KEPRIBADIAN PROSES DAN INDIVIDU

PERBEDAAN

Ajzen dan Fishbein's Theory of Reasoned Action

as Applied
to Moral Behavior: A Confirmatory Analysis
Robert J. Vallerand Research Laboratory on Social Behavior
and Department of Psychology University of Quebec at Montreal
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Paul Deshaies and Jean-Pierre Cuerrier
University of Sherbrooke Sherbrooke, Quebec, Kanada

Luc G. Pelletier University of Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario, Kanada

Claude Mongeau Montreal, Quebec, Kanada

Uji konfirmasi teori Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)tentang tindakan beralasan

sebagaimana diterapkan pada bidang perilaku moral dengan menggunakan model persamaan
atletdan wanita dengan rentang usia 10 hingga 18
strukturaling dilakukan. Ss adalah 1.056pria
tahun(M= 14,5). Ss mengisi kuesioner yang berisi 2 situasi hipotetis terkait dengan
perilaku moral dalam olahraga. Untuk setiap situasi, Ss menyelesaikan skala yang
menilai semua komponen model. Versi modifikasi dari teori tersebut memberikan
peningkatan yang signifikan atas model Ajzen dan Fishbein. Model ini
mempertahankandasar hubunganpostinguldiciptakan oleh teori dan menambahkan
korelasi antara sikap dan struktur norma tive dan jalan kausal dari keyakinan normatif
dengan sikap. Model ini sangat kuat, bertahan untuk 2 situasi. Implikasi untuk validitas
konstruk teori tindakan beralasan dan penerapannya untuk perilaku moral ditarik.

Selama dekade terakhir, banyak penelitian telah dilakukan pada Ajzendan

Fishbein (1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) teori tindakan beralasan. Menurut teori
(lihat Figure 1), Behav IOR ditentukan oleh niat perilaku untuk
memancarkanBehav. IOR Ada dua faktor utama yang menentukan behavioral di
tentions: a "sikap" faktor pribadi atau dan social atau “tidak mative” faktor.
Sesuai with formulasiharapan-nilai, komponen pertama (sikap seseorang
terhadap perilakutertentu) diusulkan untuk menjadi fungsi dari menonjol
(behavioral) keyakinan tentang konsekuensi yang dirasakan per membentuk
perilaku dan orang ini (hasil)evaluasikonsekuensi ini. Komponen kedua, norma subjektif,
terdiri dari persepsi seorang aktor apa yang spesifik penting
rujukan individuals atau kelompok berpikir ia harus melakukan. Subjec
norma tive adalah fungsi dari keyakinan seseorang (normatif) tentang apa
yang masing-masing referent berpikir dia harus lakukan dan motivasi untuk
mematuhi referen ini. Kepentingan relatif dari komponen sikap dan normatif
dalam menentukan niat diharapkan bervariasi sesuai dengan perilaku,
situasi, dan perbedaan individu aktor (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
The teori tindakan beralasan telah diuji dalam beberapa penelitian pernafasan
Pene (lihat Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen 1975,untuk ulasan) dan di
bidang studi dealing dengan beragam atas ics seperti gigi hygiene
(Hoogstraten, De Haan, & Ter Horst, 1985; McCaul, O'Neill, & Glasgow, 1988;
Toneatto & Binik, 1987); pendidikan (Fredricks & Dossett, 1983);
contraceptive menjadi havior (Miller & Grush, 1986; Pagel & Davidson, 1984);
smok
Studi ini didukung oleh hibah penelitian dari Régle de la Sécurité dans les Sports du
Québec. Artikel itu disiapkan sementara Robert J. Vallerand didukung oleh dana dari Social Sciences
dan Humaniora Research Council of Canada, Conseil Québécois de la Recherche
Sociale, le Fond pour la Pembentukan des Chercheurs et 1Aide à la Recherche
(FCAR-Québec) , dan Université du Québec Montréal. Kami berterima kasih kepada Marc Blais
dan Brian O'Connor atas komentar mereka pada draft awal artikel ini.
Korespondensi mengenai artikel ini harus ditujukan kepada Rob ert J. Vallerand,
Laboratoire de Recherche sur le comportement Jadi resmi, Département de Psychologie,
Université du Québec à Montréal PO Box 8888, Station A, Montréal, Quebec, Kanada
H3C 3P8.
'Perlu ditegaskan di sini bahwa kita fokus hanya pada teori asli tindakan
beralasan dan tidak reformulasi nya, teori perilaku yang direncanakan (misalnya,
Aj,zen 1985; Ajzen & Madden,1986).Ini adalah because kita merasa bahwa perilaku
menarik dalam penelitian ini, yaitu perilaku moral, lebih bawah kemauan dari individu
daripada lain jenisdari perilaku (misalnya, kinerja sekolah). Untuk memadai memprediksi
terakhir typesdari perilaku, prediktor lain sepertiperilaku yang dirasakan kontrolmungkin
necessary (lihat Ajzen & Madden, 1986). Namun, dirasakan tidak demikian halnya dengan perilaku
moral. Dengan demikian kita membatasi our diridengan teori tindakan beralasan.

Jurnal Kepribadian dan Sosial Psychology, 1992, Vol. 62, No. 1, 98-109 Copyright 1992 oleh American Psychological
Association, Inc. 0022-3514/92 / $ 3,00

98
THE TEORI reasoNED ACTION AND MORAL PERILAKU

Perilaku
Keyakinan

Sikap

Hasil Evaluasi

Perilaku Niat
Perilaku

Normatif
Beliets

Subjective Norma

Motivation untuk Mematuhi

Gambar 1.
Teori dasar tindakan beralasan.

ing (Budd, 1986; Marin et al., 1990); pemeriksaan kanker payudara

(Timko, 1987), serviks (Hennig & Knowles, 1990), dan testis (Brubaker
& Fowler, 1990); donor darah (Burnkrant & Page, 1988); penggunaan
sabuk pengaman (Budd, North, & Spencer, 1984); perilaku memilih
(Netmeyer & Burton, 1990); dan beberapa lainnya (lihat Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
Dirasakan bahwa teori tindakan yang beralasan juga dapat diterapkan pada
perilaku moral. Masalah ini dibahas di bawah ini. Namun, sebelum
mengeksplorasi masalah ini, pertamatama kita -membahas validitas konstruk
teori.
Tentang Validitas Konstruk Teori
Tindakan Beralasan Tujuan utama pertama dari penelitian ini
adalah untuk menguji validitas konstruk teori tindakan beralasan. Keledai
sepertis ment telah dilakukan dalam studi laboratorium dan lapangan. Typi Cally,
studi laboratorium telah menilai pengaruh berbagai sayavariabel
ndependentpada beberapa komponen model.Meskipun studi ini umumnya
telah mendukung dari teori tindakan beralasan, dalam arti bahwa mereka
telah menghasilkan hasil yang konsisten dengan itu, satu dapat
membantah bahwa mereka tidak memberikan valtesid model karena ators
medi- hipotesis untuk menengahi perubahan itu umumnya tidak diukur. Hal ini
dimungkinkan bahwa eksperimen Manipulnegosiasi dipengaruhi variabel
mediasi lain dan bahwapercobaanal efekpada tindakan tergantung benar-benar
dimediasi oleh variabel-variabel terukur tambahan (Bentler, 1980).
Di sisi lain, studi lapangan telah melibatkanregresi atau analisiskorelasional
untuk menguji unsur-unsur teori. Sedangkan teknik seperti analisis jalur yang
rely pada Analy regresi sis dapat membantu dalam pengujian teori, mereka masih tetap
incom plete karena mereka tidak memberikan penilaian simultan dari berbagai
jalur dan karena analysyang adalah limited untuk menguji hubungan antara
manifes daripada variabel laten (Bentler, 1980).
Untuk memberikan uji yang lebih valid dari model Ajzen dan Fishbein
(1980), pemodelan struktural linier dengan variabel laten (LISREL;
Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1984) harus digunakan. LISREL tampaknya
cocok untuk pengujian eksperimentalmedia modelnasional, seperti Ajzen
dan Fishbein, karena beberapa alasan. Pertama, dapat memungkinkan tes
eksplisit konsistensi setiap postingullink diciptakan antara mediasi dan ables
variabel dependen dengan data. Kedua, karena jalur kausal diperkirakan di antara
variabel laten daripada variabel nyata, estimasi jalur bebas dari ketidakandalan
variabel nyata. Hal ini memungkinkan untuk pengujian yang jauh lebih
tepat dari hubungan antara berbagai komponen model yang diberikan (Kenny,
1979). Ketiga, pemodelan kausal variabel laten memungkinkan pengujian semua
tautan dalam model mediasi secara bersamaan, bukan dengan cara tipikal
sedikit demi sedikit. Akhirnya, LISREL affords ity possibil mengklarifikasi
kontroversial atau ambiaspek guous dari model, serta menguraikan dan
menyempurnakan model dengan kontras dengan bersaing konseptualisasi
alternatif.
Sejumlah studi (e1981;..g, Bentler & Speckhart, 1979, Fredricks & Dossett,
1983; Granrose, 1984; Oliver & Bearden, 1985; Ryan, 1982; Shimp & Kavas,
1984) telah menyediakan tes firmatory con teori dengan menggunakan
model persamaan struktural . Temuan dari studi ini umumnya mendukung ,
meskipun beberapa modifikasi teori telah diusulkan (Bentler & Speckhart,
1979, 1981; McCaul et al., 1988). Namun, tiga poin harus dibuat di sini. Pertama,
kebanyakan studi telah membatasi diri untuk saling antaraattitu
dinal,komponen normatif, dan disengaja dari model. Peran faktor penentu
konstruksi sikap dan normatif telah biasanya belum dinilai melaluiconfirma
analisistory. Sebuah analisis konfirmasi sayanvolving semua komponen-compo
dari teori tindakan beralasan karena akan muncul penting.
Second, kebanyakan studi memiliki limited diri untuk menilai berbagai link
sebagai didalilkan oleh teori. Sangat sedikit penelitian yang memastikan
apakah hubungan antaramodel variabelberbeda dari yang diusulkan
oleh teori. Re
100
VALLERAND, DESHAIES, CUERRIER, PELLETIER,MONGEAU

