Theory of Reasoned Action Definition, Explained, Examples

Theory of Reasoned Action Definition, Explained, Examples “At the l?w??t l?v?l ?f ?x?l?n?ti?n, th?r?f?r?, ????l? ?r? said t? perform a b?h?vi?r b???u?? th?? intend t? d? so, th?? have th? r?qui?it? skills and abilities, ?nd there are n? environmental ??n?tr?int? to prevent th?m fr?m carrying ?ut th?ir intentions (i.?., they h?v? f?v?r?bl? int?nti?n? ?nd actual b?h?vi?r?l control)”. Martin Fi?hb?in, Pr?di?ting ?nd Changing B?h?vi?r: Th? Reasoned Action Approach Lik? th? N?wt?n’s Third l?w ?f motion which states that F?r every action, th?r? i? ?n ??u?l ?nd ?????it? r???ti?n, th? th??r? ?f reasoned ??ti?n (TRA) applies the same principle to human behavior and tries to predict the “reaction” of an individual to a certain “action”.The Th??r? of Reasoned Action (TRA), fir?t developed in the late 1960s by M?rtin Fishbein ?nd revised ?nd expanded by Fi?hb?in and I??k Azj?n in the d???d?? th?t followed, i? a th??r? th?t f??u??? ?n a ??r??n? int?nti?n t? b?h?v? a ??rt?in w??.An int?nti?n i? a ?l?n ?r a likelihood th?t ??m??n? will b?h?v ? in a ??rti?ul?r w?? in ????ifi? situations wh?th?r or not th?? ??tu?ll? do ??.F?r ?x?m?l?, a person who i? thinking ?b?ut ?uitting smoking int?nd? or ?l?n? t? ?uit, but may ?r may n?t ??tu?ll? f?ll?w through on th?t int?nt.To understand b?h?vi?r?l intent, which is ???n ?? th? m?in determinant ?f b?h?vi?r, th? TRA looks at a ??r??n? (?r ???ul?ti?n?) ?ttitud?? t?w?rd? th?t behavior ?? w?ll ?? the ?ubj??tiv? n?rm? ?f influential ????l? ?nd gr?u?? th?t could influ?n?? th??? ?ttitud??.Over the years the theory has helped to understand ?n individuals v?lunt?r? b?h?vi?r. The ideas found within th? th??r? ?f r????n?d action h?v? t? d? with ?n individu?l? b??i? m?tiv?ti?n t? perform ?n action.As stated earlier, TRA says that a ??r??n? intention t? ??rf?rm a behavior i? th? main predictor ?f wh?th?r ?r n?t they ??tu?ll? perform th?t b?h?vi?r. A???rding t? th? th??r?, intention to perform a ??rt?in behavior ?r???d?? the ??tu?l b?h?vi?r.Thi? intention i? known as b?h?vi?r?l intention ?nd ??m ?? ?? a result ?f a b?li?f that ??rf?rming th? behavior will lead to a ????ifi? ?ut??m?.Behavioral intention i? im??rt?nt to th? th??r? because these int?nti?n? ?r? d?t?rmin?d b? ?ttitud?? t? b?h?vi?r? and subjective norms.Th? th??r? ?f reasoned action suggests th?t stronger int?nti?n? lead t? increased effort t? ??rf?rm th? behavior, whi?h ?l?? increases the lik?lih??d f?r th? b?h?vi?r t? be ??rf?rm?d.Th? th??r? of planned b?h?vi?r ?n Extension fr?m th? th??r? ?f r????n?d ??ti?nThe th??r? ?t?t?? th?t ?ttitud? t?w?rd behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral ??ntr?l, together ?h??? ?n individu?l? b?h?vi?r?l int?nti?n? and behaviors.The th??r? ?f ?l?nn?d b?h?vi?r w?? proposed by Icek Ajz?n in 1985 thr?ugh his article Fr?m intentions t? ??ti?n?: A th??r? of ?l?nn?d b?h?vi?r. The theory was d?v?l???d from th? th??r? ?f r????n?d ??ti?n, which w?? proposed b? Martin Fi?hb?in t?g?th?r with I??k Ajz?n in 1980.Th? th??r? ?f reasoned ??ti?n was in turn grounded in v?ri?u? th??ri?? ?f ?ttitud? ?u?h ?? l??rning th??ri??, expectancy-value theories, ??n?i?t?n?? th??ri?? (such as H?id?r? b?l?n?? theory, O?g??d ?nd Tannenbaums ??ngruit? th??r?, ?nd F??ting?r? dissonance th??r?) ?nd ?ttributi?n theory.A???rding t? th? th??r? ?f r????n?d ??ti?n, if ????l? evaluate th? suggested behavior ?? positive (?ttitud?), ?nd if th?? think their ?ignifi??nt ?th?r? w?nt them t? ??rf?rm th? b?h?vi?r (?ubj??tiv? n?rm), thi? r??ult? in a high?r int?nti?n (m?tiv?ti?n?) and they ?r? more likely to d? ??.A high correlation of attitudes ?nd ?ubj??tiv? norms to b?h?vi?r?l int?nti?n, and ?ub???u?ntl? t? behavior, h?? b??n confirmed in m?n? studies.A ??unt?r-?rgum?nt ?g?in?t th? high r?l?ti?n?hi? between behavioral intention ?nd ??tu?l b?h?vi?r h?? ?l?? b??n proposed, ?? th? r??ult? ?f ??m? studies ?h?w th?t because ?f ?ir?um?t?nti?l limitations, behavioral int?nti?n d??? n?t ?lw??? l??d t? ??tu?l b?h?vi?r.Namely, ?in?? b?h?vi?r?l int?nti?n ??nn?t b? th? ?x?lu?iv? d?t?rmin?nt ?f b?h?vi?r wh?r? ?n individu?l? ??ntr?l over th? behavior i? in??m?l?t?, Ajz?n introduced th? theory ?f planned behavior b? adding a n?w component, ??r??iv?d b?h?vi?r?l ??ntr?l.B? this, h? extended th? th??r? ?f r????n?d action to ??v?r non-volitional b?h?vi?r? f?r ?r?di?ting behavioral intention ?nd actual behavior.Th? m??t r???nt addition ?f a third f??t?r, ??r??iv?d behavioral control, r?f?r? t? th? d?gr?? t? which a ??r??n believes th?t they ??ntr?l ?n? given b?h?vi?r (class notes).The th??r? ?f ?l?nn?d b?h?vi?r suggests that people ?r? much m?r? lik?l? t? int?nd t? ?n??t ??rt?in behaviors wh?n th?? f??l th?t th?? ??n enact th?m successfully. Increased ??r??iv?d behavioral ??ntr?l i? a mix of tw? dimensions: ??lf-?ffi???? and controllability (170).S?lf-?ffi???? refers to the l?v?l of difficulty that i? required t? perform the b?h?vi?r, ?r ?n?? belief in th?ir own ability t? ?u????d in ??rf?rming th? b?h?vi?r.Controllability refers to the ?ut?id? f??t?r?, and ones b?li?f th?t they personall y have ??ntr?l ?v?r th? performance of the b?h?vi?r, ?r if it i? controlled b? externally, un??ntr?ll?bl? f??t?r?. If a ??r??n h?? high ??r??iv?d behavioral ??ntr?l, th?n th?? h?v? ?n increased ??nfid?n?? th?t they ?r? ????bl? ?f ??rf?rming th? ????ifi? behavior successfully.The theory h?? ?in?? been improved and renamed the reasoned action approach b? Azjen ?nd hi? ??ll??gu? M?rtin Fi?hb?in.In ??it? of the im?r?v?m?nt, it is ?ugg??t?d that TRA ?nd TPB only provides ?n account ?f the d?t?rmin?nt? ?f b?h?vi?r wh?n b?th m?tiv?ti?n ?nd ????rtunit? t? ?r????? inf?rm?ti?n ?r? high. Furth?r research d?m?n?tr?ting the casual r?l?ti?n?hi?? among th? variables in TPB ?nd ?n? expansions ?f it is ?l??rl? necessary. Th? m?d?l also m?nti?n? littl? ?b?ut the m?m?r? processA???rding to the theory of reasoned action, th? ?ttitud? ?f a ??r??n t?w?rd? a b?h?vi?r is d?t?rmin?d by his b?li?f? ?n th? consequences ?f this b?h?vi?r, multi?li?d b? his evaluation ?f th??? consequences.B?li?f? are d?fin?d by the person’s ?ubj??tiv? probability th?t ??rf?rming a ??rti?ul?r behavior will ?r?du?? specific results.Thi? model th?r?f?r? suggests th?t ?xt?rn?l ?timuli influ?n?? ?ttitud?? b? modifying the ?tru?tur? ?f the person’s beliefs.M?r??v?r, b?h?vi?r?l int?nti?n is ?l?? determined b? th? ?ubj??tiv? norms that ?r? themselves d?t?rmin?d b? the n?rm?tiv? b?li?f? ?f ?n individu?l and by his m?tiv?ti?n t? ??m?l? to the n?rm?. COMPONENTS OF THE THEORY OF R????N?D ??TI?N Theory ?f R????n?d Action fr?m Davis, Bagozzi ?t W?r?h?w (1989), pg. 984B?h?vi?r?l intention i? a function ?f both ?ttitud?? ?nd ?ubj??tiv? n?rm? t?w?rd that behavior.H?w?v?r, the ?ttitud?? ?nd subjective n?rm? ?r? unlik?l? t? be w?ight?d ??u?ll? in predicting b?h?vi?r. D???nding on th? individu?l ?nd ?itu?ti?n, these f??t?r? might h?v? diff?r?nt impacts on behavioral intention, thu? a weight is ?????i?t?d with ???h of th??? factors.A few studies h?v? shown th?t dir??t prior ?x??ri?n?? with a ??rt?in ??tivit? results in an in?r????d weight ?n th? ?ttitud? component ?f th? behavior intention fun?ti?n.Th? th??r? ?l?? ?l?im? th?t ?ll ?th?r f??t?r? which influence th? b?h?vi?r ?nl? do so in ?n indir??t w?? b? influ?n?ing th? ?ttitud? or subjective n?rm?. Fishbein ?nd Ajz?n (1975) refer t? th??? factors ?? b?ing ?xt?rn?l variables. Th??? v?ri?bl?? ??n be f?r example, th? characteristics ?f th? t??k?, of th? int?rf??? or of the user, th? t??? ?f d?v?l??m?nt im?l?m?nt?ti?n, th? ??liti??l in flu?n???, th? ?rg?niz?ti?n?l ?tru?tur?, etc. (D?vi?, B?g?zzi and Warshaw, in 1989). A m?t?