How would you explain such behaviour?..
We saw previously that when behavioural dissonance occurs (that is, mismatch of behaviour and attitude), people normally seek to resolve it. Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that we should be able to predict behaviour basing on people's attitudes towards a particular issue/object.
It is exactly what an early attitude theory argued. However, mismatch of behaviour and attitude happens all the time in everyday life, and cannot be explained by this simplistic approach (look at the picture; these cows are unlikely to have a negative attitude towards chicken - so there must be another reason for them to act this way!). New behavioural theories were developed, which proposed that it is influenced by more than attitude alone; they emphasise the importance of rational processes underlying the human behaviour. These theories are Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).
It is exactly what an early attitude theory argued. However, mismatch of behaviour and attitude happens all the time in everyday life, and cannot be explained by this simplistic approach (look at the picture; these cows are unlikely to have a negative attitude towards chicken - so there must be another reason for them to act this way!). New behavioural theories were developed, which proposed that it is influenced by more than attitude alone; they emphasise the importance of rational processes underlying the human behaviour. These theories are Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).
TRA and TPB: attitude
Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behaviour have a lot in common; thus, I will start explaining them together so that I don't repeat myself.
Both theories suggest that our attitude towards a particular behaviour depends on our beliefs about the consequences of a this behaviour, by how strong these beliefs are and how we evaluate these consequences (either as positive or as negative). These create a certain attitude towards a behaviour (positive or negative).
Let us consider an example. Imagine the following situation: during a public protest, crowd becomes more and more excited, and in the middle of the action policeman hits a man. Now, why did he do this?
We could analyse his behaviour using both TRA and TPB by suggesting what he believed the consequences would have been, how strong these beliefs were and whether he thought of these consequences as positive or negative:
Policeman hitting member of a public:
Both theories suggest that our attitude towards a particular behaviour depends on our beliefs about the consequences of a this behaviour, by how strong these beliefs are and how we evaluate these consequences (either as positive or as negative). These create a certain attitude towards a behaviour (positive or negative).
Let us consider an example. Imagine the following situation: during a public protest, crowd becomes more and more excited, and in the middle of the action policeman hits a man. Now, why did he do this?
We could analyse his behaviour using both TRA and TPB by suggesting what he believed the consequences would have been, how strong these beliefs were and whether he thought of these consequences as positive or negative:
Policeman hitting member of a public:
So, you can see that public safety is pretty important for this policeman, however preserving peace is a much stronger belief. His belief in public safety makes him less likely to hit someone (-1), however his strong belief in preserving peace pushes him towards such behaviour (+2). Then we multiply the two numbers for each belief and then - add them up. Positive result means that attitude of the policeman towards this behaviour is positive, therefore he forms behavioural intention and is likely to conduct this behaviour.
TRA and TPB: subjective norms
Both theories agree that behaviours are not only influenced by our attitudes towards them, but by external factors as well. Behavioural intention is also influenced by what we believe others think of a behaviour and how strongly we are motivated to comply with the others' views. These factors are united in what is called subjective norms by both theories.
So now let us analyse the possible subjective norms of our policeman. We could suggest that he takes two groups of observers into consideration: public/journalists and his boss/colleagues.
So now let us analyse the possible subjective norms of our policeman. We could suggest that he takes two groups of observers into consideration: public/journalists and his boss/colleagues.
Thus we can see that his subjective norms are also positive, therefore also contributing to the likelihood of behavioural intention to form.
This is the whole of Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): it states that two elements (attitude towards the behaviour and subjective norms) determine whether we are likely to behave in a particular way.
However, Theory of Planned Behaviour introduces another element: perceived behavioural control.
This is the whole of Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): it states that two elements (attitude towards the behaviour and subjective norms) determine whether we are likely to behave in a particular way.
However, Theory of Planned Behaviour introduces another element: perceived behavioural control.
TPB: Perceived Behavioural Control
Theory of Planned Behaviour argues that the third element influencing whether we form behavioural intention is whether we believe we can control the behaviour or not: perceived behavioural control. It includes two factors: whether we believe we have appropriate tools to conduct the behaviour and whether there is an opportunity to conduct a behaviour.
Let us look at our policeman once again then. Whether or not he is able to hit a member of the public depends on two factors: whether he has an appropriate tool and whether it is within his authority as a policeman.
Let us look at our policeman once again then. Whether or not he is able to hit a member of the public depends on two factors: whether he has an appropriate tool and whether it is within his authority as a policeman.
The third element also pushes this policeman towards hitting a man, positively contributing to is behavioural intention.
Summary
Thus, both theories showed that the early attitude theory had may flows by not taking into account external factors. They demonstrate that general attitudes alone can not predict a particular behaviour; in our case, for example, a policeman probably has a positive attitude towards general public, and a negative - towards the idea of hitting people; however the situation he was in made him extremely likely to act contrary to his general beliefs.