sen studi (Miniard & Cohen, 1981; Oliver & Bearden, 1985), bagaimanapun,
telah mengungkapkan beberapa penyimpangan daridasar model. Misalnya, dengan
menggunakan model persamaan strukturaling, Oliver dan Bearden telah menunjukkan
bahwa efek Crossover melakukan take tempat antara sikap dan normatif aspekdari
model, Lebih khusus, telah menunjukkan bahwa normatif keyakinan motivasiuntuk
mematuhi multiplicative struktur memiliki pengaruh kausal pada sikap. Temuan
dasar ini juga telah diperoleh oleh peneliti lain (Brubaker & Fowler, 1990; Ryan,
1982; Shimp & Kavas, 1984). Dalam nada yangsama, peningkatan jumlah penelitian
telah menunjukkan kurangnya independensi antara sikap dan
strukturnormatif, bertentangan denganclaims dari teori (MPenyanyiard & Cohen,
1981; Ryan,1982; Shep kawanan & O'Keefe, 1984; Shimp & Kavas, 1984).
Ketiga, dan akhirnya, sangat sedikit perhatian telah diberikan kepada
anteseden sikap dan subjektif. norma Seperti yang ditunjukkan di atas, sangat
sedikit penelitian yang mengujihipotesis mereka peran dalam model. Selainitu,
penelitian telah secara konsisten menggunakan diusulkan perkalian istilah
Perilaku Keyakinan x Hasil Evaluation dan Normatif Keyakinan x Motivasi untuk
Mematuhi sebagai penentu masing-masing sikap dan normasubjektif. Bila
menggunakanmulistilah tiplicativeini, menjadi mustahil untuk menguji kontribusi
independen dari masing-masing empatcon ceptsdalamteori. Bukti awal (Miniard& Cohen,
1981) menunjukkan bahwa motivasi untuk mematuhi mungkin bukan neces sary
penentu normasubjektif.Namun,terakhir ini penelitian tidak menggunakan
struktur modus persamaanling dalam pengujian peran motivasi untuk mematuhi
sebagai penentu normasubjektif, danitu oleh karena tidak jelas apakah ini
temuanakan terus di bawah prosedur statistik yang lebih ketat sepertistruktural
persamaanModeling. Finally, itu Appears bahwa tidak ada studi memiliki tesed peran
independen keyakinan perilaku dan hasil evalution sebagai penentu sikap.
Dengandemikian, penelitianmasa depan di status penentu sikap dan norma
subyektif dalam teori menggunakan analisis statistik lebih kuat seperti pemodelan
persamaan struktural tampak penting.
Dalam cahaya diatas, salah satu tujuan utama dari penelitian ini adalah untuk
menguji teoridasar beralasan tindakan denganstruktural equa pemodelantiondan
membandingkan kecukupan dengan yang versi modifikasi dari teori seperti yang
diusulkan dalam penelitian masa lalu. Ini adalah tes teori yang lebih ketat
daripada yang dilakukan hingga saat ini.
is akan dipancarkan(e.g, Backman,1985;. Barnett & Bryan, 1974;
Kurtines,1986; Orlick, 1981) have dampak penting terhadap perilakumoral.
Namun, sangat sedikit teori telah mengemukakan ke akun untuk kedua pribadi dan
sosial determinants mora perilakul.
The teoriberalasan tindakan akan muncul untuk memiliki unsur-unsur konseptual
yang diperlukan untuk menjelaskan dan memprediksi perilaku moral. Memang,
komponen sikap (keyakinan perilaku, hasil evaluasi, dan sikap terhadap perilaku)
dan normatif (keyakinan normatif, motivasi untuk mematuhi, dansubjektif norma)
dari teori mewakili, masing-masing,pribadi dan variabelsosial yang terlibat dalam
moral perilaku. Jadi, menurut teori, ketika dihadapkan dengan situasi moral,
seperti kecurangan selama ujian, individuals memutuskan apakah untuk menipu
atas dasar sikap mereka terhadap perilaku (yang ditentukanpada gilirannya oleh
keyakinan mereka dan evaluasi hasil misalnya , kemungkinanberhasil atau tertangkap
dan konsekuensi dari setiap hasil) dan persepsi mereka tentang apa yang oleh
referensi penting (misalnya, orang tua, profesor, dan teman) merasa bahwa
mereka harus melakukannya. Dengan demikian, seorang individu dapat
memutuskan untuk menyontek karena sikapnya sangat positif dandia merasa bahwa
referensi penting akan mendorong perilaku seperti itu.
Untuk yang terbaik dari pengetahuan kita, teori tindakan beralasan telah digunakan
untuk memprediksi perilaku moral hanyasatul studiEmpirica.Dalam studi ini, Enker
(1987)menilai bagaimana sikap dannormatif keyakinan yang berkaitan dengan
kecurangan. perilaku Secara umum, re sults mengungkapkan bahwa kedua sikap
dan keyakinan normatif adalah prediktor relatif baik dari kecurangan dilaporkan.
Temuan dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa teori dapat berguna dalam pra
dicting dan tingkah laku moralpemahaman. Namun, ada akan kebutuhan untuk
menguji contribution dari semua komponen teori dalam prediksi moral. perilaku
Berdasarkan hal di atas, penelitian ini memiliki empat tujuan.pertama kami Tujuanwas
untuk memberikan uji teori tindakan beralasan yang diterapkan pada pemahaman tentang
perilakumoral. Seperti yang sayaNDI berdedikasisebelumnya, teori mengandung keduapribadi dan
sosial komponenyang tergabung dalam harapan-nilai membentukulatidi. Ini harus
memungkinkan prediksi yang memadai tentang perilaku moral. Tujuan kedua adalah
untuk melakukan tes konfirmasi dari validitas konstruk teori dengan struktur
model persamaan ing, termasuk semua komponen dari teori. Seperti ditegaskan
sebelumnya, hanya beberapa studi memiliki usedpersamaan struktural modeling untuk
menguji validitas konstruk teori, dan beberapa studi ini gagal untuk mendukung
teori sepenuhnya (Oliver & Bearden, 1985; Ryan, 1982; Shimp &Kavas, 1984). Namun,
tidak ada studi sampai saat ini telah dinilai melalui confianalisis rmatory
validitaskonstruk dari Ajzendteori Fishbein sebagaimana diterapkan pada
perilakumoral. Jadi, ada kebutuhan untuk menyediakan tes semacam itu. Sebuah third
tujuan siniStudi kita adalah untuk membandingkan Ajzen dan Ikan
Beinkepedulian posisi'sing kemerdekaan sikap komponendan normatif dengan itu
peneliti lain yang menunjukkan bahwa dua struktur yang correldiciptakan (Miniard & Co ayam,
1981; Shepherd & O'Keefe, 1984) dan bahwanormatif struktur mungkin
memiliki efek kausal pada sikap (Brubaker & Fowler, 1990; Oliver & Bearden,
1985; Ryan, 1982; Shimp & Kavas, 1984). Akhirnya, keempat dan terakhir
tujuandari penelitian ini adalah untuk menilai independen kontribusi dari
faktor-faktor penentu sikap (keyakinan perilaku dan evaluasi hasil) dan norma
subjektif (ataumative keyakinan dan motivati ke comply)
The Theory of Reasoned Action Sebagai Diterapkan
pada MPerilakulisan Tujuan utama kedua dari penelitian ini adalah untuk
menguji penerapan teori tindakan beralasan ke ranah perilaku moral. Penelitian tentang
isu-isu moral telah menunjukkan bahwa baik pribadi dan determinsosialsuatuts
perlu dibawa keconsid timbangkan untuk membuat rekening penuh perilaku.Di
satu sisi, teori-teori seperti kognitif-dependekatanvelopmental(e.G., Kohlberg, 1969),
pendekatan sifat-disposisional, danbelajar perilaku posisi (Mischel & Mischel,
1976) telah menekankan peran variabel pribadi. Di sisi lain, teori-teori lain
berfokus pada pengaruh sosial dan kontekstual. Dengan demikian, re pencarian
telah menunjukkan bahwa kehadiran,perilaku, dan pendapat orang
lain(e1986;..g,Bandura, Froming,Walker,& Lopyan, 1982; Latané &Darley, 1970;
Milgram, 1963; Schwartz & Gottlieb, 1980), sebagai well sebagai konteks langsung di
mana perilaku
Teori beralasan ACTION DAN MLISAN BehavsayaOR
101

