Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1992, Vol.63, No.

5, 754-765

Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0O22-3514/92/S3.OO

Accessibility and Stability of Predictors in the Theory of Planned Behavior

Universitat Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany

Jorg Doll

Icek Ajzen
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

To test the propositions that an attitude's ability to predict behavior is influenced by its temporal stability and by its accessibility in memory, 75 students were given direct or indirect experience with 6 video games and fun or skill instructions. They completed a computer-administered questionnaire before and after a free-play period. On the basis of Ajzen's (1988) theory of planned behavior, time played with each game was correlated with attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and intentions with respect to playing each game. Direct experience and fun instructions improved prediction of behavior, lowered latencies of responses to questionnaire items, and increased their temporal stabilities. The improved prediction of behavior was found to be mediated by the temporal stabilities of the predictor variables but, contrary to expectations, not by response latencies. It is suggested that more attention be given to the role of the stability of variables in attitude-behavior models.

People do not always behave in accordance with their attitudes. Prediction of behavior from verbal attitudes tends to improve to the extent that the attitude is based on direct experience rather than on indirect experience or second-hand information (Fazio & Zanna, 1978a, 1978b; Regan & Fazio, 1977). In their review of this research, Fazio and Zanna (1981) observed that attitudes based on direct experience rely on more information, are better denned, are held with greater confidence, are more stable over time, and are more accessible in memory, and they suggested that these characteristics may be responsible for the moderating effect of direct experience on the attitude-behavior relation. More recently, Fazio and his associates (Fazio, 1986,1990a; Fazio, Chen, McDonel, & Sherman, 1982; Fazio & Williams, 1986) have focused on accessibility in memory as the crucial factor. An attitude is said to be highly accessible if there is a strong association between the attitude object and an evaluative response. This associative strength is defined operationally as the time it takes to react to questions about the attitude object: The smaller the response latency, the more accessible in memory the attitude is assumed to be. Attitude accessibility is said to determine the extent to which an attitude is automatically activated on exposure to the attitude object, and hence the extent to which the attitude is likely to guide behavior in the presence of the object. Specifically, Fazio (1990a) proposed that accessible attitudes exert a strong biasing effect on perception of the behavioral situation, making it more likely that the behavior will be consistent with the attitude. It follows that attitudebehavior consistency should increase with attitude accessibility. In this account, attitude accessibility is a mediator that explains the effect of type of experience (direct or indirect) on the attitude-behavior relation, and atfirstglance, research by Fazio
This article has benefited from comments on an earlier draft provided by Russell Fazio. We are also grateful to several anonymous reviewers who provided valuable suggestions for revisions. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Icek Ajzen, Department of Psychology, Tobin Hall, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003-0034.
754

and his associates appears to provide empirical support for a mediational sequence. First, as noted earlier, direct experience has repeatedly been found to improve the predictive validity of attitudes (see Fazio & Zanna, 1981, for a review). Second, there is evidence that, in comparison with indirect experience, direct experience lowers latencies of responses to attitudinal questions (Berger & Mitchell, 1989; Fazio et al., 1982). Third, and to complete the sequence, several studies have shown that attitudinal responses with relatively low latencies are better predictors of behavior (Fazio, Powell, & Williams, 1989; Fazio & Williams, 1986; Houston & Fazio, 1989). Note, however, that the studies in this third set have either measured existing attitude latencies or have manipulated latencies by varying the number of times respondents were asked to express their attitudes. None of the studies that showed an effect of latency on attitude-behavior correspondence has examined the role of direct experience. Perhaps of greater importance, the three parts of the hypothesized mediational sequence were examined in different studies, andto the best of our knowledgeno direct overall test of the accessibility thesis in relation to direct experience has as yet been conducted. Three effects must be obtained in a given set of data to demonstrate mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In the present context, the first two effects involve showing that type of experience influences attitude latency (the accessibility mediator) and that type of experience influences the attitudebehavior relation. We noted earlier that empirical evidence has been provided for both of these effects, albeit in separate investigations. The third part of the test for mediation involves demonstrating that the effect of experience type on the attitude-behavior relation is substantially reduced (ideally to nonsignificance) when the mediator (attitude accessibility) is held constant. This can best be tested by regressing the attitude-behavior relation simultaneously on type of experience and on attitude latency (Baron & Kenny, 1986). This critical test of the mediation hypothesis has apparently not been performed. One purpose of the present study was to submit the accessibility thesis to the required direct test.

STABILITY OF PREDICTORS

755

A second major objective of the present research was to examine the viability of positing an additional mediating process to account for the effect of direct experience on the attitude-behavior relation. In the view of Fazio and his associates, such factors as confidence in an expressed attitude and the attitude's temporal stability are merely alternative indicators of attitudinal strength or accessibility in memory, indicators that are presumably inferior to a measure of response latency (see Fazio et al., 1982). Contrary to this view, a recent study by Krosnick, Boninger, Chuang, and Carnot (1991) found that a multidimensional model was necessary to account for the relations among such different indicators of attitude strength as extremity, involvement, affective-cognitive consistency, and accessibility. The present article takes issue with the proposition that attitude accessibility is the only or the primary factor mediating the influence of direct experience on the attitude-behavior relation. We suggest that attitude stability is an equally plausible mediating factor and that its effects cannot be explained by reference to the attitude's accessibility in memory. Because this argument is tested in the context of Ajzen's (1988,1991) theory of planned behavior, we begin with a brief description of the theory. More detailed accounts, as well as reviews of empirical support for the theory, can be found in Ajzen (1988,1991). Theory of Planned Behavior Intention and Perceived Behavioral Control The theory of planned behavior is an extension of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) made necessary by the original model's limitations in dealing with behaviors over which people have incomplete volitional control. According to the theory, behavioral performance can be predicted from people's intentions to perform the behavior in question and from their perceptions of control over the behavior. The relative importance of intention and perceived behavioral control in the prediction of behavior is expected to vary across situations and across different behaviors. When the behavior, or situation, affords a person complete control over behavioral performance, intention alone should be sufficient to predict behavior, as specified in the theory of reasoned action. The addition of perceived behavioral control should become increasingly important as volitional control over the behavior declines.1

behavior, and the greater the perceived behavioral control, the stronger should be an individual's intention to perform the behavior under consideration. The Role of Beliefs At the most basic level of explanation, the theory postulates that behavior is a function of salient information, or beliefs, relevant to the behavior. People can hold a great many beliefs about any given behavior, but they can attend to only a relatively small number at any given moment (see Miller, 1965). It is these salient beliefs that are considered to be the prevailing determinants of a person's intentions and actions. Three kinds of salient beliefs are distinguished: behavioral beliefs, which are assumed to influence attitudes toward the behavior; normative beliefs, which constitute the underlying determinants of subjective norms; and control beliefs, which provide the basis for perceptions of behavioral control. According to the theory, attitudes develop reasonably from the beliefs people hold about the object of the attitude. Generally speaking, we form beliefs about an object by associating it with certain attributes, that is, with other objects, characteristics, or events. In the case of attitudes toward a behavior, each belief links the behavior to a certain outcome or to some other attribute such as the cost incurred by performing the behavior. Since the attributes that come to be linked to the behavior are already valued positively or negatively, we simultaneously acquire an attitude toward the behavior. In this fashion, we learn to evaluate favorably behaviors we believe have largely desirable consequences and we form unfavorable attitudes toward behaviors we associate with mostly undesirable consequences. Subjective norm is also assumed to be a function of beliefs, but in this case beliefs about the normative expectations of salient referent individuals or groups. Perceived social pressure is assumed to increase to the extent that salient referents with whom a person is motivated to comply are seen as approving of the behavior under consideration. Finally, perceived behavioral control can also be traced to a set of underlying beliefs, beliefs that deal with the presence or
1

