From Attitudes to Behaviour: Basic and

Applied Research on the Theory of

Planned Behaviour
CHRISTOPHER J. ARMITAGE
University of Sheffield

J U L I E CHRISTIAN
University of Birmingham

The present article traces the development of the theory of planned behaviour, from
early research on the attitude-behaviour relationship through the theory of reasoned
action. In particular, it is argued that a perceived lack of correspondence between
attitude and behaviour led to examination of variables that either moderated (e.g.,
attitude strength, measurement correspondence) or mediated (behavioura! intention)
the relationship between attitudes and behaviour. Several meta-analytic reviews pro-
vide strong empirical support for the theory of planned behaviour, yet several applied
and basic issues need to be resolved. The six papers that make up the remainder of
this special issue address several of these issues.

The social psychological study of attitudes has been one of the core areas of the
discipline for decades, described by Allport (1935) as probably the most distinc-
tive and indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology" (p. 798).
Allport's view was based on two observations. The first was an assessment of the
social psychological literature of the time, which revealed that, "No other term appears
more frequently in the experimental and theoretical literature" (p. 798, Allport, 1935).
The second observation was perhaps more important: Allport (1935) argued that the
number of functions that attitudes served made the concept indispensable. ~ Indeed,
research into the myriad functions that attitudes serve continues to be, and is arguably
the fastest-growing area of attitude research (see Maio & Olson, 2000). However,
research into one function of attitudes accounts for the vast majority of the psychologi-
cal literature in this area: that attitudes serve to guide people's behaviour.
Historically attitudes had been assumed to be predictive of behaviour, although this
assumption was often held in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. Perhaps
the most widely cited example of the discrepancy between attitudes and behaviour is
LaPiere's (1934) study. LaPiere (1934) took an extensive tour of the United States in
the company of a young Chinese couple. At the time, there was much anti-Chinese
sentiment and so (unknown to his companions) LaPiere (1934) made notes of the way

Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social. Fall 2003, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.
187-195.
188 Current Psychology / Fall 2003

in which they were treated. During their travels, LaPiere and his companions visited
250 establishments, yet on only one occasion were they refused service. When LaPiere
(1934) subsequently wrote to the same establishments, 118 (of the 128 replies) said
they would not accept members of the Chinese race as guests at their establishment.
LaPiere (1934) concluded that there was a large gap between attitudes and behaviour,
and that questionnaire data could not always be trusted to be reliable. Corey (1937)
also sought to address this issue directly and used a highly reliable measure to assess
attitudes toward cheating, yet found a correlation of only (r = .02) between attitude
and an objective measure of behaviour. In reviewing the literature in this area, Wicker
(1969) examined forty-two studies, finding that attitudes generally correlated only r =
915 with behaviours, and that the correlations rarely exceeded r = .30. Wicker (1969)
concluded: "taken as a whole, these studies suggest that it is considerably more likely
that attitudes will be unrelated or only very slightly related to overt behaviours than
that attitudes will be closely related to actions" (p. 64).
In our view, Wicker's (1969) review can be regarded as the point at which social
psychologists lost interest in simply noting the relationship between attitudes and
behaviour, and began examining in depth the circumstances under which attitudes
were predictive of behaviour. Thus, social psychologists interested in attitude-behaviour
relations responded to Wicker's (1969) review by looking at several "third-variable"
explanations, namely whether there were as-yet-unmeasured variables that could ex-
plain why there was not a direct relationship between attitudes and behaviour. In other
words, attitude-behaviour researchers began to investigate potential moderators and
mediators of the attitude-behaviour relationship (see Baron & Kenny, 1986). The
following section briefly considers potential moderators, before turning to consider
behavioural intention, regarded as the key mediator of attitude-behaviour relations.

Moderators of the Attitude-Behaviour Relationship

One approach to understanding the circumstances under which attitudes do predict

behaviour, has been to test potential moderators of the attitude-behaviour relationship.
A moderator variable "partitions a focal independent variable into subgroups that
establish its domains of maximal effectiveness in regard to a given dependent vari-
able" (p. 1173, Baron & Kenny, 1986). In terms of the attitude-behaviour relationship,
attitude strength is regarded as a key moderator variable: stronger attitudes are likely
to be more predictive of people's behaviour than are weak attitudes. In recent years
more than a dozen facets of attitude strength have been tested, several of which have
been found to moderate the attitude-behaviour relationship. For example, attitudes are
generally more predictive of subsequent behaviour if they are: univalent rather than
ambivalent (e.g., Conner & Sparks, 2002), accessible in memory (e.g., Kokkinaki &
Lunt, 1998), or are personally involving (e.g., Thomsen, Borgida, & Lavine, 1995). 2
A related area has examined the moderating influence of measurement on attitude-
behaviour relations. Most notable in this area is the work of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
and their principle of correspondence (see also Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). In an ex-
ample we used earlier, Corey (1937) tried to address the issue of measurement reliabil-
Armitage and Christian 189