-?n?l??i? ?n th? application of the theory ?f r????n?d action showed th?t th? m?d?l ??n ?r?du?? g??d ?r?di?ti?n? ?f ?h?i??? made b? an individu?l when f??ing ??v?r?l ?lt?rn?tiv?? (Sheppard, Hartwick, ?nd Warshaw, in 1988).F?rmul?In it? ?im?l??t form, th? TRA can b? ?x?r????d as th? following equation:B?h?vi?r?l Int?nti?n = Attitude + Subj??tiv? n?rm?BI = (AB)W1 + (SN)W2Where the ??m??n?nt? whi?h ??n?tru?t th??r? ?f r????n?d action ?r?:BI = behavioral int?nti?n(AB) = ?n?? attitude t?w?rd performing th? b?h?vi?rW = ?m?iri??ll? derived w?ight?(SN) = ?n?? subjective n?rm related t? performing th? b?h?vi?rS?ur??: H?l?, Jerold; H?u??h?ld?r, Bri?n; Gr??n?, K?thr?n (2002). The Theory ?f Reasoned Action. The ??r?u??i?n h?ndb??k: D?v?l??m?nt? in th??r? and ?r??ti??.KEY COMPONENTS OF THE THEORY OF REASONED ACTIONB?h?vi?r?l int?nti?nBehavioral intention (BI) i? d?fin?d as a ??r??n? perceived likelihood ?r ?ubj??tiv? ?r?b?bilit? th?t h? or ?h? will ?ng?g? in a giv?n b?h?vi?r (C?mmitt?? ?n C?mmuni??ti?n f?r B?h?vi?r Ch?ng? in th? 21?t C?ntur?, 2002, ?. 31).It i? an indication ?f ?n individu?l? r??din??? t? ??rf?rm a given b?h?vi?r. It i? assumed t? b? ?n imm?di?t? antecedent of b?h?vi?r. It i? based ?n attitude t?w?rd the b?h?vi?r, subjective n?rm, ?nd ??r??iv?d b?h?vi?r?l ??ntr?l, with ???h ?r?di?t?r weighted f?r its im??rt?n?? in r?l?ti?n to th? behavior ?nd population ?f int?r??t.BI i? behavior-specific and ???r?ti?n?liz?d by direct ?u??ti?n? ?u?h as I intend t? (b?h?vi?r), with Likert ???l? r????n?? ?h?i??? to m???ur? relative ?tr?ngth ?f int?nti?n. Int?nti?n has been r??r???nt?d in m???ur?m?nt b? ?th?r ??n?n?m? (?.g., I plan t? (b?h?vi?r)) and i? distinct fr?m similar ??n???t? such ?? desire and ??lf-?r?di?ti?n (Armitage C?nn?r, 2001). Ajzen (1991) ?rgu?d th?t BI r?fl??t? how hard a ??r??n i? willing t? tr?, ?nd how motivated h? ?r ?h? is, to ??rf?rm the behaviorEx?m?l?: J?n? is a kind of t?lk?tiv? person; ?h? tries h?rd t? k??? h?r mouth ?hut. Sh? t?lk?d a lot and never k??t a secret ?? ????l? b?g?n t? ??ll h?r BBC n?tw?rk. Once she ??m? t? know ?b?ut h?r ni?k name ?nd got ?? depressed. Sh? didn’t w?nt to b? ??ll?d like that ?nd f?r th?t ?h? tri?d t? keep her mouth ?hut and t?lk?d t? ?th?r? ?nl? wh?n it is needed. Here J?n? int?nt t? behave in another way which was formed b? h?r attitude ?nd ?ubj??tiv? n?rm?.B?h?vi?rAn individu?l? ?b??rv?bl? response in a giv?n ?itu?ti?n with r?????t t? a giv?n target. Ajz?n ??id a b?h?vi?r i? a function ?f ??m??tibl? int?nti?n? and ??r???ti?n? ?f b?h?vi?r?l ??ntr?l in th?t ??r??iv?d b?h?vi?r?l control i? ?x???t?d t? m?d?r?t? th? ?ff??t ?f int?nti?n ?n b?h?vi?r, such th?t a f?v?r?bl? int?nti?n produces the b?h?vi?r ?nl? when ??r??iv?d b?h?vi?r?l ??ntr?l i? strong.Attitud?It is d?fin?d as th? d?gr?? to whi?h a ??r??n ??r??iv?? th? behavior b???d ?n favorable ?r unf?v?r?bl? ??????m?nt of the b?h?vi?r (Ajz?n, 1991; Ajz?n ?t ?l., 2004). It ?nt?il? a consideration of th? ?ut??m?? ?f ??rf?rming th? behavior.Example: Students have th?ir ?ttitud?? t?w?rd? th? ?x?m?. Th?ir performance in th? exams has optimum dependency u??n th? attitude ?f them towards th? exams. Or th? ?r?bl?m ??lving ?bilit? of th? ????l? depend ?n their ?ttitud?? t?w?rd? the problem.N?rm?tiv? beliefAn individu?l? ??r???ti?n of ???i?l normative ?r???ur??, ?r r?l?v?nt others beliefs th?t h? ?r ?h? should or should n?t perform ?u?h b?h?vi?r.One could say n?rm?tiv? b?li?f? ?r? individu?l? b?li?f? ?b?ut th? extent t? which ?th?r ????l? wh? ?r? im??rt?nt t? th?m think th?? ?h?uld or ?h?uld n?t ??rf?rm ??rti?ul?r b?h?vi?r?. In g?n?r?l, researchers who m???ur? normative beliefs ?l?? measure m?tiv?ti?n? to ??m?l?-h?w mu?h individuals wi?h to b?h?v? ??n?i?t?ntl? with th? ?r???ri?ti?n? of important others.E??h n?rm?tiv? b?li?f ?b?ut ?n im??rt?nt ?th?r is multiplied by th? ??r??n? m?tiv?ti?n t? ??m?l? with th?t important other and th? products ?r? ?umm?d across all ?f th? ??r??n? im??rt?nt ?th?r? t? r??ult in a g?n?r?l m???ur? th?t ?r?di?t? ?ubj??tiv? normsSubjective n?rmThe perceived ???i?l ?r???ur? to ??rf?rm ?r not t? perform the behavior in ?u??ti?n (Ajz?n, 1991, ?. 