acara. Dua situasi hipotetis dipilih karena mereka re flected perilaku penting moral
yang ditemukan dalam olahraga (Vallerand, De shaies, Cuerrier, Briere, & Pelletier,
1991). Situasi hipotetis yang digunakan dalam Situasi 2 untuk lintasan dan
lapangan disajikan di bawah ini.

Bayangkan Anda berada dalam situasi berikut. Anda berlari di final pertemuan penting.
Anda berjuang untuk tempat ketiga dan itu sangat dekat. Dua pelari sudah selesai. Ketika
Anda melewati garis finish, Anda dapat melihat bahwa pelari lainnya you bersaing
dengan tempat ketiga telah dipukuli kasih SLightly. Anda berakhir di urutan keempat.
Kemudian, sebagai hasilnya pascaed, Anda menyadari bahwa para pejabat telah membuat
kesalahan penting dalam memberikan Andapla ketigace dan medali perunggu. Anda adalah
satu-satunya yang menyadari kesalahan wasit karena pelari lainnya tidak dalam posisi
untuk melihat bahwa dia selesai di depanAnda. Anda memiliki pilihan untuk memberi
tahu para pejabat bahwa mereka telah membuat kesalahan dengan memberi Anda tempat ketiga
atau diam dan tidak mengatakan apa-apa sama sekali.
dengan pemodelan persamaan struktural. Mayoritas
penelitian telah dinilai hanya efek dari Keyakinan Perilaku x Out datang
Evaluasi dan Keyakinan Normatif x Motivation untuk Mematuhi persyaratan
perkalian sebagai prediktor sikap dansub normajective. Ada kebutuhan
yang pasti untuk menilai indepen penyok (nonmultiplicative) peran
dari masing-masing variabel ini untuk mencegah tambangusef
merekaulnessdalam teori.
Untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut, kami memutuskan untuk melakukan
studi tentang perilaku moral dalam pengaturan bidang terapan
(olahraga). Ini memungkinkan kami untuk menguji penerapan teori
pada domain moral serta menilai validitas ekologisnya. Dengan demikian,
1.056 atlet menyelesaikan kuesioner yang meminta mereka untuk
membayangkan diri mereka dalam dua situasi hipotetis di mana
mereka harus memutuskan untuk menampilkan perilaku moral atau
nonmoral. Untuk setiap situasi, subjek menyelesaikan skala yang
menilai semua komponen teori tindakan beralasan. Kami
melakukanpersamaan struktural pemodelanpada situasi pertama.
Analisis ini melibatkan menilai fit diperoleh dengan teori dasar dan
kemudian berinvestasiigAting apakah model ini dapat ditingkatkan dengan
memasukkansignifi penambahankan untuk model dasar. Model terbaik
yang berasal dari analisis ini dengan situasi pertama kemudian digunakan
dengan situasikedua untuk menguji generalizability dari yang
modeldiperoleh.Sesuai dengan Fishbein dan Ajzen (1975), diperkirakan
bahwa beberapa dukungan akan diperoleh untukdasar modelyang mewakili
teori tindakan beralasan. Namun, sejalan dengan pekerjaan yang lebih
baru (Brubaker & Fowler, 1990; Miniard & Cohen, 1981; Oliver & Bearden,
1985; Ryan, 1982; Shepherd & O'Keefe, 1984; Shimp & Kavas, 1984),
diperkirakan bahwa jalur kausal dari keyakinan normatif sikap sertacorre
lnegosiasiantara dititudinal dan normatif struktur akan mewakili
penambahan yang signifikan untuk model. Dalam perjanjian dengan
temuan Miniard dan Cohen (1981) itu juga hypothe berukuran bahwa
dampak dari motivasi untuk mematuhi norma-norma subjektif tidak akan
significant. Akhirly, dengan tidak adanyapra temuanvious pada efek dari hasil
evaluation dan Behav keyakinan ioral pada sikap, tidak ada hipotesis dirumuskandengan
sehubungan hubungan ini.
Setelah masing-masing dari dua situasi, konstruksi psikologis keyakinan perilaku,
evaluasi hasil, referensi spesifik, sikap, norma subjektif, dan niat perilaku diukur.
Pertanyaan disajikan dalam rangka menyarankaned oleh Ajzen dan Fishbein (1980,
Lampiran 1). Pertanyaan yang digunakan di trek dan lapangan untuk
Situasi 2 disajikan di bawah ini.
Niat perilakun. Ukuran ini dinilai dengan menanyakan subjek apakah mereka akan
menjawab, "Jika saya berada dalam situasi ini, saya akan diam dan tidak mengatakan
apa-apa." Skala untuk pertanyaan ini berkisar antara very tentu kamus (1) ke very tentu
saja tidak ada(4).
Sikaps. Langkah ini dinilai dengan tiga pertanyaan. “Untuk tutup mulut dan
mengatakan apa-apa akan bagi saya” dinilai pada tiga skala empat poin
untuk very baik (1) ke very buruk (4), cerdas (1) ke bodoh(4),dan
bermanfaat(1)ke berbahaya(4)oral.
Behavi.keyakinan TheSE dinilai oleh satu pertanyaan. “untuk tutup mulut
dan mengatakan apa-apa berarti bahwa saya akan memenangkan medali
perunggu” dinilai pada 4-poinskala t Likert-jenis mulai dari sangat benar (1) ke very
palsu(4)
Hasil evaluation.. ini juga dinilai oleh satu pertanyaan “Win ning medali perunggu akan
bagi saya;". sangatbaik (1) hingga sangat buruk (4), dinilai pada skala 4 poin.
Norma subjektif. Skala ini dinilai dengan satu pertanyaan. “Kebanyakan
orang-orang yang penting bagi saya berpikir bahwa saya harus tutup mulut dan
mengatakan apa-apa," dinilai pada skala 4-point mulai dari sangat benar (1)
ke very palsu(4).
Normatif keyakinans. Skala ini dinilai dengan enam pertanyaan. "Ayah saya berpikir bahwa
saya harus tutup mulut dan tidak mengatakan apa-apa" dinilai pada 4skalapoin mulai dari
sangat benar (1) hingga sangatsalah (4). Pertanyaan yang sama diajukan sehubungan
dengan ibu, teman satu tim, teman, pelatih, dan guru pendidikan jasmani.
Motivasi untuk mematuhi. Skala ini diselesaikan hanya sekali setelah menyelesaikan
dua situasi. Ini menilai lima pertanyaan umum: "Secara umum, saya ingin
melakukan apa yang ayah saya (ibu, teman-teman) , pelatih, dan guru pendidikan
jasmani) menurut saya sebaiknya saya lakukan?” Tanggapan
terhadapMotiva tionuntuk mematuhi pertanyaan dibuat pada skala 4-point mulai
dari setuju sepenuhnya (1)setuju tidak sepenuhnya (4).
Metode

Subyek
A totaldari 1.056 male dan atlet wanita 10 sampai 18 tahun ( M= 14.5 ytelinga)
berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini. peserta berasal dari empat daerah yang berbeda dari
provinsi Quebec dan dapat dilihat sebagai Representa tive peserta olahraga
provinsi untuk kelompok usia ini.