ity by using an established and reliable attitude scale, yet found an attitude-behaviour
correlation of only r = .02. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) noted that unreliability of
measurement was only one possible explanation for the discrepancy between the pre-
diction of intention and that of behaviour. In particular, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
noted that often, very global attitudes (e.g., attitude to religion) were used to predict
very specific actions (e.g., attending church), and argued that wherever possible, mea-
sures of attitude and behaviour should match one another in terms of action, time,
target and context. That is, an individual's attitude toward exercising (action), to get fit
(target), in the gym (context), in the next week (time), should be more closely related
to a measure of behaviour designed to tap exercising to get fit in the gym in the
preceding week, than (say) an index of fitness. Consistent with this view, there are
now numerous studies showing that when measures of attitude and behaviour corre-
spond, the correlation between the two is greater. For example, Davidson and Jaccard
(1979) found that general attitudes to contraception were poor predictors of birth
control pill use (r = .08) compared with a more specific measure of attitude (r = .57).
Moreover, in a meta-analysis of eight studies that manipulated level of correspon-
dence, Kraus (1995) found that "specific attitudes were significantly better predictors
of specific behaviours than were general attitudes (combined p < .0000001)" (p. 64).
In sum, a variety of moderators of the attitude-behaviour relationship have been
tested. Both attitude strength and the way in which attitudes and behaviours are mea-
sured seem to affect the magnitude of the attitude-behaviour relationship. However,
one problem with research into attitude strength is that there are many different mea-
sures of attitude strength, which seem to act independently of one another. For ex-
ample, in three independent studies Krosnick, Boninger, Chuang, Berent, and Carnot
(1993) tested as many as thirteen different indices of attitude strength, with the goal of
determining a coherent structure. The authors concluded that, "we were unable to
detect any stable structure underlying these correlations. Exploratory factor analyses
did not produce reliable evidence of a relational framework underlying these dimen-
sions" (Krosnick et al., 1993, p. 1143). The implication is that there is some way to go
in understanding the effects of attitude strength on attitude-behaviour relations, and
that further research is required. Alternatively, one could argue that to further under-
standing about attitude-behaviour relations, one should consider factors that might
mediate the relationship between attitudes and behaviour. We address this issue in the
following section.

"There's Only One Mediator, One Mediator":

The Role of Behavioural Intentions in the Attitude-Behaviour Relationship

The second approach to understanding attitude-behaviour relations is to examine

variables that might mediate the attitude-behaviour relationship. By "mediator," we
are referring to a variable "which represents the generative mechanism through which
the focal independent variable is able to influence the dependent variable of interest"
(Baron & Kenny, 1986, p. 1173). As far as we are aware, only one variable has been
investigated in this regard, namely behavioural intentions (e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen,
190 Current Psychology / Fall 2003

1975). Behavioural intentions are regarded as a summary of the motivation required to

perform a particular behaviour, reflecting an individual's decision to follow a course
of action, as well as an index of how hard people are willing to try and perform the
behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The idea that behavioural
intentions mediate the attitude-behaviour relationship represents a significant move
away from the traditional view of attitudes: rather than attitudes being related directly
to behaviour, attitudes only serve to direct behaviour to the extent that they influence
intentions. Thus, Wicker's (1969) pessimistic review of the attitude-behaviour rela-
tionship might have reflected the fact that intentions are the principal proximal deter-
minant of behaviour, not attitudes (for a review see Sheeran, 2002).

