Individual differences have also been shown to moderate attitude-behaviour relations. There are a whole host of possible variables that could, in theory, affect the degree of correlation. For example, it might be interesting to examine the effect of variables such as age, social background or nationality on attitude-behaviour consistency. However, a factor that has received considerable attention in attitude research is the self-monitoring personality trait (Snyder, 1974). It has been shown that high self-monitors display relatively little attitude-behaviour consistency compared to low self-monitors (Snyder & Swann, 1976). Therefore attitude-behaviour consistency is partially determined by self-monitoring. Other personal variables (such as age or culture) may well also have similar effects. However, research in this area needs to be extended beyond self-monitoring in order to establish this.
As well as personal variables situational factors have also been found to have an impact. Regan & Fazio (1977) asked participants to rate the interest level of puzzles (the attitude measure) and then observed how long each participant played with the puzzle when given no specific instructions (behaviour measure). Before the attitude measure some participants were allowed to familiarise themselves with the puzzles (direct experience condition) whilst others merely had the puzzles described to them (indirect experience condition). It was found that there was a greater attitude-behaviour correlation for participants within the direct experience condition. The same result has also been found using different attitude objects and in more ecologically valid field settings (Fazio & Zanna, 1978). There is therefore strong evidence that direct experience strengthens the attitude-behaviour relationship.
Attitude accessibility, stability and strength have also been found to affect this relationship. Fazio & Williams (1986) found that people who responded quicker when evaluating presidential candidates (attitude accessibility measure) voted more consistently with their attitudes. Similarly it has been shown that greater attitude stability (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and self-report measures of attitude strength (Fazio & Zanna, 1978) both correlate with greater attitude-behaviour consistency. However, it should be noted that all three of the above concepts are very closely related. It may be that they are all tapping a feature of attitudes that could be captured on a single dimension. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that they are all necessary consequences of direct experience. That is, as the degree of direct experience increases so does the degree of attitude accessibility (Fazio et al., 1982), stability (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and strength (Fazio & Zanna, 1978). It therefore seems that not only do these three attitudinal variables overlap but that they could potentially be subsumed by the situational variable of direct experience.
There are also further possible links between the various moderators of attitude-behaviour relations. For example, Kardes et al. (1986) suggest that the personal trait of low self-monitoring might be linked to a greater degree of attitude accessibility. In addition, there is a question as to whether the above list of factors is sufficient to explain all of the variability in attitude-behaviour consistency (Ajzen, 1991). These are clearly important issues for empirical work that seeks to isolate determinants of the attitude-behaviour relationship. If the various factors exist in a synergistic network then isolating a single variable becomes problematic. One way in which future research might tackle this is to simultaneously manipulate personal, situational and attitudinal variables whilst recording the resultant attitude-behaviour consistency. Factor analysis could then be conducted to establish how many factors are needed in order to explain all of the variability in the data. For example, if only two factors were sufficient to explain variability then this might suggest that attitudinal variables should be absorbed into situational variables.
Some consideration should also be given to the attempts to draw all of the above variables into a consistent model of how attitudes determine behaviour. Ajzen’s (1988) Theory of Planned Behaviour introduces the concepts of subjective norms and perceived behavioural control as joint determinants of behaviour alongside attitudes. Whilst the model does seem to capture personal, situational and attitudinal factors it rests on the assumption that that effortful reasoning is always implicated in attitude-behaviour relations and that unconscious motivational processes do not play an important role (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). This means that it fails to fully explain more automatic or instinctive behaviour. Fazio’s (1990) Motivation and Opportunity as Determinants of Processing Theory (MODE) provides a parsimonious and intuitive solution to this problem. The theory dictates that effortful reasoning sometimes mediates attitude-behaviour relations but only when both motivation and opportunity are present. In other cases a more spontaneous and automatic process is proposed (Fazio, 1986). As well as accounting for automatic behaviour the theory also has strong empirical support. By manipulating motivation and opportunity in a lab setting Sanbonmatsu & Fazio (1990) were able to demonstrate that these factors determine whether or not effortful reasoning mediates the effects of attitudes on behaviour.
In conclusion, it can be demonstrated that a whole host of variables moderate attitude-behaviour relations. Aggregations across behaviours, the specificity of attitude and behaviour measurement, individual differences (personal variables) and direct experience (situational variables) all have observable effects on the consistency between behaviour and underlying attitudes. Attitude accessibility, stability and strength have also been observed to have an effect but it is likely that these factors are simply consequences of direct experience. In addition the above variables may not constitute a complete list. That is, future work may expose further processes that mediate attitude-behaviour relations. Finally, the theory that best integrates all of these factors is the MODE model proposed by Fazio (1990).
References
Ajzen, I. (1988) Attitudes, personality and behaviour, Chicago: Dorsey
Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behaviour, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fazio, R. H. (1986) How do attitudes guide behaviour?, in Sorrentino, R. M. & Higgins, E. T. (eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behaviour (pp. 204-243), New York: Guilford Press.
Fazio, R. H. (1990) Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behaviour: The MODE model as an integrative framework, in Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109), San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fazio, R. H., Chen, J., McDonel, E. C. & Sherman, S. J. (1982) Attitude accessibility, attitude behaviour consistency and the strength of the object-evaluation association Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 339-357.
Fazio, R. H. & Williams, C. J. (1986) Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behaviour relationships: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 398-408.
Fazio, R. H. & Zanna, M. P. (1978) On the predictive value of attitudes The roles of direct experience and confidence, Journal of Personality, 46, 28-243.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1974) Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioural criteria, Psychological Review, 81, 59-74.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kardes, F. R., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Voss, R. T. & Fazio, R. H. (1986) Self-monitoring and attitude accessibility, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 468-474.
LaPierre, R. T. (1934) Attitudes vs. actions, Social Forces, 13, 230-237.
Regan, D. T. & Fazio, R. H. (1977) On the consistency between attitudes and behaviour: Look to the method of attitude formation, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 28-45.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M. & Fazio, R. H. (1990) The role of attitudes in memory-based decision making, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 614-622.
Snyder, M. (1974) Self-monitoring of expressive behaviour, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Snyder, M. & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1976) When actions reflect attitudes: The politics of impression management, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1034-1042.
Weigel, R. H. & Newman, L. S. (1976) Increasing attitude-behaviour correspondence by broadening the scope of the behavioural measure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 793-802.
Wicker, A. W. (1969) Attitude versus action: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioural responses to attitude objects, Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 41-78.