A N A P P L I C A T I O N OF F I S H B E I N ' S B E H A V I O R A L I N T E N T I O N M O D E L
EATING AT FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS:
A T H E S IS S U B M I T T E D TO T H E D E P A R T M E N T OF M A N A G E M E N T A N D T H E I N S T I T U T E OF B U S I N E S S A D M I N I S T R A T I O N OF B I L K E N T U N I V E R S I T Y IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R THE D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF B U S I N E S S A D M I N I S T R A T I O N By M U R A T Y A Z I C I O G L U FEBRUARY, 1992
ß h í x
η ÍJ
I c e r t i f y th a t I h a v e r ead this the s i s and in my o p i n i o n it is fu l l y adequate, in s c o p e and in quality, as a thes i s for t h e D e g r e e of M a s t e r of B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
Assist. Prof. G u l n u r M u r a d o g l u Sengul (Chairperson)
I c e r t i f y th a t I h a v e r e a d this th e s i s and in m y o p i n i o n it is f u l l y adequate, in s c o p e and in quality, as a the s i s for t he D e g r e e of M a s t e r of B u s i n e s s A d m i n i str ation .
Assist. Prof. N e e l a m K inr a
________il. ________
I c e r t i f y th a t I h a v e r ead t his t h e s i s and in m y o p i n i o n it is f u l l y adequate, in sco p e and in quality, as a thesis for t he D e g r e e of M a s t e r of B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
Assoc. Prof. Guliz Ger L
A p p r o v e d for the G r a d u a t e School of B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Prof. S u b i d e y T o g a n
I w o u l d like to e x p r e s s m y d eep g r a t i t u d e to m y t h e s i s s u p e r v i s o r Assoc. Prof. Guliz G er for h er p r e c i o u s a d v i c e s and h e r p a t i e n c e t h r o u g h o u t the p r e p a r a t i o n of this thesis. I w o u l d a l s o like to t h a n k m y i n s t r uctor s in t he t hesis c o m m i t t e e - Assist. Prof. G u l n u r M u r a d o g l u Seng ul and Assist. Prof. N e e l a m Kinra. Last, but not t he least, I w o u l d like to t h a n k m y friends N a z a n Ha yda ri and On u r A t t a r for t h e i r g r e a t h el p in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the ques t i o n n a i re s .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A N A P P L I C A T I O N OF F I S H B E I N ' S B E H A V I O R A L I N T E N T I O N M O D E L by
M U R A T Y A Z I C I O G L U M.B.A. T HESI S
Supervisor: Doc. Dr. GULIZ G E R
In t h i s st u d y F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l I n t e n t i o n M o d e l is a p p l i e d to B i l k e n t U n i v e r s i t y students' a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d e a t i n g at t h r ee d i f f e r e n t fast food r e s t a u r a n t s in A n k a r a in o r d e r t o a n a l y z e t h e i r i n t entions and b e h a v i o r s as c o n s u m e r s and re a c h i m p l i c a t i o n s for the s e r e s t a u r a n t s in a m a r k e t i n g context. The stu d y is b a s i c a l l y c o n d u c t e d t h r o u g h a s u r v e y w h i c h r e q u i r e d the c o m p l e t i o n of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e m a i n l y c o n s i s t i n g of q u e s t i o n s in L i k e r t and S e m a ntic D i f f e r e n t i a l format. The re s u l t s s how that in t e n t i o n s to v i s i t a p a r t i c u l a r fast food r e s t a u r a n t is m u c h m o r e in c o n t r o l of p e r s o n a l a t t i t u d e s w h i l e in v i s i t i n g f r e q u e n c y t he s u b j e c t i v e nor m s t e n d to g a i n m or e importance.
Ke y words: attitudes, b e h a v i o r a l int entio n
ABSTRACT
EATING AT FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS:
ÖZET
FISHBEIN DAVRANIŞ NlYETl METODUYLA BİR UYGULAMA
Murat Yazıcıoğlu İşletme Yüksek Lisans Tezi Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Güliz Ger
Bu çalışmada Bilkent üniversitesi öğrencilerinin Ankara’daki üç farklı "fast food restauranf'ta yemek yemek
ile ilgili tutumları, öğrencilerin bu konudaki niyet ve davranışlarını incelemek ve bu incelemelerin bu restaurantlar için anlamlarını belirlemek amacıyla Fishbein Davranış Niyeti Yöntemi ile araştırılmıştır. Çalışma, esas olarak, Likert ve Anlamsal Farklılık ölçekli sorulardan oluşan bir anketin cevaplandırılmasına dayanmaktadır. Sonuçlar belirli bir "fast food restauranf'a gitme niyetinin daha çok kişisel tutumların kontrolünde olmasına rağmen, restauranta gidiş sıklığında öznel ölçülerin önem kazandığını göstermiştir.
"FAST FOOD RESTAURANT"LARDA YEMEK YEMEK:
Page A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ... İİİ A B S T R A C T ...iv O Z E T ... . T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S ... vi L I S T OF F I G U R E S ... Vİİİ L I S T OF T A B L E S ... ix I . I N T R O D U C T I O N ... 1 1.1. I N T R O D U C T I O N TO T H E P R O B L E M A N D O B J E C T I V E S OF T H E S T U D Y ... 1 1.2. I N T R O D U C T I O N T O T H E M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D A N A L Y S I S _____2 1.3. O U T L I N E OF T H E T H E S I S ... 2 II. L I T E R A T U R E S U R V E Y ... 4 II. 1. I N T R O D U C T I O N ... 4 II. 2. T H E O R I E S IN A T T I T U D E R E S E A R C H ...6 1 1 . 2.1. T h e Str u c t u r a l A p p r o a c h ... 6 1 1 . 2.2. The F u n c t i o n a l A p p r o a c h ... 7 1 1 . 2.3. L e a r n i n g T h e o r i e s ...7 1 1 . 2.4. C o n s i s t e n c y T h e o r i e s ... 8 1 1 . 2.5. M u l t i a t t r i b u t e A p p r o a c h ... 9 1 1 . 2.6. C o n c l u s i o n s abo ut M u l t i a t t r i b u t e M o d e l s ... 18
I I . 3. A N O V E R V I E W OF S OME APPL ICA TIONS, P R O B L E M S A N D L I M I T A T I O N S OF F I S H B E I N ' S B E H A V I O R A L I N T E N T I O N M O D E L ... 19
1 1 . 4. M A R K E T I N G I M P L I C A T I O N S OF F I S H B E I N ' S B E H A V I O R A L I N T E N T I O N M O D E L ... 21 1 1 . 5. T H E S E R V IC E S M A R K E T I N G C O N C E P T A N D FAST FOOD R E S T A U R A N T S ... 2 3 III. M E T H O D O L O G Y ...26 III.l. P I L O T S T U D Y ... 26 III. 2. Q U E S T I O N N A I R E D E S I G N ... 29 I I I . 3. S A M P L I N G ...35 IV. A N A L Y S I S A N D R E S U L T S ... 37 IV. 1. D A T A P R O C E S S I N G A N D A N A L Y S I S ... 37 IV. 2. R E S U L T S ... 38 IV. 2.1. C o r r e l a t i o n A n a l y s i s ... 40 IV. 2.2. R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s ... 43 I V . 2.3. A n a l y s i s of the C o m p o n e n t s of the M o d e l ' s P r e d i c t o r V a r i a b l e s ... 47 V. C O NCLUSIONS, R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S AND L I M I T A T I O N S OF T H E S T U D Y ... 53 R E F E R E N C E S ... 60 A P P E N D I C E S ... 63 I. S A M P L E SCAL E S FOR F I S H B E I N ' S B E H A V I O R A L I N T E N T I O N M O D E L ... 64 II. a. Q U E S T I O N N A I R E U S E D IN T H E S U R V E Y ... 65 Il.b. E N G L I S H T R A N S L A T I O N OF T HE Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ... 73 V l l
Fig. I I . 1. Fig. I I . 2. Fig. I I . 3. Fig. I I . 4. Fig. I I . 5. T h e T r i p a r t i t e V i e w of A t t i t u d e s ... 6 S c h e m a t i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of H e i d e r ' s B a l a n c e T h e o r y ... 8 Four P o s s i b l e B a l a n c e d C o n f i g u r a t i o n s ... 9 T he U n i d i m e n s i o n a l V i e w of A t t i t u d e s ...11 S c h e m a t i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l I n t e n t i o n M o d e l ... 14