The Theory of Reasoned Action

Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) view that the influence of attitude on behaviour is
mediated through behavioural intentions is the cornerstone of their theory of reasoned
action. The theory of reasoned action goes further than the inclusion of intention as a
mediator of the attitude-behaviour relationship, it holds that attitude is only one deter-
minant of intention and that social pressure is also likely to determine people's inten-
tions. Thus, within this theory of reasoned action, behavioural intentions are deter-
mined by attitudes (overall positive/negative evaluations of behaviour) and the per-
ceived social pressure from significant others, subjective norms.
Fishbein's (1967a, 1967b) work on the summative model of attitudes underpins the
theory of reasoned action. Briefly, Fishbein's model holds that individuals may pos-
sess a large number of beliefs about a particular behaviour, but that only a subset are
likely to be salient at any one time. Thus, both attitudes and subjective norms are
determined by salient underlying beliefs. Salient behavioural beliefs are held to deter-
mine attitudes. Each behavioural belief consists of two components: an outcome belief
and an outcome evaluation. The outcome belief concerns beliefs about the likelihood
of particular outcomes occurring, for example the perceived likelihood that one will
lose weight if one diets, or the likelihood that smoking causes cancer. Outcome beliefs
are weighted (multiplied) by outcome evaluations to form each behavioural belief.
This is based on the rationale that only outcomes that are valued are likely to impact
upon one's attitudes.
Salient normative beliefs underpin subjective norms. Consistent with behavioural
beliefs, normative beliefs consist of two components: referent beliefs and motivation
to comply. Again the two components are multiplied, because one is only like to
experience social pressure from particular referents if one is motivated to comply with
those particular referents. Consider the following example of the normative pressure
underpinning Gary's intention to use a condom. Gary's mother might want her son to
use a condom every time he has sex with a new partner, but Gary is only likely to do
so to the extent that he is motivated to comply with his mother (very little in this case).
Similarly, Gary's latest partner also wants Gary to use a condom every time he has sex
with her; in this case, however, Gary is very motivated to comply with his new partner
Armitage and Christian 191

and therefore is more likely to intend to use a condom. Within the theory of reasoned
action, both behavioural and normative beliefs are summed to produce a global mea-
sure of attitude. More commonly, however, researchers simply use a global measure of
attitude to provide a summary of the belief-forming process.
Several quantitative and narrative reviews provide support for the utility of the
theory of reasoned action in predicting intentions and behaviour (e.g., Sheppard,
Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988; van den Putte, 1991). For the prediction of behavioural
intention from attitude and subjective norm, Sheppard et al. (1988) found an average
multiple correlation of R = .66 and an average intention-behaviour correlation of r =
.53. Thus, the theory of reasoned action possesses adequate predictive validity. Inter-
estingly, the behavioural intention construct is considered sufficiently predictive of
behaviour that many researchers use it as a dependent variable, assuming that inten-
tions consistently lead to behaviour (but see Sheeran, 2002).

The Theory of Planned Behaviour

Although the theory of reasoned action accounted for what Cohen (1992) would
describe as a "large" proportion of the variance in behaviour, researchers noted that
the theory of reasoned action was an effective predictor of certain classes of behaviour
but not others. In fact, Ajzen (1988) himself conceded that, "The theory of reasoned
action was developed explicitly to deal with purely volitional behaviours" (p. 127); in
other words, relatively simple behaviours, where successful performance of the
behaviour required only the formation of an intention. Thus, the theory of reasoned
action implies that behaviour is solely dependent on personal agency (i.e., the forma-
tion of an intention), and that control over behaviour (e.g., personal resources or
environmental determinants of behaviour) is relatively unimportant.
In order to address this issue, Ajzen (1988) proposed "a conceptual framework that
addresses the problem of incomplete volitional control" (p. 132), namely the theory of
planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1988, 1991). The theory of planned behaviour (see Figure
1) extended the theory of reasoned action by including perceived behavioural control
as a determinant of both behavioural intention and behaviour. The inclusion of per-
ceived behavioural control as a predictor of behaviour is based on the rationale that:
holding intention constant, greater perceived control will increase the likelihood that
enactment of the behaviour will be successful. Further, to the extent to which per-
ceived control reflects actual control, perceived behavioural control will directly influ-
ence behaviour. Perceived behavioural control therefore acts as both a proxy measure
of actual control and a measure of confidence in one's ability. Within the theory of
planned behaviour, perceived behavioural control is posited as a third determinant of
intention: thus, the easier a behaviour is, the more likely one will intend to perform it.
As with the attitude and subjective norm constructs, Ajzen posited that control
beliefs underpin perceived behavioural control. Control beliefs are the perceived fre-
quency of facilitating or inhibiting factors multiplied by the power of those factors to
inhibit/facilitate the behaviour in question. Congruent with the other belief compo-
192 Current Psychology / Fall 2003

