the relation between DN and behaviour made clearer. Given that the parameter estimate for the DE of IN on behaviour was negative, it appears that it is the DE of IN on behaviour that is driving the suppressor effect. This negative I)E of IN on behaviour was apparent when measures were more compatible with behaviour, among concurrent studies, when behaviours were socially approved and socially motivated, and when behaviours were useiiil. A negative total effect of IN on behaviour was apparent among fully compatible studies and when behaviours were more socially motivated. In all. this suggests the IN suppressor effect will be most apparent for approved behaviours tbat arc more .socially motivated wben measures are collected concurrently. Note that the negative estimate for the total effect of IN does not imply that IN on their own have a negative relation with behaviour or a negative relation with any other variable in the TPB. In fact, as can be seen by examining tbe population effect sizes for all the relations within the TPB (Table 3), all the relations were positive. What tbe above negative population parameter implies is that in conjunction w^ith DN, ATT, PBC and bebavioural intentions, modelled as they are in the planned behaviour and including direct paths from both SN to behaviour. IN modelled with a DE to behaviour may serve the role of a suppressor variable in tbe relation of DN to behaviour. Note furthermore that tbe sum of tlie total effects of the SN is positive, indicating tbat the total perceived social pressure positively influence behaviour. However, the difference in the direction of the population parameters further may imply that, between the two types of SN, DN will have the strongest influence in leading people to behave in tine with perceived norms. Tliis assertion is seconded by the larger absolute value of the total effects of DN on behaviour in both pairwise and listwise samples. Though it was hypothesized that evidence would justify modelling the DE of SN to behaviour in tbe planned behaviour context, tbe finding in tbe pairwise sample that the magnitude of the DE of DN on behaviour was larger than the magnitude of its indirect effect on behaviour in its contribution to the total effects of DN on behaviour was unexpected. Tliis suggests that, for DN, the mediation by behavioural intention is not the main vehicle by wbicb DN are translated into behaviour. This results was not observed for the listwise sample, wherein the magnitude of the DE of both IN and DN were smaller tban tbe magnitude of the indirect effects, suggesting tbat their mediation by intention contributed the most to their relation with behaviour. 'Hiough tbe two samples did not offer convei^ing evidence for a definitive conclusion, the moderation analyses provided some converging evidence regarding tbe greater contribution of the DE of SN on behaviour in particular instances.

Moderation of the SN -behaviour relation compatibility

In both the pairwise and listwise samples, greater compatibility between measures of cognition and behaviour was associated with larger total effects of DN on behaviour. Witliin the pairwise sample, this effect was due mosdy to the DE of DN on behaviour in that the direct effects made the most contribution to the total effects of norms on

684

Alorik Monn/ng

bebaviour among bebaviours tliat were more compatible. Among the Ustwise sample, however, the larger total effects of DN on behaviour was due mostly to the contribution of the indirect effect to the magnitude of the total effects. When it comes to IN, there was a negative total effect of IN on behaviour among the more compatible studies, suggestive of a suppressor effect. There was no similar negative relation between IN and behaviour within the Ustwise sample. The tw^o different samples offered converging evidence that the total effects of DN are indeed larger when measures are more compatible, as would be expected according to the principle of compatibility (Ajzen, 1996; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977); however, due to the diverging evidence as to what contributes most to the total effects, no firm claim can be made tbat studies with more compatible measures will be associated with the meditational tenets of tbe TPB.

Time between measurement of cognition and behaviour

Among both pairwise and listwise sample, the total effects of DN on behaviour increases in magnitude as more time elapsed between measures of cognitions and behaviour This was attributable mostly to tbe increase in the magnitude of the DE of DN on behaviour. There was no similar effect on the relation betw^een IN and behaviour in either sample; in fact, the total effect of IN on behaviour decreased slightly as more time elapsed between measures of cognition and behaviour in the listwise sample. The increase in the strength of the relation between norms and behaviour was surmised to be due to the decrease in the strength of tbe relation between intention and bebaviour as more time elapsed between measures of cognition and bebaviour. Within the pairwise sample, an examination of the DE of intentions on behaviour provides evidence that this indeed might be the case (see Table 12). As the time between measures of cognition and behaviour increases, the effects of intention on behaviour simultaneously diminished as the total effect of DN on bebaviour increased. Tbat tbis pattern was not confirmed within the listwise sample, in tbat tbe relation between intention and behaviour stayed relatively the same as time increased, once again leaves us with unable to say that the weakened relation between intentions and behaviour is tbe definitive reason w^hy the relation between DN and bebaviour increase in magnitude as more time passes between measures of cognition and bebaviour.

Social approval

Both siuiiples offered converging evidence that when behaviours were not approved, there were greater total effects of both types of norms on l^ehaviour. However, the difference between tbe magnitudes of the effects of DN on behaviour was greater between groups within botb tbe painvise (.23) and listwise (.37) samples than was the magnitude of tbe difference between the total effects of IN and behaWour witbin the pail-wise (.07) and listwise (.09) samples. This suggests that the extent to which a behaviour is socially approved versus not socially approved has a greater effect on the relations between DN and bebaviour. Among the studies that were less socially approved tbe magnitude of the total effect was due mostly to the strength of the DE of the norms on behaviour; this was tnie except for the effects of IN on behaviour in the pairwise sample wherein tbe magnitude of tlie direct and indirect effects were relatively the same (.04 and .03, respectively).

Subjective norms and behaviour 685

Overall, it is evident that in comparison to behaviours that are socially approved. SN exert a greater influence on behaviours that are not approved. In that some people may engage in behaviours that are not sociaUy approved to the extent that they perceive their friends engaging in these behaviours, the heightened role of normative influences makes sense. Individuals may need more cues and justiiication to engage in nonapproved behaviours. Normative perceptions of one's peers might offer the impetus to engage, regardless of how society in general views the behaviour. Manipulations of these normative perceptions may serve as a route to behavioural change, such as in social norms marketing where behaviours such as excessive drinking by college students are targeted for intervention by correcting misperceptions of norms surrounding the beiiaviour (e.g. Campo e ai, 2003; Gombcrg et ai, 2001). Given the relationship between DN and behaviour in the case of non-approved behaviours, correcting normative perception presents itself a.s the avenue through which social norms marketing campaigns lead to behavioural change among behaviours that are not socially approved. Results from a recent study (Campo, Cameron, Brossard, & Frazer, 2004) support the present results regarding the greater effects of the DN on behaviours that are not socially approved. Following exposure to messages regarding norms for alcohol consumption and exercise, a lai^er percentage of participants changed their judgments and ATT regarding alcohol consumption compared to judgment and attitude change regarding exercise. Regarding, the smaller influence of IN on behaviour in the case of unapproved behaviours, it may be that individuals do not generally perceive that their peers want them to engage in non-approved behaviours, and as such a restricted range of injunctive normative perception serves to attenuate the rclationsliip with behaviour. Perceptions of what their peers are doing regarding non-appro\ ed behaviours however share a robust relationship with behaviour. It suggests that the effectiveness of normative influence is less about injunctive entreaties and more about perceptions of peer behaviour.

Social motives

When behaviours were more socially motivated, there were consistently stronger total effects of DN on behaviours for both samples. In the listwise sample, there were stronger effects of IN on behaviour for more socially motivated behaviours. Within the pairwise sample, there was a negative total effect of IN on beha\iour, which is once again indicative of the suppressor effect. This confirms hypotheses that when the motivation underlying a behaviour is more social, normative influence on behaviour is greater. The strength of the total effect of both norms on behaviour within the pairwise sample among behaviours that were more socially motivated wa.s due to the lai^cr contribution of the direct effects of SN on behaviour, offering evidence that norms may affect behaviour unmediated by stated intent when there is more social motivation underlying a behaviour. However, though there was convergent evidence concerning the greater contribution of the DE of IN within the list^vise sample, there was no convergent evidence concerning DN: the magnitude ofthe direct (.10) and indirect effects (.12) were relatively similar. Taken in conjunction with the role of social approval in the relation between norms and behaviour, results of the current analysis suggest that not only will norms be most influential where behaviours are not socially approved, but also where an individual is motivated to engage in the behaviour to ftilfil some social need. This is evident in studies of underage drinking where social motives have been identied as being

686

Marie Manning

strongly related to drinking intentions and behaviours (Bradizza, Reifman, & Barnes, 1999; Coleman & Cater, 2(M)5; Webb, Getz, Baer, & McKelvey, 1999). This bodes well for social marketing efforts targeting excessive drinkii^ among college students. Given tbe strong social motivations that accompany adolescence, and coupled with the strong effects of DN on behaviour, social norms marketing campaigns that target perceptions of excessive drinking among peers are well poised to contribute to efforts to curb such behaviours.