The original derivation of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) differed in two respects from the model presented here. First, it defined intention (and the theory's other theoretical constructs) in terms of trying to perform a given behavior rather than in relation to actual performance. However, early work with the model showed strong correlations between measures of the model's variables that Determinants of Intentions asked about trying to perform a given behavior and measures that The theory of planned behavior postulates three concepdealt with actual performance of the behavior (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Schifter & Ajzen, 1985). Because the latter measures are less cumbertually independent determinants of intention. The first is the attitude toward the behavior and refers to the degree to which a some, they have been used in subsequent research, and the variables are now denned more simply in relation to behavioral performance person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of (see, however, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990, in press, for work on the the behavior in question. The second predictor is a social factor termed subjective norm; it refers to the perceived social pressure concept of trying to attain a behavioral goal). Second, the original formulation of the theory postulated an interaction between perceived to perform or not to perform the behavior. The third antecedent of intention is the degree of perceived behavioral control, which behavioral control and intention, but empirical research to date has revealed only main effects. The present study again obtained no evirefers to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the bedence for a significant interaction between perceived control and inhavior and is assumed to reflect past experience as well as anticitention. The absence of significant interactions can perhaps be attribpated impediments and obstacles. As a general rule, the more uted to the fact that research participants rarely express highly negative favorable the attitude and subjective norm with respect to a intentions, a condition necessary for strong interactions to obtain.

756

JORG DOLL AND ICEK AJZEN trast, participants in the indirect experience condition actually perform the behavior for the first time in the test period. Much more of the feedback they receive will be new to them, leading to more change in their beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. The theory's predictive validity should thus be greater in the direct as opposed to the indirect experience condition. Note that this hypothesis is independent of the latency or accessibility of the beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. Even when direct and indirect experience produce equally accessible dispositions, because of their differential stability, we expect better prediction of behavior under direct experience (see Doll & Mallii, 1990). Hypotheses In light of the foregoing discussion we now formulate several research hypotheses. First, it is predicted that attitudes, perceptions of behavioral control, and intentions are more stable and more accessible under conditions of direct experience than under conditions of indirect experience.2 This can be tested by comparing measures of the different variables obtained before and after the test period and by assessing the latencies of these variables. Second, because of the differential stability and accessibility of intentions and perceived behavioral control, prediction of behavior from these variables is more accurate under direct- as compared with indirect-experience conditions. Because past research has focused on the attitude-behavior relation, we also examine how type of prior experience affects this relation. Third, if response latency and temporal stability of predictors do indeed mediate the effect of type of experience on accuracy of prediction, we expect that this effect is diminished or eliminated when response latency, temporal stability, or both are statistically controlled. Furthermore, we hypothesize that the effect of the predictors' stabilities on accuracy of behavioral prediction is at least partly independent of the predictors' accessibilities in memory. The next hypothesis is derived from the stability explanation of the moderating effect of direct experience; it does not follow from the accessibility theorem. According to the stability theorem, prediction of intentions from attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control should not differ significantly between the two experience conditions. This hypothesis is based on the fact that all of the variables involved are assessed before the behavior. Changes that occur during the test period can thus have no impact on observed relations. In contrast, because attitudes (as well as subjective norms and perceptions of behavioral control) formed under direct-experience conditions are more accessible in memory, they should provide better guides for the development of behavioral plans (intentions), when compared with indirect-experience conditions. The accessibility theorem thus leads to the expectation that prediction of intentions from attitudes (and from subjective norms and perceived behavioral control) is better in the directthan in the indirect-experience condition. In the context of the present study, there was no reason to expect that type of experience would influence the stability or accessibility of subjective norms.
2

absence of requisite resources and opportunities. These control beliefs may be based in part on past experience with the behavior, but they will usually also be influenced by second-hand information about the behavior, by the experiences of acquaintances and friends, and by other factors that increase or reduce the perceived difficulty of performing the behavior in question. The more resources and opportunities individuals believe they possess, and the fewer obstacles or impediments they anticipate, the greater should be their perceived control over the behavior. Prior Experience and the Theory of Planned Behavior The discussion of the theory of planned behavior suggests that information is at the root of intentions and actions. Behavior-relevant information, represented in memory in the form of behavioral, normative, and control beliefs, results in the formation of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control, and new information may lead to the formation of new beliefs or alter previously formed beliefs. Now, it stands to reason that direct, behavioral experience may provide very different information to a person than does indirect, nonbehavioral experience, leading to the formation of different behavioral, normative, and control beliefs. In support of this expectation Doll and Mallii (1990) found that individuals with direct experience generated, in a free-elicitation task, significantly more beliefs referring to behavioral consequences than did individuals with indirect experience who generated significantly more object-descriptive beliefs. In a typical study on the effects of type of experience on the attitude-behavior relation, participants are given either direct experience with respect to a certain behavior or are indirectly exposed to the behavioral situation. A questionnaire is then administered to assess the theoretical constructs of interest, followed by a test period in which the participants have an opportunity to engage in the behavior under consideration. Clearly, any new behavior-relevant information that becomes available in the test period may change some of the beliefs that underlie attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control. Thus, participants may come to believe that performing the behavior is less interesting than they thought or that it is more difficult than they anticipated. These changes, in turn, may alter intentions and subsequent behavior. However, because the theory's constructs are assessed prior to the test period, any changes that occur will tend to lessen the observed relations with behavior (see also Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Schwartz, 1978; Wood, 1982). The present study is based on the proposition that the type of prior experience participants have had will affect the degree to which their beliefs, attitudes, and intentions remain stable in the test period. An influential source of information for the development of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control is the feedback one obtains when performing the behavior. By performing the behavior, one can learn about its positive or negative consequences, about requisite resources, and about the reactions of other people. In the direct experience condition of an experiment, this information is available to the participants during their initial encounter with the behavior; little new information is added in the test period. In con-