nents in the theory of planned behaviour, it is the control beliefs that are salient at any
one time which determine global perceptions of control.
There have been several meta-analytic reviews of the theory of planned behaviour,
all of which have concluded that the augmentation of the theory of reasoned action
with measures of perceived behavioural control has contributed significantly to the
prediction of behavioural intentions and behaviour (see Ajzen, 1991; Armitage &
Conner, 2001; Godin & Kok, 1996). The most recent of these meta-analyses (Armitage
& Conner, 2001) reviewed 185 independent studies and found that the theory of
planned behaviour accounted for 27 percent of the variance in subsequent behaviour,
and 39 percent of the variance in behavioural intentions. As predicted, perceived
behavioural control added significantly to the prediction of intention and behaviour,
even after controlling for the effects of theory of reasoned action variables. In sum, the
theory of planned behaviour extends the theory of reasoned action and accounts for
considerable proportion of the variance in intention and behaviour. At present, the
theory of planned behaviour is arguably the most dominant model of attitude-behaviour
relations.

The Special Issue

Despite considerable empirical support for the theory of planned behaviour, there
are still issues of debate with which researchers are currently engaged. Perhaps more
so than many other theories in social psychology, research into the theory of planned
behaviour can properly be regarded as "action research," in so far as many of the
theoretical advances have been made in relation to applied areas (Lewin, 1951). Ac-
cordingly, the chapters in this volume deal with both applied and basic research ques-
tions.
Research in the applied domain has typically examined whether the theory of planned
behaviour is truly a general model of social behaviour by (for example) sampling
diverse populations (e.g., Christian & Armitage, 2002), or by using the model to
develop effective behaviour change strategies (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2002). More
basic-oriented research, on the other hand has tended to focus on developing the
theory of planned behaviour per se. This body of research has, for example, examined
potential moderators of relationships between components (e.g., Conner, Sheeran,
Norman, & Armitage, 2000), as well as the predictive validity of additional variables
(Conner & Armitage, 1998). With respect to the latter, Ajzen (1991) encourages the
exploration of additional variables and regards the theory of planned behaviour as,
"open to the inclusion of additional predictors if it can be shown that they capture a
significant proportion of the variance in intention or behaviour after the theory's
current variables have been taken into account" (p. 199). Accordingly, most of the
contributions within this special issue blend applied and basic issues to great effect.
The following section provides an overview of the specific contributions that appear in
this volume.
As we have already noted, one of the strengths of the theory of planned behaviour is
its broad applicability: applications of the model can be found across numerous disci-
Armitage and Christian 193

FIGURE 1
The Theory of Planned Behavior

Behavioural Attitude
Beliefs

Normative ~ Subjective ~ Behavioural Behaviour

Beliefs Norm Intention

Control PBC ~
Beliefs

plines, including nursing, information technology, social policy and sociology. Even
within psychology, research has hot been restricted to the domain of social psychol-
ogy: the theory of planned behaviour is currently regarded as the dominant model in
the field of health psychology (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2000). Therefore, two chap-
ters "examine the generalizability of the model in two ways. First, O'Connor and
Armitage report the application of an augmented theory of planned behaviour to
parasuicide, an area that has been relatively neglected by social psychologists, yet
might benefit from a theory of planned behaviour approach. O'Connor and Armitage's
study provides support for the application of the theory of planned behaviour to
parasuicide behaviour, for the inclusion of moral norm within the model, and suggests
ways in which the model may be used to prevent parasuicidal behaviour.
Second, Christian, Armitage, and Abrams report an application of the theory of
planned behaviour to homeless populations: whereas much research into the theory of
planned behaviour has investigated university students, much less has focused on
general population samples. The Christian et al. study introduces a further innovation
by examining a much-stigmatised and under-researched group, namely homeless people.
Among the challenges the study addresses is how to operationalize key constructs
when the population may be unwilling or unable to complete standard measures.
Moreover, the paper takes a lead from social group theorists to further examine the
effects of social categorisation on norms within the theory of planned behaviour.
The third article, by Rivis and Sheeran is a meta-analysis of the role of descriptive
norms within the theory of planned behaviour. Arguing that the subjective norm com-
ponent accounts well for the effects of injunctive norms--but not descriptive norms--
on individuals, Rivis and Sheeran review the effects of descriptive norms in the theory
194 Current Psychology / Fall 2003