Utility

11 discussing, the effects of utility on the relation between SN and behaviour, recall the 1 associations between pleasant behaviours and behaviotirs that were socially unapproved and socially motivated. Clearly, one could make the argument that the stronger effect of norms on bebaviour tbat was noted among behaviours that w^ere pleasant is due to aforementioned associations. This study makes no claim to the contrary; however, there is no means to ascertain whether the effects of utility are being mediated by tbe effects of one of the other moderators, or whether the effects of one or both of the other moderators are being mediated by the effects of utility. In other words, the current study cannot discern which variable is primarily responsible for the moderating effects on the relation between SN and behaviour; it can only demonstrate that the moderating effects are present. Consequently, the results for all the moderators were presented and discussed. Wlien behaviours were more pleasant, DN had a larger total effect of on behaviour in both samples. In each case, the effect was driven by the contribution of the DE of DN on behaviour. Within the li.stwise sample, there was a significant total effect i>f IN on behaviour among pleasant behaviours, and no significant effect among usefiil behaviours. There was no significantly noticeable difference in the effects of IN on behaviours between useful and pleasant behaviours within the pairwise sample. The relation between intention and behaviour wa.s weaker among behaviours that were more pleasant, suggesting that the stronger relation betw^een the SN and behaviour among pleasant behaviours may be due in part to tbe weaker relation between intentions and behaviour as well as to the strength of the DE of SN on behaviour. Altogether, this implies that when an individual engages in a behaviour that is more hedonic than it is utilitarian, in that the behavioural engagement fulfills a short term need or pleasurable desire in contrast to a relatively more thought out and useful function, the effects of DN on behaviour ^vill be stronger. In thinking about some behaviours that are less socially acceptable and more .socially motivated (e.g. binge drinking), the overlap with utilit>' is evident in that they may be more pleasurable. In light of that, it may be that the moderating effect of utility on the relation between DN and behaviours may be mediated by the extent to which the behaviour is socially acceptable and socially motivated.

Miscellaneous conclusions

Meta-ana!}tical data collection provided the opportunit)' to take stock of what has been transpiring with the SN variables in planned behaviour studies, at the very least within the boundaries of the inclusion criteria. Most studies have assessed the normative construct using IN. The majority that a.ssessed DN did so in conjunctions with measures of IN. Eew studies used a normative measure that contained both injunctive and

Subjective norms ar}d behaviour

687

descriptive items despite a recommendation by Ajzen (website: http://people.umass. cdu/aizen/tpb.html) to do so. The difference in population effect sizes between the different t>'pes of SN in this study, as weU as the differences in direct effects and total effects on behaviour, contributes to the evidence that supports the distinction between DN and IN and underscores the recommendation to include both types of norms in planned behaviour research. The inclusion of DN within the TPB is relatively recent, with the first study explicitly including the construct being conducted in 1999 (Sheeran & Orfjell, 1999a). llie studies included in the current mcta-analyscs spanned the period from 1996 till July 2006. It was reasoned that using a time-span of a decade as an inclusion criteria would produce a representative number of studies featuring IN, and tliis would simultaneously include all planned behaviour studies that featured DN. One planned behaviour study using DN from 1994 w^as identified, however, this study was excluded from the analysis due to missing and irretrievable data (White et al., 1994). With that said, it is clear that the paucity- of planned behaviour studies featuring DN suggests some caution in interpreting the present findings, especially given the discrepancies that were noted when the analyses were restricted only to the studies that had DN. Witliin empirical investigations utilizing DN. the smaller sample of behaviours from the distribution of behaviours intrinsically advise caution when compared to the much larger distribution of behaviours sampled for inclusion in planned behaviour studies overall. However, in service lo the advancement of current knowledge regarding the inclusion of DN within the TPB, and particuiarly with regards to potential direct effects of SN on behaviour, this meta-anaKtical synthesis stands to make a significant contribution.

Directions for further research

Ajzen and Fishbein (2005) have recommended including DN and IN in the same measure. Given the differences between the two norms in relation to tai^et behaviours, one miglit conclude that these two constructs ought to be treated separately. Were we to have a larger sample of the DN-behaviour relation effect sizes, we would be able to more confidently examine where moderators may have different effects. Given different sources of motivation for IN and DN (Cialdini et al., 1990; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; van Knippenberg, 2000) there is theoretical reason to conjecture the differential effects of moderators on the relations between the SN and behaviour. As more studies use DN, either alone or in conjunction with IN, the marmer in which different moderators affect the constructs can be investigated, thus providing more data for conclusions as to whether or not these tw^o constructs necessarily ought to be distinguished in measurement within the TPB. Additionally, further plarmed behaviour studies that include DN offer the opportunity to empirically examine, the presence of a suppressing effect of IN in the relation between DN and behaviour in a primary study.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Icek Ajzen for ail his help with the manuscript. I would also like to thank Unda Tropp for her help and encouragement throughout the analyses. Finally, this would not have heen possible without my research assistants Kim Ivcrson, Callan Powers and Sarali Sebren-Baker.

688

Mark Manning

References
'Rcicrences miirkcd with an asterisk were included in the meta-analysis. 'Abraiiani. C, Clift, S.. & Cinibowski, fi (1999). Cognitive predictors of adherence to malaria prophylaxis regimens on return from a malarious region: A prospective study. Social Science and Medicine, 480 V). 1641-1654. Ajzen,!. (1991). Tlietheorj'of planned behavior. Organizational Bebai'ior and Human Decision Processes. 50. 179-211. Ajzen, 1. C1996). Tlie directive influence of attitudes oo behavior. In P. M. GoUwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and moiiration to behaviour (pp. 385- tO3). New York: Guilford Press. *Ajzen, 1., Brown, T C, & Curajal, F (2()(M). Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions; TIic case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personality ami Social Psycholog- Bulletin, 30(9), 1108-1121. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein. M. (1973). Attiiudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behaviour. yor// of Personality and Social Psychologr. ^(.l), 41-57. Ajzen, I.. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitiide-lx-havioiir relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, -(5), 888-918. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. C2(K)5). The influence of attitudes on behaviour. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds). The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173-221). Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Ajzen. I., Si Fishbein, M. (2008). Scaling and testing mitltiplicative combinations in the expectancyvalue model of attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, JS(9), 2222-2247. Ajzen, I.. & Madden, T J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control.yourn/ of Experimental Sociat Psychology- '?^(5). 453-474. *Albarracin, D., Fishliein, M.. & Middlestadt, S. (1998). Genenili/ing behavioral findings across times, samples, and measures: A study of condom use.Journat of Applied Social Psychology, 28(S\ 657-674. Albarracin. D.. Johnson. B. T., Fisbbein, M., & Muellerleile. P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, /27(I). 142-161. Armitage. C. J. (2005). Can the theory of planned behavior predict the maintenance of physical activity? Health Psychotogr. 24(5). 235-245. 'Armitage. C. J.. & Conner. M. (1999). Distinguishing perceptions of control from self-efficacy: Predicting consumption of a low-fat diet using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psycholog)\ 29(\\ 72-90. Armitage. C J.. & Conner. M. (2fK)l). Efficacj^ of the theiiry of planned behaviour: A meta-anal)iic review. British Journal of Social Psycholog)', 4(X.4), 471-499. Armitage. C. j . , Conner, M., Loach, J.. & Mlletts, D. (1999). Different perceptions of control: Applying an extended theory of planned behavior to legal and illegal drug use. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Jli-i), 301-316. Armitage. C. J.. Nonnan, P., & Conner, M. (2002)- Can the theor>- of planned behaviour mediate the effects of age, gender and multidimensional Iiealth locus of control? British Journal of Health Psychology, 7(3), 299-316. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 7(K9), 70. Astrom, A. N. (2004). Validity of cc^nitive predictors of adolescent sugar snack consumption. American Journal of Health Behavior. 28(2), 112-121. 'Autrey. P S. (1999). Tlie determinants of exercise behavior: An application of the theories of planned behavior and the live-factor model of personality; Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. 60(3), 0808. Bagozzi, R. P, Dholakia, U. M., & Mookerjee, A. (2006). Individual and group bases of social influence in online environments. Media P^'chology, 5(2), 95-126.