LIST OF FIGURES
VlllT a b l e III.l. T a b l e I I I . 2 T a b l e I I I . 3 T a b l e I I I . 4. T a b l e I V . 1, T a b l e I V . 2. T a b l e I V . 3. T a b l e I V . 4. T a b l e I V . 5. T a b l e I V . 6. Page F r e q u e n c y of M e n t i o n s of Restaurants, Be l i e f s and S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r s ... 28 C o m p a r i s o n of the Fin d i n g s a b o u t I m p o rt ant A t t r i b u t e s in D i f f e r e n t S t u d i e s ... 32 Sa m pl e s F r o m The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e of a
Si m il a r S t u d y ... 34 Some D e s c r i p t i v e S tat i s t i c s a b o u t the
S t ud e nt s W h o P a r t i c i p a t e d in the Fast
Food R e s t a u r a n t S u r v e y ... 36 C o m p a r i s o n Of M e a n Scores of V a r i a b l e s
for E ach R e s t a u r a n t ... 39 C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i c e s for Each R e s t a u r a n t .... 39 M e a n B el i e f (b) Scores for Each R e s t a u r a n t ..48 M e a n E v a l u a t i o n (e) Scores for Each
R e s t a u r a n t ... 48 (b*e) Scores for Each R e s t a u r a n t ... 51 M e a n Scores of N o r m a t i v e Be li e f s and
M e a n M o t i v a t i o n to C o m p l y S c o r e ... 51
LIST OF TABLES
I .I N T R O D U C T I O N
I.l. I N T R O D U C T I O N TO T H E P R O B L E M A N D O B J E C T I V E S OF T HE STUDY T h e m a j o r goal of c o n s u m e r r e s e a r c h is to u n d e r s t a n d the b e h a v i o r of the c o n s u m e r s so as to come u p w i t h e f f e c t i v e m a r k e t i n g decisions. In ord e r to r e a c h t his aim, one of the m o s t i m po r t a n t topics in the s t ud y of c o n s u m e r b e h a v i o r has b e en the c o n c e p t of " a t t i t u d e s ” (Wilkie, 1986). M a r k e t i n g m a n a g e r s and oth e r a p p l i e d r e s e a r c h e r s u se the a t t i t u d e c o n c e p t b ec a u s e of its a s s u m e d cau sal i n flue nce on b e h a v i o r (Lutz, 1981). M a n y m a n a g e r s spe n d c o n s i d e r a b l e a mo u n t s of m o n e y and e f f o r t in order to lea rn consumers' a t t i t u d e s to w a r d s p r o d u c t s and brands, so t h a t t h e y can try to i n f l u e nc e th e i r b e h a v i o r (Peter and O l s o n 1987) . T h e s e e ff o r t s r el y on the a s s u m p t i o n that a t t i t u d e s lead behavior, l im i t a t i o n s and r e g u i r e m e n t s for w h i c h wil l be d i s c u s s e d in the ne x t chapter. A l t h o u g h t h ere h a v e be e n some r e s e a r c h e s t h a t fa i l e d to v e r i f y this rel a t i o n b o t h in p s y c h o l o g y and marketing, the m o r e r e c e n t studies. e s p e c i a l l y in the last two decades. h a v e beg u n to i n v e s t i g a t e t h e a t t i t u d e - b e h a v i o r r e l a t i o n s h i p m o r e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y (Lutz, 1981).
T h e " attitudes" r e s e a r c h is a p p l i c a b l e not o nl y to p r o d u c t s and brands, but to the stor es as well. In this s tu d y "the fast food r e s t a u r a n t s in Ank ara" has b ee n c h o s e n as the r e s e a r c h subject, as t his is a r a p i d l y d e v e l o p i n g area in Turkey, e s p e c i a l l y amo n g the y o u t h market. In
i) e x p l o r e t h e a t t i t u d e s of B i l k e n t st u d e n t s tow a r d s g o i n g to d i f f e r e n t fast food r e s t a u r a n t s in Ankara,
ii) m a k e c o m p a r i s o n s amo n g and s u g g e s t i o n s for t h e s e r e s t a u r a n t s in the light of the findings.
particular, this study aims to:
1.2. I N T R O D U C T I O N TO T H E M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D A N A L Y S I S
T h e sur ve y m e t h o d o l o g y is a p p l i e d in this study. C o n s t r u c t i o n of the sur v e y c o n s i s t e d of two steps: 1)P ilot study, and 2)Q u e s t i o n n a i r e development. T h e first step c o n s i s t e d of f a c e - t o - f a c e int e r vie ws w i t h B i l k e n t s t u d ents in o r d e r to re ve a l t h e s a l i e n t b el i e f s a b o ut g o i n g to fast food r e s taurants. In the sec o n d step the f in d i n g s from the p i l o t s t u d y w e r e u t i l i z e d in o r der to c o n s t r u c t the s u r v e y to m e a s u r e the a t t i t u d e s and intentions. Data w e r e c o l l e c t e d f r om a s am p l e of B i l k e n t s t u d ents and w e r e a n a l y z e d by m u l t i p l e regression. The g u a n t i t a t i v e r esu l t s w e r e t h e n a n a l y z e d in o r d e r to re a c h to m o r e g u a l i t a t i v e implications.
F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l I n t e n t i o n Mod e l w i l l be u t i l i z e d in this study, r e a s o n s for w h i c h are p r e s e n t e d in the f o l l o w i n g chapter.
1.3. O U T L I N E OF T H E T H E S I S
C h a p t e r II c on t a i n s a s u r v e y of lit e r a t u r e on the subject. In this chapter, the r e l e v a n t t e r m i n o l o g y is presented, w h i c h is fo l l o w e d by the p r e s e n t a t i o n of v a r i o u s a t t i t u d e theories, g i v i n g m a j o r em ph a s i s to F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l I n t e n t i o n M o d e l and its r e l a t i o n s w i t h c o n s u m e r research. Finally, some r e s e a r c h e s m a d e by u s i n g the model
are reviewed. In C h a p t e r III, the m e t h o d o l o g y tha t w as used in t his study, p r e p a r a t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n of the s ur v e y are p r e s e n t e d in detail. In C h a p t e r IV, dat a processing, findings, analyses, r e s u l t s and imp l i c a t i o n s are presented. Finally, C h a p t e r V c o n t a i n s the conclusions, r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s and l i m i t at i o ns of the study.
II. L I T E R A T U R E S URVEY
I I .1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
In the p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r the imp o r t a n c e of the a t t i t u d e c o n c e p t for m a r k e t i n g was b r i e f l y mentioned. In C h a p t e r II the r e l a t e d co n c e p t u a l definitions, the t h e o r e t i c a l bases, a n d m a r k e t i n g i m pl i c a t i o n s will be presented, e m p h a s i z i n g the m o d e l u s e d in this study. Some a p p l i c a t i o n s in l i te r a t u r e w i l l also be mentioned.
A t t i t u d e s ha v e b een one of the m o s t s t u d i e d subjects sin ce t h e t u r n of the century, t h e r e f o r e the n u m b e r of its d e f i n i t i o n s is q u i t e huge. However, one of the m o s t p o p u l a r and a g r e e d d e f i n i t i o n s is t hat "att itu des are learned p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s to r es p o n d to an obj e c t or class of o b j ects in a c o n s i s t e n t l y f a vo r a b l e or u n f a v o r a b l e ma n n e r " (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
L i k e m a n y oth e r top i c s in c o n s u m e r behavior, the c o n c e p t of a t t i t u d e s has its roots in social psychology. A t t i t u d e has be e n c a l l e d "the m o s t d i s t i n c t i v e and i n d i s p e n s a b l e c o n c e p t in c o n t e m p o r a r y A m e r i c a n social p s y c h o l o g y " by A l l p o r t (1935). F is h b e i n (1967) states that A l l p o r t ' s w o r d s are t rue t o d a y as t hey w e r e in 1935.
