Exploring Behavioral Intentions

Over the past year, I’ve dedicated time to studying the concepts behind behavioral intentions and how they influence human actions, especially in areas like technology adoption. This article is my contribution to the topic, pulling from key theories and research that have shaped our understanding of why people act the way they do.

Behavioral Intentions: The Driving Force Behind Actions

Human behavior is largely shaped by behavioral intentions, the choices we make are based on what we intend to do. As Kan and Fabrigar (2017) suggest, our intentions lead us to make decisions that avoid feeling conflicted, and we tend to act in a way that is consistent with our attitudes (Festinger, 1962; Schiffman, Kanuk, and Das, 2006).

One of the most influential frameworks for understanding this is the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), introduced by Ajzen in 1985. Grounded in several psychological theories, TPB has become a key tool for predicting behavioral intentions in fields like technology adoption (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In fact, Davis (1989) built the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) on TPB, which later evolved into Venkatesh et al.'s (2003) Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), a widely accepted model for studying technology use and acceptance.

How Intentions Shape Behavior

According to TPB, human intentions are influenced by three core factors:

• Beliefs about the outcomes of a particular behavior.
• Beliefs about social expectations, or what we think others expect us to do.
• Beliefs about control, or our ability to carry out a certain behavior.

These beliefs form the foundation of our attitudes, which in turn shape our behavioral intentions. In TPB, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived control are the key predictors of intention, and it is intention that determines whether we will actually act. Interestingly, knowledge doesn’t play a significant role here. Instead, it’s what people believe, whether true or not, that influences behavior (Ajzen, 2020).

Bridging Intention and Action

A critical point in this theory is the role of control. As Bandura (1977) highlighted, having control is essential for translating intentions into actual behavior. This is why TPB argues that no other factors are necessary to predict behavior as long as the right beliefs, attitudes, and control are in place, a concept known as the “assumption of sufficiency.”

The Power of Beliefs

Ultimately, beliefs are what drive our actions. Our attitudes, learned tendencies influenced by values, culture, and social norms, determine how we approach situations (Schiffman, Kanuk, & Das, 2006). As Ajzen (2020) concluded, the more favorable the attitude and social norms, and the greater the perceived control, the stronger our intention to follow through when the opportunity arises.

This is a brief overview of some of the most important insights I’ve gathered during my research into behavioral intention theories.

How have you seen these concepts play out in your own experiences?

What do you think?

The article was originally published in separate post here:

• https://www.gluxmarketing.com/strategic_marketing/consumer-planned-behavior/
• https://www.gluxmarketing.com/strategic_marketing/are-consumer-choices-rational/
• https://www.gluxmarketing.com/strategic_marketing/where-do-consumers-look-first/

References:

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–21?

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.?

Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.?

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.?

Kan, M. P., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2017). Theory of planned behavior. In Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. 1-8).?

Schiffman, L.G., Kanuk, L. L., & Das, M. (2006). Consumer behavior. Pearson Prentice Hall.?

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425.?

Venkatesh, V., Davis, F., & Morris, M. (2007). Dead or alive? The development, trajectory, and future of technology adoption research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 267-286.