Subjective norms and behaviour 689

Bamberg, S.. Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel mcxle in the theory- of planned beha\1or The n>les of past behavior, habit and reasoned action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5(3), 175-187. Bandura, A.. & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-niotivation. Jowtuil of Personality and Social Psychology, 4IO). 586-598. 'Beck. L., Si Azcn, I, (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Jourmil of Researcb in Personality, 25(3), 285-301. 'Benjamin, K.. Edwanls, N. C, &Bharti, V K. (2005). Attitudinal. percepuial. and normative beliefs influencing the exercise decisions of communit)-dwelling physically frail seniors. Journal of Aging and Pljysical Activity, 13OX 276-293. Beretva,s, S. N., & Furlow, C. E (2006). Evaluation of an approximate method for synthesizing covariance matrices for use in meta-anal>iic SEM. Structural Ecuation Modeling, 13(2), 153-185. Bish, A., Sutton, S., & Golombok, S. (2000). Predicting uptake of a routine cervical smear test: A comparison of the health belief model and the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology and Health, 15(1), 35-50. "Blanchard, C. M., Coumeymi. K. S., Rodgers. W. M., Daub, B., & Knapik, G. (2002). Determinajits of exercise intention and behavior during and after phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Rehabilitation Psychology, 47(3), 308-323. Blue, C. L, Wbur. J., & Marston-Scott, M. V. (2001). Exercise among blue<ollar workers: Application of the theory of planned betwvior. Research in Nursing and Health, 24(Ct), 481-493. Boldero, J., Sanitioso, R., 8c Brain, B. (1999). Gay Asian Australians' safer-sex behavior and bchainoral .skills: The predictive utilit>' of the theory of planned behavior and cultural factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 29(10), 2143-2163. Boncrti, D., Pitts, N. B., Eccles, M., Grimshaw,J., Johnston, M., Stccn, N., et al. (2006), Applying psychological theor>' to evidence-based clinical practice: Identifying factors predictive of taking intra-oral radiographs. Social Science and Medicine, 63(7), 1889-1899Borsari. B., & Carey, K. B. (2001). Peer mfluences on college drinking: A review of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13(4), 391-424. Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A metaanai^tic integration, yoHrni// of Studies on Alcohol, 64(3), 331-341. Bosnjak, M., Tuien, T. L., & Wittman, W. W. (2005). Unit (non)response in Web-ba.sed access panel surveys: An extended plaiined-beha\1or approach. Psychology and Marketing, 22(6), 489-505, Bozionclos, C, & Bennett. P (1999). Hie thcor>- of planned bebaviour as predictor of exercise: The moderating influence of beliefs and personality variables../ourji/ of Health P^chology, -^(4), 517-529. Bradizza. C. M.. Reifman. A., & Barnes. G. M. (1999). Social and coping reasons for drinking: Predicting alcohol misuse in adolescents./oHHifl/ of Studies on Alcohol, 6(X.4). 491-499. Brenes, G. A., Strube, M. J., & Storandt, M. (1998). An application of the theory- of planned behavior to exercise among older adults. Journal of .Applied Social Psychology, 28(24), 2274-2290, Brickell. T A., Chatzisarantis, N, !.. D,, & Pretty, G. M, (2006), Using past behaviour and spontaneous implementation intentions to enbance the utility of tbe ilieory of planned Ix-haviour in predicting exercise. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11(2), 249-262. 'Broadhead-Feam, D., & White, K. M. (2006). The role of self-efficacy in predicting rule-following behaviors in shelters for homeless youth: A test of tlie tbeor>' of planned behavior. yoHrrt/o/ Social Psychology, 146(5), 307-325. Brown, S. G., & Rhodes. R. E. (2006). Relationships among dog ownersiiip and leisiut;-time walking in Western Canadian adulls. Ameiicari Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(2), 121-136. ,.

690

Murk Manning

'Bryan, A., Fisher, J. D., & Fi.shcr. W. A. (2002). Tests of ilic mediational role of prcparatorj' .sai'er sexual behavior in ihe context of the theor>' of planned behavior. Health Psychology'. -?/(l), 71-8<). 'Bryan, A., Kagee, A., & Broaddiis, M. R. (2006). Condom use among South African adolescents: Develt)ping and testing cheoretical models of intentions and behavior. AIDS and Behavior, 10(4\ 387-597. Campo, S., Brossard, D., Frazer, M. S., MarchcU, X, Lewis, D., &Talbot,J. (2<X)3). Are social norms campaigns really magic hullets? Assessing the effects of students' misperceptions on drinking behavior. Health Communication, /5(4), 481-497. Campo, S., Cameron, K. A., Brossard, D., & Frazer, M. S. (2004). Social norms and expectancy violation theories: Assessing the effectiveness of health communication campaigns. Communication Monographs, 7/(4), 448-470. Cao, H. T. (2000). Application of the theory of planned behavior to drinking and driving research among young individuals. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 61(5). 281S. Charles, E. R (200S). The correction for attenuation due to measurement ermr Clarifying concepts and creating confidence sets. Psychological Methods, J0(2), 206-226. "Chatzisarantis, N. L. D.,& Biddle, S.J. H. (1998). Functional significance of psychological variables that are included in the theory of planned behaviour: A self-determination theory approach to the study of attitudes, subjective norms, perceptions nf control and intentions. European Journal of Sociat Psycholog^', 28(5), 305-322. Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Hagger, M. S., Smith, B., & Phoenix, C. (2004). Tlie influences of continuation intentions on execution of social behaviour within the theory of planned behaviour. British Joi4mal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 551-583. Cheung, S. F., Chan, D. K.-S., & Wong, Z. S.-Y (1999). Reexaniining the theory of planned behavior in understanding wastepaper recycling. Environment and BehatHor, 3^(5), 587-612. Christian, J., & Abrams, D. (2003)-The effects of social identification, norms and attitudes on use of outreach services by homeless people. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 13(2), 138-157. Christian, J., & Abrams, D. (2004). A tale of two cities: predicting homeless people's uptake of outreach programs in London and New York. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26(2'), 169-182. Christian,.!., & Armitage, C.J. (2002). Attitudes and intentions of homeless people towards service provision in South Wales. British Journal of Social Psychology. 41(2). 219-232. Christian, J., Armitage, C. J., & Abrams, D. (2(X)3). Predicting uptake of housing services: The role of self-categorization in the theory of planned behaviour. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 22(i), 206-217. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgrcn, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: RecycUng the concept of norms to reduce littering in ptiblic places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(()\ lOlS-1026. Coleman. L, & Cater, S. (2005). Underage binge' drinking: A qualitative study into motivations and outcomes. Ortigs: Education, Prei'ention & Policy. 12(2). 12S-136. 'Conner, M., & Abraham, C. (2001). Conscientiousness and the theory of planned behavior Toward a more complete model of the antecedents of intentious behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 27(\ 1), 1547-1561. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theor>- of planned behaviour: A review and avenues for further research. yoMr/ of Applied Social Psycholog;)', 28(15), 1429-1464. 'Conner. M., Kirk, S. F L., Cade. J. E., & Barren, J. H. (2001). Why do women use dietarysupplements? The use of the theory of planned beha\iour to explore beliefs about their use. Social Science and Medicine, .52(4). 621-633. 'Conner, M., & McMillan, B. (1999) Interaction effects in the theory of planned behavior: Studying cannabis use. British Journal of Sociai Psychology, 38(2), 195-222.