angket
pesertadiberikan kuesioner yang berisidescrip tionsdari dua situasi hipotetis
menggambarkan situasi moral dalam olahraga. mereka diminta untuk membaca deskripsi
hati-hati, untuk mencoba membayangkan themselves yangs sejelas mungkin dalam setiap situasi
yang digambarkan, dan untuk menunjukkan bagaimana mereka akan berperilaku dalam
situasi ini. Peserta disajikan dengan dua dilema hipotetis. dalam setiap kasus,
dilemmsebuah diperlukan bahwa atlet membuat keputusan tentang menarik atau tidak
engaging dalam perilaku yang tergolong moral yang masalah (lihat Kurtines, 19986).
Pilihan perilaku untuk dua situasi di cluded (a) apakah akan mengkritik pejabat itu
karena telah membuat panggilan buruk yang biaya atlet acara tersebut dan (b)
apakah akan menginformasikan resmi seseorang hasil tidak layak, yang jika mengatakan
woulbiaya datlet
Prosedur
Subyek menyelesaikan kuesioner baik di ruang kelas dekat Gymnasium atau
di ruang ganti. Subyek diberitahu bahwa "penelitian ini bukan tes melainkan semacam
survei tentang kompetisi olahraga." Mereka diberitahu bahwa jawaban mereka tidak akan
melayani untukseleksi purpoesdan bahwa pelatih mereka tidak akan melihat jawaban
masing-masing. Subyek were mengatakan, bagaimanapun, bahwa jawaban mereka adalah
penting, karena mereka bisa contrib ute untuk lebih memahami mereka sport. subyek
akhirnya diberitahu bahwa mereka tidak harus meletakkan nama mereka dansehingga
kerahasiaanterjamin.Setelah subyek diberi petunjuk ini,
102
VALLERAND, Deshaies,CUERRIER, PELLETIER, Mongeau

kuesioner dengan cepat secara verbaldijelaskan. subyek penelitian encour

berusia . untuk mengajukan pertanyaan Setelah mereka menyelesaikan
kuesioner, subyek mengucapkan terima kasih atas kerjasama dan diberhentikan
menghubungkan keyakinan normatif sikap, seperti suggested oleh hasil studi terbaru
(Brubaker& Fowler,1990;. Oliver & Bearden, 1985; Ryan ,1982; Shimp & Kavas,1984)
Finall1981.y, di line dengan baru fitemuan pada kurangnya independensi sikap dan
jugamative struc membangun struktur (Miniard & Cohen,; Shepherd & O'Keefe,1984),
Model 3 lanjut menggabungkan duatambahan nonkausal covariances menghubungkan
normatif keyakinan untuk eksogen konstruksi dari sikap compo nen model
Fishbein dan Ajzenini.
Sesuai dengan praktek konvensional dalam kausal pemodelan litera mendatang
(lihatBentler,1980),kami menggunakan lingkaran untuk mewakili laten
variabel (atau konstruksi multiple-indikator) dan kotak untuk menunjuk
singleindica konstruksitor. Panah searah antarateoritis con structmewakili dua jenis
jalur kausal yang terlibat dalam model. Gamma ()adalah jalur kausal yang
menghubungkan endogen dan eksogen bagian-bagian dari model, dan beta
(B)adalah jalur kausal yang menghubungkan endog enous konstruksi di antara
merekasendiri. Terakhir, panah dua arah Repre dikirim covariances nonkausal (0)antara
konstrukeksogen, dan panah tanpa asal-usul masing menunjukkan sisa atau yang tidak
ditentukan kausal influ ences.
Urutan analitis berjalan sebagai berikut. Pertama, nol Model asumsi kemandirianantara
variabeldiperkirakan. Kedua, Fishbein dan Ajzen's model(Model 1) adalah
evaludiciptakan. Akhirnya, mod elsmengusulkan modifikasi Fishbein dan Ajzenmodel's
(Model 2 dan 3)wekembali diuji. Dengan membandingkan Model 1 dengan modelnull, kita
bisa evaluate fit keseluruhan Fishbein dan Ajzen'smodel.
Selanjutnya,membandingkan tiga model di antara mereka sendiri mengizinkan kita untuk
evaluate pentingnya substantif dan statistik dari additional parameter terlibat dalam
modelini.
Fase 3. Pada tahap ketiga, untuk mengeksplorasi generalisasi dan kekokohan tdia
temuan, Analyurutanvertikal dilakukan pada data dari situasi pertama direplikasi
menggunakan data dari situasikedua.
Analisis Data
As disebutkan dalam Pendahuluan, metode analisis data yang
digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pemodelan persamaan struktural linear dengan
menggunakan programLISREL VI (Joreskog & Sörbom, 1984). Metode ini dapat
conceived sebagai kombinasi dari logika analisis jalur dengan itu dari analisis faktor
konfirmatori(CFA). Seperti dalam analisis jalur, kausal hubungan antara variabel
model kausal tertentu diperkirakan dari matrikskovarianssampel. Berbeda
dengan analisis jalur, namun, model kausal yang akan diuji ditentukan pada tingkat
laten. variabel Hal ini dilakukan dengan cara membangun sebuah set yang sesuai linear
persamaan yang berkaitan laten variabel dengan indikatormereka. Secara
keseluruhan, persamaan-persamaan ini merupakanpengukuran model. Sebuah
kedua set persamaan linear yang berkaitan variabel laten satu sama lain juga harus
ditetapkan untuk membentuk modelstruktural. Parameter kedua model ini
diperkirakan secara bersamaan menggunakan maksimal likeli metode kap
estimasi.Akhirnya, beberapa kebaikan indeks fit dapat digunakan untuk
mengevaluasi fit dari model dengandata. Dari jumlahtersebut, p
nilaiassociated dengan statistikchi-square, iklanjusted goodness indeks-fit (AGFI),yang bernorma
fit index (NFI),dan Bentler-Bon ett (1980) incremental fit indeks yang digunakan dalam
penelitian ini. Untuk informasi lebih lanjut tentang penggunaan analisis persamaan
struktural simultan dengan variabel laten, lihat Bentler (1980), Connell dan Tanaka (1987),
dan Jöreskog dan Sörbom (1984).
Data dari dua situasi dianalisis dalam tigaterpisah fase. Pada tahap pertama, kecukupan
model pengukuran dinilai. Hal ini dilakukan melalui CFA data. Pada tahapkedua,
data dari situasi pertama digunakan untuk menguji validitas Fishbein dan
Ajzen'steori tindakan beralasan sebagaipplied ke ranahperilaku moral dan kemudian untuk
menyelidiki apakah model ini dapat ditingkatkan dengan memasukkan signifikan
penambahan model dasar. Finally, in tahapketiga, prosedur yang sama digunakan dalam kedua
fase dengan Situasi 1 digunakan untuk Situasi 2 untuk menentukan apakah kita bisa
meniru temuan yang diperoleh dengan Situasi 1.
Tahap 1. pertama Setdari analisis adalah untuk menentukan apakah yang diamati
variabel yang diduga menjadi indikatortertentu konstruk latendalam fact
tercermin mereka andal. This dilakukan dengan menggunakan CFA. Sebuah initial CFA
model dijalankan bahwa(a) tetap semua faktor varians di kesatuan untuk
mengidentifikasi model (Joreskog & Sörbom,1984) dan (b) memungkinkan
semua konstruksi laten (faktor dan tunggalfaktor -indicator Repre konstruksi senting )
untuk berkorelasi secara bebas. Ada kasus di mana padaly satu variabel yang tersedia
untuk mewakili membangun sebuah. Dalam kasus tersebut, variabelitu sendiri
digunakan sebagai konstruk, meskipun itu tidak laten dan mungkin telah
dipengaruhi oleh kesalahan pengukuran.
Fase 2. Di set kedua analisis, kita (a) pertama diuji tes awal Fishbein dan Ajzen ini model,
lalu (b) atas dasar hasil sebelumnya penelitian(e.G.,Oliver &Bearden, 1985), kita ujied
apakah langsung jalur dari normatif keyakinansikap secara signifikan
meningkatkanfit dari model. Akhirnya, sayan line dengan penelitian yang suggEST
bahwa attitudinaldan normatif struktur mungkin berkorelasi, kita (c) sebagai sessed
apakah kovarians link nonkausal antara unsur-unsur dari dua struktur secara signifikan
akan meningkatkan fit dari model. urutan Ini pengujian model yang digambarkan dalam
Gambar 2.
Model 1, represented oleh panahpenuh, dapat dianggap sebagai representasi
yang memadai sebagian besar Fishbein dan Ajzen's (1975)theoreti kal formuLation
dengan perbedaan menambahkan bahwa penentu sikap (keyakinanperilaku dan evaluasi
hasil) dan norma subjektif (keyakinan normatif dan motivasi untuk mematuhi)tidak
dianggap sebagaiperkalian istilah melainkan sebagai entitas independen. Model 2
merupakan perluasan dari Model 1 yang dihasilkan dari penambahan satu jalur kausal
Hasil