STABILITY OF PREDICTORS Finally, to further explore the role of attitudinal accessibility and stability, the present study varied the motivational orientation induced in participants. A person's motivational orientation may produce selective attention to different aspects of the behavioral situation. Thus, an orientation that views the purpose of the behavior as having fun may focus attention on attitudinal aspects of the behavior, whereas an orientation concerned with the development of skills may focus attention on aspects of the behavior that have to do with behavioral control. Such selective attention could influence the strength of the predictors in the theory of planned behavior. Specifically, it is hypothesized that attitudes are established more firmly under a fun orientation, whereas perceptions of behavioral control are stronger under a skill orientation. Because stronger attitudes or perceptions of behavioral control are likely to be more stable and more accessible, we would expect that attitudes predict behavior better under fun instructions and that perceptions of behavioral control are better predictors of behavior under skill instructions. Furthermore, the effects of motivational orientation on predictive accuracy are expected to be mediated by temporal stability and accessibility in a manner comparable with the effects of direct experience. Hence, the same mediational hypotheses apply. Method Participants Forty-three female and 32 male undergraduate students at the University of Massachusetts participated in the experiment for extra class credit. The participants were randomly assigned to each of four between-groups experimental conditions in a 2 (direct vs. indirect experience) X 2 (fun vs. skill orientation) design. The design was unbalanced, with 19 participants in the indirect-experience, skill condition; 18 participants in the indirect-experience, fun condition; 18 participants in the direct-experience, skill condition; and 20 participants in the direct-experience, fun condition. Stimulus Material Six video games, varying in complexity and objectives, were played on a Commodore 64 with a color monitor. They were (a) a game in which a pilot had to shoot down other planes and to bomb objects on the ground, (b) a game in which all unconnected parts of a maze had to be connected, (c) a game in which a cave man had to jump over various obstacles, (d) a game in which a tube was moved along a track and was used to destroy another tube with balls it couldfireat the other tube, (e) a game in which a racing car was to be driven around the track as often as possible while scratching the other cars in the race, and (0 a game in which an engineer was to set up an assembly line to produce a product. Procedure and Measures On entering the experimental laboratory the participants signed the consent form, which explained the purpose of the experiment. This study will examine attitudes and opinions regarding playing with video games. You are given the opportunity to play with six video games, and then you have to answer certain questions about playing with video games. The questionnaire is given to you on a personal computer. The first part of the questionnaire contains general questions regarding your attitudes toward playing with video games. Then you have a total of about 30 minutes to get to

757

know six video games we selected for this study. The second part of the questionnaire contains specific questions regarding your attitudes and opinions toward playing with the six games. Then you are free to play for 45 minutes with the six video games. The experimenter seated the participant at an IBM personal computer. A program, written for this purpose, controlled the experimental session and registered the participants' ratings and reaction times for each rating. The computer instructed participants torespondto the 7-pointratingscales that were used for most questions by striking the respective number keys. They were told to respond quickly but accurately. Participants thenreceiveda warm-up question, rated their attitudes toward playing video games in general on a 7-point scale ranging from extremely enjoyable to extremely unenjoyable,reportedhow often they had played video games in the past (at home, at a friend's home, in a video arcade, and so forth: 1 = never, 2 = 1-10 times, . . . , 6 = 100-200 times, 7 = more than 200 limes) and reported how often and with how many different games they had played (1 = never, 2 = 1-10 games,. . . , 6 = 40-50 games, 7 = more than 50 games). Next, the computer provided the participant with an instruction designed to manipulate motivational orientation. Participants in the fun condition were informed that "Video games are meant to be enjoyed. All we want you to do is to try to have fun playing the games." Participants in the skill condition were informed that "It takes skill to play video games. What we want you to do is to demonstrate your skills in playing the games. This means that you should try to keep the games going as long as possible without making a mistake." The participants were then asked to move over to the video game computer and to read the description of the first video game, which was written on a single sheet together with the name of the game. At this point the second experimental manipulation was introduced. Participants in the direct-experience condition played 4 min with each game while participants in the indirect-experience condition watched a video recording of the same games, each played 4 min. The video recording was the same for all participants, and it showed the actual playing sequence of another person who had played the games without being given any motivational orientation. The game sequences were recorded from the video output of the Commodore 64. After having been introduced to the six video games the participants moved back to the IBM personal computer. Beside the computer they found a list with the names of the six video games given in alphabetical order. Beneath each name were written characteristic elements of the game (e.g.,fighterpilot or turn a maze green) to help the participants identify each game. To assess their subjective knowledge, the participants were asked to rate, on a 7-point scale, how informed they felt about the six video games {pxtremely informed-extremely uninformed). This was followed by a more objective knowledge test in the form of six multiple-choice items. Each item involved a certain feature of a game, and the respondents were asked to identify the game to which the feature applied (e.g., "In which game can you duck?"). Next, the participants were instructed a second time that they would be given the opportunity to play 45 min with the games and that they would be free to decide how long and how often they would play with each game. The only restriction was that the participant would have to play at least 2 min with each game. The instruction, designed to make salient the two motivational orientations, was also repeated a second time. At this point, the variables contained in the theory of planned behavior were assessed. The computer presented one question at a time, together with the 7-point rating scale. Each question was repeated six times in a row, once for each video game, but the order of the video games was randomized for each set of questions. Each variable was measured by two questions, separated by items concerning other variables. There was no systematic order to the sequence. The behavior to which the questions referred was defined as "playing with Game X longer than therequired2 minutes." Attitude toward

758

JORG DOLL AND ICEK AJZEN order in which the games were played, and the cumulated scores received in playing each game.