Subjective norms and behaviaur

691

Conner, M.. Norman. F, & Bell, R. (2002). The theory of planned behavior and healthy eating. Health Psychology, 21(2X 194-201. Conner, M., Povey, R., Sparics, F, James. R.. & Shepherd. R. (2()O5). Moderating role of attiludinal ambivalence within the thetry of planned behaviour. British Joumui of Social Psychology, 42(1X75-94. *Conner. M.. Sheeran. P, Norman, P, & Armitage. C. J. (2()0()). Temporal stability as a moderator of relationships in the theory of planned behaviour British Journal of Sociai Psychology, Ji<4), 469-493. Conner, M., Warren, R., Close, S.. & Sparks. F (1999). Alcohol consumption and the theory of planned behavior: An examination of the cognitive mediation of past behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(8), 1676-1704. Courneya, K. S.. Blanchard, C. M.. & Laing, D. M. (2001). Exercise adbcrence in brea.st cancer survivors training for a dragon boat nice competition: A preliminary investigation. PsychoOncology, KK"^). 444-452. Courneya, K. S.. Bobick, T. M., & Schinke, R. J. (1999). Does the theory of planned behavior mediate the relation between personality and exercise behavior? Basic and Applied Social Psycholog', 2li4), 317-32'. Courneya. K. S.. & Friedenreich. C. M. (1999)- Utility of the theory of planned behavior for understanding exercise during breast cancer treatment. Ps^'cho-Otuotogy, S(2), 112-122. Courneya. K. S.. Friedenreich. C. M., Arthur, K., & Bobick, T. M. (1999). Understanding exercise motivation in colorectal cancer patients: A prospective study using the theory' of planned behavior. Rehabilitation Psycholog}'. 44(1), (8-84. Courneya, K. S., Keats, M. R., & Turner, R. (20(H)). Social cognitive determinants of hospital-based exercise in cancer patients following high-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, ntenmtional Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 7(5). 189-205. Courneya, K. S., Flotnikoff, R. C Hotz, S. B., & Birkett, N. J. (2001). Predicting exercise stage transitions over two consecutive (vmonth periods: A te.st of the theory of planned behaviour in a population-based sample. British Journal of Health Psychology. 6(2), 155-150. Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychologiad Bulletin. 105(2), 517-327. Darlington. R. B. ( 1968). Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psychological Bulletin. 69(?>X 161-182. Davis. L. E., Ajzen. I., Saundcrs. .1.. & Williams. T. (2002). The decision of African American students to complete high school: An application of the theory' <f planned hchavior/oMrwii/ of Educational Psychology, 94(4). 810-819, de Bruijn. G.-J., Kremers, S. P. J., Schaalma. H.. van Mecbelen, W., & Brug,J. (2005). Determinants of adolescent bicycle use ibr transportation and snacking behavior. Prerentiie Medicine: An International fourruit Devoted to Practice and neory. 4(K(i), 658-667. Deutsch. M.. & (eranl, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. yoHrio/ of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 5 OX 629-636. Dodgson, J. E., Henly. S. J.. Duckett. L. & Tarrant, .M. (2(M)3). Theory of planned behavior-based models for breastfeeding duration among Hong Kong mothers. Nursing Research, 52(5), 148-158. Downs. D. S. (2003). Examining the psycbosocial determinants of exercise during pregnancy using the framework of the theor)- of planned behavit)r: A prospective investigation. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 6X9), 4143. Drake, C. R., & McCabe, M. R (2000). Extrarelationship involvement among heterosexual males: An explanation based on the theory of planned behavior, relationship quality, and past bebsvior. Journal of Applied Social Psycholog}'. MK7). 1421-1439. Drossaert, C. H. C. Boer, H.. & Seydcl. E. R. (2003). Prospective study of the determinants of repeat attending and attendance patterns in breast cancer screening using the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology and Health, /S(5). 551-565.

692

Mork Manning

Duckeu. L,. Henly. S., Avery-, M.. Potter. S., H!s-Boncz)-k. S.. Hulden, R., et ai. (1998). A theory of planned behavior-based structural model for brea.st-feeding. Mujsing Research. 47(6), 525-536. "Elliott, M. A., Armitage. C. J.. & Baughan. C. J. (2005). Drivers' compliance with speed limits: An application of the theory of planned behiivior. Journal ofApplied Psychology\ 88C5X 964-972. 'Faulkner. G., & Biddlc. S, (2(H)I). Predicting physical activity promotion in health care settings. American Journal of Health Promotion. t6(2). 98-l()6. Fekadu,'/.,,& Kraft, P. I. (2001). Self-identity in planned behavior perspective: Past behavior and its moderating effects on sclf-idcntin'-intcntion relations. Snctal Behavior and Personality. J9(7), 671-685. Fekadu, '/.,. & Knift, R I. (2002). Exp:inding the theory of planned behaviour: The role of social norms and group identification. you/*// of Health Psychotog}',, 7(1), 533. Fiske, S. T (2(X)3). Five core social motives, plus or minusfive.In S. J. Spencer, S. Fein, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Motifate social perception: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 9. pp. 233-246). Mahwali, N}: Erlbaum. Fultz. M. L. (1997). Predicting voluntary turnover: An application of the theory of planned beha\ior Dissertation Abstracts iitetyiatiotuU: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. Gardner, R. E.. & Hausenblas, H, A. (2004). Understanding exercise and diet motivation in overweight women enrolled in a weight-loss program: A prospective study using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applieil Sotiiil Psychnlog}', 34(T), 1353-1570. Geckov. A.. & van Dijk.J. F (2001). Peer impact on .smoking, alcohol consumption, drugu.se and sports activitie.s in adolescents. Studia Psychologica, 43(2), 113-123. 'Giles, M., liddell, C, & Bydawell, M. (2(K)5). Condom use in African adolescents: The role of individual and group factors. AIDS Care, 77(6). 729-739. 'Giles, M., McClenahan. C. Cairns, E., & Mallet, J. (2004). An application of the theory of planned behaviour to bl<K)d donation: The importance of self-efficacy. Health Education Research, 19iiX 380-391. Gomberg, L., Schneider. S. K.. & Dejong. W. (2001). Evaluation of social norms marketing campaign to u-duce high-risk drinking at the University of Mississippi. American Jourtial of i:>rug and Alcohol Abuse, J^H). 375-389. Greenslade, J. H., & White, K. M. (2005). The prediction of above-average participation in volunteerism: A test of the theor\' of planned behavior and the volunteers functions inventory in older Austmlian adults. Jounuil of Social Psychology. I45(.2). 155-172. Griskevicius. V, Crt>ldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B.. & Kenrick. D. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)confomiity. Journal of Persotuuity and Social Psychology. 91(2). 281-294. (irubc.J. W., Morgan. M.. & McGrce. S. T. (1986). Attitudes and normative beliefs as predictors of smoking intentions and behaviotirs: A test of three models. British Journal of Social Psycbology. 25(2), 81-93. 'Hagger. M. S., Chatzisaramis, N. L. D.. Barkoukis, V. Wang. C. K.J.. & Baranowski, J. (2(H)5). Perceived autonomy support in physical education and leisure-time physical activity: A crosscultural evaluation of the trans-contextual moeX. Joumai of Educational Psychology. 97(3). 376-390. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Biddie, S. J. H. (2002). The influence of autonomous and controlling motives on physical activity intentions within the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Heaith Psycholog;}'. 7(3). 283-297. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Harris, J. (2006). From psychological need satisfaction to intentional behavior Testing a motivational sequence in two behavioral contexts. Personality and Social Psychology^ Bulletin. 32(,2), 131-148. Hagger. M. S.. Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Culverhouse, T. & Biddie, S. J. H. (2003). The processes by which perceived autonomy support in physical education promotes leisure-time physical

