TOTAL ANUAL

As Ajzen (1991) pointed out, predicting human behaviour is a difficult task. It involves the consideration of many psychological and social complexities. However, it is important to understand the key aspects of human behaviour because adoption of technology is a social subject as much as it is a technical one (Rogers, 1985). Hence it

Page | 31 was necessary for early researchers in social psychology to develop models that can predict it to a high degree of accuracy and consistency.

Although it was known that attitudes somehow affect human behaviour, conceptions of that time had to go under numerous reviews because they failed to underpin attitudes as a central device for explaining and predicting human behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). After realising the inconsistencies in literature, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) sought to develop a coherent and systematic conceptual model that was to be used in various studies of human behaviour. The focal point of this model was to introduce a distinction among four variables (beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behaviour) that were used interchangeably and to explain their unified relationship. To achieve this, the authors analysed and refined a model that was previously defined by Fishbein in 1967. The model depicted behavioural intention as the immediate indicators if an individual will overtly perform a certain behaviour (Davis, 1985). In more simplistic terms, a person’s behaviour to perform or not to perform an act can be accurately predicted if the intention to perform the act can be measured (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1969). Intention, in this respect, is defined as the amount of effort a person is willing exert to achieve a goal. If the measure of the intention exhibits a high score, the person is more likely to perform the act and when the score is low the person is less likely to perform the act (Ajzen, 1991).

The model further indicates that behavioural intention is a sum of two main normative variables, subjective norm and attitude. Subjective norm reflects the expectation of others (referents) on how an individual should behave i.e. either to perform or not perform an act. It is theorised as a function of the individual’s beliefs on whether the referents think that he or she should perform the act, the individual’s motivation to conform to the expectations and the number of these referents (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). While attitude reflects the individual’s level of favour towards such an act, according to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), a person will always hold beliefs about an object which is tied to certain attributes (e.g. other objects, goals, and characteristics). The evaluation of these attributes and the summation of his or her beliefs, will form the overall attitude towards the object.

Page | 32 The work by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) resulted in the development of the TRA as depicted in Figure 10(a) and its extension, the TPB in Figure 11(b). These two theories are the most cited in the study of information technology adoption and they are also antecedents of most models used in IS (Korpelainen, 2011).

Figure 10: Simplified Path Models for (a) TRA and (b) TPB

Source: Adapted from Madden, Allen and Ajzen (1992)

Ajzen (1985) extended the TRA to include perceived behavioural control as an exogenous variable with effects on both behavioural intention and behaviour to form the TPB. TRA was developed under the assumption that people always have full volitional control over the behaviour being studied (Madden, et al., 1992). Ajzen (1991) argues that although the measure of behavioural intention might be high because of attitude and subjective norms, the overt performance of the studied behaviour will be determined by the actual level of control the person has to willingly act or not to act. This control may be limited by non-motivational or external factors (e.g. availability of resources and opportunities). Hence the effect (dotted line) of perceived behavioural control over behaviour. However, the effect of perceived behavioural control over behavioural intention is influenced by the perceived level of control, because the more people believe they have the necessary control to perform a behaviour, the higher the intentions will be (Ajzen, 1985).

Page | 33 A comparison test of the two theories by Madden, et al., (1992) yielded that both models can accurately predict behaviour provided that the subjects have full volitional control over the target behaviour. But when the control was limited, TRA was found to be inferior and TPB recorded on average more variations of behavioural intention than TRA. This was to attest that the addition of separate belief measurement to the original TRA can improve its accuracy. Furthermore, Madden, et al., (1992) also posit that in other settings, it may be beneficial to improve the level of control in order to influence the behaviour rather than focus on attitude and subjective norm. Although TRA and TPB has been widely accepted and used in many fields of study, Ajzen and Fishbein (2005) concede that there are some concerns raised about the accuracy of the models. The models do not adequately cater for other irrational and non-cognitive determinants of human behaviour like emotions and compulsions. Consequently, people can provide different responses depending on their current moods (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005).