188)  Opinion about wh?t im??rt?nt ?th?r? b?li?v? the individu?l ?h?uld d? (Finl??, Tr?fim?w, M?r?i, 1999, p. 2015)Subjective n?rm is an individu?l? ??r???ti?n ?b?ut the ??rti?ul?r behavior, whi?h i? influ?n??d b? the judgment of ?ignifi??nt ?th?r? (?.g., parents, spouse, fri?nd?, t???h?r?, society, economy, ??liti??, d?m?gr??hi? factors ?t?.).Ex?m?l?: P?t’? ??r?nt? d?n’t lik? w?t?hing TV, they believes th?t it kills the br?in tissues. In Pat’s class everybody watches TV ?nd th?? t?lk a l?t about th? m?vi?? ?nd ?th?r TV ?h?w?. Here Pat’s ‘subjective norms’ towards TV may d???nd upon the h?w he i? b?ing influenced ?nd wh? makes a d????r im?r???i?n in his mind.CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY OF REASONED ACTIONThe theory of reasoned ??ti?n th??ri?t? noted th?t th?r? are three conditions th?t ??n affect th? r?l?ti?n?hi? b?tw??n b?h?vi?r?l intention ?nd b?h?vi?r. The fir?t ??nditi?n i? th?t th? m???ur? ?f int?nti?n mu?t ??rr????nd with r?????t t? their l?v?l? ?f ????ifi?it?. This m??n? th?t t? ?r?di?t a specific b?h?vi?r, th? behavioral intention must b? ??u?ll? ????ifi?. Th? ????nd ??nditi?n i? th?t th?r? must be stability ?f int?nti?n? b?tw??n tim? ?f measurement ?nd performance of behavior.The intention must r?m?in th? same b?tw??n th? tim? that it i? given ?nd th? tim? th?t the b?h?vi?r is performed. Th? third condition is th? degree t? whi?h ??rr?ing ?ut th? int?nti?n is under th? v?liti?n?l ??ntr?l of th? individu?l.Th? individu?l always h?? th? ??ntr?l of wh?th?r ?r not to perform th? behavior. Th??? conditions have t? d? with the tr?n?iti?n from v?rb?l responses t? ??tu?l b?h?vi?rAccording t? Fi?hb?in? ?nd Ajzens ?rigin?l (1967) f?rmul?ti?n ?f TRA, a behavioral int?nti?n m???ur? will predict the performance of ?n? v?lunt? r? ??t, unl??? int?nt changes ?ri?r t? ??rf?rm?n?? or unl??? th? int?nti?n m???ur? d??? n?t ??rr????nd t? the b?h?vi?r?l ?rit?ri?n in t?rm? of action, t?rg?t, ??nt?xt, time-frame ?nd/?r ????ifi?it?.Th? m?d?l of TRA h?? been challenged by ?tudi?? d?t?rmin?d to ?x?min? it? limit?ti?n ?nd in?d??u???.Th? m?j?r ?r?bl?m ?f theory of r????n?d ??ti?n is ??int?d ?ut to b? the ignorance of th? ??nn??ti?n? between individu?l?, both th? int?r??r??n?l ?nd ???i?l r?l?ti?n? in which they ??t, ?nd th? br??d?r social ?tru?tur?? whi?h govern ???i?l ?r??ti??.Alth?ugh th??r? ?f r????n?d ??ti?n r???gniz?? th? importance of social n?rm?, ?tr?t?gi?? ?r? limit?d to a ??n?id?r?ti?n ?f individual perceptions of th??? ???i?l phenomena. Individu?l? b?li?f, attitudes ?nd und?r?t?nding? ?r? ??n?titut?d activity, therefore the distinction ?f the tw? factors i? ?mbigu?u?.Furth?rm?r?, ???i?l ?h?ng? may be g?n?r?ti?n?l r?th?r th?n th? ?um of individual change. Th??r? of reasoned action f?il? t? ???tur? th? ???i?l ?r ??????? ?f change ?nd the ???i?l n?tur? of th? ?h?ng? it??lf: a model in whi?h ????l? ??ll??tiv?l? ???r??ri?t? ?nd ??n?tru?t n?w m??ning? and ?r??ti??.Additi?n?ll?, th? habituation ?f ???t b?h?vi?r also tends t? r?du?? th? im???t that int?nti?n h?? ?n b?h?vi?r ?? th? habit in?r?????.Gr?du?ll?, the performance ?f the b?h?vi?r becomes less ?f a rational, initi?tiv? b?h?vi?r and more of a learned response. In ?dditi?n, int?nti?n ?????r? t? have a direct ?ff??t ?n b?h?vi?r in the short t?rm ?nl?. B??id??, the analysis ?f th? ??n???tu?l b??i? ?l?? raises ??n??rn?. It is ?riti?iz?d that th? m?d?l d??? not ?n?bl? th? generation ?f hypothesis because ?f their ?mbiguit?.The model f??u??? ?n ?n?l?ti? truth r?th?r th?n ??nth?ti? ?n?, th?r?f?r? th? ??n?lu?i?n? resulting fr?m those ???li??ti?n? ?r? ?ft?n tru? by d?finiti?n r?th?r than by ?b??rv?ti?n whi?h m?k?? th? model unfalsifiable.Th? strengths ?f ?ttitud?? t?w?rd a behavior (???i?l/??r??n?l) ?nd ?ubj??tiv? n?rm? ?l?? v?r? ?r???-?ultur?ll? w hil? th? ?r????? b? whi?h the behavior engaged r?m?in? th? ??m?.An example of this is shown in a ?r???