To rule out possible artifacts due to prior direct experience, we performed 2 (direct vs. indirect experience) X 2 (fun vs. skill orientation) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on the number of times participants reported having played video games in the past and on the number of games they had played. There were no significant main effects or interactions. The average rating scale category in the total sample for the number of times played was 5.0, representing 50-100 times played, and the average rating scale category for the number of games played was 3.7, representing 20-30 games. Next, we analyzed reports of how informed participants felt about the video games. These reports were submitted to a threeway ANOVA, which, in addition to the experience and orientation factors, included time of measurement (pre- vs. posttest) as a repeated measures factor. The only significant effect was the Experience X Orientation interaction, F{\, 70) = 6.2, p < .05. In After moving back to the video game computer, the participants the indirect-experience condition, participants in the fun orienstarted playing the first game of their choice. The video game was tation felt better informed than participants in the skill orientaloaded by the experimenter into the computer. When the participants began playing the game, the experimenter started a clock standing on tion {M = 2.1 vs. 3.1), whereas the order was reversed in the the TV monitor. The clock was stopped when the participants finished direct-experience condition (M = 3.2 vs. 2.7). However, this playing with one game, and it was started again when they proceeded interaction was significant only in the pretest; it did not reach to the next game. The presence of the clock was explained to the particistatistical significance in the posttest measure. The multiplepants as an aid to help them gauge how long they had already played choice knowledge test, submitted to an Experience X Orientawith a given game. If playing behavior indicated that participants had tion ANOVA, revealed no significant effects. The mean number neglected to play at least 2 min with each game, the experimenter of correctly identified game features was 5 out of 6. reminded them of the instruction and asked them to play the last 2 min Next, we tested the internal consistency of each of the two with the game that was omitted. indicators used to measure the variables of the theory of After having played 45 min with the six games, the participants planned behavior. This analysis, as most of the analyses rereturned to the IBM personal computer. There the motivational orienported later, relied on within-subjects procedures. Pearson tation instruction was repeated a third time and the participants were asked to judge the games again "now that they had some experience correlations between the two measures, across the six games, with the games." They were asked to rate how informed they felt about were computed for each participant. These correlations were the video games, followed by questions measuring the variables in the transformed by means of Fisher's r-to-z transformation, avertheory of planned behavior. Although the questions pertaining to the aged, and the averages were retransformed to correlation coeffidifferent variables were presented in the same order as in the pregame cients. As expected, the average correlations were found to be questionnaire, the order of the six games within each section was newly high and significant for attitude, perceived behavioral control, randomized. The items concerning the theory of planned behavior and intention (r = .82 to .92 in the pretest, r = .84 to .95 in the differed only in time perspective from those asked in the pretest quesposttest); responses to the two items were therefore averaged to tionnaire. Whereas the items in the pretest questionnaire had been yield a measure of each variable. Subjective norms, however, formulated with respect to the immediately following free-play period, seemed to be largely irrelevant in the context of this experithe items in the posttest questionnaire were formulated with respect to the preceding free-play period. For example, the item, "My playing ment. Most respondents rated the experimenter's expectations with Game X was" (extremely pleasant-extremely unpleasant) consti- identically on all six games, making it impossible to compute tuted one measure of attitude. The only exception occurred with rewithin-subjects correlations for these respondents. Among the spect to the measures of intention, which were asked in relation to an remaining 34 participants, the two subjective norm items correimagined second free-play period of 45 min (e.g., "I would play with lated, on the average, .55 in the pretest and .73 in the posttest. Game X longer than the required 2 minutes": extremely likely-exBecause, as is shown later, subjective norms were also found to tremely unlikely). The posttest questionnaire contained eight filler make only minor contributions to the prediction of intentions, items of the same kind as in the pretest questionnaire. this construct was omitted from most analyses. Finally, the participants reported their age and sex and were thorFinally, we examined the pre- and posttest means and varioughly debriefed. They were informed about the four experimental ances of the variables in the theory of planned behavior as a conditions and about the purpose of the experiment. function of experience and orientation. Means and variances of The participants' game behavior was recorded by a video recorder attitude, perceived behavioral control, and intention over the connected to the video output of the Commodore 64. The video recordsix games were computed separately for each of the 75 particiing was analyzed with respect to the time played with each game, the

this behavior was assessed by means of two evaluative scales ("My playing with Game X more than the required 2 minutes is" extremely pleasant-extremely unpleasant and extremely interesting-extremely boring). The two normative questions referred to the perceived expectations of the experimenter, because this seemed to be the most relevant referent in the experimental situation ("The experimenter would approve of my playing with Game X for more than the required 2 minutes": extremely likely-extremely unlikely; "The experimenter thinks I should play with Game X longer than the required 2 minutes": extremely likely-extremely unlikely). Perceived behavioral control was measured as follows: (a) "For me, playing with Game X longer than the required 2 minutes is" extremely easy-extremely difficult; (b) "I can play with Game X successfully longer than the required 2 minutes": extremely likely-extremely unlikely. Finally, intention was also assessed by means of two items ("I intend to play with Game X longer than the required 2 minutes": extremely likely-extremely unlikely; "I will try to play with Game X longer than the required 2 minutes": extremely likely-extremely unlikely). For reasons described in the Results section, the pretest questionnaire contained nine filler items, separating the questions dealing with the different variables. Thefilleritems gave a one-sentence description of the subsequent set of questions and asked respondents to press one of two keys to continue. At the end of the questionnaire, that is, before the free-play period, the motivational orientation instruction was repeated.

Results and Discussion Preliminary Analyses

STABILITY OF PREDICTORS

759

pants. The obtained values were then submitted to ANOVAs. The ANOVAs revealed only one significant effect, due to motivational orientation: Intentions measured on the pretest had significantly greater variances under the fun than under the skill orientation, F(l, 70) = 6.60, p < .05. No other differences were significant on the pretest or on the posttest. Accessibility and Temporal Stability Accessibility. Because the distributions of response latencies were found to be positively skewed, we followed the practice of Fazio and his associates (Fazio et al., 1982; Powell & Fazio, 1984) and subjected the recorded latencies to reciprocal transformations. All data analyses were performed on the transformed scores, but for ease of discussion we report the retransformed latencies. We also considered the possibility that measures of response latency can contain error variance due to individual differences in speed of responding that are unrelated to accessibility (see Fazio, 1990b). The filler items in the preand posttest questionnaires were included to control for this possibility. To obtain an overall measure of attitude accessibility, the (inverse) response latencies for the two indicators of attitude were averaged across the six games. Similar latency measures were computed for perceived behavioral control and for intention. However, before averaging the latencies for the two indicators of a given variable, we tested for internal consistency. Here we had to use a between-subjects analysis because only one averaged response latency measure was available for each respondent. On the pretest, the correlations between the two latencies (averaged across the six behaviors) were .55 for attitude, .65 for perceived control, and .65 for intention (p < .01 in each case). The corresponding correlations on the posttest were .64, .75, and .57 (all significant at p < .01). A 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on the filler latencies, with type of experience and motivational orientation as between-subjects factors and time of measurement as a within-subjects factor, revealed no significant main effects or interactions. However, the latencies of the filler items were found to correlate significantly with the latencies of the measures concerning the three theoretical constructs, with correlations ranging from .49 to .52 (p < .01) on the pretest and from .32 to .37 (p < .05) on the posttest. The filler latencies were therefore statistically controlled in all subsequent analyses involving response latency measures. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs), with filler latencies treated as a covariate, were performed to test the effects of the experimental manipulations on the accessibility of attitudes, perceptions of behavioral control, and intentions. The MANOVAs revealed three main effects and a significant interaction between motivational orientation and time of measurement. Mean adjusted response latencies3 were lower following direct as opposed to indirect experience (M= 4.12 vs. 5.02 s), F(3,68) = 3.01, p < .05; they were lower under fun (M = 4.15) than under skill (M= 5.01) orientation, F(3,68)= 4.35, p<. 01; and they were lower on the posttest (M = 3.67) than on the pretest (M = 5.54), F(3,69) = 17.05, p < .001. The Orientation X Time of Measurement interaction, although significant, F(3, 68) = 4.67, p < .01, was of very small magnitude. As is shown

