The theory of planned behavior (TPB) was an extension of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) to predict and understand the causes of behavior. Intention has been viewed as the direct predictor of behavior and as a conative dimension of the attitude construct.
Intentions
Figure 2.2 Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) Theory of Reasoned Action
Subjective norms Attitudes
Behavior
In the theory of reasoned action (TRA), intention is interpreted as a mediator between the cognitive and evaluative components of attitude and behavior (Ajzen, 1988), and intention is predicted by both individual and socially related factors, namely, attitudes toward the act, a personal evaluative response, and subjective norms, the perceived social pressure to behave. Since no other direct paths were hypothesized
26
from attitudes and subjective norms toward behavior, this theory is defined as only applicable to behavior under total volitional control. That is, the theory postulated that no external or internal impediments can prevent performance of a behavior.
However, the TRA model has been criticized for its assumption of total volitional control which Ajzen (1988) later acknowledged for its difficulties to apply to most acts. Ajzen (1991) later proposed the theory of planned behavior (TPB), which is an important social cognitive model that aims to explain long unsolved variances in volitional behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Conner & Armitage, 1998). The TPB postulates three types of beliefs (Ajzen, 1991): behavior beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs. Behavior beliefs refer to a person’s beliefs about the consequences of particular behaviors. Normative beliefs concern a person’s perception of social pressure or relevant others’ beliefs that he/she should or should not perform a particular behavior. Control beliefs are a person’s beliefs with respect to present factors that may facilitate or hinder performance of a behavior. The three beliefs further lead to a production of three conceptually independent determinants of intention (Ajzen, 1991). In the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988), a person’s intention is the chief predictor of an action, and the intention is determined by three antecedents: attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Behavioral beliefs give rise to an individual’s favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior, which is termed attitudes toward
the behavior. Normative beliefs give rise to an individual’s perceived social pressure
concerning whether or not to do an action, which is referred to as subjective norms.Control beliefs lead to an individual’s perceived behavioral control, referring to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior, and it is assumed to reflect upon past experience as well as anticipated impediments and obstacles.
27
These three determinants: attitudes toward the behavior, the subjective norms, and the perceived behavioral control lead to the formation of intention (Ajzen, 2001).
The effects of the antecedents are mediated by intention regarding behavior, as shown in Figure 2.3. It should be noted that the additional component, perceived behavioral control, could either be mediated by intention or have a direct effect on behavior. The theory postulates that the more favorable an individual’s attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, the stronger his or her intention would be to perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
Intentions
Figure 2.3 Ajzen (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior
Subjective norms Attitudes
Behavior
Perceived behavioral control
The major difference between TRA and TPB lies in the addition of a variable that could complement the volitional part of behavior in the TRA structure. This variable is “perceived behavioral control” which, according to the TPB, is hypothesized as directly influencing both intention and behavior by assuming that the greater the perceived behavioral control and the more positive the behavioral intention, and the more likely the occurrence of the behavior being performed. As Ajzen (1988) pointed out, perceived behavioral control is most compatible with Bandura’s (1977, 1982) concept of self-efficacy, which “is concerned with judgment of how well one can execute a course of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura,
28
1982, p. 122). Research has indicated that people’s behavior is strongly affected by their perception of their own ability (confidence) to perform it (i.e. perceived behavioral control). The perception of one’s self-efficacy will influence choices of activities, degree of preparation, and effort exerted to prepare for activities and in performance, thought patterns and emotional reactions (see Bandura, 1982, 1991).
Ajzen’s TRA and TPB have been recognized to be highly successful in investigating several types of social behavior in daily contexts but have not been properly utilized in pedagogical training in an education context, particularly in the study of L2 learning environments. After scrupulous examination, it is recognized that there was a gap between the two theories and the immediate learning contexts.
Any attempt to adopt Ajzen’s TPB into L2 learning or teaching would be a highly challenging task. In the first place, though there are some studies investigating attitudes toward L2 learning (Gardner, 1985; Martinez et al., 2008; Masgoret &
Gardner, 2003; Raymond & Roberts, 1983), very few studies discuss attitudes from a multidimensional perspective, i.e. the attitude construct comprises three dimensions in Ajzen’s TPB: cognition, affect, and conation. Not until recently did Tseng (2009) introduce the tripartite hierarchical model of attitude and established a validated system of measurement of students’ attitudes related to English vocabulary learning.
Second, the impact of social contexts has earned increasing emphasis on the study of motivation as well as research in L2 learning motivation. So far, there has not been a comprehensive measurement of social influence on L2 learning motivation. Third, behavioral intention has been generally recognized as the prominent factor in prediction of the subsequent behavior in the field of social psychology. In the field of L2 learning, though there was discussion of this dimension, motivation research seems rarely to take this factor into account. Last but not least, as mentioned earlier,
29
Ajzen’s TPB has not been utilized in the L2 learning context, implying that there should probably be some factors that remain unexplored. As a meta-analysis (e.g.
Armitage & Conner, 2001) indicates:
a substantial proportion of the variance intentions remains unexplained by the core TPB variables of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control….conceptualization and measurement of the core predictors of intention is open to question, and such inadequacies may mask the true nature of these constructs and how they function in the TPB” (cited in Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2005, p. 514).