UKURnt Model
Seperti yang ditunjukkansebelumnya, langkah pertama dalam analisis data
adalah untuk menilai kecukupan model pengukuran hipotesis
menggunakan CFA. Model CFA awal dijalankan bahwa (a) tetap semua faktor
varians pada kesatuan dan (b)memungkinkan semua konstruksi laten (faktordan
dosagle-indicator faktor yang mewakili konstruk)
berkorelasisecarabebas. Model awal ini tidak cukup mencerminkan
data, x?(114, N= 903)= 769.24, p<.001, AGFI= .84, meskipunNFI adalah
sufficiently besar (90) ke suggest yang kecil modi fikasi untuk model dapat
memberikan fit diterima. By exam ining the LISREL modification indices
(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1984), we added correlations among four pairs
of residuals to the model. No additional factor loadings were necessary. These
modifications resulted in a model that adequately reflected the data
according to the AGFI and the NFI, x?(110, N = 903) = 323.63, p<.001,
AGFI = .94, NFI = .96. To test whether add ing the correlated residuals
disturbed the fundamental associa tions among the latent constructs in
the present study, the fac tor intercorrelations between the initial and final
confirmatory factor models were computed (Newcomb & Bentler, 1988).
This correlation was .99. In addition, the correlation between the initial and
final factor loadings was computed. This correlation was also .99.
These findings reveal that the model modifica tions did not alter the
basic pattern of factor intercorrelations and factor loadings.
Table 1 presents the standardized measurement model coeffi
THE THEORY OF REASONED ACTION AND MORAL BEHAVIOR
103

Behavioral Beliefs (BB)

YABB

OBBOE
Attitudes
(A)

BBIA
φBBNB
Outcome Evaluation
(OE)
YAOE
Behavioral Intention
YANB
QOENB
(BI)

Normative Beliefs (NB)

YSNNB
B BISN

ONBMC
Subjective Norms (SN)

YSNMC
Motivation to Comply
(MC)

Figure 2. Model specification for Model 1, the theory of reasoned action (full
arrows), Model 2 (full arrows and arrow from normative beliefs to attitude), and
Model 3 (all arrows). (o indicates noncausal covariance between exogenous
constructs, y indicates a causal path linking endogenous and exogenous
constructs, and ß indicates a causal path linking endogenous constructs.)

vide only mixed support for the validity of the Fishbein and Ajzen
model. Indeed, certain important qualifications were raised by closer
analysis of the results. Specifically, inspection of the first-order
derivatives as well as modification indices (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1984)
of those parameters that were fixed at 0 in Model 1 suggested that the
causal path linking normative
cients as estimated from the CFA for each of the two situations. As
shown, all coefficients, except the first indicator of motiva tion to
comply (MCI), were fairly high and stable over the two situations. In
addition, internal consistency as assessed through Cronbach's alphas
was satisfactory for the five indicators of the motivation to comply
construct la = 78). Cronbach's alphas for the three indicators of the
attitude construct were.88 and.84 in Situations 1 and 2, respectively.
Similarly, Cronbach's alphas for the six indicators of the normative
beliefs were fairly high, with values of.88 and.90 in the two situations.
Overall, results of the various analyses indicate that the hypothesized
measurement model is adequate.
Table 1 Standardized Confirmatory Factor Analysis Coefficients for
Situations 1 and 2

Category
Situation 1
Situation 2

.920
918

.738
.785 .789 .541
.738
.585

.762
.748
Behavioral intention 1 Attitude (Att)
Att1 Att2
Att3 Subjective norms (SN)
SNI Behavioral beliefs (BB)
BB1 Outcome evaluation (OE)
OEI Normative beliefs (NB)
NBI NB2 NB3
.801
.820

.666
Structural Model
The second phase in data analysis is the creation of a struc tural or path
model, which includes regression effects represent ing unidirectional
influences of one variable on another. Model comparisons involving
Models 1-3 for Situation l are presented in Table 2. The table presents results
of statistics that provide an assessment of the fit of the Fishbein and Ajzen
model (Model 1) and variants of this model (Models 2 and 3) that are
different by virtue of the presence of selected parameters as noted earlier.
The top half of the table provides information on the chi square, degrees of freedom,
AGFI, and NFI associated with the fit of the models shown. The bottom half
provides information about the chi-square difference tests associated
with specific model comparisons.
Overall, it can be seen that Model 1 provides a somewhat adequate
account of the data for Situation 1. The chi-square value, x2(127, N =
903) = 894.44, p<.0001, while significant, was drastically lower than
that of the null model (9,555.54). In addition, the AGFI (189) and the NFI
(91) were somewhat low but marginally acceptable. In sum, these results
tended to pro
.660

.730
.791
.720 .685 .680 .695 .613 .582
.665
NB4
.635
.589
.630
NB5 NB6 Motivation to comply (MC)
MCI MC2 MC3 MC4 MCS
.093 .761 .821 .515 .428
.092 .761 .810
.488
458
104
VALLERAND, DESHAIES, CUERRIER, PELLETIER, MONGEAU

Table 2 Chi-Square, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Normed Fit Index

(NFI), Bentler-Bonett Incremental Fit Index (BB), and Model Comparisons for
Situation 1

Model

(n = 903) df AGFI NFIBB 9,555.54 153 -

944.5 127 89 555.1 126 91 94

Null model Model 1
(Ajzen and Fishbein theory) Model 2
(Model 1 + y A-NB) Model 3
(Model 2 + 0 NB-BB,
O NB-OE) Model comparison
1 vs. 2 2 vs. 3 1 vs. 3
motivation to comply and subjective norms in the three models
estimated and for the path linking behavioral beliefs and atti tudes in Models 2
and 3. Motivation to comply and behavioral beliefs could add support to the
model only through noncausal links with other constructs.
The proportion of explained variance (1 – standardized resid ual) for the
three structural equations of the model was also estimated. It was found that the
estimation of Models 2 and 3 resulted in important increments for this statistic. This
was especially the case for the attitude construct, which seemed to be
poorly determined in Model 1. Indeed, the addition (in Model 2) of the causal path
linking attitudes and normative beliefs alone, provided an increment of 33% in
the explained variance of attitude (from 16 to 49%). Finally, in Model 3, the
proportions of explained variance for subjective norms, atti tude, and behavioral
intention were slightly enhanced relative to Model 2. Taken together, these
results indicated that the constructs of attitudes, subjective norms, and
behavioral in tention were adequately determined by the causal structure
specified in Model 3. Table 3 presents the structural equation coefficients
as well as the explained variance for Model 3 in Situation 1.
463.95
124
92
95
.040
389.40
91.15 480.55
3
.010 .050

Note. YA-NB = path linking normative beliefs to attitudes; • NB BB = noncausal

covariance between normative beliefs and behavioral beliefs; NB-OE = noncausal covariance
between normative beliefs and outcome evaluation.

Replication With Situation 2

To assess the robustness and the generalizability of Model 3 obtained in
Situation 1, the analytical sequence used for Situa tion I was replicated
using the data from Situation 2. Results are presented in Table 4. As can be
seen, the overall fit statistics closely paralleled the results obtained in Situation
1. Specifi cally, the chi-square, as well as the AGFI and NFI values, were

Table 3 Standardized Structural Model Coefficients for Model 3 in Situation 1

Category
Coefficient
.45*
beliefs to attitude (YA-NB) would provide an important im provement
in fit. A highly significant chi-square difference test for the comparison of
Model 1 and Model 2 as well as a high incremental fit index were found.
Such a drastic decrease in the value of the chi-square statistic, x?(1, N=
903) = 389.4, p < .0001, could not be ignored. Furthermore, results of the
AGFI (91) and the NFI (94) clearly indicated an acceptable fit of the model.
Additional improvement in fit was achieved by freeing the noncausal
covariances (Ó NB-BB, 0 NB-OE) linking nor mative beliefs with the
exogenous constructs of the attitudinal component of the model(behavioral
beliefs and outcome evalu ation). A highly significant chi-square difference
test, x2(2, N= 903) = 91.15, p<.0001, for the comparison of Model 2 versus
Model 3 was found. Inspection of the AGFI (92) and the NFI (95) also
revealed an acceptable fit for the model.
No further significant improvement could be achieved by freeing
substantive parameters of Model 3. Therefore, Model 3 was deemed to be
the most adequate model for the data of Situation 1. This conclusion was
substantiated by the high in cremental fit index shown in Table 2. In sum, the
pattern of overall fit statistics associated with the series of model compari
sons suggested the addition of three parameters not posited by the theory of
reasoned action.
Analysis of the consistency of the various models tested re vealed a
pattern of causal relationships that was theoretically consistent. Results
showed that the betas linking attitude and subjective norms to behavioral
intention showed significant co efficients in all three models, with rather
high positive values for the causal path linking behavioral intentions and attitudes
and somewhat lower values for the causal path linking behav ioral
intentions and subjective norms. However, it must be noted that not all
estimated gammas of the proposed theoreti cal model were significantly
different from 0, as revealed by the nonsignificant (p> .05) t values
computed by the LISREL VI program. The latter case was observed for the
path linking
Factor correlations
O OE-BB ONB-MC O NB-BB
0 NB-OE Path coefficients
γ Α-ΒΒ
.02 .18*
.23*