Subjectve narms and behaviour 693

activity intentions and behavior A trans<ontextual model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 784-795. Harakeh, Z., Schlte. R. H. J., Vermuist, A. A., de Vries, H., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2004). Parental faaors and adolescents' smoking behavior: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal i:)evoted to Practice and Theory, 39(5), 951-961. Hardeman. W., Johnston, JM.. Johnston, D., Bonetti. D., Wareham, N.. & Kinmonth. A. L. (2002). Application of the theory of planned behaviour change interventions: A systematic review. Psychology and Health, 17(2), 123-158. "Harland. P, Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior Journal of Applied Sociat Psychology, 29(12), 2505-2528. Hausenblas, H. A., Carrn, A. V, & Mack, D. E. (1997). Application of tbe theories of reasoned action and planned beha\*iour to exercise behaviour: A meta-analysis./owrwa/ of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19(1), 36-51. Hausenblas, H. A., & Downs, D. S. (2004). Prospcaive examination of the theory of planned behavior applied to exercise behavior during women's first trimester of prcgnanc}'. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychotogy, 22O). 199-210. Heath, Y. & Gifford, R. (2002)- Extending the theory- of planned behavior: Predicting the use of public transportation./owrfjrt/ of Applied Social Psycholog)', J2(10), 2154-2185. Hertel, G., Ncuhof, J., Theuer, T., & Kerr. N. L. (2000). Mood effects on cooperation in small ^tups: Does positive mood simply lead to more cooperation? Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 441-472. Higgins, A.. & Conner, M. (2003). Understanding adolescent smoking: The role of the theory of planned behaviour and implementation intentions. Psycholog)', Health and Medicine, 8(2), 173-186. Hillhouse. J. J.. Adler. C. M.. Drinnon, J., & Turrisi. R. (1997). Application of .\zjen s theory of planned behavior to predict sunbathing, tanning salon use. and sunscreen use intentions and behaviors, foumal of Behavioral Medicine, 20(4), 365-378. Hirscliman, E. C, &HoIhrook. M. B. (1986). Expanding the ontology and methodology of research on the consumption experience. In D. Brinbcrg & R. Lutz (Eds.), Perspective on methodology in consumer research (pp. 213-244). New Yoric: Springer-Verlag. Halbes, D., Ajzen. L, & Daigfe, J. (2001). Predicting hunting intentions and behavior An application of the theory of planned behavior Leisure Sciences, 23(3), 165-178. Ingntm, K. L., Cope. J. G.. Harju. B. L.. & Wuensch, K. L. (2000). Applying to graduate .school: A test of the theory of plamied behavior. Journal of Sociat Behavior and Personality, 15(2), 215-226. Jenner, E. A.. Watson, P W B.. Miller, I... Jones, E. & Scott. G. M. (2002)- Explaining hand hygiene practice: An extended application of the theory o planned behav'iour. Psychotogy, Health and Medicine, 7(3), 311-326. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly. A. H. (2000). Quantitative synthesis of social psychological research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (&is.). Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 496-528). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson. P B.. & Johnson. H. L. (19%). Children's beliefs about the social consequences of drinking and refusing to drink a\coho\. Journal ofAlcohol atid Drug Education, 41(3). 34-43. Jones, F. Abraham, c;.. Harris. P, Schulz. J. R., & Chrispin, C. (2001). From knowledge to action regulation: Modeling the cognitive prerequisites of sun screen use in Australian and UK sampies. Psychology and Health, 16(2). 191-206. Joreskog. K., & Siirbom. D. (2004). IJSREL 8.71 for windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc. Kaiser, E G.,& Gutscher. H. (2003). The proposition of a general versionof the theory of planned behavior: Predicting ecological behavit)r- Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(3),
586-603.

694

Marie Manning

Kaiser. E G., Hbner, G., &Bogner. F. X. (2005). Contrasting the theor> of planned behavior with the value-belief norm model in explaining conservation behavior./owrfwi/ of Applied Social Psychology, 35(10), 2150-2170. Karniol, R.. & Ross, M. (1996). The motivational impact of temporal focus: Thinking about the future and the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 593-620. Kidwell, B., & JeweU, R. D. (2003). The moderated influence of internal control: An examination across health-related hch^vioms. Journal of Consumer Psychrtlogy, 3(4). 377-386. "Kim, K.. Reicks, M., & Sjobei^, S. (2Oi)3). Applying the theor>- of planned behavior to predict dairy product consumption by older adults. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, .5(6), 294-301. KittLsopee, T, (2002). The influences of personality, social cognition, and environmental actors on phannaceutical care. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 62(7), 3150. 'Kraft, F I.. Rise, J., Sutton, S,, & Roy.samb, E. (2005). Perceived difficulty in the theor>' of planned behaviour: Perceived behavioural control or affective attitude? British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(3X 479-496. Lanigan, M, L. (1997). Applying tbe theories of reasoned action and planned behavior to training evaluation levels. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 5S(3), 0778. Lapinskl, M. K., & Rimal, R. N, (2005), An explication of social norms. Communication Theory. /5(2). 127-147. Larimer, M. E., & Neighbors, C. (2003), Normative misperception and the impact of descriptive and injunctive norms on college student gambling. Psycholog}- of Addictive Behaviours, 17(5), 235-243. Larimer, .M. E., Turner, A. P., iMatlett, K. A., & Gcisner, 1. M. (2004). Predicting drinking bebaviour and alcohol related problems among fraternity and sorority members: FJiamining tbe role of descriptive and injunctive norms. Psych(}logv of Addictive Behaviours, 1S(5), 203-212. 'Latimer, A. H., & Martin Ginis, K. A. (2005). The theory of planned bebavior in prediction of leisure time physical activity among individuals witb spinal cord iiijur\. Rehabilitation Psycholog)', 50(4). 389-396. Leone. L.. PeruginJ. M., & Ercolani, A. P (2004). Studying, practicing, and mastering: A test of the model of goal-directed behavior (MiiB) in the software learning dommn.Jounuil of Applied Social Psycholog}', 34(9), 1945-1973, 'Levin, P E (1999). Test of the Fishbein and Ajzen mtnlels as predictors o health care workers glove use. Research in Nursing and Health, 22(4), 295-307. 'Lien, N., Lytle. L. A.. & Komro. K. A. (2002), Applying theory of planned behavior to fruit and vegetable consumption of young adolescents./lme/7fnyoMrHi'/o//y('7/Wj Promotion, 16(4), 189-197. Tight. M. R. (1999). Women s intentions and behavior in using Depo-Provera: An application of tbe Ajzen model, dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 59(12), 6264, linn, L S, (1965). Verbal anitudes and overt behaviour A study of racial discrimination. Social Forces, 4J(3), 353-364. Upsej, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publicatioas. Lowe, R., Eves, E, & CairoU, D. (2002). The influence of affective and instrumental beliefe on exercise intentions and behavior A longitudinal analysis. Jouma of Applied Social Ps}'cholog}\ 32(6), 1241-1252. Maassen, G. H., & Bakker, A. B. (2001). Suppressor variables in path models: Definitions and interpretations. Sociological Methods and Research. 30(2). 241 -270. 'Mancini, D, E. (2001). Extension of the tbeor>- of planned behavior in prediction of exercise behavior in a sample of mildly to moderately obese women: Evaluation of attitude towanl