A t t his p o i n t some oth e r r e l e v e n t terms like "belief", " b eh a v i o r a l intention", and "behavior" s ho u l d be c l a r i f i e d as t h e y are not o n l y fu n d a m e n tal te r m s in F i s h b e i n ' s a p p r o a c h w h i c h wi l l be u t i l i z e d in this study, but are also i m p o r t a n t in the stud y of attitudes.
d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n " b e l i e f s ” and "attitudes". B e l i e f s are the o r g a n i z e d p a t t e r n s of cognitions, the k n o w l e d g e the ind iv i d u a l h o l ds to be t rue a b out some asp e c t of h i s / h e r world. It is w h a t a p e r s o n k n ows ab out some o b j e c t (Robertson et al, 1984). Beliefs, as F i s h b e i n and A j z e n (1975) state, "re p r es e n t the i n f orm ati on a p e r s o n has about an object. A b e l i e f links an ob j ect to some attribute".
A c c o r d i n g to F i s h b e i n and A j z e n (1975), w i t h r e s p e c t to any o b j e c t - a t t r i b u t e association, p e o p l e m a y d i f f e r in t he i r "belief strengths". T h e s e s chol ars r e c o m m e n d that b el i e f s t r e n g t h be m e a s u r e d by a p r o c e d u r e t h a t pl a c e s the s ub j e c t a l o n g a d i m e n s i o n of s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y i nv o l v i n g an obj e c t and some r e l a t e d attribute. T he m o s t c o m m o n w a y for t his is to u s e Lik e r t t yp e b i p o l a r scales w h e r e the s ub j ec t s can s h o w the ir beli ef s t r e n g t h s by m a r k i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e n u m b e r on the scale. "Behavioral intent i o n s " r e f e r to a p e r s o n ' s i n t enti ons to p e r f o r m v a r i o u s behaviors. T h e y m a y be v i e w e d as a s pecial form of b e l i e f s in w h i c h the obj e c t is alwa ys the p e r s o n a nd the a t t r i b u t e is al w ay s a b e h a v i o r (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). T he m e a s u r e m e n t m e t h o d is the same as p r o p o s e d above. By the t e r m "behavior" F i s h b e i n and A j z e n ref e r to "ob s e r v a b l e acts t ha t are s t ud i e d in t h e i r own right".
A f t e r h a v i n g p r o v i d e d the ess e n t i a l definitions, v a r i o u s t h e o r i e s in the field w ill be p r e s e n t e d in the next section.
II.2. THEORIES IN ATTITUDE RESEARCH
The d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s to the a t t i t u d e con c e p t can be v i e w e d in five b r o a d categories, namely:
- S t r u c t u r a l a p p r o a c h - F u n c t i o n a l a p p r o a c h - L e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s - C o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r i e s - M u l t i a t t r i b u t e a p p r o a c h
Let us now e x a m i n e these approaches, g i v i n g m a j o r e m p h a s i s to our m a i n subject. M u l t i a t t r i b u t e Approach.
I I . 2.1. T he S t r u ct u r a l A p p r o a c h
T his approach, also ca l l e d the " t r i pa rti te m o del of atti t u d e " c o n c e p t u a l i z e s a t t i t u de s as c o n s i s t i n g of t h r e e s ep a r a t e components, w h i c h are ; the c o g n i t i v e component, the a f f e c t i v e (evaluative) component, and the c o n a t i v e (behavioral) c o m p o n e n t (Engel et al, 1986; P e ter and Olson, 1987; R u n y o n and Stewart, 1987; Wilkie, 1986) (Fig I I . 1). The c o g n i t i v e c o m p o n e n t c o n t a i n s the knowledge, b elief s and o pi n i o n s the p e r s o n has abo u t the a t t i t u d e object, the a f f e c t i v e c o m p o n e n t r e f l e c t s the feelings, e v a l u a t i o n s or e m o t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the a t t i t u d e object, and the c o n a t i v e c o m p o n e n t re f l e c t s b e h a v i o r a l t e n d e n c i e s ( W i lkie ,1986).
T h i s a p p r o a c h s t rives to k n o w w h a t fun c t i o n s an a t t i t u d e ser v e s for the individual. If it serves no f u n ction at all, it c e a s e s to exist (Robertson et al, 1984). Katz has c a t e g o r i z e d four bas i c func t i o ns that a t t i t u d e s serve
(Robertson et al, 1984; W i l k i e 1986):
i) T h e u t i l i t a r i a n funct i o n w h i c h r eq u i r e s th a t i nd ividuals try to k e e p p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s tow ard s tho s e ob j e c t s w h i c h p r o v i d e a reward, and a v oid tho s e w h i c h p r o v i d e punishment. ii) T h e v a l u e e x p r e s s i v e funct i o n w h i c h all o w s s t r o n g l y h e l d p e r s o n a l va l u e s to be e x p r e s s e d in behavior.
iii) The ego d e f e n s i v e f u n c t i o n w h i c h i nv olv es p r o t e c t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l s egos f rom t h r e a t s to t h e i r self id ent ities and f e e l i n gs of p e r s o n a l worth.
iv) T h e k n o w l e d g e f u n c t i o n w h i c h h e lp s to s i m p l i f y and cope w i t h a c o m p l e x w o r l d by categorization.
II.2.2. The Functional Approach
I I . 2.3. L e a r n i n g T h e o r i e s
F i s h b e i n and A j z e n (1975) state t ha t m o s t lea rning t h e o r i e s of a t t i t u d e are c o n c e r n e d w i t h the way s in w h i c h a t t i t u d e s are acquired. T h e y note that the m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t t h e o r i e s in t his a rea are c l a s s i c al c o n d i t i o n i n g (Doob, and Sta a t s and Sta a ts in F i s h b e i n and Ajzen, 1975) and i n s t r u m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n i n g (Lott and Lott, in F i s h b e i n and Ajzen, 1975). F i s h b e i n and A j z e n state t h a t a c c o r d i n g to Lot t and Lott a p e r s o n w h o e x p e r i e n c e s r e i n f o r c e m e n t or r e w a r d for some b e h a v i o r will rea ct to the reward, i.e. will p e r f o r m some o b s e r v a b l e or co v e r t goal response, and that
t his c o v e r t goal is oft e n vi e w e d as an attitude. F i s h b e i n ' s initial m u l t i a t t r i b u t e model w h i c h will also be m e n t i o n e d later, is a lso c o n s i d e r e d to h ave its root s in the learning t h e o r i e s (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Lutz, 1981).
I I . 2.4. C o n s i s t e n c y The o r i e s
T his class of s i milar t h e ori es c ons i s t of H e i d e r ' s B a l a n c e Theory, O s go o d and T a n n e n b a u m ' s C o n g r u i t y Theory, and F e s t i n g e r ' s C o g n i t i v e D i s s o n a c e T h e o r y (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975: Lutz, 1981).
i) B a l a n c e Theory: Ba l a n c e T h e o r y h y p o t h e s i z e s that an i nd i vidual seeks to a c h i e v e a b a l a n c e d c o n f i g u r a t i o n a mong the c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e eleme nts of a t t i t u d e (Lutz, 1981). A c c o r d i n g to Heider, the v al e n c e of an a t t i t u d e (p-o) can be p r e d i c t e d by the v a l e n c e s of the p -x and o-x links
(Fig I I . 2 and Fig I I . 3). B e c a u s e the ind ividual is m o t i v a t e d to a c h i e v e a b a l a n c e d state, the p-o va l e n c e is d e t e r m i n e d by the a l g e b r a i c m u l t i p l i c a t i o n of the other two v a l e n c e s An u n b a l a n c e d state leads to a tt i t u d e c han g e (Lutz,1981; W i l k i e , 1986).