-.01
7 A-OE
y $N-NB y SN-MC
.23* .88*

NA-NB
.05 .59* .87*
.07*
B BI-A
B BI-SN Explained variance
Subjective norms Attitude Behavioral intention
.58*
.53*

Note. • indicates noncausal covariance between exogenous con structs, y indicates a

causal path linking endogenous and exogenous constructs, and B indicates a causal
path linking endogenous con structs. OE = outcome evaluation; BB = behavioral beliefs;
NB = nor mative beliefs; MC= motivation to comply; A = attitudes, SN=subjec tive norms;
BI = behavioral intentions. *p<.05.
THE THEORY OF REASONED ACTION AND MORAL BEHAVIOR
105

almost identical to those obtained in Situation 1. Again, Model 1, which was

representative of the Ajzen and Fishbein theory, was not found wholly
adequate, whereas Model 3 provided a most acceptable fit of the data.
Similarly, the standardized structural model coefficients (see Table 5)
revealed theoreti cally consistent patterns of causal relationships very similar to
those obtained in Situation 1. Again, in line with Model 3 ob tained in Situation 1, all
causal paths were significant except for the causal paths linking subjective
norms and motivation to comply and linking attitudes and behavioral beliefs.
Similar to the findings of Situation i, attitudes proved to be the most important
predictor of behavioral intention, whereas the im pact of subjective norms was
rather modest. Overall, these find ings reveal that Model 3 obtained in
Situation 1 was replicated in Situation 2.

Discussion The results of this study lead to several important conse

quences for the theory of reasoned action. Most notably, the present results
have implications for the construct validity of the overall model and more
specifically for the independence of the attitudinal and normative structures
and the determi nants of attitudes and subjective norms. The present
findings also have implications for the application of the theory of rea
soned action to moral behavior. These various topics are dis cussed in turn,
Results from this study revealed only limited support for the basic model,
and modifications were needed to obtain an ade quate representation of the
data. This modified model (Model 3) dealt very well with the data, with 53%
and 55% of the vari ance of behavioral intention being accounted for in
Situations 1 and 2, respectively. While retaining the basic structure of the theory
of reasoned action, this modified model involved two major additions. First, a strong
causal path from normative beliefs to attitudes was added to the model.
Second, two non causal links, each involving normative beliefs with
outcome evaluation and behavioral beliefs, were also added to the basic model.
Thus, while the general structure of the theory of rea soned action was
supported, several modifications had to be incorporated in the model to
provide an adequate prediction of moral behavior. In addition, it should be
mentioned that the causal paths from behavioral belief to attitudes, and
from moti vation to comply to subjective norms were either not significant or
significant but negligible, depending on the situation. These various
considerations will be discussed more fully below.
However, before moving to these more precise issues, two points should
be underscored regarding the construct validity of the theory. First, an
important postulate of the theory, namely that attitudes and subjective norms
are the direct deter minants of behavioral intention, was strongly supported.
This finding is in line with those from research using structural equation
modeling to test the theory (Oliver & Bearden, 1985; Ryan, 1982; Shimp &
Kavas, 1984). Thus, while other compo nents of the theory such as
outcome evaluation and normative beliefs may play an important role in the
model, such a role is limited to being an antecedent of either attitudes or
subjective norms.
A second finding of interest deals with the fact that attitudes proved to be a
more important predictor of behavioral inten tion than subjective norms. This
result is consistent with past findings on the relative impact of attitudes
and subjective norms on behavioral intention. In fact, in a meta-analysis of
26 studies conducted by Farley, Lehmann, and Ryan (1981), it was
Assessment of the Construct Validity of the Theory of Reasoned Action
A first purpose of this study was to test Ajzen and Fishbein's (1980) theory
of reasoned action through structural equation modeling. Whereas other studies,
most dealing with consumer behavior, have performed such analyses
recently (eg, Oliver & Bearden, 1985; Ryan, 1982; Shimp & Kavas, 1984), no
study to date, to the best of our knowledge, has used such analyses to test
the independent contribution of all components of the theory.

Table 4 Chi-Square, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI),
Bentler-Bonett Incremental Fit Index (BB), and Model Comparisons for Situation
2
Model
x2 (n = 903)
df
AGFI
BB

974.75
9,523.85

153 127
87
692.33
Null model Model 1
(Ajzen and Fishbein theory) Model 2
(Model 1 + y A-NB) Model 3
(Model 2 + NB-BB,
O NB-OE) Model comparison
1 vs. 2 2 vs. 3 1 vs. 3
435.87

282.42 256.46 538.88

.030 .027 .057

Note. YA-NB= path linking normative beliefs to attitudes; • NB-BB = noncausal covariance
between normative beliefs and behavioral beliefs; • NB-OE = noncausal covariance
between normative beliefs and outcome evaluation.
106
VALLERAND, DESHAIES, CUERRIER, PELLETIER, MONGEAU

Independence of Attitude and Normative Structures

Table 5 Standardized Structural Model Coefficients for Model 3 in Situation 2

Category
Coefficient

.38*
-.02
.31*
.34*
.12*
Factor correlations
• OE-BB O NB-MC
NB-BB ONB-OE Path coefficients
YA-BB 7A-OE YSN-NB Y SN-MC y A-NB B BI-A
B BI-SN Explained variance
Subjective norms Attitude Behavioral intention
.10* .90* .02
.56*
.88*
.19*

.59*
.59*
.55*

Note. indicates noncausal covariance between exogenous con structs, y indicates a

causal path linking endogenous and exogenous constructs, and B indicates a causal
path linking endogenous con structs. OE = outcome evaluation; BB = behavioral beliefs;
NB= nor mative beliefs; MC= motivation to comply; A= attitudes; SN=subjec tive norms;
BI = behavioral intentions. *p<.05.

found that the attitude value dominated that of subjective norms by a factor
of 1.5.
It is not clear why attitudes generally play a more important role than subjective
norms in the prediction of behavioral in tention. One potential
explanation deals with the fact that atti tudes focus directly on the
consequences of action (attitudes toward the act) whereas the subjective norms
deal with a more remote element, namely perceptions of what significant others think one
should do. Should the subjective norms measure as sess the perceived
consequences associated with behaving against (or in line with) important
others' advice, then attitudes and subjective norms may have
comparable effects on behav ioral intention. As it stands now, however,
the attitude measure focuses more directly on behavioral consequences than
subjec- tive norms and thus is more likely to be related to behavioral
that if the attitude
intention. Another potential explanation might lie in the fact
measure carries the indirect effect of norma tive beliefs as well as the
direct effect of the cognitive structure, its influence on intention will
be increased relative to that of subjective norms alone. Clearly further
research is needed to better understand why attitudes play a more
important role than subjective norms in the prediction of behavioral
intention.
In sum, the present findings provide only mixed support for the construct
validity of the theory of reasoned action. Whereas the importance of
attitudes and subjective norms as predictors of behavioral intention was
reaffirmed, questions were raised on the independence of the attitude and
normative structures, as well as on the determinants of attitudes and
sub jective norms. These two points are elaborated further below.
An important postulate of the theory of reasoned action posits the
independence of the attitudinal and normative struc tures. However, recently,
results from several studies (e.g., Min iard & Cohen, 1981; Oliver & Bearden,
1985; Ryan, 1982; Shep herd & O'Keefe, 1984; Shimp & Kavas, 1984) have
challenged this postulate on two accounts. First, significant correlations have been
obtained between the attitudinal and normative structures (Miniard & Cohen, 1981;
Shepherd & O'Keefe, 1984). And second, asignificant causal path from the
Norma tive Beliefs x Motivation to Comply multiplicative term on atti tudes was
reliably and repeatedly obtained (the so-called cross over effect; Brubaker & Fowler,
1990; Oliver & Bearden, 1985; Ryan, 1982; Shimp & Kavas, 1984). Results
from this study replicated these past findings. In addition, because in this study
the independent elements of the theory were used instead of the multiplicative terms, it
was possible to determine that normative beliefs represent the key variable in the
relationship involving the attitudinal and normative structures. This was shown in two
ways. First, with respect to the noncausal links between the two structures,
it appears that normative beliefs is the key variable, being related to both
behavioral beliefs and outcome evaluation. Relationships involving
motivation to comply, however, proved to be nonsignificant.
The relationship between behavioral and normative beliefs is particularly
interesting because it hints at the possibility that a common antecedent concept might
exist. Certain authors (eg, Budd & Spencer, 1985) have discussed the existence
of a type of beliefs that could potentially underlie both behavioral and nor mative
beliefs. This type of beliefs, namely personal normative beliefs, refers to one's beliefs
about what should be or ought to be done. It is thus possible to see the potential
relation to both behavioral and normative beliefs. In addition, one can sense
in such beliefs some kind of moral flavor that might be pertinent to the understanding
of moral behavior. Thus, future research on the role of personal normative beliefs as the
common ante cedent of both behavioral and normative beliefs would appear
promising, especially as pertains to moral behavior.
A second result that supports the importance of normative beliefs in the
relationship involving the attitudinal and norma tive structures is the finding
of the significant causal path from normative beliefs to attitudes. This addition
to the basic model improved explained variance in attitudes by some 35%.
This causal effect proved very robust, holding for the two situations of this study. As
indicated previously, similar findings have been obtained in four studies
using either LISREL (Oliver & Bearden, 1985; Ryan, 1982; Shimp& Kavas,
1984)or path analy sis (Brubaker & Fowler, 1990). Specifically, these studies
demon strated that a causal link from the Normative Belief x Motiva tion
to Comply multiplicative term to attitudes represented an essential
addition to the Ajzen and Fishbein model. Because the present study
used the independent elements of the model rather than the
multiplicative terms, it was possible to identify normative beliefs as the
sole determinant of attitudes. These findings underscore the importance
of significant others in the formation of attitudes, a finding supported by
years of research in the area of social influence (e.g., Chaiken, 1987; Eagly,
1987)
THE THEORY OF REASONED ACTION AND MORAL BEHAVIOR
107