-?ultur?l study ?n fast f??d choices, wh?r? ????l? fr?m W??t?rn ?ultur?? were found t? b? m?r? influ?n??d by their ?ri?r ?h?i?? ?f r??t?ur?nt th?n ????l? fr?m E??t?rn cultures. This w?uld suggest that ????l? from diff?r?nt ?ultur?? w?ight ?ubj??tiv? norms ?nd ?xi?ting attitudes diff?r?ntl?. A ?l???r ?x?min?ti?n ?f th? ?r???-?ultur?l ??mmuni??ti?n ?r????? will b?n?fit ?nd complete th? und?r?t?nding ?f th??r? ?f r????n?d ??ti?n.So th? distinction b?tw??n a g??l int?nti?n ?nd a b?h?vi?r?l int?nti?n concerns th? ????bilit? to achieve ones int?nti?n, which inv?lv?? multi?l? v?ri?bl?? thus creating gr??t uncertainty. Azj?n ??kn?wl?dg?d that some b?h?vi?r? are more lik?l? t? ?r???nt problems ?f ??ntr?l? th?n ?th?r?, but we can n?v?r b? ?b??lut?l? ??rt?in th?t w? will b? in a ???iti?n t? ??rr? ?ut ?ur intentions.Viewed in this light it b???m?? clear that strictly speaking ?v?r? intention i? a g??l whose ?tt?inm?nt is ?ubj??t t? ??m? degree ?f uncertainty. Alth?ugh this th??r? h?? ?u?????full? ?r?di?t?d a wide r?ng? ?f behaviors, ????l? d? n?t always d? wh?t th?? say they int?nd t? do (i.?. there i? a w??k relationship b?tw??n ?ttitud?? and b?h?vi?r).In addition, thi? th??r? does not take into ????unt ???t b?h?vi?r (?ft?n a g??d ?r?di?t?r ?f futur? behavior), ?r take int? ????unt the irrational d??i?i?n? ????l? ??m?tim?? make.APPLICATIONS OF THE THEORYOv?r th? years th? th??r? of r????n?d ??ti?n h?? been u??d in many studies ?? a framework f?r examining ????ifi? kind? ?f b?h?vi?r ?u?h ?? ??mmuni??ti?n b?h?vi?r, ??n?um?r b?h?vi?r ?nd health b?h?vi?r.Many r????r?h?r? use th? th??r? t? study b?h?vi?r? th?t ?r? ?????i?t?d with high risks ?nd d?ng?r, ?? well as deviant behavior. In ??ntr??t, ??m? research h?? ???li?d th? theory t? more normative and r?ti?n?l t???? ?f action.Researchers D?vi??, F?x?ll, ?nd Pallister ?ugg??t th?t the theory ?f r????n?d ??ti?n can be tested if b?h?vi?r i? m???ur?d objectively without drawing a ??nn??ti?n t? prior int?nti?n.M??t ?tudi??, h?w?v?r, l??k ?t int?nti?n b???u?? ?f it? ??ntr?l r?l? in the th??r?In C?mmuni??ti?nC?ll?g? fraternity ?nd ??r?rit? hazingThe th??r? of reasoned ??ti?n h?? been ???li?d t? th? study ?f whi?tl?-bl?wing intentions ?nd hazing in college ?rg?niz?ti?n?, ????ifi??ll? fraternities ?nd ??r?riti??. Hazing is und?r?t??d to b? ?n? ??tivit? ?x???t?d ?f ??m??n? th?t j?in? a gr?u?, whi?h humili?t??, d?gr?d??, ?bu??? ?r ?nd?ng?r? its victims.In th? Unit?d St?t??, there have been a v?ri?t? ?f h?zing in?id?nt? th?t h?v? r??ult?d in d??th ?nd harm of students on several college campuses. Whi?tl?-bl?wing inv?lv?? ?n individu?l with ??m? level ?f unique ?r inside kn?wl?dg? u?ing public communication t? bring ?tt?nti?n t? ??m? perceived wr?ngd?ing ?r ?r?bl?m.Whi?tl?-bl?wing i? ?ignifi??nt t? this issue b???u?? individuals wh? are ?w?r? ?f h?zing in?id?nt? ??n ??m? f?rw?rd t? univ?r?it? ?ffi?i?l? ?nd make th? occurrence ?f hazing kn?wn.In their ?tud?, Ri?h?rd??n ?t al. ??t ?ut to study whi?tl?-bl?wing by u?ing the theory of r????n?d action as a fr?m?w?rk t? ?r?di?t wh?th?r or n?t individu?l? will ??m? f?rw?rd ?b?ut report h?zing in?id?nt?.Their ?tud? served t? examine whether th? r?l?ti?n?hi?? suggested b? th? TRA model r?m?in true in predicting whi?tl? blowing int?nti?n?, ?nd if these r?l?ti?n?hi?? w?uld ?h?ng? d???nding ?n the ??v?rit? ?f th? hazing in?id?nt.Ri?h?rd??n et al. ?urv???d a sample ?f 259 students from Gr??k organizations at university in the Southwestern United St?t??. Th? ?urv?? ?u??ti?n? measured the diff?r?nt ?????t? ?f th? TRA model: b?h?vi?r?l b?li?f?, ?ut??m? ?v?lu?ti?n?, attitude t?w?rd th? behavior, n?rm?tiv? b?li?f?, m?tiv?ti?n t? ??m?l?, ?ubj??tiv? norms, and the consequence ?nd?g?n?u? v?ri?bl?.Th? ?u??ti?n? ??k?d respondents t? r?t? th?ir r????n??? on v?ri?u? 7 ??int ???l??. P?rti?i??nt? in th? ?tud? responded t? ?n? of thr?? scenarios, varying in l?v?l ?f sever ity, describing a h?zing ?itu?ti?n ???urring in th?ir fr?t?rnit? ?r ??r?rit?.In line with the theory, the r????r?h?r? w?nt?d t? id?ntif? if ?ttitud?? held ?b?ut h?zing, dangerous activity, ?nd gr?u? affiliation, ?l?ng with subjective n?rm? about whi?tl?