O The Attitude O bject The Person' P
‘ X A Related O bject. Person, Attribute, or Consequence
Fig. I I . 2 S c h e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of H e i d e r ' s B a lan ce t h e o r y (Lutz, 1981).
o o o o
Fig I I . 3 Four p o s s i b l e b a l a n c e d c o n f i g u r a t i o n s (Lutz, 1981)
ii) C o n g r u i t y Theory: C o n g r u i t y Theo r y is q u i t e si m i l a r to H o l d e r ' s Ba l a n c e T h e o r y in that its a s s e r t i o n s are q u alitative, but p's a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d o and x are n o w g i v e n q u a n t i t a t i v e va lu e s (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
iii) C o g n i t i v e D i s s o n a n c e Theory: This t heo r y , c o n s i d e r i n g each p e r s o n has m a n y c o g n i t i o n s about h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f , the d e c i s i o n s that he / s h e makes, and other people, p r o p o s e s that if any two c o g n i t i o n s are r e l a t e d they are eit her c o n s o n a n t or dissonant. A c c o r d i n g to the the o r y the d i s s o n a n c e can occ u r aft e r a ch o i c e has been made, and t hat w o u l d put the p e r s o n in a sta t e of p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s c o m f o r t and act in ord e r to re d u c e the am o u n t of d i s s o n a n c e (Wilkie, 1986) .
I I . 2.5. M u l t i a t t r i b u t e A p p r o a c h
M u l t i a t t r i b u t e M o d e l s one of w h i c h will be u t i l i z e d in this study, h ave been first i n t rod uced to the b e a v ioral s ci e n c e s in 1 9 5 0 's. T his i n t r o d u c tion led m a n y n ew t h e o r i e s to follow. A v er y b a s i c formula for a m u l t i a t t r i b u t e m odel can be show n as:
n *ijK ' i?i w h e r e i = a t ri b u t e j=o b je c t k = s u b j e c t A = s u b j e c t k's a t t i t u d e score for o bj e c t j.
I=the e v a l u a t i o n or imp o r t a nce rati n g g i ve n a t t r i b u t e i by s u bj e ct k.
B = s u b j e c t k's belief abo u t a g i v en a t t r i b u t e of o bject j
F r o m a m a r k e t i n g poi n t of v i e w the ob j e c t can be v i e w e d as the p r o d u c t (or brand, store, etc.)» and the sub j e c t as the c o n s u m e r .
M a n y m u l t i a t t r i b u t e mo d e l s have been d e v e l o p e d until now. Some m o s t s ig n i f i c a n t ones are p r e s e n t e d below.
1) R o s e n b e r g ' s I n s t r u m e n t a l i t y - V a l u e Model
T his m o d e l w h i c h is a m ong the first as a m u l t i a t t r i b u t e model, can be e x p r e s s e d as
N
A =
2
I; *Va1^1 1 1
w h e r e A = t h e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d some obje ct
I=the p e r c e i v e d instrumentality, the ext ent to w h i c h the pe r so n b e l i e v e s that the obj ect will lead to or blo c k the a t t a i n m e n t of v alue i
V = v a l u e i m p o r t a n c e ,the v a l u e of i's i m p o rta nce to the r e s p o n d e n t as a source of s a t i s f a c t i o n
N = n u m b e r of va l u e s (Cohen, F ishbe in and Ahtola, 1972)
2) F i s h b e i n ' s A t t i t u d e M odel
F i s h b e i n ' s first model, p r o p o s e d in 1963, has its roots in the learni n g school of attitudes. F i s h b e i n and A j z e n (1975) stat e that a c c o r d i n g to learning t h e o r i e s w h e n e v e r a b el i e f is formed an e v a l u a t i o n becomes c o n d i t i o n e d to the s t i m u l u s ob j e c t and t hat this causes an a t t i t u d e to emerge, w h i c h shows t hat a t t i t u d e to w a r d an objec t is r e l a t e d to the b e l i e f s a bo u t the object. They argue that this r e l a t i o n s h i p c o n s t i t u t e s an e xp l i c i t p art of F i shb ein's A t t i t u d e Model. F i s h b e i n has a u n i d i m e n s i o n a l v ie w of a t t i t u d e s in w h i c h c o g n i t i v e and c o n at i v e c o m p o n e n t s are p u l l e d out of the t r i p a r t i t e v i e w of a tt i t u d e s (Fig. I I . 4). This model a s s erts
t hat a p e r s o n ' s a t t i t u d e tow a r d any obje ct is a f unct ion of h i s / h e r b e l i e f s abou t the obj e c t and the implicit e v a l u a t i v e r e s p o n s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h ose beliefs, and the central e q u a t i o n of the th e o r y is e x p r e s s e d as:
A?
w h e r e A ^ t h e a t ti t ud e to w a r d some obj ect o
bf=the the belief about o, i.e. the s u b j e c t i v e ^ p r o b a b i l i t y that o is r e late d to a t t r i b u t e i
ept h e e v a l u a t i o n of a t t r i b u te i
n = n u m b e r of b e liefs (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)
Fig I I . 4. The u n i d i m e n s i o n a l i s t vi e w of a t t i t u d e s (Lutz, 1981)
3) Bass and T a l a r z y k ' s A d e q u a c y I m p ortan ce Mo del
In a re s e a r c h p a per Bass and T a l a r z y k (1972) have u t i l i z e d Fi s h b e i n ' s A t t i t u d e model w i th s ome w h a t d i f f e r e n t p r o x i e s to the components. T h e y argue that for the p u r p o s e s of the r e s e a r c h on that p a p e r the y r e p r e s e n t Fi shb ein's M o d e l as;
N
A= b ir-1 WtX *Bib
w h e r e Ag=the a t ti t u d e t o w a r d a p a r t i c u l a r a l t e r n a t i v e b Wj=the w e i g h t of imp o r t a n c e of a t t r i b u t e i
B ^ t h e e v a l u a t i v e aspect or belief tow a r d a t t r i b u t e i N = t h e num be r of a t t r i b u t e s important in the s e l e c t i o n
of a g i v e n b r a n d in the g iv e n p r o d u c t c a t e g o r y (Bass and Talarzyk, 1972)
H o w e v e r Cohen, F i s h b e i n and Aht o l a (1972) state that this is a m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of F is h b e i n ' s A t t i t u d e Model, and t hat in fact it is a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t m odel no t i n g that a t e r m c a l l e d "weight" nev e r a p p e a r e d in any of Fish b e i n ' s
writings. Bass and T a l a r z y k ' s model g a i n e d interest in c o n s u m e r r e s e a r c h m a i n l y b eca u s e their mod e l was s p e c i f i c a l l y d e v e l o p e d for this field.
4) F i s h b e i n ' s B eh a v i o r a l Inte n t i on Model
F i s h b e i n ' s A t t i t u d e Mod e l rec e i v e d gre a t inter est in social p s y c h o l o g y and other b e h a vio ral sci e n c e s i ncl uding c o n s u m e r behavior, but it suffered from b e i n g w e a k in b u i l d i n g up a link b e t w e en att i t u d e s and overt behavior. T h e r e f o r e a new model was p r o p o s e d by F i s h b e i n (1967). T his m o del had its t h e o r eti cal framework, n a m e l y The T h e o r y of R e a s o n e d Action, based on b e l i e f - a t t i t u d e - b e h a v i o r a l i n t e n t i o n - b e h a v i o r precedence.