later, the effect of motivational orientation was somewhat smaller on the pretest than on the posttest. Univariate ANOVAs produced virtually the same pattern of results for attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and intentions: three main effects and significant Orientation X Time of Measurement interactions for attitudes and perceived control, but not for intentions. Separate analyses for pre- and posttest also showed that the effects of the experimental manipulations were generally comparable. In the multivariate analyses of the pretest data, the mean latencies (adjusted for thefillerlatencies) in the direct- and indirect-experience conditions were 4.97 versus 6.13, F(3,68) = 5.79, p < .01. Univariate tests showed this difference to be significant for attitudes and perceived behavioral control (p < .01 in each case), but only marginally significant for intentions, F(l, 70) = 3.08, p < .09. On the posttest, the average adjusted latency was 3.40 for direct experience and 3.93 for indirect experience. In the same direction as on the pretest, this difference was marginally significant in the multivariate test, F(3, 68) = 2.56, p < .07. The univariate tests revealed significant differences for all three dependent variables, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and intentions (p < .05 in each case). With respect to the effect of motivational orientation, separate analyses on pre- and posttest measures produced the following results. On the pretest, the average adjusted latency under the fun orientation was 5.20, compared with an average latency of 5.90 under the skill orientation, F(3,68) = 5.79, p < .01, and the univariate tests for attitudes, perceived control, and intentions were significant (/? < .05) for perceived behavioral control and intentions, and marginally significant for attitudes, F(l, 70) = 3.14, p < .09. The corresponding means on the posttest were 3.27 versus 4.07, F(3, 68) = 5.89, p < .001, and all three univariate tests produced statistically significant results (p<.05). To summarize briefly, the main effect due to type of experience replicates results of earlier research, suggesting that direct experience increases accessibility of attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and intentions. The second main effect shows that accessibility was generally greater in the fun than in the skill orientation, contradicting the hypothesis that accessibility of perceived behavioral control is greater under skill than under fun instructions. Somewhat unexpectedly, the effects of type of experience and motivational orientation were found to persist even after all participants had spent 45 min playing the video games. Finally, the third main effect due to time of measurement shows, as might be expected, a practice effect, such that response latencies declined on the second administration of the questionnaire. Temporal stability. The temporal stabilities of attitudes, perceptions of control, and intentions were assessed by computing the within-subjects correlations between pre- and posttest measures of these variables, across the six games.4 All statistical

Although the analyses were done on the inverse latencies, for clarity we are reporting the means of the reinverted latencies. 4 Temporal stability was also assessed by computing the sum of the squared differences between pre- and posttest measures across games. These indices showed results very similar to the correlations.

760

JORG DOLL AND ICEK AJZEN game behavior, the multiple correlation was .50 (p < .01), with intentions as well as perceptions of behavioral control making significant contributions to the prediction. The standardized regression coefficients for the two predictors were .30 and .22, respectively (p < .05 in each case). When intention was the criterion, the multiple correlation was extremely high (R = .94, p < .001), and all three predictors entered significantly into the regression equation. The standardized regression coefficients were .48 for attitude, .15 for subjective norm, and .41 for perceived behavioral control (p < .05 in each case). Effects of Experience and Motivational Orientation We now turn to an examination of the effects of our experimental manipulations on accuracy of prediction. Considering the accessibility theorem, the findings reported earlier concerning the effects of the manipulations on response latency lead to the following expectations. Because attitudes, perceptions of control, and intentions were more accessible following direct rather than indirect experience, and in the fun rather than skill orientation, prediction of intentions and behavior should be better under conditions of direct experience and fun orientation. By comparison, the stability theorem also leads to the expectation that accuracy of prediction in the theory of planned behavior will be affected by type of experience and by motivational orientation because both influenced the temporal stabilities of attitudes, perceptions of control, and intentions. However, improved prediction is expected only with respect to game behavior, not with respect to intentions. Prediction of game behavior. Within our theoretical framework, game behavior is predicted from intentions and perceived behavioral control. However, consistent with the focus of most past research, we also examined the relation between attitudes and game behavior. Thus, for each participant, we computed three correlations across the six games: game behavior with attitudes toward the games, with perceptions of behavioral control, and with intentions. Following an r-to-z transformation, these correlations served as the dependent variable in three regression analyses in which type of experience and motivational orientation served as independent dummy variables, coded 1 and +1. In the first analysis, the correlations were regressed on type of experience, motivational orientation, and the product of these two independent variables. In the second regression analysis, stability of the predictor (attitude, perceived control, or intention) was entered as an additional independent variable.6 Finally, in the third analysis, stability was
5 It would have been possible to compute a multiple correlation for each participant and to submit the multiple correlations to ANOVAs. However, multiple correlations are insensitive to the direction of relations between independent and dependent variables. A number of participants were found to have negative correlations between one or more of the predictor variables and the criterion. Such negative correlations will reduce the average zero-order correlation, but they will increase the multiple correlation. 6 Note that the measures of attitude, perceived behavior control, and intention enter into this analysis in two places: as predictors of behavior and in the stability index that serves as the mediating variable. However, there was no evidence for confounding. Pretest measures of attitude, perception of behavioral control, and intention had correlations of .12, -.05, and .06 with the respective stabilities of these variables. None of these correlations approached statistical significance.

analyses involving these stabilities were performed after the stability correlations had been submitted to Fisher's r-to-z transformation. Reported later are the mean retransformed correlations. A 2 (type of experience) X 2 (motivational orientation) MANOVA revealed significant main effects of experience and motivational orientation, and no significant interactions. As expected, direct experience resulted in greater temporal stability, that is, in higher correlations between pre- and posttest measures (mean r = .85 for direct experience vs. r = .66 for indirect experience), F(3,69) = 10.27, p < .001. Furthermore, as in the case of latencies, the fun orientation produced greater temporal stability (mean r = .82) than did the skill orientation (mean r = .71), F(3, 69) = 3.44, p < .05. The univariate tests produced the same general results, although the differences were not always significant. Attitudes and perceptions of control were significantly more stable under direct experience (mean r = .86 and r = .84) than under indirect experience (.65 and .55, p < .05), but the difference in the stability of intentions (.85 vs. .75) was only marginally significant (p < .09). Similarly, motivational orientation had significant effects on the stability of attitudes and intentions (p < .05), such that measures of these variables were more stable in the fun condition (mean r = .85 and r = .86) than in the skill condition (.73 and .68), but the effect of this manipulation on the stability of perceived behavioral control was not significant (mean r = .74 vs. .73, F= 0.04). In sum, the two experimental manipulations, type of experience and motivational orientation, influenced the accessibility of attitudes, perceptions of control, and intentions in the expected direction, and they also influenced, as expected, the temporal stabilities of these variables. Prediction of Intentions and Behavior We now turn to predictions of intentions and game behavior in the context of the theory of planned behavior. Although not directly relevant to our hypotheses, wefirstperformed an overall test of the theory's ability to predict game behavior across all conditions of the experiment. Two average within-subjects correlation matrices, one for behavior and one for intentions, were submitted to multiple regression analyses. As required by the theory, behavior was regressed on the pretest measures of perceived behavioral control and intentions, and pretest intentions were regressed on pretest attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control.5 Three behavioral measures were available: time played with each game, order of play, and accumulated scores for each game. Only results using time played with each game as the criterion are reported in this article. Order was largely unrelated to attitudes because some respondents played their least liked games first (saving the best for later), whereas others started with their most liked games. Number of points accumulated did correlate with the theory's variables in cross-sectional analyses, but these scores were not comparable across games, making it difficult to perform within-subjects analyses. Time played with each game turned out to be the best measure of playing behavior for our purposes. The results of the multiple regression analyses provided good support for the theory of planned behavior. In the prediction of