-bl?wing (reactions b? others, ??n???u?n??? ?f reporting th? ??ti?n, i??l?ti?n fr?m th? gr?u?) w?uld influence wh?th?r ?r n?t ?n individu?l w?uld g? thr?ugh with r???rting a h?zing in?id?nt.Th? r??ult? of the study f?und th?t individu?l? w?r? more lik?l? t? report, ?r whi?tl?-bl?w, ?n h?zing in?id?nt? th?t w?r? m?r? ??v?r? or h?rmful t? individu?l?.Simultaneously, individu?l? w?r? ?l?? ??n??rn?d ?b?ut th? ??r???ti?n? of ?th?r? ?ttitud?? t?w?rd? th?m and th? ??n???u?n??? th?? m?? f??? if th?? r???rt?d hazing in?id?nt?.Kn?wl?dg? sharing in companiesTRA i? used t? ?x?min? th? ??mmuni??ti?n b?h?vi?r in corporations. On? ?f the b?h?vi?r? TRA h?l??d characterize is knowledge ?h?ring (KS) in ??m??ni??.In th? study conducted b? H?, H?u, ?nd O h, they ?r?????d two models to ??n?tru?t KS ?r????? by introducing TRA ?nd game th??r? (GT). One m?d?l ???tur?? ??r??n?l psychological f??ling? (?ttitud?? and ?ubj??tiv? n?rm?), th? ?th?r model n?t only captures ??r??n?l feelings but ?l?? t?k?? ?th?r peoples decisions into ??n?id?r?ti?n.By ??m??ring th? two models, r????r?h?r? f?und th?t th? m?d?l based ?n TRA h?? a high?r predictive ???ur??? than th? m?d?l b???d ?n TRA and GT. Th?? ??n?lud?d th?t ?m?l????? have a high ?r?b?bilit? of n?t ?n?l?zing th? decisions of ?th?r?, ?nd wh?th?r t?king ?th?r colleagues d??i?i?n into ????unt h?? a gr??t impact on ????l?? KS behavioral int?nti?n.It is indi??t?d th?t th? m?r? indirect d??i?i?n-m?k?r? there ?r? in ?rg?niz?ti?n?, th? l??? ?ff??tiv? is KS. To ?n??ur?g? KS, ??m??n? m?n?g?r? ?h?uld ?v?id in?luding indir??t d??i?i?n-m?k?r? in the ?r?j??t?.C?n?um?r b?h?vi?rUse of R?n?w?bl? energyTRA h?? ?l?? b??n u??d to ?tud? consumer ?ttitud?? towards renewable energy. In 2000, B?ng, et. al f?und that ????l? who ??r?d ?b?ut ?nvir?nm?nt?l i??u?? like ??lluti?n w?r? m?r? willing t? ???nd more f?r renewable ?n?rg?.Simil?rl?, a 2008 ?tud? ?f Swedish consumers b? H?n?l? ?t. ?l showed th?t th??? who with a ???itiv? view ?f renewable ?n?rg? were more willing to spend m?n?? ?n ?u?t?in?bl? ?n?rg? for th?ir h?m??.Th??? ?tudi?? ?r? ?vid?n?? th?t th? emotional response ????l? have t?w?rd? a t??i? ?ff??t? their ?ttitud?, whi?h in turn affects their b?h?vi?r?l int?nt. These ?tudi?? ?l?? ?r?vid? examples f?r h?w th? TRA is used t? m?rk?t g??d? th?t might n?t m?k? the m??t sense fr?m a ?tri?tl? economic ??r????tiv?.Th? u?? ?f C?u??nC?u??n u??g? has ?l?? been ?tudi?d thr?ugh th? theory ?f reasoned action fr?m?w?rk b? r????r?h?r? interested in consumer ?nd m?rk?t?r b?h?vi?r.In 1984, Terence Shimp ?nd Ali??n K?v?? applied thi? th??r? t? coupon u??g? b?h?vi?r, with th? r????r?h premise that coupon u??g? is r?ti?n?l, ???t?m?ti?, ?nd th?ughtful b?h?vi?r in ??ntr??t with ?th?r ???li??ti?n? ?f the theor y t? m?r? d?ng?r?u? types ?f b?h?vi?r.The th??r? of reasoned action serves ?? a u??ful model because it ??n h?l? examine whether ??n?um?r? int?nti?n? t? u?? ??u??n? are determined b? their ?ttitud?? and ??r???ti?n? ?f wh?th?r im??rt?nt others think ?n? ?h?uld ?r ?h?uld n?t expend th? effort t? ?li?, save, ?nd u?? ??u??n?.Th? ??n?um?r? b?h?vi?r int?nti?n? are influenced b? their ??r??n?l b?li?f? ?b?ut ??u??n u??g?, m??ning wh?th?r or not th?? think ??ving m?n?? is important and are willing to ???nd th? time ?li??ing ??u??n?.These potential b?li?f? ?l?? influenced th? coupon u??r? th?ught? ?b?ut wh?t ?th?r? think ?b?ut th?ir u??g? ?f ??u??n?.Together, the coupon user will use th?ir ?wn beliefs ?nd th? ??ini?n? ?f ?th?r? to f?rm ?n ?v?r?ll attitude t?w?rd? coupon u??g?. T? ???r???h this study, Shim? ?nd Ali??n surveyed 770 h?u??h?ld? and m???ur?d th? aspects of th? TRA m?d?l in terms of th? participants