T his mod e l was i n f luenced by D ul a n y ' s T h e o r y of P r o p o s i t i o n a l Control, w h i c h was d e v e l o p e d for the studies of ve r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g and co n c e p t at ta i n m e n t as to p r e d i c t the p r o b a b i l i t y wi t h w h i c h an ind ividual will m ake a p a r t i c u l a r ver b a l r e s p o n s e or class of r e s p ons es
( F i s h b e i n , 1967). D u la n y ' s t h e o r y co uld be ex pr e s s e d as; BI=[ (RHd) (A) ]Wq +[ (BH) (MC) ]w^
w h e r e B I = t h e s u bj e c t ' s i ntention to m ake a p a r t i c u l a r r es p o n s e or class of r e s po nses
R H d = t h e s u b je c t' s h y p o t h e s i s that the o c c u r e n c e of the p a r t i c u l a r r e s p o n s e will lead to a c e r t a i n e vent or class of events
A = t h e a f f e c t i v e v a l u e of the reinforcement, that is, the su b j e c t ' s e v a l u a t i o n s of events
B H = t h e s u bj e c t ' s " behavioral hypothesis", that is, h i s / h e r be l i e f as to w hat he is e x p e c t e d to do or w h at he sho u l d do in that s i t u a tio n
M C = t h e s u bj e c t ' s m o t i v a t i o n to c o m p l y , t hat is, h o w mu c h the s ub j e c t w a nts to do w h a t he bel i e v e s is e x p e c t e d from h im
Wq ,w^ =bet a w e i g h t s
b e h a v i o r as
]W
q+[ (NBp) (MCp) ]Wj +[ (NB^) (MC^) ]w^
w h e r e B = o v e r t b e h a v i o r
B I = b e h a v i o r a l intention
b j = b e l i e f stre n g t h s about c o n s e q u e n c e s from the b e h a v i o r e I = e v a l u a t i o n s of the s e c o n s e q u e n c e s
N B = n o r m a t i v e be l i e f s about p e r f o r m i n g the b e h a vior M C ^ m o t i v a t i o n to co m p l y w i t h the n o r m a t i v e beliefs. S u b s c r i p t s p and s refer to per s o n a l and social norms, respectively.
The p e r s o n a l norms (i.e. [ (NB ) (MC )]) par t w as later d e l e t e d from the model as "it appe a r e d tha t in m a n y s i t u a t i o n s the subje c t ' s report of his pers o n a l n o r m a t i v e be l i e f served m a i n l y as an a l t e r n a t i v e m e a s u r e of h i s / h e r b e h a v i o r a l inte nt i on and t h e r e f o re c on f u s e d rat h e r than c l a r i f y the model" (Fishbein, 1972). Thus, the final form of the F i s h b e i n ' s Beh a v i o r a l Inte n tion M od e l (also called F i s h b e i n ' s Ex t e n d e d Model) is e x p r esse d as
Bc.BI=(2b*e )Wo + (ZNB*MC)Vj
or
B « B I = (Aact) Wq+ (SN)w^
w h e r e A a c t = a t t i t u d e t ow a r d s p e r f o r m i n g the b e h a v i o r S N = s u b j e c t i v e norms about p e r f o r m i n g the b e h a vio r
T his a p p r o a c h can be s u m m a r i z e d as "Beh avi oral i n t e n t i o n is the c l os e s t p r e d i c t o r of the overt behavior, and it can be p r e d i c t e d by d e t e r m i n i n g the impacts of both a p e r s o n ' s a t t i t u d e to w ar d p e r f o r m i n g that b e h a v i o r and the social norms on the p e r s o n ' s p e r f o r m i n g that spe ci f i c b e h a v i o r " .
H u g h e s (1971) states that in a c o n s u m e r b e h a v i o r c on t e x t BI is the s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y of buying.
Intention Model can be illustrated by the figure below:
' Beliefs abbiif the consequences . from the behavior
Evaluations of Uhe consequences
-Beliefs about T .others' norms for , the behavior (N S ) I Motivations to I comply (AiC) norm (normative ^r;.J!TtentloS“io^;^ p ^ o r m the behavior-Extraneous j [ factors im pacting ^ performance | I Fig I I . 5. S c h e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of Fi sh b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l I n te n ti o n Model.
F i s h b e i n ' s B e h av i o r a l I n t e n tio n Mo del d i f f e r s from his A t t i t u d e s Mod el in three m ain aspects; first, it mov es one step cl o s e r to overt b e h a v i o r p r e d i c t i n g the beh avi o r a l int en t i o n s instead of attitudes, as it is h y p o t e s i z e d that b e h a v i o r a l int e n t io n s are the c l o sest p r e d i c t o r of behavior. Second, ra t he r t h a n i n c o r p o r a t i n g Ao (i.e. a t t i t u d e s t oward an object) it u ti l i z e s A a c t (i.e. a t t i t u d e s abo ut the b e h a v i o r s to w a r d the o b j e c t ) , c o n s i d e r i n g that w h a t aff ects the o v e r t b e h a v i o r is not e x a c tl y the ob j e c t itself, but r a t h e r the ou t c o m e s of b e h a v i o r tow ards the object. Third, it inclu d e s the s u b j e c t i v e norms to the model, bec a u s e w h i l e p e r f o r m i n g the b e h a v i o r the individual m i g h t not c o n s i d e r h i s / h e r own a tt i t u d e s only; o t her p e o p l e ' s view s might a ff e c t the behavior, too.
F i s h b e i n and A j z e n (1975) state that if b eha vi o r a l p r e d i c t i o n is the p r i m a r y objective, then the m o s t e f f i c i e n t way to re a c h this aim is to m e a s u r e the BI. On the other hand, if u n d e r s t a n d i n g the b e h a v i o r is the p r i m a r y objective, t hen the factors d e t e r m i n i n g the BI,i.e. Aa c t and SN, m u s t be specified.
Sa m p le scales s u g g e s t e d for use in m e a s u r e m e n t of the v a r i a b l e s of F i s h b e i n ' s Beh a v i o ral I n t ent ion Model are in A p p e n d i x I .
5) B e n t l e r and S p e c ka r t ' s G e n e r a l i z e d Path A n a l y t i c Model In a p a p e r p u b l i s h e d in 1979, Ben tle r and Sp eck a r t p r o p o s e d a m o del b u ilt on the v a r i a b l e s of Fish be i n ' s B e ha v i o r a l I n t en t io n Model, ad d i ng a p as t be ha v i o r v a r i a b l e and s u g g e s t e d that all the v a r i a b l e s have d i r e c t or in direct impact on overt behavior, w h i c h n a t u r a l l y req uires m o r e c o m p l e x s ta t i s t i c a l analyses.
6) W a r s h a w ' s Model
Bas e d on F i s hb e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l I n t entio n Model, W a r s h a w d e v e l o p e d a n o t h e r mod e l s p e c i f i c a l l y for p u r c h a s e b e h a viors w h i c h he s u m m a r i z e s as
Bly^BIyxBIyjy
w h e r e Bly is a p r o d u c t t ype intent, Blyjyis intent to buy bra nd y a s s u m i n g p u r c h a s e of p r o d u c t type Y, and Blyis the s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y of p e r f o r m i n g sp e c i f i c b e h a v i o r y
(Warshaw, 1980).