Subjective norms and behaviour

695

sedentary lifestyle, perceived social norms, and past exercise behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 6J(6). 2948. Manning, M. (2(XHa). Cognitive predictors of blood donation]. Unpublished raw data. Manning, M. (2004b). (Cognitive predictors of voting]. Unpublished raw data. 'Manning, M. (2005). [Cognitive predictors of completing an essay writing exercise]. Unpublished raw data. 'Manning, M. (2006). [Cognitive predictors of completing a web journal exercise). Unpublished raw data. Mcfarland, L. A. (20(H)). Toward an integrated model of applicant feking. Dissertation Abstracts International: Sectio7i B: The Sciences and Engineering, 6/(5). 2805. McMillan, B., & Conner, M. (2(M)3). Applying an extended version of tlic theory of planned behavior to illicit drug use among students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, JJ(8), 1662-1683. McMillan, B., & Conner, M. (2003). I 'sing the theory of planned behaviour to understand alcohol and tobacco use in students. Psycholog}', Health and Medicine. S(3), 317-328. McMillan. B., Higgins, A. R., & Conner, M. (2005). Using an extended theory of planned behaviour to understand smoking amongst schoolchildren. Addiction Research and Jheory, 3(i). 293-306. Michie, S., Dormandy. E., French, D. P, & Marteau, T M. (2004). Using the theor> of planned behaviour to predict screening uptake in two contexts. Psychology and Health, 9(^), 705-718. Milgram, S.. Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (19<9). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. Journal of Peisonalit}- and Social Psychology. 3(2), 79-82. 'Moan, I. S., & Rise, J. (2005). Quitting smoking: Applying an extended version of the theory of planned behavior to predict intention and behavior. Jourtud of Applied Biobehavioral Research. KKW 39-68. Morrobel. D. (2002). HIV antibody testing among l^atinas: A test ot the theory of planned behavior (immune tteficienc)). Dissertation Abstracts International: .Section B: Tije Sciences and Engineering. 62(\2X 5974. Muchinsky, P M. (1996). The correction for attenuation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(1), 63-75. Myers, L. B.. & Horswill, M. S. (2006). Social cognitive predictors of sun protection intention and beliavior. Behavioral Medicine, 32(^1), 57-63. Nejad, L. M-, Wertheim, E. H., & Greenwood, K. M. (2004). Predicting dieting behavior by using, modifying, and extending the theory of planned behavior. Joum<d of Applied Social Psychoiogy. 34(10). 2099-2131. "Norman, P.. & Conner, M. (2006). Tlic theor\- of planned behaviour and binge drinking: Assessing the moderating role of past behaviour within the theorj'of planned hchiiviouT. British Journal of Health Psycholog)', 11(1). 55-70. "Norman. P, & Hoyle. S. (2004). Tlie theory of planned beha\ior and breast self-examination: Distinguishing between perceived control and self<'fficatT. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 694-708. 'O'Boyle, C. A. (1999). Variables that inlluence health care workers' adherence to recommended handwa.shing practices. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: Tfje Sciences and Engineering, 59(8), 4450. OXallaghan. E V, CaUan, V. J., & BagUoni, A. (1999). Cigarette use by adolescents: Attitudebehavior relationships. Substance Use and Misuse, 34O), 455-468. ODonnell. M. T. (1997). Interrelations among attitude, subjeaive norm, perceived behavioral control, intention and behavior related to condom use by adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 57(8), 5313. Okun, M. A., & Sloane, E. S. (2002). Application uf planned behavior theor>' to predicting voltinteer enrolment by college students in a campus-based program. Social Behavior and Personality. 30(i\ 243-250.

696

Mark Manning

Okun, M. A., Karoly, P., & Lutz, R. (2002). Clarifying the contribution ut subjective norm lo predicting leisure-time exercise. American Journal of Health Behavior. 26iA). 296-505. 'Okun. M. A.. Ruehlman. I... Karoly. P. Lutz. R.. Fairlholme. C, Sc Schaub, R. (2003). Social support and social norms: Do both contribute io predicting leisure-time exercise? American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(5), 493-507. 'Orlell, S. (2003). Pers)nality systems interactions theory and the theory of planned behaviour: Evidence that self-regulatorj' volitional components enhance enactment of studying behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 95-112. 'iirbell. S., Blair. C. Sherlock, K., & Conner. M. (2001). The theor>- of planned behavior and ecstasy use: Roles for habit and perceived control over taking versus obtaining sub.stances. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, .U(l), 31-47. Palmer, C. L.. Burwitz, L., Dyer, A. N., & Spray. C. M. (2005). Endunmce training adherence in elite junior netball athletes: A test of the theory of plaiined behaviour and a revised theor>' of plannetl behaviour. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23OX 277-288. Payne. N. Jones, F. & Harris. P (2002). The impact of working life on health behavior The effect of job strain on the cognitive predictors of exercise. Journal of Occupational Health Ps}'chology, 7(4). 342-35.5. Payne, N., Jones, F, & Harris, F R. (2004). The role of perceived need within the theory of planned beliaviour: A comparison of exercise and healthy eating. British Journal of Health Psychology, 9(4), 489-504. 'Pellino, T A. (1997). Relationships between patient attitudes, subjective ntmis, perceived control, and analgesic use following elective orthopedic sui^ery. Research in Nursing and Heallh.2fKX 97-10$. Fool, G. J., & Schwegler. A. F. (2007). Differentiating among motives for norm conformit)'. Basic and Applied .Social Psycholog}; 290). 47-60. Povey, R., Conner. M., Sparks. P. James. R.. & Shepherd, R. (2000). The theory of planned behaviour and healthy e;ning: Examining additive and moderating effects of social influence variables. Psychology and Health, Ii(bX 991-1006. Fovey, R., Wellens, B., & Conner. M. (2001). Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian and vegan diets: An examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite, ."?, 15-26. Prapavessis, H., Maddison, U., Ruygrok, P N., Ba.ssett, S., Harper, !.. & Gillanders, L. (2005). Using theory of planned behavior to understand exercise motivation in patients witli congenital heart disease. Ps}^chology. Health and Medicine. KXi). 335-343. Reno. R. R..Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1995). Thetninssituatitjnal influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social P.-iychoiog}', 64(1), 104-112. "Rhodes, R. E.. & Blanchard, C. M. (2006). Conceptuitl categories or operational constructs? Evaluating higher order theor\' of planned behavior structures in the exercise domain. Behavioral Medicine. 3/(4), 141-150. Rliodes, R. E., & Courneya. K. S. (2003)- Investigating multiple components of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived control: An examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the exercise domain. British Journal of Social Psycholog}'. 42i\). 129-146. Rliodes, R. E., (Joumeya. K. S., & Jones, L W. (2003). Tratislaiing exercise uiteittions into behavior Personality and social cognitive correlates. Journal of Health Psychology, 5(4), 447-458. Rliodes, R. E., & Matheson, D. H. (2(K)5). Discrepancies in exercise intention and expectation: Tlieoretical and applied issues. Psycholog}' and Health. 20(1), 63-78. Rhodes, R. E.. Matheson, D. H., & Blanchard, C. M. (2006). Beyond scale correspondence: A comparison of continuous open scaling and fixed graded scaling when using stxrial cogtiitive constructs in the exercise domain. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, I(XX). 13-39. Rickett, B.. Orbell, S., & Sheeran, H (2006). Social-cognitive determinants of hoist usage atnong health care wotken. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 11(2). 182-196.

Subjective norms and behaviour

697

Rimai. R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviours are influenced by perceived norms: A test of the theory of normative social behaviour. Communication Research. .2(3), 389-414. Rise, J., Thompson, M., & Verplanken. B. (2005). Measuring implementation intentions in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. Scandinavian Journal of Psycholofiy. 44, 87-95. Kivis, A., & Sheeran. H (2003a). Social iniluences and the tbeor>^ of planned behaviour: Evidence for a direct relationship between prototj'pes and young people s exercise behaviour. Psychology and Health. 18(5). 567-583Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P (2003b). Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Current Psychology: Developmentai, Learning. Personality, Social. 22(5), 218-235. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Schulze, R., iS: Whittmann. W. W. (2005)-A meta-analysis ofthe theory of reasoned action and the theor> of planned behaviour: Tlie principle of compatibility and multidimensionality of beliefs as moderators. In R, Schulze, H. Holling, & . Bhning (Eds), Meta-analysis: Neiv developments and applications in medical and social sciences (pp. 219-250). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers. Sbeeran. P, & .Abraham, C. (2(K)3). Mediator of moderators: Temporal stability of intention and the i mention-behavior relation. Persotiality and Social Psycholog)' Bulletin. 29(2), 205-215. *Sheeran, P, Conner. M., & Norman, P (2(M)1). Can the theor>^ of planned behayior explain patterns of health behavior change? Health Psychology, 20(l\ 12-19Sheeran, F. & Orbell. S. (1999a). Augmenting the theory of planned behavior: Rolesforanticipated regret and descriptive norm^. Journal of Applied Social Ps}-cholog)\ 29(10), 2107-2142. Sheeran, P., & OrbeQ. S. (1999b). Implementation intentions and repeated bebaviours: Augmenting the predictive validity of the theor>- of phmned Ixrhaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology. 29. 549-569. *Sheerdn. P. & Orbell, S. (2000). Self-schemas and the theory of planned behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(4}, 535-550. 'Sheeran, P, Orbell, S., & Trafimow, D. (1999)- Does the temporal stability ot behavioral intentions moderate intention-behavior and past behavior-future behavior relations? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6). 721-7^0. Sheeran, P, & Silverman. M. (2003). Evaluation of three intervention.s to promote workplace health and safety: Evidence for the utility of implementation intentions. Social Science and Medicine, 56(10), 2153-2165'Sheeran, P, & Taylor. S. (1999). Predicting intentions to use condoms: A meta-^analysts and comparison of the theories of reasoned action and planned beha% ior Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(8), 1624-1675. Sideridis, G. D., & Kaissidis-Rodafinos. A. (2001). Goal importance witiiin planned behaviour theory as "the' predictor of study behaviour in college. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 77(4), 595-618. Sideridis. G. D., & Padeliadu. S. (2001), The motivational determinants of students atriskof having reading difficulties: Planned behaviotir theory and goal importance. Remedial and Special Education. 22(5), 268-279Simons-Morton, B., Chen. R., Abroms, L,. & Haynie, D. L. (2004). Utent growth curve analyses of peer and parent influences on smoking progression anong eariy adi)Iescents. Health Psychology, 2.(6). 612-621. Simon, T R., Dent, C. W., & Sussman, S. (1997). Vulnerability to victimization, concurrent pmblem behaviours, and peer influence as predictors of in-school weapon carrying among high school students. Violence and Victims, 12(^'). 277-289. Song, Z.. Wanbei^. C. Niu, X., & Xie, Y. (2006). Action-state orientation and the theor> of planned behavior: A study of oh search in China. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6(5). 490-503Spearman. C. (1904), The proof and measurement of assixriation between two things. American Journal of Psychology'. 75(1), 72-101.