STABILITY OF PREDICTORS

761

replaced by latency as the additional independent variable, and latency of responses to the filler items was also entered. The results in each analysis revealed significant main effects, and no significant interactions. Table 1 presents the mean correlations by condition, and Table 2 the standardized regression coefficients and / tests for the main effects of experience and motivational orientation, with and without the stability and latency mediators. Examining first the effect of type of experience, the results showed that direct experience produced stronger correlations than did indirect experience. In the direct experience condition, behavior correlated .59 with attitude, .51 with perceived behavioral control, and .61 with intention. This compares, respectively, with correlations of .37, .40, and .39 in the indirect experience condition. As can be seen in Table 2, without the introduction of mediating variables, the regression coefficients for these effects were significant for the attitude-behavior and the intention-behavior correlations (p < .05). Similarly, prediction of game behavior was found to be better under the fun than under the skill orientation. In the fun condition, the mean correlations between behavior and attitudes, perceived control, and intentions were .58, .57, and .60, respectively, whereas the corresponding correlations in the skill condition were .38, .34, and .41. As shown in Table 2, the effect of motivational orientation was significant in two of the three comparisons, that is, for the prediction of behavior from attitude and from perceived behavioral control (p < .05); in the case of the intention-behavior correlation, the effect was of marginal significance (t = 1.74, p<.09). The remaining regression analyses were performed to test the extent to which the observed effects of experience and orientation were mediated by response latency (i.e., accessibility) of attitudes, perceptions of control, and intentions or by the temporal stabilities of these variables. The results in Table 2 show that entering response latency into the regression equation did not eliminate or even diminish the observed effects. In contrast, when temporal stability was entered into the regression equation, virtually all significant differences were reduced to nonsignificance.7 The only exception occurred with respect to the effect of motivational orientation on the correlations between perceived behavioral control and behavior. In this case, the effect of motivational orientation remained significant (p < .01). In a further analysis not shown in Table 2, we included, in addition to the manipulated variables, both mediators by first entering response latency, followed on the next step by temporal stability. The results were essentially identical: The effects of the experimental manipulations were eliminated only after temporal stability had been entered into the equation, again with the exception of the effect of motivational orientation on the control-behavior correlation. Clearly, thefindingsdisplayed in Table 2 provide no support for the moderating role of response latency, but they are generally consistent with the stability theorem. To gain a better understanding of the differential results for response latencies and stabilities, it is instructive to examine the effects of these mediators in the regression analyses. It can be seen in Table 2 that whereas the stabilities of the predictors had strong and significant positive effects on predictive accuracy, their latencies had negative effects, although significant only for the prediction of

behavior from attitude. This could account for the finding in Table 2 that entering response latency into the regression equation tended to accentuate the effects of the experimental manipulations on the prediction of behavior. It is important to exercise caution in interpreting these results because it is difficult to ascertain the reliability of our latency measures. Lack of reliability may produce misleading conclusions in that the regression analysis will tend to overestimate the impact of the independent variables and underestimate the role of the accessibility mediator (Baron & Kenny, 1986). It has been suggested, however, that response latencies may accurately reflect differences in accessibility at the group level even when they are poor indicators of attitude accessibility at the individual level (Fazio, 1990b). To test for this possibility, we followed past practice (e.g., Fazio & Williams, 1986) and split the sample at the median into low- and high-latency subgroups. The results showed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of attitude-behavior correlations (mean r = .43 in the low-latency group vs. mean r = .54 in the high-latency group, r(72) = -1.11), in terms of control-behavior correlations (mean r = .47 vs. .48, t(72) = .12), or in terms of intention-behavior correlations (mean r = .54 vs. .43, ?(72)=1.06). Prediction of intentions. We turn now to the effects of the experimental manipulations on the prediction of intentions from attitudes and from perceived behavioral control. Given the significant effects of the manipulations on response latencies, the accessibility theorem would suggest that attitudes and perceptions of control should predict intentions better under direct than under indirect experience and better under fun than under skill instructions. The stability theorem, however, would predict no significant differences in correlations due to type of experience or motivational orientation. Attitude-intention and control-intention correlations were regressed on type of experience, motivational orientation, and the product of these two variables. Consistent with the stability theorem, the results revealed no significant main effects or interactions. The mean within-subjects correlations were uniformly high, ranging from .82 to .95, with no evidence for systematic differences between experimental conditions.8 To summarize briefly, type of experience and motivational orientation influenced prediction of behavior, and these effects were found to be mediated by the temporal stability of the predictor but not by its latency. Moreover, and in further support of the stability theorem, the experimental manipulations had little effect on the prediction of intentions.
When controlling for the mediator reduces to nonsignificance the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, this is taken as evidence for the hypothesized mediating process (see Baron & Kenny, 1986). A more stringent test would require demonstration that introduction of the mediating variable significantly reduces the effect of the independent variable, that is, that the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is smaller after the mediator has been entered than without it. Unfortunately, no procedure appropriate for testing this difference appears to be available. 8 In defense of the accessibility theorem it could be argued that these high correlations made it very difficult to observe any effect due to type of experience or motivational orientation.
7

762

JORG DOLL AND ICEK AJZEN

Table 1 Mean Within-Subject Correlations by Experimental Condition

Direct experience Correlation Attitude-behavior Control-behavior Intention-behavior Fun orientation .67 .61 .68 Skill orientation .49 .39 .53 Indirect experience

Fun orientation
.47 .51 .50

Skill orientation .27 .29 .26

Conclusions
Past research has revealed a number of situational and personal factors that tend to moderate the attitude-behavior relation (see Ajzen, 1988, for a review). As in previous research, the present study found that direct experience produces stronger attitude-behavior correlations than does indirect experience. In addition, we saw that direct experience also increases the predictive validity of intentions and of perceived behavioral control. In a similar fashion, the present study demonstrated that motivational orientation can moderate the relations between verbal responses and observed actions. Attitudes, perceptions of control, and intentions were found to predict playing of video games better under a fun than under a skill orientation. Two mediating processes were examined as potential explanations for the observed effects: accessibility and temporal stability of attitudes, perceptions of control, and intentions. As expected, the experimental manipulations were found to influence accessibility and stability in much the same way as they influenced the prediction of behavior from attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and intentions. That is, accessibility and stability of attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and intentions were generally higher under direct-experience than under

indirect-experience conditions and higher under fun than under skill orientations. In the past, parallel findings concerning the effects of such variables as type of experience on response latency and on observed attitude-behavior relations have been taken as evidence in support of the mediating role of accessibility (e.g., Fazio et al., 1982). A moment's reflection reveals, however, that direct experience, or any other variable such as the number of attitude expressions or motivational orientation, can influence response latency as well as attitude-behavior correlations, even if accessibility is not the important mediating process. The present study was based on the idea that accessibility is only one possible mediator and that temporal stability may serve as another. As suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986), this idea was tested by controlling statistically for response latency and for temporal stability of attitudes, perceptions of behavioral control, and intentions. These analyses were supportive of the stability theorem, but unexpectedly, they revealed no mediating role due to response latency. When response latency was entered into the regression equation, type of experience and motivational orientation retained their significant effects on observed relations between attitudes, perceived behavioral con-

