The present study tested the model of goal‐directed behavior (MGB). The model proposes that behavioral intentions to perform instrumental behaviors are primarily motivated by desires to perform the acts. In turn, desires mediate the effects of attitudes, subjective norms, perceived control, and anticipated emotions on intentions. Construct validity for MGB variables is assessed, and the predictive utility of the MGB is compared with that of the theory of planned behavior (TPB). College students (N= 102) provided measures for MGB and TPB variables while participating in a training program to use statistical software. We focused on two goal‐related instrumental behaviors: studying handbooks and practicing with the package. The results show that the MGB accounts for a greater proportion of variance in intentions and instrumental behaviors than does TPB. Although desires mediate most of the effects of other predictors on intentions to perform the instrumental behaviors, it is proposed that when the behavior is normatively relevant, or when self‐efficacy appraisals play a major role, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control may directly affect intentions.

The authors developed a framework for thinking about motives in goal setting. The reasons for choosing a particular goal are represented in a hierarchical network of motives. To uncover context-specific motives and their interconnections, the authors propose a procedure based on the elicitation of justifications for one's goal. The authors applied the procedure to the motivation of volunteering to join the Italian Army by officers (N = 151) and 3 groups of enlisted soldiers (Garibaldi Brigade, N = 141; Folgore Brigade, N = 144; and volunteers in training, N = 150). The resulting idiographic motives and linkages between motives were validated by regressing attitudes, intentions to reenlist, and commitment toward the army on motives and linkages between motives. A heuristic nomothetic summary of goals, arranged in an interconnected hierarchy, was derived.

The factorial structure and invariance of the BIS/BAS scales of Carver and White were assessed across three samples from the USA, UK, and Italy. Previous validation studies of the BIS/BAS scales relied on individual samples drawn from English‐speaking populations only and failed to formally assess generalizability. The current study shows that the four‐factor structure proposed by Carver and White—i.e. one BIS and three BAS facets—achieved satisfactory psychometric properties in all three samples and that measurement invariance was obtained across countries. Latent mean differences due to gender and country were also investigated. Theoretical issues concerning the validity of the BIS/BAS scales are addressed. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

The theory of reasoned action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1985) and the theory of self‐regulation (TSR; Bagozzi, 1992) were applied to Italian undergraduate students' studying behavior. The main focus of the research was to ascertain the predictive power of past behavior on intention and behavior and thus test for the sufficiency of the theories. For theory sufficiency to be demonstrated, past behavior influences on intention and present behavior should be totally mediated by the focal variables of the theories (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and desire). It is argued that past behavior affects intentions and present behavior over and above attitudinal variables and that these effects will be weaker on intention for the TPB and TSR models. A structural equation approach was used to test the construct validity of measures such as the predictive validity of the theories. A total sample of 240 Italian college students participated in the research. A subsample of 90 subjects provided a self‐report behavioral measure one week later. Results show that past behavior is a strong predictor of both intention and behavior in the TRA model, while it is a weaker predictor of intention in the TPB and in the TSR models. Implications for attitude–behavior relationships are discussed. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract