Hi, I'm currently doing my master thesis about Attitude-Behaviour Inconsistency based on Adoption to Green Behaviour (TPB, TRA, MOA, ABC, etc).
The research was different from previous research. We tested among non-green consumers only. And it turned out the there is no relation between attitude and behaviour intention (non-significant). And all of the 6 moderating factors are non-significant too.
I am trying to think of possible arguments to justify my results. Is there anything you can think of or look at any article recommendations to support the following issues?
I appreciate any help. Thank you!
Hi, Two very quick thoughts.
1. On a theoretical level, have a look at Stoknes (2015) What we think about when try no to think about global warming. Toward a new psychology of climate action. There, at page 60 he talks about Attitudes and Cognitive Dissonance problem. Maybe that would be an explanation for the inconsistency between Attitude and Behavior Intention variables of your interest.
2. On a statistical level, have you thought about running PROCESS macro moderation model with Johnson-Neyman procedure for identifying areas of significance? It might be that your link A -> BI is significant only for some parts of moderating variables, while the general interaction coefficients are insignificant.
Hope that helps a bit. Good luck, Lukasz
In terms of the Theory of Planned Behavior, if you don't find a relationship between attitude and intention it probably means one of these things:
1) The relationship between attitude and intention is moderated by the relationship between a) subjective norm and intention (e.g., your non-green consumers don't experience social pressure to engage in green behavior, or may even experience pressure to not engage in such behavior), and/or b) perceived behavioral control and intention (e.g., they perceive green behavior, like conservation and recycling to be difficult or costly). Are these among the moderating factors you included?
2) Your attitude measures are not sufficiently aligned with your behavior measure. Ajzen & Fishbein used to call this "correspondence," and then they called it "compatibility." The basic idea is "the importance of maintaining strict compatibility between measures in terms of target, action, context, and time elements" (Predicting and Changing Behavior, p. 145). So, for example, if you're measuring intention to recycle glass bottles during the next 30 days, your attitude measures should be "compatible" with that--e.g., "It's important to me to recycle glass bottles during the next 30 days" rather than something less "compatible" like "It's important to protect the environment." See https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/hea-0000062.pdf for a paper on this topic.
3) The "green" behavior of interest in your study does not advance the "active procurement goals" of your non-green consumers. In 2019 Ajzen and Kruglanski published an updated version of TPB ("Reasoned Action in the Service of Goal Pursuit"), which states:
“[In TPB studies] rarely, if ever, is an attempt made to explore the extent to which the behavior under consideration is actually of concern to the study’s participants. …In other words, investigators relying on the TPB and similar models generally do not pay enough attention to why, in their everyday lives, people consider engaging in a particular behavior in the first place.
“[T]he motivation to consider performing a particular behavior rests, to a large extent, on the desire to attain one or more goals. …For some behaviors, such as wearing a seatbelt, the dominant goal (preventing injury in an accident) is self-evident and there is little variability in goals across individuals. With respect to behaviors of this kind the TPB has worked well. However, for other behaviors, such as exercising, goals can vary greatly from one individual to another and can fluctuate across time and context. With respect to these behaviors the TPB may not be sufficient and goals will have to be brought into the model.” (pp. 774–775 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000155)
That may be what's going on with your non-green consumers. Even if they have a positive attitude towards green behavior, they may not be motivated to engage in such behavior because it's not relevant to their (currently active) goals.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking