Características del manual de prácticas de laboratorio

Proposed in 1975 by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the TRA model originated from social psychology which was concerned with the determinants of consciously intended behaviours and has been widely studied since its conception (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989, 983; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). TRA could help to predict, explain, and possibly influence human behaviours (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, 10).

TRA sees human beings as rational individuals, whose behaviour is conscious and voluntary. There are two main assumptions underlying TRA in relation to their behaviour and the use of information available to them (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, 5):

(a) Most actions of social relevance are under volitional (self) control.

(b) A person’s intention to perform (or not to perform) a specific behaviour is the immediate determinant of the action.

39

There are four main factors in TRA framework: behaviour, intention, attitude, and subjective norm. According to the model, behaviour is determined by a person’s intention to perform that behaviour. That is, an individual’s performance of a specific behaviour is determined by his or her behavioural intentions, which themselves are jointly determined by individualattitudes (which are personal) and subjective norm (reflecting social influence). According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 302), subjective norm is “the person’s perception that most people who are important to him/her think he/she should or should not perform the behaviour in question”. Intention refers to the possibility of someone deciding to act in a certain way. Factors which influence intention are either internal or external. Internal factors are related to the personal attitude toward that behaviour, and external factors are from the social pressure, which is perceived when considering that behaviour. It is assumed that attitude and subjective norm are independent factors.

Attitude towards the behaviour is defined as “an individual’s generally positive or negative feeling (evaluative affect) about performing the target behaviour” (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, 216). Subjective norm is defined as “the person’s perception that most people who are important to him think he should or should not perform the behaviour in question” (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, 302). According to TRA, attitude towards behaviour is a function of the product of an individual’s belief about consequences of performing the behaviour multiplied by an assessment rating of the desirability of the consequences. Subjective norm is a function of the product of an individual’s normative belief, which is the “person’s belief that the salient referent thinks he should (or should not) perform the

40

behaviour” (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), and therefore becomes his/her motivation to comply with that recommendation.

In addition, the relative weights of the attitudinal and normative factors may vary from one person to another (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, 5-6). Moreover, according to TRA, personal attitudes are a function of beliefs, and an evaluation of personal situations. “Belief about consequences” refers to the individual’s subjective belief about the probability of consequences following certain behaviour. “Evaluation of consequences” refers to the individual’s evaluation of the above-mentioned outcomes. A person’s subjective norm is a function of normative beliefs, and motivation to comply (Figure 2.1) “Normative belief about person” is the individual’s belief about whether the important others in the group would assent to particular behaviours. “Motivation to comply with person” is the individual’s motivation to behave following the expectation of that certain group.

For example, to predict whether or not an individual member of the corporate customer’s buying centre will adopt IB (their actual behaviour), the

simplest approach is to ask him/her if he/she intends (their intention to adopt) to do

so. In their evaluation of whether to adopt IB, some individuals have a positive attitude (attitude toward IB) and others have a negative attitude towards adopting.

Moreover, these individuals may be influenced by people (subjective norm) who

are important to them, and whether these important people think they should adopt or not. Such people may include their family, friends, line managers, or colleagues.

41

2.4.1.1Limitations of TRA

Biddle and Mutrie (2008) concluded that: (1) TRA is a one-way model, without taking into account the possibility of interaction; (2) TRA emphasises only cognitive factors and ignores other potentially important variables, such as environment; (3) TRA only predicts new behaviour (the intention of behaviour at a certain moment) rather than habitual behaviours; (4) TRA explains only behaviour controlled by willingness; (5) There are yet no precise tools for the measurement of behaviours; (6) TRA focuses on individual behaviours, and fails to explain optional behaviours; (7) TRA fails to address the instability of intention, which may change from time to time.

weight weight Behavioural intention Actual behaviour Subjective norm Normative belief about person Motivation to comply with person

Evaluation of consequences Belief about consequences

Attitude

Figure 2.1: Theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975)

42

TRA is a powerful behavioural theory, attractive because it employs only a few variables to explain or predict human behaviour. Nonetheless, it does have limitations. The predictive and explanatory power of TRA will decrease in the following situations: (1) if the behaviour of an individual member of a corporate buying centre is influenced by involuntary acts, such as their skills, abilities, willpower, and variations in the opportunities open to them; (2) if the intention changes prior to performance; or (3) if the intention measure does not correspond to the behavioural criterion in terms of action, target, context, timeframe, and/or specificity (Ajzen 1985, 35; Sheppard, Hartwick, and Warshaw 1988, 325).

For example, many individuals state that they have a positive attitude toward adopting IB. Nevertheless, one who expresses an intention to adopt may not necessarily do so. The difference between attitude and actual behaviour in the adoption of IB may be the result of a lack of specificity in describing what happens, or because different criteria come into play when comparing personal and corporate accounts. TPB helps to handle some of the difficulties of TRA (Ajzen 1991).