698

Marie Manning

'Steadman. L., & Rtitter. D. R. (2004). Belief importance and the theori' of planned behaviour Comparing modal and ranked mtxlal beliefii in predicting attendance at breast screening. British Journal of Health Psychologv, 9(4), 447-463. Steadman, L.. Rutter, D. R-. & Field. S. (2002). Individually elicited versus modal normative beliefe in predicting attendimce at breast screening: Examining the role of belief salience in the theory of planned behaviour. British Journat of Health Psychology, 7(3), 317-330. Steel, P., iS: Kon:^, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of Management Review, . /(4), 889-913. Sten\ig. T. E. (2002). The hehaviors of nurses who inimiini/e children. Dissertation Abstracts nternatUmat: Section B: Tfse Sciences and Engineering, 62(1), 3137. Stevens, L. E., & Fiske. S. T. (1995). Motivation and cognition in social life: A social survival perspective. Social Cognition. /3(3). 189-214. Sullivan. C. J. (2006). Early adolescent delinquency: Assessing the role of childhood problems. family environment, and peer pressure. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(4), 291-313. Tan. J. A. (2002). The role of planned behavior and goal orientation tlieory in a training context. Dissertation Abstracts nternatiotmt Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62(7), 3409. Terry. D. J-, & Hogg, M. A. (1996). (iroup norms and the attitude-behavior relation.ship: A mle for group identification. Personality and Social Psychotogy Bulletin, 22(H), 776-795. Terry. D. J., Hogg, M. A.. & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity. social identity and group norms. British Journat of Social Psychology. 35(3). 225-244. *Tolstedt, B. C. (2001). Planned behavior and condom use: Actions speak louder Lhan words. Dissertation Abstracts Internatiorutt. Section B. TJyeSciences and Engineering, 6/(10). 5547. Trafimow, D.. Jtc Finlay. K. A. (2(K)I). Evidence for improved sensitivit)' of within-paiticipants analyses in tests of the theory of reasoned action. Social Science Journal, J8(4), 629-635. van Breukelen. W., van der Vlist. R., & Steensma, H. (2004)- Voluntary' employee turnover: Combining variables from the traditional" turnover literature with the theory uf planned behavior, yowrwii/ of Organizational Behavior, 25(7), 893-914. *van Hooft. E. A. J.. Bom. M. P, Taris, T. W., & van der Flier, H. (2004). Job search and the theory of planned behavior: Minority Hiiajority group differences in the Netherlands. Journal of Vocational Behavior. f5(3). -366-59). van Hoofc, E. A, J.. Bom. M. P, Taris. T. W.. & van der Flier, H. (2005). Predictors and outcomes of job search behavior The moderating effects of gender and family situation. Journal of Vocational Behavior. (5'(2). 133-152. van Hulten, R., Bakker, A. B., Lodder, A. C. Teeuw, K. B., Bakker, A., & Leufkens, H. G- (2003). The impact of attitudes and beliefs on length of benzodiazepine use: A study among inexperienced and experienced benzodiazepine users. Sociat Science and Medicine. 56(6). 1345-1354. van Kiiippenbcrg, D. (2(M)0). Group norms, prototypicality, and persuasion. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds), Attitudes, behaviour, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 157-170). Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum. Venkatesh, V, Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P L. (2000). A longitudinalfieldinvestigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making proce.sses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(\), 33-60. \enkatesh, V, Morris, M. G., Sykes, T. A.. & Ackerman, P L. (2004). Individual reactons to new technoli^e-s in the workplace: The role of gender as a psychological construct. yorw/ of .i/)ptied Social Psychology. 3-^(3), 445-467. Viswesvaran, C. & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology. 48(4). 865-885. *VonDras, D. D.. & Madey. S. F (2004)- The attainment of important health goals throughout adulthmid: An integration of the theory of planned behavior and aspects of sociat support. International Journal of Aging ami Human Deivlopment, 5^(3), 205-234. WalshJ. C.(2OO5). IncTeasing screening uptake fora cervical smear test: Predictors of attendance and the use of action plans in prior non-attenders. Irish Journal of Psychology, 26(1), 65-73.

Subjective norms and behaviour 699

Walsh, J.J.. da Fonseca, R. S.. & Banta, A. (2005). Watching and participating in exercise videos: A test of the tbeorj' of planned behavi(iur, conscientiousness, and the role of implementation intentions. Psycholog}' and Health, 2(K&). '7'29-14\. Wambach, K. A. (1S)97). Breastfeeding intention and outcome: A test of the theory of planned bebavior. Research in Nursing and Health. 2i>(l). 51-59. Wanberg, C. R,, Glomb, T, M.. Song, 7.., & Sorenson, S, (2005), Job-search persistence during unemployment: A 10-wave longitudinal study.yaMrM//o//l/)p//c//'s)'c/jo/og)', 90(3), 411-430. Wang, M. Q.. Eddy, J. M., & Fitzhugh, E. C. (2000). Smoking acquisition: Peer influence and selfselection. Psychological Reports, 86(i), 1241 - i 246. Warburton,J.,& Terry, D.J. (201X)). Volunteer decision making by older people: A test of a revised theor>' of planned bebavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(3), 245-257. "Watson, P. W. B..& Myers, L B. (2001). Which cognitive factors predict clinical glove use amongst nurses? Psychology, Health and Medicine, 6(4), 399-409. Webb,J. A., Getz,J. G..Baer, P E., & McKelvey, R. S. (1999). Intentions to use alcohol among fifth and sixth graders: Ihe n)les of sixrial and stress/coping motives. American Journal of (h-thopsychiatry, 69(4), 541-547. White, K. M,, Terr>^ D, J,. & Hogg, M. A. (1994). Safer sex behavior: Tbe role of attitudes, norms, and control fsciors Journal of Applied Social Psycholrjgy. 24(24), 2164-2192. Wood, M. D., Read, J. P, Mitchell, R. E., & Brand, N. H. (2(H)4), Do parents still maner? Parent and peer influences on alcohol inv()lvement among recent high school graduates. Ps}'cholog}> of Addictive Behaviours, 8(1), 19-30. Yzer, M. C, Siero, F W, & Buunk, B. F (2001). Bringing up condom use and using condoms with new sexual partners: Intentional or habittial? Psychology ami Health, 6(4), 409-421.
Received 26 December 2007; revised version received 10 October 2008

Appendix A: Example of correction of attenuated effect size

Reported data # IN items # BEH items

IN rel
.68

BEH rel 1.00

IN-beh correlation

3 1 Point-biserial correction (r,j. x 1.253) .13 Spearman correction for attenuation {r^y' = Source: Astrom (2004)

.10

3.15

700

tAark Manning

erci

kil

CJ

a.
c

S-

z. rt
OJ 0>

med ; rene meds (Ch loro< ttenda larsh m use part in j|ar i low f; 1 consi

cr

D.

O J

>

ra U O

ai

1
C

u 0

ra

E "

c lP= 5 t!
e >

OJ

E
u> rt

c 01 u) OJ rt y m
O
'l..

s y S 5
O c J

u u c -.r: . t >
m

c
0

0)

3 O '>
1^

I-

rt

c ~a

ta o 5 g
01

< U

3 q
rt
tt

OJ 0>

M)

-o
01 ut

ra
c

a.
c

ai

te D O

01 01
U

01

0)

Q -O

OJ

rt

rt

Exer Fillin Exer Exer Rule Wall Con Con

zz

'S UJ

U
OJ

C U

UJ o : y:

OJ

f
a

a
"S

c ^

os

8
1 / 1

s
O

g
- oj

1 =
C 03 <t Q

T3 3

o o
O
00
,_.-

so O

I/)

i
c

OJ a

! Z
E rt

ra ( N
._

s o
s c
OJ

t7^ O (N

CL o O^ o

o o
_ _ o o

"5
.^

fN
V) 01

..
>

Of

E O o^ o o

TI O

a.
a.

c ra
01 N

's

.3 .3 g

00 00 ^

E Eb
<

C C C CQ C rt rtOIfti^SJS^OOOO

illllliii*
m C C

01 rt "

oi S =5
O o

(200 (200
3

o o

o o Ci

/.si

*- w

Con

Exer

AID:

'C -o c "75 rt ra o o 12 c

00

o o u := S 5^ X <

.E c O J

o cil

BO O J

"

S "
t_

1/1

oo

. O c
v

"D

E E E o o 0

;BU

(900

Subjective norms and behaviour

701

01

^i
._ ^
O u S = S u i: (J ^ 5 J C ^ E -c 3 rt
M

J3 O

o re

rt

3 D

p
Q.

0) m D < -

c o 3 -s rt rt rt u

(U i/l W . ^ 1
M

wi ffl

MA C

"D 0>

X
UJ CD

c 5 m ai s 1 U LU LU LU J

IJ

3-=

o o o D oX U
S s

m rt

.^

rt ' - ' - ' - ' ' ' S c -c < H X

oo j

j -== - s

P V rt -S

^ i X X

X UJ LU LU<

i- ^ u rt r rt O J u] L U u i/l CO

t ^ 5o
Q. Q. 9
. ^ ^

>^ Go M S3 >.. >v GO Q o o Q Q O O . 2 O Q O -2 - 9 \J Q ^^ ^^ ^^ , , _ ^ ' D o o S O ^ O l ' i l ' i ^ / l O O "O * ^ *n "n T l ^ ^

g o ^ D >.^ C

i
5 oj

OUInal of So

CO TD O C

i/ of Socia

Commum

&

"3

u ran\ Q- -

o ^ o
^ j

-c .2 1 iT

t
a. c c . -= -c .9 a. 2 2 3 2 3 a ;= F ^o I . Q2 c U

i
C ce

c LU

C D - 9 .

0 "a "a " 1 O

VI

--^ O J

II
fs r
CT s

E| |
w .w w O^

<y ^ o CT rio t/i 01

C 0) Q. .

r^ B C O UUUUUUUU UUUUUUUU u

E r e r t O J c c * . * * . ^ ^ ^ r t r t < u < y a j {5 re re rt 1- 1- t- L. L'KJ 'KJ 'hj ' i ^ ^ *.* u i o n c i C C C C O r a r e r e r e v L . C 'C ' : ' c c C C C ^ - . o o D O O re.:-c^.r:^j:j= C - C ^

re

1.

L.

if c (_)

o; cz o o

tu

c
C

0)

c
3 O

c
3

o 0) c> c
3 O 3

ai

a u re C M O

c
O

u u u u

0 U

u uu

702

Alorc Manning

01

c
L-

cho

5 .>
01
M

D O

5 tt> .y

AI X 0)

O .t;

Si E ai Jra :

O >

C a s
n)
_

C
^

If *-, -C &0 :J EU

-C

s"
a, C

(U J3
_

^ x/

01 u X X LU UJ

X C < D

uX

o 0)

o o o
CQ

ial

i
Q

UJ

E Z -2. <::

,i3

S a. : i Q

o
CD _>< C Q.

o o
(N

CM

02)

(J -: C.
ij O

E E

0/.

al.

al.
^^ UJ
lO

c e Si

s
(U
^

-^

<u fN

^,

El 1.

(U

Si - .E
.S" 7=
3

C
1

L-

J,

X I

5 ra S

< U C

<u u V) v M

01

0/.

o rs

ly.

Q c
.- \Z- (-M

(N n

- ; ~.: "o

S o Ci--

05)
o

LO rn

(20
rn O O

O O

d ^

o o

/ro

Subjective norms and behaviour

703

ime p hysical activity

1SIO

E 2
<- f-

onsi

e
nsumi3tiOi 1 cai

ths :e reise over Jheren ce to rci ood de natio Dmplet:ing v^ mal )ting in1 elect turning ess; tprr t tPV

? a.
X

earing uit and1 vegetabl.

a.

u ro
Oi Q J= Irt > V i-

toui

00

c o

c
u

o
TJ C rt

ai

c 0

'4J

.t 3

o E m

n .c a)
XI

0 >

a > >
oo E

*^
~ L .

jdying

0 u
>v

larmao cyclini

01

X
LU CQ

a:

G E

0}

a. o.

2 K a>

= o =

u Li-

LU <

cQ U

i il
c a. a.
-^ ^ c a
flj
EO

rs

o o
" _

o o o o

o" o o U U
O

o
"5 a

1 -<

Ci.

D
C

o
Ol

-~o
(-Ni

5
X
a

orrobe yers an ejad et orman orman 'Boyie

anning anning anning cFarlan cMillan cMillan cMillan ichie et

tM) "rt

M E c
C C O

u/

.i

-E
.> O

Z 1^

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O

0 O

'Donne

~^ o T J o ^^-' n , ^

ian. B agi
rt

iner 1

vill (2

ss Ci
tOO5) nner nner 005)

o o

cf
rt

>UE UEO

704

Mark Manning

fS -D
C VI in 0)

V rr,
(O
(U)

(U
i_ 0) CL C

" ^ tu >. 1 -

0) X

c V
ra O 9 M
V) *S U n

VI X

" 'S *"

ri O ra <u III n

V VI

o (~ < S3U u C
in

3 O

II
-a Ti tu tu

.E >.. >. J

O jU

-o ra

U iH

if
X LU

X -1^ 41 n LU Q. ( ^ . ^ I ra ra .i: U) LU i/

Sa 0 o -2 .2 ^
k, o o o 3 .c -c -c

^ C ^ C -Z D o o

I ^i ^

.9 v^ w- w^ o _o ^ 5 E E E o o
> 3 3 3 " w u
0) <U 5 -s= ~c .c

gli I
O

O O O rJ rt
.iC .12 c 0 0 C

s,<3 a a Q a: s:

o o

E
<N (-4
_

o o o o
o

0 0

11 /

fN

S
0
'

0
0
'

0 0 0 0
(N

0 0
fN

c>

f^ ^^ i j

ra L.
<U

o o o

( o O U o o

-O <

g
i_

Imei yne yne llinc

c
Q. Q.
3 3

'S "5 ^^
41 Q.

ick

01
i-

V
L.

1 / 1 VI tu 0> <U "D 0 0 " o; O 0 0 0 0

.C

'S ^ u 01 U) vt

-g
L>

o o a a
ra <u

v)
0)

0 o 1 I

0/.

0 0 0 0

.c .c _ c o c
U

u '> < CC V I

ra ra oj E a> ii> MI "D "D -o a; u - c i - E - C - n t O L / t t;/ i i / i u i H - t /) S )

Subjective norms and behaviour

705

1
rt
-1

"

O)

Q 0> J

~
Cil

S x: p .!i!
00 OJ 0)

E o
-a
01 0

rt OJ
J:3

c oo CL Z)

ter

, lE u

kJ

01 c

c .b li -c r

w S w .^ O -S

a: a:

E o U

si

"fi

Q"

i= ^

II
oo
Trf

f
C O Q .

i ^ ^N~ 7 "

<,

CL

2,0

o Ci o o
3; O O O o rM <-s| ol o o o o
C
,)<
rM 1^
aj ^

0) ^Z"

o a o o
ke
<u

flj

i:

. c
*" "U 5

3 O n O n n J C X X

O _cr _cr XI J J E

^-

*-'

1 1 v"

Copyright of British Journal of Social Psychology is the property of British Psychological Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.