and communication (e.g., Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953). As this causal path
from the normative component to attitudes has now been obtained in
five studies (Brubaker & Fowler, 1990; Oliver & Bearden, 1985; Ryan, 1982;
Shimp & Kavas, 1984), including the present one, we suggest that future research on this
issue routinely test for the presence of this causal path from normative beliefs to
attitudes.
In sum, the theory's postulate on the independence of the attitudinal and
normative structures has been shown to be inac curate. Future research would
do well to study the interplay between the two structures as well as to assess the role of
poten tial common antecedents to determine how the attitudinal and normative structures can best be
integrated.
ship. In any event, future research is needed on the role of moti vation to
comply in the theory.
The findings with behavioral beliefs are less straightforward. The present study
represents the first attempt to test the inde pendent contribution of behavioral beliefs as
a determinant of attitudes. In light of the theory, the lack of influence from be
might be that behavioral beliefs
havioral belief to attitudes was therefore not anticipated. It
do not represent a necessary antecedent to attitudes. However, in all fairness to
Ajzen and Fishbein, it should be reiterated that behavioral beliefs were measured
by one item only. It is thus possible that important salient beliefs were not assessed
in this study, thus accounting for the lack of effect of behavioral beliefs on
attitudes. Although it may be premature to suggest a revision of the theory of
rea soned action with respect to the determinants of attitudes and subjective
norms on the basis of the present findings, future research on the determinants
of attitudes and subjective norms is clearly warranted.
On the Determinants of Attitudes and Subjective Norms
Another purpose of this study was to test the independent effects of behavioral
beliefs and outcome evaluation, on one hand, and normative beliefs and motivation
to comply, on the other hand, as predictors of attitudes and subjective norms,
respectively. The theory posits that each set of predictors should be multiplied
to lead to attitudes and subjective norms. In line with such a position, studies in the
area have used almost exclu sively multiplicative terms, thus preventing an
assessment of the relative contribution of each construct to attitudes and sub
jective norms. Results of this study revealed that only two of the four constructs,
namely outcome evaluation and normative be liefs, were significant predictors of
attitudes and subjective norms, respectively, across models and situations. Whereas
the impact of normative beliefs on subjective norms was important (88 and.90 in
Situations 1 and 2, respectively), the contribution of outcome evaluation to
attitudes was much less important (23 and .10 in Situations 1 and 2, respectively).
Therefore, it would appear that these findings support the role of outcome
evaluation and normative beliefs in the theory of reasoned action. Tentatively, the
present findings might also indicate that motivation to comply and behavioral beliefs are
not necessary elements of the model. With respect to motiva tion to comply, such
claims have been voiced before. For in stance, Miniard and Cohen (1981) have
shown that normative beliefs alone were a better predictor of subjective norms than
the multiplicative term of normative beliefs and motivation to comply. However,
Miniard and Cohen did not use structural equation modeling to test their
hypothesis. Using structural equation modeling, we found that results from the present
study revealed that motivation to comply was not an important predictor of
subjective norms. It should be noted that such lack of effect from motivation to comply
cannot be imputed to faulty measurement, as results from the measurement
model showed that it was properly assessed. It is possible that the low relationship between
motivation to comply and subjective norms is due to the motivation to comply
measure not pertain ing specifically to the behavior to be emitted, whereas the
sub jective norms measure does (O'Keefe, 1990). Modifying the motivation to
comply measure so that it pertains directly to the behavior at hand ("In general, when
it comes to cheating during exams, I want to do what my parents want me to do”)
might improve the motivation to comply-subjective norms relation
The Theory of Reasoned Action as Applied to Moral Behavior
A final purpose of this study was to assess the validity of the theory of
reasoned action as applied to moral behavior. Results from this study
revealed that the theory provided only a some what adequate fit for the data.
However, it was found that a modified version of the theory allowed an adequate
prediction of moral behavior. This modified model retained the basic rela tionships
postulated by the theory while adding correlations between the attitudinal and
normative structures and a causal path from normative beliefs to attitudes. Thus,
these findings reveal that an expectancy-value approach akin to that postu lated by Ajzen and
Fishbein represents an adequ ate and useful theoretical position for the
explanation and prediction of moral behavior. This is in line with much research that
has shown that expectancies of obtaining valued consequences and avoiding
unwanted consequences play an important role in the emission of moral behavior
(Backman, 1985; Graziano, 1987; Hogan, 1973; Kurtines, 1986; Lynch & Cohen,
1978).
Results from this study also showed that both the personal (attitudinal) and social
(or normative) components play an im portant role in determining moral behavior. In
line with indivi dualistic models (e.g., Kohlberg, 1969), attitudes had the most important direct
effects on intention of moral behavior. How ever, in line with proponents of the
situational approach (e.g., Widaman & Little, 1985), the normative component also
had some effects. Such effects took place in two fashions. First, subjective norms
had modest, yet significant, direct effects on moral behavior. Second, normative
beliefs proved to have indi rect effects on moral behavior through their effects on
attitudes and subjective norms. Thus, an expected value formulation in
corporating personal and social components seems to provide an adequate
prediction of moral behavior.
The discussion so far has emphasized the viability of the modified model in terms
of prediction of moral behavior. How ever, it should be underscored that this
modified model also helps to shed light on moral development. Indeed, the theory
allows the understanding of the formation and the develop
108
VALLERAND, DESHAIES, CUERRIER, PELLETIER, MONGEAU

statistical analyses. In addition, the contribution of some of the elements of the

theory, namely behavioral beliefs and motiva tion to comply, was found to be
negligible in the two situations of this study. Overall, these findings highlight the
fact that the basic structure underlying the theory of reasoned action is un
doubtedly more complex than generally presumed, especially with respect
to the role and functions of normative beliefs. In addition, they point to the
need for future research using struc tural equation modeling in assessing
the independent role of all elements of the theory instead of relying on the
proposed multi plicative terms for the attitudinal and normative structures.
Finally, the present findings underscore the fact that a modi fied version of the
theory represents a viable theoretical frame work to study moral behavior. Future
research in this area using this model should therefore lead to important advances in our
understanding of moral behavior and development.

References
ment of attitudes and subjective norms that play an important role in
behavior. These two elements are learned by the individ ual and are a function
of specific determinants. Thus, to the extent that one can understand the
nature of these determi nants and how they come to be learned by the
individual, a better understanding of moral development within various contexts
becomes possible. More specifically, on the basis of the theory, it is hypothesized
that positive attitudes toward moral behaviors are formed through the
learning of beliefs that moral behaviors may lead to valued consequences.
Similarly, it is pos ited that subjective norms with respect to moral
behaviors de velop through the learning that important others believe that
moral behaviors represent appropriate behavioral conduct and the
individual's desire to act in line with these beliefs. Such beliefs, evaluations,
and desire to comply develop over time through interactions in one's social
surroundings. Eventually, these beliefs and evaluations become what may be
perceived as a relatively stable moral style that serves as a key determinant of the
more specific concepts of attitudes and subjective norms. Attitudes and subjective
norms, in turn, should lead to moral intention and behavior.