Table 2 Regression Coefficients and t Tests for the Effects of Type of Experience and Motivational Orientation on the Prediction ofGame Behavior From Attitude, Perceived Behavioral Control, and Intention
Without

mediator
Correlation Attitude-behavior Type of experience Motivational orientation Mediator Control-behavior Type of experience Motivational orientation Mediator Intention-behavior Type of experience Motivational orientation Mediator b .24 .22 .15 .29 .23 .20 t 2.12* 1.98* 1.30 2.58** 2.02* 1.74

Latency as mediator b .31 .28 -.35 .18 .27 -.17 .25 .25 -.13 t 2.81** 2.46* -2.75** 1.52 2.32* -1.39 2.17* 2.06* -.95 b

Stability as mediator t .87 .73 3.53" -.33 2.70** 3.05** 1.68 1.01 2.65**

.09 .08 .42 -.03 .29 .37 .18 .11 .31

Note. N= 75. b = standardized regression coefficient. *p<.05. **p<.0l.

STABILITY OF PREDICTORS

763

trol, and intentions on one hand and behavior on the other. In contrast, the observed relations were greatly attenuated when temporal stability was entered, generally reducing the impact of the experimental manipulations to nonsignificance. Additional evidence supporting the stability theorem was provided by the finding that prediction of intentions was unaffected by type of experience and by motivational orientation. The results also showed that instructions to focus on fun raised the accessibility and stability of attitudes, perceptions of behavioral control, and intentions. Contrary to expectations, however, there was no evidence that instructions to focus on skill would raise the accessibility or stability of perceived behavioral control. It may be argued that the fun orientation is generally consistent with the "natural" motivational orientation for playing video games, whereas the skill instructions invoked an inappropriate achievement-related orientation. The conflict in the skill condition between the inherent fun orientation and the induced achievement orientation may be responsible for lowering the accessibilities and stabilities of the measured variables (see also Millar & Tesser, 1986, 1989; Shavitt & Fazio, 1991, for the effects of incompatible orientations on attitudebehavior correspondence). The unexpected finding that response latency did not mediate the effects of direct versus indirect experience, nor the effects of fun versus skill orientation, are inconsistent with the idea that an attitude's accessibility in memory determines its ability to guide behavior. Of course, no single study is sufficient to disprove the hypothesized mediating effect of accessibility, and future research may well reaffirm the importance of accessibility as a determinant of attitude-behavior correspondence. Nevertheless, our findings raise questions about the conclusions that have been reached on the basis of past research. Recall that the mediating role of accessibility has not been directly tested. The second experiment reported by Houston and Fazio (1989) is perhaps most directly comparable with our research. In that experiment, the investigators manipulated frequency of attitudinal expression, measured response latency, and then showed that attitude accessibility as well as attitude-behavior correspondence were greater for subjects in the high-frequencyof-expression condition. Although consistent with the idea that accessibility may have mediated the effect of multiple attitude expressions on the attitude-behavior relation, it should be clear that the mediation hypothesis was not subjected to a direct test. Fazio and Williams (1986), Fazio et al. (1989), and Houston and Fazio (1989), Experiment 1, measured latency of attitudinal responses and showed that attitudes with lower latencies are better predictors of judgments and overt behaviors. At first glance, these findings appear to differ from the results of our study in which splitting respondents into low- and high-latency subgroups had no significant effect on the predictive validity of the attitudinal variables. Note, however, that the studies by Fazio and his associates assessed previously formed attitudes toward issues with which respondents were well familiar: presidential candidates, commonly available commercial products, and the policy of capital punishment. Response latencies with respect to previously formed attitudes may well be confounded with such uncontrolled variables as amount of information or type of experience on which the attitude is based, involvement with the attitude object, and so forth. Factors of this kind would

tend to influence attitude stability, which could account for the observed relation between response latency and the attitude's predictive validity. In contrast, the present study assessed attitudes toward video games to which respondents were exposed for the first time. Aside from baseline speed of responding, which was statistically controlled, response latencies in this situation should be primarily a function of the manipulated variables and should not be confounded with uncontrolled factors. Past studies involving different types of intellectual puzzles (e.g, Regan & Fazio, 1977) have also assessed newly formed attitudes. However, to the best of our knowledge, those studies did not measure response latency, and it is thus not clear whether they would have shown the mediating effect of response latency with respect to attitude-behavior correspondence. A more general question can perhaps be raised with respect to the construct validity of the latency measures in our study. Fazio (1990b) has alerted investigators to the difficulties of securing response latency measures that are valid indicators of an attitude's accessibility in memory. However, the finding that the experimental manipulations of the present study affected response latencies as expected argues against the proposition that our latency measures lacked validity. Instead, it suggests that at least at the group level, our response latency measures were reflective of attitude strength or accessibility. Nevertheless, comparison of low and high latency subgroups revealed no significant differences in attitude-behavior correlations. Putting aside for a moment the finding that measures of attitude accessibility failed to mediate the effects ofour experimental manipulations, the attempt to explain the predictive validity of attitudes in terms of their accessibility in memory seems to us unnecessarily complex. We agree that such factors as direct experience, amount of information, or repeated attitude expression can strengthen a person's attitude. Furthermore, we would also agree that in comparison with relatively weak attitudes, strong attitudes are more easily accessible in memory; that is, they can be recalled faster from memory than can weak attitudes. However, this does not necessarily mean that ease of accessibility is responsible for the greater predictive validity of strong attitudes. To explain why a relatively accessible attitude is a better predictor of behavior, Fazio (1990a) proposed a model that involves a variety of psychological processes. Specifically, the model stipulates that to influence behavior in a given situation, an attitude must first be activated; that is, it must become salient in the behavioral situation. Once activated, the attitude is assumed to influence the way that the object and situation are perceived or interpreted. This selective or biased perception then predisposes favorable or unfavorable behavior toward the object of the attitude. Finally, for attitude accessibility to influence its predictive validity, the model must also assume that the attitude is activated automatically on mere observation of the attitude object and that only strong attitudes are likely to be automatically activated. This last assumption is necessary because if attitudes were activated following conscious deliberation rather than automatically, then even weak attitudes would be activated, would bias perception, and could guide behavior just as well as strong attitudes. Compare this elaborate account with the explanation provided by the stability theorem. The starting point is the same: Type of experience, amount of information, repeated attitude