r????n???.The received r????n??? indi??t?d th?t ??n?um?r? n?rm? are ??rti?ll? deter mined b? th?ir ??r??n?l b?li?f? toward ??u??n u??g?, and to an even gr??t?r ?xt?nd, that attitudes ?r? influenced b? internalizations ?f ?th?r? b?li?f?.Positive ?ttitud?? t?w?rd? this b?h?vi?r ?r? influ?n??d b? ?n individu?l? ??r???ti?n? th?t th?ir ??rtn?r? will b? satisfied b? their tim? ???nt ?nd ?ff?rt? made to save m?n??.Br?nd loyaltyTRA has been applied t? r?d?fin? brand loyalty. According t? th? th??r? ?f r????n?d ??ti?n, th? antecedents ?f ?ur?h??? behaviour ?r? ?ttitud?? t?w?rd? th? purchase ?nd subjective norm.In 1998, Ha ??ndu?t?d a ?tud? t? investigate th? r?l?ti?n?hi?? ?m?ng ??v?r?l ?nt???d?nt? of unit brand l???lt? (UBL) b? intr?du?ing TRA. C?n?um?r? ?r? brand loyal wh?n both ?ttitud? ?nd b?h?vi?r are favorable. In his study, H? developed a t?bl? indicating 8 ??mbin?ti?n? ?f ?u?t?m?r? br?nd l???lt? based on th?ir l???lt? ?n 3 variables â€" ?ttitud? t?w?rd? th? b?h?vi?r, ?ubj??tiv? norm, ?nd ?ur?h??? b?h?vi?r i? l???l.A???rding t? Ha, m?rk?ting managers ?h?uld n?t b? di? ??ur?g?d b? a t?m??r?r? di?l???lt? and n??d to ?triv? f?r grabbing br?nd loyalty when ?u?t?m?r? ?r? ?h?wing loyalty to two ?f th? thr?? v?ri?bl??, but they need to r?di?gn??? th?ir ?u?t?m?r? br?nd l???lt? wh?n customers are ?h?wing loyalty t? only one ?f th?m.The m?in focus ?h?uld be ??int?d ?t ?ith?r ?nh?n?ing th? consumers ?ttitud? toward th?ir br?nd or ?dju?ting th?ir br?nd t? th? ???i?l n?rm?In H??lth behaviorEx?r?i??The ?ubli? health community, int?r??t?d in reducing ri?ing obesity rates, has used TRA to ?tud? ????l?? ?x?r?i?? b?h?vi?r.A 1981 ?tud? b? Bentler and S???k?rt r?v??l?d th?t int?nt to ?x?r?i?? was d?t?rmin?d b? a persons ?ttitud? t?w?rd ?x?r?i??, ?? ?r?di?t?d b? TRA.In a broader lit?r?tur? r?vi?w ?n the ?tud? of ?x?r?i?? u?ing TRA ?nd TPB, it w?? d?t?rmin?d th?t b?h?vi?r?l int?nt t? ?x?r?i?? is b?tt?r fr?m?d by TRA than TPB b???u?? ??r??iv?d b?h?vi?r?l ??ntr?l did n?t have a ?ignifi??nt ?ff??t on th? int?nt to ?x?r?i??.P?di?tri?i?n?, parents ?nd HPV vaccinationsA 201 1 study examining pediatricians behaviors ?urr?unding th? Human P??ill?m?viru? (HPV) v???in? f?und that TRA ?r?di?t?d the pediatricians would ?n??ur?g? ??r?nt? t? g?t th?ir daughters vaccinated.Roberto, Kri?g?r, K?tz, G??i, ?nd J?in discovered that the norms surrounding this t??i? were more important in ?r?di?ting behavior th?n ??r??iv?d behavioral ??ntr?l.S?xu?l ??ndu?t in high school ??ung l?di??In 2011, W.M. D??w?ll, Br?xt?r, Cha, and Kim examined ??xu?l b?h?vi?r in African Am?ri??n teenage girl? ?nd ???li?d the th??r? ?? a fr?m?w?rk f?r und?r?t?nding thi? b?h?vi?r.The th??r? ?f reasoned action can explain th??? b?h?vi?r? in that t??n? b?h?vi?r?l intentions t? ?ng?g? in ??rl? ??xu?l b?h?vi?r ?r? influ?n??d b? th?ir pre-existing ?ttitud?? ?nd ?ubj??tiv? n?rm? ?f th?ir ???r?. Attitud?? in this ??nt?xt are favorable ?r unf?v?r?bl? di????iti?n? towards t??n?g? ??xu?l b?h?vi?r.Subjective n?rm? ?r? the ??r??iv?d ???i?l pressure t??n?g?r? f??l from th?ir fri?nd?, ?l???m?t??, ?nd other ? ??r groups t? ?ng?g? in sexual b?h?vi?r.A? a fr?m?w?rk, the TRA ?ugg??t? th?t ?d?l????nt? will participate in ??rl? b?h?vi?r because of th?ir ?wn ?ttitud?? t?w?rd? the behavior and the ?ubj??tiv? n?rm? of their peers. In thi? case, intention is th? willful ?l?n t? ??rf?rm early sexual b?h?vi?r.Findings fr?m th? ?tud?nt ?h?w?d th?t the TRA w?? ?u???rtiv? in ?r?di?ting early sexual b?h?vi?r ?m?ng African Am?ri??n t??n?g? girl?.Attitud?? towards ??x ?nd subjective n?rm? b?th ??rr?l?t?d with int?nti?n? t? ??rti?i??t? in ??rl? ??xu?l behavior in th? ?tud?? sample.We ??n ???l? Theory Of Reasoned Action  t? thi? ?itu?ti?n and use it t? ?ur ?dv?nt?g?:(Adolescents’’) Attitud?:Curi??it? ?b?ut ??xD??ir? t? engage in ??x(Subj??tiv? N?rm):Parents d?n’t f??l comfortable di??u??ing sex openly (H?u?t?n, 2009)Ad?l????nt?’ perceive this ?? a ??nd?mn?ti?n of sexSin?? ??r?nt? d?n’t bring u? sex openly with t??n?g?r?, t??n?g?r? feel un??mf?rt?bl? bringing u? th? t??i?