No abstract

No abstract

The unique influence of attitude toward the ad on brand attitude often has been viewed as simply reflecting the impact of peripheral persuasion. The authors’ research challenges such a conception. Ad attitude is shown to have a significant influence on brand attitude even in the absence of peripheral persuasion. The feasibility and usefulness of decomposing ad attitude into evaluations of particular ad elements also are explored.

No abstract

The Fishbein behavioral intention model combines all beliefs about the consequences of an act into a single attitude component. We propose a new model that separates personal and normative reasons for engaging in behavior. Two studies permitted multiple tests of the model's validity. The results support the model's potential for distinguishing between personal and normative motivations underlying behavior and illustrate the value of such distinctions for understanding behavior.P ersonal attitudes and social influences have long been recognized as playing important roles in consumer decision making. Research examining these two determinants of choice has focused largely on one (e.g., attitude-behavior relationships) to the exclusion of the other (e.g., referent influence, social power). Consequently, little work has been done concerning the relative role each plays in decision making. Identifying the relative importance of each for a given action (e. g., adolescent smoking behavior, adoption of innovations) should be a useful step toward understanding why the behavior occurs and in considering the likely effects of alternative behavior change strategies.A pioneering cognitive approach to integrating these two determinants of choice into a single conceptual framework is the Fishbein behavioral intention model (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Within this model, all beliefs about the consequences of behavioral performance (and their associated affect) are combined into an attitude component, whether they pertain to the deepest personal conviction or to the rewards of expedient compliance. Beliefs about referent expectations (whether the referent thinks slhe should or should not engage in the behavior) are treated separately (combined into the normative component) and are considered to reflect social influences with respect to the behavior under study. Thus the Fishbein model does not seek to separate personal from normative 169 contributions to one's overall evaluation of a given object (Ao) or behavior (A B ); rather, it attempts to separate beliefs regarding all evaluatively salient outcomes from one's perceptions of what others believe one should do. Potential sources of confounding in this type of system (e.g., "double counting" of social reasons for engaging in a behavior, an inability to distinguish between expert or informational social influence and compliance) and its limited usefulness in identifying personal versus social reasons for engaging in a behavior have recently been discussed (Fishbein and Ajzen 1981; Miniard and Cohen 1981); some of these issues are summarized in the following section.An alternative approach to the assessment and modeling of attitudinal and social influences on behavior emphasizes key motivational factors as the basis for separating these components and focuses on identifying the reasons for engaging in a behavior. This approach avoids separation of perceptions and beliefs (e.g., in terms of specified targets, mentions of others) unless they correspond to impo...