764

JORG DOLL AND ICEK AJZEN

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474. Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 127-140. Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, R. R. (in press). An examination of the etiology of the attitude-behavior relation for goal-directed and mindless behaviors. Multivariate Behavioral Research. It is interesting to note in this context that the results of a Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F. (1992). The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality recent series of studies by Bargh, Chaiken, Govender, and and Social Psychology, 62, 893-912. Pratto (1992) call into question one of the fundamental asBaron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator varisumptions of the accessibility model, namely, the assumption able distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, stratethat only strong attitudes are activated automatically on mere gic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social observation of the attitude object. These investigators found Psychology, 57,1173-1182. that weak attitudes can also be automatically activated. FurtherBerger, I. E., & Mitchell, A. A. (1989). The effect of advertising on more, there are indications that the notion of accessibility in attitude accessibility, attitude confidence, and the attitude-behavior Fazio's model may not be sufficiently differentiated. In their relationship. Journal ofConsumer Research, 16, 269-279. socio-cognitive model, Pratkanis and Greenwald (1989) distinDoll, J., & Mallii, R. (1990). Individuierte Einstellungsformation, Einguished between three manners of attitude activation: retrieval stellungsstruktur und Einstellungs-Verhaltens-Konsistenz [Individuof the evaluative summary judgment (akin to Fazio's view of alized attitude formation, attitude structure, and attitude-behavior attitude activation), retrieval of the underlying beliefs or cogniconsistency]. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 21, 2-14. tions, or joint retrieval of evaluative summary and cognitive Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrenstructure. It is conceivable that activation by retrieval of the tino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cogniunderlying cognitive knowledge structure involves greater elabotion: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204-243). New York: Guilration and that, in this case, longer response latencies may indiford Press. cate stronger rather than weaker attitudes because the attitude Fazio, R. H. (1990a). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide beis based on a richer and better articulated set of beliefs. In any havior: The mode model as an integrative framework. In M. P. event, it seems to us that attitude accessibility, as denned in Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, Fazio's model, cannot easily be assumed to represent all the pp. 75-109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. different aspects of an attitude's strength. Fazio, R. H. (1990b). A practical guide to the use of response latency in psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Review The view that temporal stability mediates the effect of direct of personality and social psychology, Vol. 11: Research methods in experience on attitude-behavior correspondence may actually personality and social psychology (pp. 74-97). Newbury Park, CA: not be inconsistent with Fazio's (1986) model. An attitude, once Sage. activated, is assumed to bias perception of the situation and Fazio, R. H., Chen, J., McDonel, E. C, & Sherman, S. J. (1982). Attitude therefore guide behavior in an attitude-consistent direction. accessibility, attitude-behavior consistency, and the strength of the However, once the behavior is initiated in accordance with the object-evaluation association. Journal of Experimental Social Psyattitude, its persistence or continuation is predicated on the chology, 18, 339-357. assumption that the perception of the situation does not Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C, & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attichange. If new information becomes available that changes pertude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 280-288. ception of the situation or, in our terms, the new information Fazio, R. H., & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderchanges beliefs about the behavior, then the behavior is also ator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An likely to change in the direction of the new perceptions. investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal ofPersonality In short, temporal stability of attitudes seems to play an imand Social Psychology, 51, 505-514. portant role in determining the strength of observed attitudeFazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. (1978a). Attitudinal qualities relating to the behavior relations. Specifically, our findings are consistent with strength of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Experimenthe idea that temporal stabilities of attitudes, perceptions of tal Social Psychology, 14, 398-408. control, and intentions mediate the predictive validity of these Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. (1978b). On the predictive validity of attivariables. It thus seems reasonable to suggest that, along with tudes: The roles of direct experience and confidence. Journal ofPeraccessibility, more attention should be paid to temporal stabilsonality, 46, 228-243. ity as an important determinant of an attitude's predictive Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-bevalidity. havior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 161-202). San Diego, CA: Academic References Press. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behav- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, andbehavior: An ior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Westo behavior (pp. 11-39). New York: Springer. ley.

expressions, motivational orientation, and so on can all influence the strength of attitudinal variables. The only other assumption we have to make is that strong attitudes are more stable, that is, are less likely to change, than weak attitudes. The effect of attitude strength on attitude-behavior correlations follows logically from this assumption. Clearly, if people's attitudes change after they have been assessed, the measured attitudes are less likely to permit accurate prediction of subsequent behavior. No assumptions need to be made about automatic activation of attitudes or about their biasing impact on the perception of attitude object and situation. It can be seen that the stability theorem is clearly more parsimonious than the accessibility model.

STABILITY OF PREDICTORS Houston, D. A., & Fazio, R. H. (1989). Biased processing as a function of attitude accessibility: Making objective judgments subjectively. Social Cognition, 7, 51-66. Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C, & Carnot, C. G. (1991). Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs? Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus. Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986). Effects of affective and cognitive focus on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 270-276. Millar, M. G, & Tesser, A. (1989). The effects of affective-cognitive consistency and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25,189-202. Miller, G. A. (1965). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. Powell, M. C, & Fazio, R. H. (1984). Attitude accessibility as a function of repeated attitudinal expression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10,139-148. Pratkanis, A. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1989). A socio-cognitive model of attitude structure and function. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

765

experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 245-285). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Regan, D. T, & Fazio, R. H. (1977). On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 38-45. Schifter, D. B., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 843-851. Schwartz, S. H. (1978). Temporal instability as a moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 36, 715-724. Shavitt, S., & Fazio, R. H. (1991). Effects of attribute salience on the consistency between attitudes and behavior predictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 507-516. Wood, W. (1982). Retrieval of attitude-relevant information from memory: Effects on susceptibility to persuasion and on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 798-810. Received November 29,1990 Revision received December 3,1991 Accepted April 24,1992

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTION CLAIMS INFORMATION

Today's Date:_

We provide this form to assist members, institutions, and nonmember individuals with any subscription problems. With the appropriate information we can begin a resolution. If you use the services of an agent, please do NOT duplicate claims through them and directly to us. PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY AND IN INK IF POSSIBLE.

PRINT FULL NAME OR KEY NAME OF INSTITUTION

MEMBER OR CUSTOMER NUMBER (MAYBE FOUND ON ANYPASTISSUB LABEL) DATE YOUR ORDER WAS MAILED (OR PHONED):

ADDRESS P.O. NUMBER: PREPAID CITY STATE/COUNTRY CHECK ___CHARGE CHECK/CARD CLEARED DATE:_

ZIP

YOUR NAME AND PHONE NUMBER

(If possible, send * copy, front and back, of jour cancelled check to help us In our researcb of your claim.) ISSUES: ___MISSING DAMAGED

TITLE

VOLUME OR YEAR

NUMBER OR MONTH

Thank you. Once a claim is received and resolved, delivery of replacement issues routinely lakes 4-6 weeks.

DATE RECEIVED: ACTION TAKEN: STAFF NAME:

DATE OF ACTION: INV.NO.&DATE: LABEL NO. & DATE:

SEND THIS FORM TO: APA Subscription Claims, 750 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20002 PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE. A PHOTOCOPY MAY BE USED.