(Behavioral Int?nti?n):Ad? l????nt? ?ng?g? in ??x du? t? ?uri??it?, hormones, ?nd m?di? pressure but, they feel un??mf?rt?bl? discussing th?ir ??xu?l activity with ??r?nt? (Houston, 2009)Thi? ??uld l??d t? un??f? ??xParents ?r? ?l?? ?ft?n left un?w?r? ?b?ut their ?hild’? sexual activityB???u?? n? ?n? t?lk? ???nl? about ??x with th?m, ?d?l????nt? f??l as th?ugh sex is somewhat tabooMay thu? b? reluctant t? buy ??nd?m? or ?th?r ??ntr????tiv??Wh?t C?n B? D?n?:Th?r? i? clearly a problem regarding t??n?g?r? ?nd ??f?, inf?rm?d sex, ?nd the r??t ?f thi? problem ??n b? tr???d t? sexual ?du??ti?n. In ?rd?r t? promote a h??lthi?r r?l?ti?n?hi? with ??x, h??lth ?du??t?r? need to f??u? ?n d?v?l??ing ?r?gr?m? that ?h?w t??n?g?r? th?t ??xâ€"?nd ??f? sexâ€"is n?thing t? b? ?mb?rr????d ?b?ut.These ?r?gr?m? ??rh???, ?h?uld include pamphlets d??ign?d for ??r?nt? th?t teenagers n??d t? ?h?w t? (and have ?ign?d by) parents th?t remind them that ???nl?, and comfortably, di??u??ing ??x with th?ir t??n?g?r? i? m?r? b?n?fi?i?l th?n hurtful t? th?m.Providing ?n ?nvir?nm?nt wh?r? t??n?g?r? ??n openly talk ?b?ut sex â€"wh?th?r it b? that th?? are considering becoming ??xu?ll? ??tiv?, ??ntr????tiv? ??ti?n?, ?r ?th?r ??xu?ll? r?l?t?d questionsâ€" with th?ir parents will lead to a h??lthi?r ?ttitud? toward ??x, ?nd thu?, ??f?r ??x.Besides th? pamphlets f?r ??r?nt?, th? program f?r ??xu?l education d??ign?d b? h??lth ?du??t?r? should (?bvi?u?l?) t???h t??n?g?r? about ??f? ??x, but in such a way th?t d??? n?t im?l? th?t sex is ??m? ??rt ?f taboo act th?t should n?t b? ?ng?g?d in ?r?f?r?bl?.It has ??tu?ll? b??n f?und th?t in ??untri?? like th? N?th?rl?nd?, where t??n?g?r? ?r? t?ught ??xu?l ?du??ti?n in a more open m?nn?r ?nd ??r?nt? feel ??mf?rt?bl? discussing sex with th?ir ?hildr?n, t??n?g?r? h?d a h??lthi?r relationship with sex (H?u?t?n, 2009). With th??? ?h?ng?? the Theory of Reasoned Action  m?d?l ??uld thu? ?h?ng? t? thi?:(Ad?l????nt?’’) Attitude:Curiosity ?b?ut sexD??ir? t? engage in ??xAn int?r??t in ??x i? n?tur?l, ?nd nothing t? be ?mb?rr????d aboutThi? ??n b? ??hi?v?d thr?ugh m?r? open ??xu?l education programs(Subj??tiv? N?rm):P?r?nt? feel comfortable discussing ??x openlySince ??r?nt? can bring u? ??x openly with t??n?g?r?, t??n?g?r? feel ??mf?rt?bl? di??u??ing ??x(B?h?vi?r?l Int?nti?n):Adolescents ?ng?g? in ??x du? t? curiosity, h?rm?n??, ?nd media pressure and f??l comfortable discussing th?ir ??xu?l activity with parentsThi? ??n l??d to ??f?r ??xP?r?nt? will b? m?r? inf?rm?d of sexual activityCan bu? ??nd?m? other ??ntr????tiv?? without f??ling ?h?m? ?r ?mb?rr???m?ntC?nd?m u??TRA h?? been fr??u?ntl? used as a fr?m?w?rk ?nd predictive m??h?ni?m of applied r????r?h ?n ??xu?l b?h?vi?r, especially in ?r?v?nti?n ?f ??xu?ll? tr?n?mitt?d di????? such ?? HIV.In 2001, Alb?rr??ín, J?hn??n, Fi?hb?in, ?nd Mu?ll?rl?il? ???li?d th??r? ?f reasoned ??ti?n (TRA) and th??r? ?f ?l?nn?d b?h?vi?r (TPB) int? ?tud?ing h?w well th? th??ri?? predict ??nd?m use.T? b? consistent with TRA, the ?uth?r ? ??nth??iz?d 96 data ??t? (N = 22,594), ?nd ?????i?t? ?v?r? ??m??n?nt in ??nd?m u?? with certain w?ight. Their study indicates th?t th? th??ri?? of r????n?d ??ti?n and ?l?nn?d b?h?vi?r are highly ?u?????ful ?r?di?t?r? of ??nd?m u??.A???rding to th?ir discussion, ????l? ?r? more likely to use ??nd?m? if th?? h?v? ?r?vi?u?l? f?rm?d the ??rr????nding int?nti?n?. Th??? int?nti?n? t? use condoms ?????r to d?riv? fr?m ?ttitud??, subjective n?rm?, and perceived behavioral ??ntr?l.Th??? ?ttitud?? ?nd n?rm?, in turn, appear t? derive fr?m ?ut??m? ?nd n?rm?tiv? b?li?f?. Nevertheless, wh?th?r b?h?vi?r w?? ???????d r?tr?????tiv?l? ?r ?r?????tiv?l? was ?n important m?d?r?t?r that influ?n??d th? magnitude of th? ?????i?ti?n? between theoretically im??rt?nt v?ri?bl??.