7) T r i a n d i s ' s Mod e l of I n t e r p e r s o n al B e h a vior
is a f u n c ti o n of
Pa=(Wj^*H + Wj*I)*P*F
w h e r e H = t h e h a b i t to act I=the inte nt i on to act
P = p h y s i o l o g i c a l state of the individual F=all f a c i l i t a t i n g condi t i ons
w = w e i g h t s a t t a c h e d to parameters. M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y I is a function of
I=Wc*S + w, *A +w^*C
A
w h e r e S = s o c ia l factors such as norms, roles, etc. A = t h e af fe c t w i t h r e spect to beha vior
C = p e r c e i v e d c o n s e q u e n c e s of beha vior w = w e i g h t s a t t a c h e d to p a r a me ters
C can f u r th e r be d e c o m p o s e d in C= Pcj*Vcj
w h e r e P c j = t h e s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y that a s p e ci fic c o n s e q u e n c e occurs after a s p ecifi c b e h a v i o r
V c j = t h e val u e of this c o n s e q u e n c e ( U p m e y e r and S i x , 1989)
8) H e w e s ' s A x i o m a t i c S t o c h a s t i c M odel
This p r o b a b i l i s t i c b e h a vi oral model has five variables. Be, b e h a v i o r expection, is a s u b j e c t i v e e s t i m a t e of the p r o b a b i l i t y that a p e r s o n will p e r f o r m one b e h a v i o r out of a set of b e h a v i o r s unde r a s p e c i f i e d set of conditions; v a r i a b l e S m e a s u r e s the st a b i l i t y of beh avi oral choices; v a r i a b l e C m e a s u r e s the effects of e n v i r o n m e n t al d e t e r m i n a n t s on b e h a v i o r a l expectations, v a r i a b l e M is a m a t r i x of d e t e r m i n i s t i c cons t a n t s c o n t r o l l i n g the d e g r e e to w h i c h c h a n ge s of b e h a v i o r or b e h avi or e x p e c t a t i o n s occur; and B is the p r o b a b i l i t y by w h i c h a p e r s o n wil l a c t u a l l y p e r f o r m a b e h a v i o r at a speci f i c time (Upmeyer and Six, 1989).
9) Faz i o and Zanna's P r ocess M odel
This model stres s e s the i nfluence of d i r e c t p e r c e p t i o n of an at t i t u d e obj e c t before a r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r is performed, that is only if the i n f o r matio n a t t a c h e d to an a t t i t u d e t o w a r d an object is accessible, one can e xpect a t t i t u d e to h a v e impact on behavior. Empirically, Fazio and Zanna a t t e m p t e d to focus the subje ct' s internal a t t e n t i o n on the m e m o r y c o n te n ts of the a t t i tude befo re they o b s e r v e d behavior. Furthermore, Fazio and Zanna h y p o t h e s i z e d that the a t t e n t i o n invoki n g pr ocess consi sts of three steps. First, the e v a l u a t i v e c a t e go r i e s a s s o c i a ted w it h the object m u s t be come salient. Second, these e v a lua tions are s u p p o r t e d by a d di t i o n a l information. Finally, a b eh a v i o r is ch o s e n that c o r r e s p o n d s to the e v a l u a t i o n s invoked (Upmeyer and S i x , 1989)
10) J a c c a r d ' s I d e og r a p h i c al B e h a v ior Model
J a c c a r d ' s Mod e l a p p l i e s to a situ a t i o n in w h i c h a p e r s o n can cho o s e b e t w e e n several types of behavior. Each b e h a v i o r ca r r i es a SEU (Subjective E x pecte d Utility) value d e f i n e d as:
SEU =IEij*Vj
w h e r e E^ = t h e s tr e n g t h of e x p e c t a t i o n by w h i c h b e h a v i o r i leads to o u tcome j
V j = t h e p e r s o n ' s v a l e n c e of out come j
A c c o r d i n g to the model the p er s o n w ill g iv e p r i o r i t y to the b e h a v i o r a tt a c h e d to the h i g h e s t SEU va l u e (Upmeyer and Six, 1989).
I I . 2.6. C O N C L U S I O N S A B O U T T H E M U L T I A T T R I B U T E M O D E L S
T h e m u l t i a t t r i b u t e mod e l s p r e s e n t e d above are not the o n l y ones in this field, but the y are some of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t ones. Naturally, the r e are b oth s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s a m o n g them. For e xa mple some of t h e m only a t t e m p t to a n al y z e atti t u d e s (like R o s e n b e r g ' s Model, and F i s h b e i n ' s A t t i t u d e M o d e l ) , some of t h e m a n a l y z e b e h a v i o r a l i n t e n t i o n s as a p r e d i c t o r of behavior, c o n s i d e r i n g a t t i t u d e s and some o t h e r factors as in d e p e nden t v a r i a b l e s of the model (like F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l Inte ntio n Model, and B e n t l e r and S p e c k a r t ' s M o d e l ) , and some try to re a c h to b e h a v i o r m o r e d i r e c t l y t a k i n g b e h a v i o r a l i n tentions and some other c o n c e p t s as in de p e n d e n t v a r i a b l es (like T r i a n d i s ' s M o d e l ) . A n o t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n amo n g the mo del s can be m a d e by a r g u i n g t h at some of the s e m o d e l s are p r o p o s e d s p e c i f i c a l l y for m a r k e t i n g p u r p o s e s (like Bass and Talarzyk's, and W a r s h a w ' s M o d e l s ) , w h i l e ot h e rs a p p l y to a w i d e r area.
M o s t of the m o d e l s t hat w e r e m e n t i o n e d a b ov e w e r e d e v e l o p e d a f t e r Fishbein's, eit h e r by add i n g v a r i a b l e s and m a k i n g c ha n g e s in the s t r u c t u r e of the model (e.g. B e n t l e r a nd S p e c k a r t ' s M o d e l ) , or m e r e l y showi ng influ ences of the m o d e l (e.g. W a r s h a w ' s M o d e l ) , or p r o p o s i n g a c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t m o d e l (e.g. H e w e s ' s A x i o m a t i c S t o c h a s t i c M o d e l ) . However, no m o d e l has b een a c c e p t e d as "the be s t one" in the literature.
T h e r e are v a r i o u s r e a s o n s for the c hoi c e of F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l I nt e n t i o n Mod e l amo n g the othe rs . Firs t of all, F i s h b e i n ' s M u l t i a t t r i b u t e Mod e l is one of the p i o n e e r i n g and
m o s t w i d e l y us e d mo d e l s in this field. It is m e n t i o n e d in v i r t u a l l y any c o n su m e r b e h a v i o r t e x t b o o k (for e x a m p l e A s s a e l , 1 9 87 ; Engel et al, 1986; P eter and Olson, 1987; R o b e r t s o n et al,1987, R u n y o n and Ste w a r t 1987; Wilkie, 1986), and t h e re are a lot of a rt i c l e s and a p p l i e d studies a b o u t the model. A n e x t e n s i v e m eta a na l y s i s by She p h e r d et al (1988) co ve r s 87 separ a t e stud ies of b e h a v i o r a l i n t e n t i o n - b e h a v i o r re l a t i o n s h i p and 87 sepa r a t e st udies of a t t i t u d e + s u b j e c t i v e n o r m - b e h a v i o r r e l a t i o n s h i p c o n d u c t e d by F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v io r al I ntention Mode l be tw e e n 1969 and 1985. Furthermore, a l t h o u g h other m ode l s have b ee n proposed, F i s h b e i n ' s B e ha v i o r a l Inte n t i o n Mod e l is still b e i n g r e g a r d e d and u s e d as a p r a c t i c a l tool in b e h a v i o r a l scie nces in q u i t e r e c e n t studies (for e xam p l e Ec hab e et al, 1988, M c C a u l et al, 1988).
I I . 3. A N O V E R V I E W OF SOME A PPLI CATIONS, P R O B L E M S A N D L I M I T A T I O N S O F F I S H B E I N ' S B E H A V I O R A L I N T E N T I O N M O D E L F i s h b e i n ' s B e h av i o r a l I n t e n t ion Mod el has found itself a w i d e a rea of a p p l i c a t i o n w h i c h includes c o n s u m e r behavior, p o l i t i c a l voting, d r u g and a l cohol use, fam ily planning, infant feeding, and h e a l t h b e h a v i o r s as R u t t e r and B unce (1989) report. The pa p e r by S h e p h e rd et al (1988) r e p o r t s of a c t i v i t i e s as d i v e r t as "eating an apple" and "pu r c h a s i n g a p a r t i c u l a r b ra n d of shampoo" all of w h i c h w e r e a n a l y z e d by F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l Inte n t i o n Model.