of planned behaviour, finding that descriptive norms might usefully be included within
the theory of planned behaviour framework.
In the fourth article, Sutton, French, Hennings, Wareham, Griffin, Hardeman, and
Kinmonth deal with the issue of belief elicitation. As we noted above, a key aspect of
the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour is that salient underlying beliefs
need to be measured. To date, very little research has addressed how this might
actually be done. The Sutton et al. paper manipulates question wording and reports on
the different kinds of beliefs that are elicited. The study also tests various decision-
rules for determining which beliefs are actually "salient."
The fifth contribution, from Conner, Smith and McMillan, focuses on the effects of
normative pressure within the theory of planned behaviour--specifically in relation to
breaking the speed limit. An interesting aspect of this study is Conner et al.'s attempt
to experimentally manipulate a key component of the theory of planned behaviour: it
has often been noted that while there is ample correlational evidence in support of the
theory of planned behaviour, there is actually very little experimental work in this
regard (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2001; Sutton, 1998). The researchers manipulate
whether or not a passenger is present as well as the gender of the passenger, finding an
interesting interaction between normative pressure, gender, and physical presence (i.e.,
a moderating effect).
The final article, by Abraham and Sheeran argues that the predictive validity of the
theory of planned behaviour could be enhanced with reference to goal theory. At the
root of their argument is the idea that where typical theory of planned behaviour
studies stop (i.e., with a one-off behaviour), goal theory starts, and that conceptualising
behaviour as part of a process that leads to higher-order goals will lead to improved
intention-behaviour relations.
Thus, this special issue considers a full spectrum of important developments that all
enhance our understanding of, and efforts to extend the theory of planned behaviour.
From applications through to new avenues for research, the six papers in this edition
address important issues surrounding theoretical and practical approaches to attenuat-
ing problems in attitude-intention-behaviour research.

NOTES
Address correspondence to: Dr. Chris Armitage, Centre for Research in Social Attitudes, Department of
Psychology, University of Scheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S 10 2TP, United Kingdom.
1. This quotation has also become the bane of undergraduate students taking courses in social psychology
the world over--the Allport (1954) quotation is often embellished with a Discuss at the end.
2. Readers who are interested in this area of research should consult Petty and Krosnick's (1995) volume,
"Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences."

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behaviour relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empiri-
cal research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Armitage and Christian 195

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of social psychologyn (pp. 798-844).
Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). Social cognition models and health behaviour: A structured review.
Psychology and Health, 15, 173-189.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta- analytic
review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2002). Reducing fat intake: Interventions based on the theory of planned
behaviour. In D. Rutter & L. Quine (Eds.), Changing health behaviour: Intervention and research with
social cognition models (pp. 87-104). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 51, 1173-1182.
Christian, J., & Armitage, C.J. (2002). Attitudes and intentions of homeless persons towards service
provision in South Wales. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 219-231.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behaviour: A review and avenues
for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1429-1464.
Conner, M., Sheeran, P., Norman, P., & Armitage, C. J. (2000). Temporal stability as a moderator of
relationships in the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 469-493.
Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2002). Ambivalence and attitudes. European Review of Social Psychology, 12,
37-70.
Corey, S. M. (1937). Professed attitudes and actual behaviour. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28,
271-280.
Davidson, A. R., & Jaccard, J. J. (1979). Variables that moderate the attitude-behaviour relation: Results of
a longitudinal survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1364-1376.
Fishbein, M. (1967a). Attitude and the prediction of behaviour. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude
theory, and measurement (pp. 477-492). New York: Wiley.
Fishbein, M. (1967b). A behaviour theory approach to the relations between beliefs about an object and the
attitude toward the object. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory, and measurement (pp. 389-
400). New York: Wiley.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and
research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behaviour: A review of its applications to health-
related behaviours. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11, 87-98.
Kokkinaki, F., & Lunt, P. (1998). The relationship between involvement, attitude accessibility and attitude-
behaviour consistency. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 497-509.
Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behaviour: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 58-75.
Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C., Berent, M. K., & Carnot, C. G. (1993). Attitude strength:
One construct or many related constructs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1132-
1151.
LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13, 230-237.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper.
Maio, G. R., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behaviour relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of
Social Psychology, 12, 1-36.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of
past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 15, 325-343.
Sutton, S. (1998). Explaining and predicting intentions and behaviour: How well are we doing? Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1318-1339.
Thomsen, C. J., Borgida, E., & Lavine, H. (1995). The causes and consequences of personal involvement.
In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 191-214).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van den Putte, B. (1991). Twenty years of the theory of reasoned action of Fishbein and Ajzen: A recta-
analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam.
Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioural responses
to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41-78.