It appears important to reiterate that the present modified model posits the
presence of a common determinant of atti tudes and subjective norms,
namely normative beliefs. Norma tive beliefs, or the beliefs regarding what
is perceived as appro priate behavior in the eyes of important others, appear to
loom large in the learning of moral beliefs, evaluations, attitudes, and subjective
norms, and probably for good reasons. How do we learn that moral behaviors are to
be valued (or devalued) if not through the influence of important others, such as
parents, teachers, and peers? Therefore, it should come as no surprise that
normative beliefs play such an important role in determin ing attitudes and
subjective norms.
The acceptance of normative beliefs as the major determi nant of both
attitudes and subjective norms leads to a reevalua tion of the key element in the
development of the moral orienta tion of the individual. Contrary to much
theorizing (e.g., Kohl berg, 1969) that focuses on the person's cognitive
development as a prime determinant of moral development, the present ap
proach posits that the main determinant of one's attitude or moral inclination
may reside in the social environment. It should be made clear, however,
that the present stance does not expurgate the person from the moral
development process. As much research has revealed, individuals play an
active part in the influence that others may have on them (e.g., Swann,
1985). Indeed, it should be made clear that it is not significant others per se who
determine one's attitudes and subjective norms to ward moral behaviors, but
rather one's perceptions of these sources of influence.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behav
ior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition
to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer. 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. Backman, C. W. (1985). Identity,
self-presentation, and the resolution of moral dilemmas: Towards a social psychological theory of
moral behavior. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 261
289). New York: McGraw-Hill. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barnett, M. A., & Bryan, JH (1974).
Effects of competition with
outcome feedback on children's helping behavior. Developmental
Psychology, 10, 838-842. Bentler, PM (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent
variables: Causal
modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456. Bentler, PM, & Bonett, D. G.
(1980). Significance tests and goodness
of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin,
88, 588-606. Bentler, PM, & Speckhart, G. (1979). Models of attitude-behavior
relations. Psychological Review, 86, 452-464. Bentler, P. M., & Speckhart, G. (1981).
Attitudes "cause" behaviors: A
structural equation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psy
chology, 40, 226-238. Brubaker, R. G., & Fowler, C. (1990). Encouraging
college males to
perform testicular self-examination: Evaluation of a persuasive mes sage based on the
revised theory of reasoned action. Journal of Ap
plied Social Psychology, 20, 1411-1422. Budd, R. J. (1986). Predicting cigarette use: The
need to incorporate measures of salience in the theory of reasoned action. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 16, 663-685. Budd, RJ, North, D., & Spencer, C. P. (1984).
Understanding seat-belt
use: A test of Bentler and Speckbart's extension of the theory of
reasoned action.” European Journal of Social Psychology, 14,69-78. Budd, RJ, &
Spencer, C. P. (1985). Exploring the role of personal
normative beliefs in the theory of reasoned action: The problem of discriminating
between alternative path models. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 15, 219-313. Burnkrant, RE, & Page, TJ (1988). The structure and
antecedents of
the normative and attitudinal components of Fishbein's theory of
Conclusion In sum, results from the present study reveal that a modified
version of the theory of reasoned action allows an adequate understanding
and prediction of moral behavior. Modifica tions in the theory involved a
causal path from normative be liefs to attitudes as well as noncausal
relations among elements of the attitudinal and normative structures. Similar
findings have also been obtained in past research using confirmatory
THE THEORY OF REASONED ACTION AND MORAL BEHAVIOR
109

reasoned action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24,66- 87.

Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In MP Zanna,
JM Olson, & CP Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario
Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Connell, JP, & Tanaka, JS (Eds.).
(1987). Special section on struc
tural equation modeling. Child Development, 58, 1-175. Eagly, AH (1987). Social
influence research: New approaches to en
during issues. In MP Zanna, JM Olson, & CP Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The
Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 271-285).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Enker, MS (1987). Attitudinal and normative variables
as predictors
of cheating behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 315
330. Farley, JU, Lehmann, DR, & Ryan, MJ (1981). Generalizing from
“imperfect” replication. Journal of Business, 54, 597-610. Fishbein, M., &
Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fredricks, AJ, & Dossett, D. L. (1983).
Attitude-behavior relations: A
comparison of the Fishbein-Ajzen and the Bentler-Speckart models.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 501-512. Froming, W. J.,
Walker, GR, & Lopyan, KJ (1982). Public and pri
vate self-awareness: When personal attitudes conflict with societal
expectations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 476
487. Granrose, CS (1984). A Fishbein-Ajzen model of intention to work
following childbirth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 25, 359-372. Graziano, W.
G. (1987). Lost in thought at the choice point: Cognition,
context, and equity. In JC Masters & P. Smith (Eds.), Social compari son,
social justice, and relative deprivation (pp. 265-294). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum. Hennig, P., & Knowles, A. (1990). Factors influencing women
over 40
years to take precautions against cervical cancer. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 20, 1612-1621. Hogan, R. (1973). Moral conduct and moral
character: A psychological
perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 217-232. Hoogstraten, J., De Haan, W., &
Ter Horst, G. (1985). Stimulating the
demand for dental care: An application of Ajzen and Fishbein's theory of reasoned
action. European Journal of Social Psychology,
15, 401-415. Hovland, CI, Janis, I., & Kelley, HH (1953). Communication
and
persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jöreskog, KG, & Sörbom,
D. (1984). LISREL VI user's guide. Chi
cago: National Educational Resources, Inc. Kenny, DA (1979). Correlation and
causality. New York: Wiley. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The
cognitive-developmen
tal approach to socialization. In DA Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory
and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally. Kurtines, W. M. (1986). Moral
behavior as rule governed behavior:
Person and situation effects on moral decision making. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 784–791. Latané, B., & Darley, JM (1970). The
unresponsive bystander: Why
doesn't he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Lynch, J. G., & Cohen, JL
(1978). The use of subjective expected
utility theory as an aid to understanding the variables that influence helping
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,
1138-1151. Marin, BV, Marin, G., Perez-Stable, EJ, Otero-Saabogal, R., &
Sabo
gal, F. (1990). Cultural differences in attitudes toward smoking: De veloping
messages using the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 20, 478-493.
McCaul, KD, O'Neill, K., & Glasgow, RE (1988). Predicting the
performance of dental hygiene behaviors: An examination of the
Fishbein and Ajzen model and self-efficacy expectations. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 18, 114-128. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of
obedience. Journal of Abnor
mal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378. Miller, LE, & Grush, JE (1986). Individual
differences in attitudinal
versus normative determination of behavior. Journal of Experimen
tal Social Psychology, 22, 190-202. Miniard, P. W., & Cohen, JB (1981). An examination of the
Fishbein
Ajzen behavioral-intention model's concepts and measures. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 303–309. Mischel, W., & Mischel, HN (1976). A
cognitive-social learning ap
proach to socialization and self-regulation. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and
behavior: Theory, research, and social issues.
New York: Holt. Netmeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1990). Examining the relationships
between voting behavior, intention, perceived control, and expecta
tion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 661-680. Newcomb, MD, & Bentler, PM
(1988). Consequences of adolescent
drug use. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. O'Keefe, DJ (1990). Persuasion: Theory
and research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage. Oliver, RL, & Bearden, WO (1985). Crossover effects in the
theory of
reasoned action: A moderating influence attempt. Journal of Con
sumer Research, 12, 324-340. Orlick, TD (1981). Positive socialization via
cooperative games. Devel
opmental Psychology, 17, 426-429. Pagel, MD, & Davidson, AR (1984). A comparison of
three social
psychological models of attitude and behavioral plan: Prediction of contraceptive
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47, 517-533. Ryan, MJ (1982). Behavioral intention formation: The interdepen
dency of attitudinal and social influence variables. Journal of Con
sumer Research, 9, 263–278. Schwartz, SH, & Gottlieb, A. (1980). Bystander anonymity
and reac
tions to emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39, 418-430. Shepherd, GJ, & O'Keefe, DJ (1984). Separability of attitudinal and
normative influences on behavioral intentions in the Fishbein-Aj
zen model. The Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 287-288. Shimp, T. A., & Kavas, A. (1984).
The theory of reasoned action ap
plied to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 795-809. Swann, W. B.
(1985). The self as architect of reality. In BR Schlenker
(Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 100-125). New York: McGraw-Hill. Timko, C. (1987). Seeking
medical care for a breast cancer symptom:
Determinants of intentions to engage in prompt or delay behavior.
Health Psychology, 6, 305-328. Toneatto, T., & Binik, Y. (1987). The role of intentions,
social norms, and attitudes in the performance of dental flossing: A test of the theory
of reasoned action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 593-603.
Vallerand, RJ, Deshaies, P., Cuerrier, J.-P., Brière, NM, & Pelletier,
LG (1991). A social psychological analysis of sportsmanship: II. Toward a
multidimensional definition. Manuscript submitted for
publication. Widaman, KF, & Little, TD (1985). Contextual influences on socio
moral judgment and action. In H. Pryor & J. Day (Eds.), The develop ment of social
cognition (pp. 115-152). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Received February 26, 1990 Revision received February 6, 1991

Accepted February 14, 1991 ,