Some e x a m p l e s of s t udies by the model are s u m m a r i z e d below:
M c C a u l et al (1988) a n a l y z e d the den t a l h y g i e n e b e h a v i o r s of yo u n g adults u s i n g the model. T h e y found out t hat s u b j e c t i v e norms c o r r e l a t e d hig h e r w i t h b e h a v i o r a l i n te n t i o n s (0.54) in b r u s h i n g f re q u e n c y tha n a t t i t u d e s do (0.26) a n d the c o r r e l a t i o n of the intent ion w i t h b e h a v i o r to be 0.52. T h e y rep o r t that "the m o del a c c o u n t e d for a s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n of the v a r i e n c e in inten tio ns to b r u s h (r·^ =0.32)". Echabe et al (1988) , in a n o t h e r study, a p p l i e d the mod e l to v o t i n g b eha v i o r and found out c o r r e l a t i o n s of BI and B to be arou nd 0.80. An a p p l i c a t i o n on b l o o d d o n a t i o n sho w e d that a tt i t u d e s are m o r e s t r ongly r e l a t e d to b eh a v i o r and beh a v i o r a l i ntent ion than sub jec t i v e nor ms do in this type of b e h a v i o r (Warshaw et al, 1985).
As a v e r y clo se e x a m p l e for the study in this thesis, B r i n b e r g and D u r a n d (1983) have e x a m i n e d eati n g at fast food restaurants. In t hat r e s e a r c h the aut h o r s a p p l i e d F i s h b e i n a nd T r i a n d i s mo d e l s to the subject. U s i n g Fis hbe i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l I n te n t i o n M o d e l they o b t a i n e d beha v i o r a l i n t e n t i o n - b e h a v i o r c o r r e l a t i o n to be 0.41 w h i l e the m u l t i p l e r for the mod e l wa s 0.65. T h e i r m e t h o d o l o g y and re s u l t s will be c o m p a r e d to the study in this thesis in c h a p t e r s III and IV, respectively.
As one can notice, the r^'s of all t he a p p l i c a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d abo ve are b e l o w 0.50. This li mi t a t i o n can be r e g a r d e d as a p r o b l e m of not o nly F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l I n t e n t i o n M o d e l but also some o t her m o d e l s in this field. O ne i m p o r t an t r ea s o n for this is that the causal
r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r is som e t i m e s in the r e v e r s e direction, i.e. the a t t i t u d e s do not a lways p r e c e d e behavior, but some t i m es the p a s t b e h a v i o r can i n f l u e n c e attitudes. T his p h e n o m e n a is r e l a t e d w i t h the Self P e r c e p t i o n T h e o r y w h i c h as s e rts t ha t an i ndivi d u a l ' s j u dg e m e n t s of w h y and und e r w h i c h c o n d i t i o n s h e / s h e p e r f o r m e d a p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o r has eff e c t s on h i s / h e r attitudes. In fact B e n t l e r and S pe c k a r t , and T r i a n d i s have c o n s i d e r e d this in the i r models.
A n o t h e r p r o b l e m occurs due to e x t r a n e o u s events w h i c h are not found in the models' s tr u c t u r e and m i g h t c h ange f ro m s i t u a t i o n to s i t u a t i o n , and h e n c e d e c r e a s e the p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y of the model. On e ot h e r asp e c t to be m e n t i o n e d is t hat w h e n a t t e m p t i n g to re l a t e a t titu des to b e h a v i o r b ot h m e a s u r e s should be r e f i n e d in ter ms of specificity, i.e. g e neral a t t i t u des of an individ ual m i g h t not alw a y s r el a t e to speci f i c behaviors. T h e r e f o r e the findi n g s w o u l d be m o r e r e l i a b l e if b oth att i t u d e and b e h a v i o r c o r r e s p o n d to clo s e levels of specificity. (Ger, u n p u b l i s h e d l e cture n o t e s ) .
I I . 4. M A R K E T I N G I M P L I C A T I O N S OF F I S H B E I N ' S B E H A V I O R A L I N T E N T I O N M O D E L
W i l k i e and P e s s i m i e r (1973) state that the basic p u r p o s e of a m u l t i a t t r i b u t e m odel is to g ai n an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of p u r c h a s e p r e disposition.
The m u l t i a t t r i b u t e m o d e l s h a v e the f o l l o w i n g s t r a t e g i c i m p l i c a t i on s for the m a r k e t e r s (Assael, 1987):
-They a l l o w to identify the s t r e ng ths and w e a k n e s s e s of the c o m p a n y ' s b r a nd in r e l a t i o n to the competition,
-The y h e l p in d e t e r m i n i n g the n eed for p r o d u c t repositioning, -Th e y a l l o w to identify the d e t e r m i n a n t a t t r i b u t e s for s t r a t e g i c a d v e r t i s i n g purposes,
-The y h e l p in id e n ti f yi n g new p r od u c t opportunities.
A n u m b e r of str a t e g i e s can be a p p l i e d in order to c h a n g e the consumers' a t t i t u d e s w i t h i n the fra m e w o r k of F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a vi o ra l Inte n t i o n Model. T h e s e can be s u m m a r i z e d as (Lutz, 1981):
- c h a n g i n g the belief s t r e n g t h (b) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p e r c e i v e d consequence,
- ch a n g i n g the e v a l u a t i v e asp e c t (e) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p e r c e i v e d consequence,
- ma k i n g a p r e v i o u s l y n o n s a l i e n t c o n s e q u e n c e salient,
- c h a n g i n g the no r m a t i v e b e liefs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a referent, - c h a n g i n g the m o t i v a t i o n to co m p l y w i t h a referent,
- i n t r o d u c i n g a p r e v i o u s l y n o n s a l i e n t referent.
W h e n a t t e m p t i n g to change the c o n s u m e r s a t t i t u d e s a f t e r g a t h e r i n g in f or m a t i o n t h r o u g h m u l t i a t t r i b u t e m o d e l s one sh o u l d note t hat (Assael, 1987);
- a t t i t u d e s are ea si e r to ch a n g e t ha n needs,
- b el i e f s (b) are eas i e r to ch a n g e than e v a l u a t i o n s (e), - w ea k a t t i t u d e s are e a s i e r to ch a ng e t h an str ong ones,
- a tt i t u d e s h e l d by c o n s u m e r s w i t h less c o n f i d e n c e in b r a n d e v a l u a t i o n s are ea s ie r to change,
- a t t i t u d e s are ea s i e r to cha n ge whe n i n f o r m a t i o n is a m b i g u o u s ,
- a tt i t u d e s are ea s i er to ch a n g e whe n there is a low level of ego involvement,
- a t t i t u d e s are ea s i er to cha n g e w h e n t he y c o n f l i c t w i t h each o t h e r .
I I . 5. T H E S E R VI C E S M A R K E T I N G C O N C E P T A N D FAST FOOD R E S T A U R A N T S
The D i r e c t o r of C o n s u m er R e s e a r c h of a big i n t e r n a t i o n a l fast food r e s t a u r a n t chain, n a m e l y B ur g e r K i n g Corporation, states t hat w h a t a fast food r e s t a u r a n t offers to its c us t o m e r s is both a s erv ice and a p r o d u c t - a s u m m a t i o n of the c o n v e n i e n c e it offers to the con s u m e r in c a t e r i n g to h i s / h e r lifestyle and a total e x p e r i e n c e w h i c h st a r t s f rom the time h e / s h e enters the r e s t a u r a n t unt il the time h e / s h e leaves. She argues that this p h e n o m e n a includes the locati o n of the restaurants, the speed of service, the food one orders, the p r i c e h e / s h e p ays and the f r i e n d l i n e s s h e / s h e is sho w n (Fox and Wheatley, 1978)- in fact t hese s t a t e m e n t s c o n t a i n e n o u g h clues for one to g u ess w h a t c o n s e q u e n c e s t his stud y w ill be based on.
A m o n g t h es e consequences, location, s p eed of s e rvice and f r i e n d l i n e s s are r e l a t e d w i t h the service, the food one o rd e r s is r e l a t e d w i t h the goo d s offe r e d and the pri c e paid is r e l a t e d w i t h both.
As fast food r e s t a u r a n t s off er a great deal of ser vices to t h e i r c u s t o m e r s b e s i d e s the g o ods they sell, the s e r vices m a r k e t i n g c o n c e p t gai n s c o n s i d e r a b l e i m por tance for them.
S e r v i c es c o ns t r u c t a subset of the p r o d u c t concept. A p r o d u c t as K o t l e r (in Block et al, 1985) states, "is a n y t h i n g t hat can be of f e r e d to a m a r k e t for attention, acquisition, use or c o n s u m p t i o n that m i g h t sat i s f y a w a n t or need; inclu de s p hy s i c a l objects, services, persons, places, o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i d e a s ” . Services can fu rther be a n a l y z e d as " i n t a n g i b l e a c t i vi t i e s w h i c h p r o v i d e w a n t s a t i s f a c t i o n w h e n m a r k e t e d to cons u m e r s and w h i c h are not n e c e s s a r i l y t ied to the sale of a p r o d u c t or an o t h e r service" (Stanton, 1985).
S c h l e m s e e et al (in Blo c k et al,1985) argu e that t h r e e i m p o r t a n t factors e m e r g e d in their focus gro u p studies on i d e n t i f y i n g the k eys to suc c es sful ser v i c e s marketing, w h i c h t hey call "the 3C's". The first of t h e s e is "cu stomer o r i e n t a t i o n " w h i c h me a n s r e c o g n i z i n g that a firm's g r e a t e s t a s s e t is its c us t o m e r s and that all the p e o p l e in the firm s h o u l d b e l i e v e t hat t h e y should do e v e r y t h i n g p o s s i b l e to k e e p the c u s t o m e r satisfied. The sec ond C, n a m e l y "creed", is the s e rv i ce firm's set of c o r p o r a t e val u e s tha t are the b a s i s for its identity. In oth e r words, for the e m p l oy ees t he c r e e d can be a so u r c e of p r i d e , a c l e ar sen se t hat the e m p l o y e e s are w o r k i n g t o w a r d a d e f i n i t e goal, w h e r e a s for customers, the firm sh o u l d use its creed to cr e a t e and m a n a g e its p u b l i c image, w h i c h re d u c e s the g ap b e t w e e n customers' e x p e c t a t i o n s and the firm's pe rformance. F i n a l l y the t h i r d i m p o r ta n t C is "consistency", w h i c h can be d e f i n e d as the a b i l i t y to off e r c u s t o m e r s a c o n s i s t e n t sta n d a r d of
s e r v i c e w i t h o u t n eg a t i v e surprises.
By u t i l i z i n g Fis h b e i n ' s B e ha v i o r a l I n t e n t i o n M o d e l the m a n a g e m e n t of a fast food r e s t a u r a n t can h ave a q u i t e c l e a r i n sight of p e o p l e ' s b e liefs and e v a l u a t i o n s about d i f f e r e n t c o n s e q u e n c e s of v i s i t i n g the r e s t a u r a n t and the e f f e c t of the so c i a l nor m s on the customer. T he c o m p o n e n t s of F i s h b e i n ' s Model, d e p i c t e d in tabl e I I . 5, giv e s a s e r vices m a r k e t e r a c o n c r e t e idea about the i n t angib le aspect s of a s e r v i c e encounter, t he r e f o r e m a k i n g use of t he i nfo rm a t i o n g a t h e r e d on the basis of beliefs, norms, etc., t he m a n a g e r s of the fast food r e s t a u r a n t s can deal w i t h the above m e n t i o n e d 3C's m o r e easily, e s p e c i a l l y w i t h "cust omer o r i e n t a t i o n " .
The i m pl i c a ti o ns of these 3C's for the fast food r e s t a u r a n t s w ill be p r e s e n t e d in the fifth chapter.
III. M E T H O D O L O G Y
T h i s stu dy a tt e m p t s to d e s c r i b e a n d e x p l o r e the a t t i t u d e s of B i l k e n t U n i v e r s i t y s tuden ts t o w a r d s s p e c i f i c fast f ood r e s t a u r a n t s in A n k a r a by u t i l i z i n g F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l I n t en t i o n Model. The initial step wa s the face- t o - f a c e int e r v ie w s w i t h indivi duals w i t h a r e l a t i v e l y small sa m pl e size, w h i c h se r ved as the basis for the p r e p a r a t i o n of a survey. The p u r p o s e of the s u r v e y was to s u p p l y the da t a for the v a r i a b l e s for the m a i n e q u a t i o n of F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l Inte n t i o n Model (plus three o ther s i m i l a r a u x i l i a r y e q u a t i o n s u sed in the s t u dy to g ain m o r e information)*. The p r i m a r y e q u a t i o n of the m o d e l is
Wq *Aact + W | * S N = BI
as d e n o t e d in F i s h b e i n and A j z e n (1975). T h e s e scholars s u gg e s t t hat the d ata for all the v a r i a b l e s in this e q u a t i o n be o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h s t a n d a r d (generally bipolar) scales, w h i c h r e q u i r e the r e s p o n d e n t ' s cho ice of the a p p r o p r i a t e n u m b e r that shows h i s / h e r t h o u g h t abo ut a statement. (Refer to A p p e n d i x I for sam p l e m e a s u r e m e n t scales.)
III.l. P I L O T STUDY
In o rd e r to p r e p a r e a s u i t a ble sur v e y to g a t h e r data for the v a r i a b l e s in F i s h b e i n ' s B e h a v i o r a l Int e n t i o n Mo del an initial s t u d y was conducted, not o nly to d e t e r m i n e the b e l i e f s and c o n s e q u e n c e s (to be use d in q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g attitudes) ab o u t g o i n g to fast food r e s t a u r a n t s , and the s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s (to be u s e d in q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g
s u b j e c t i v e norms, but also w h i c h fast food r e s t a u r a n t s to in c l u d e in the study. For this p u r p o s e f a c e - t o - f a c e i n te r v i e w s w e r e m a d e w i t h f i fteen Bi l k e n t students, w h i c h c o n s i s t e d of e i ght M B A students, thre e e n g i n e e r i n g students, t h r e e p r e p school stude n t s and one m a n a g e m e n t student. T h e s u b j e c t s w e r e first ask e d to tell the names of the fast food r e s t a u r a n t s in A n k a r a that t hey could rec all w i t h o u t aid. T h e n t h e y w e r e aske d to tell w h i c h ones the y v i s i t e d more f r e q u e n t l y and why, and c o n v e r s e l y w h i c h ones t he y v i s i t e d less f r e q u e n t l y and why. A f t e r that they w e r e as k e d to tell w h i c h p e o p l e a f f e c t e d t h e m w h e n goi n g to a fast food restaurant. As a result, t h ree restaurants, n a m e l y Me Donalds, Ti v o l i and Wimpy, sho w ed ex treme s i g n i f i c a n c e in u n a i d e d rec a ll (Table III.l). (In orde r to p r e v e n t any bias, t he fast food r e s t a u r a n t s in the campus, i.e. Best and c ampus-Tivoli, w e r e not included in the study a fter o b s e r v i n g an e x t r e m e t e n d e n c y towa rds t h e m in the i n t e r v i e w s ) . T h e q u e s t i o n s abo u t the sal ient beli e f s of s ub j e c t s a b o u t g o i ng to fast food r e s t a u r a n t s led s i x t e e n d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n s in fast food r e s t a u r a n t c h o i c e to e m erge (Table III.l). A m o n g these, the ones w i t h a f req u e n c y of five or a bo v e w e r e s e l e c t ed to be u s e d in the q u e s t i o n n a i re s, w h i c h w e r e " l o c a t i o n ” , "cleanliness", "crowdedness", "queue length / f as t / s l o w service", "taste" and "price". A d d i t i o n a l l y the a t t r i b u t e " a t m osp herics" was i n c l u d e d to the set of s a l i en t a t t r i b u t e s , as an a g g r e g a t i o n of " s m o k e / v e n t i l a t i o n " , "temperature", "overall
