The Role of Desires, Self‐Predictions, and Perceived Control in the Prediction of Training Session Attendance¹

Abstract

Employee attendance at a training session was examined using the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In addition, based on Audi (1973a, b) and Warshaw and Davis (1985), a distinction was made between desires (I want) and behavioral self‐predictions (I will), and as in Ajzen (1985, 1987), the role of perceived control as a determinant of these desires, self‐predictions, and attendance behavior, per se, was investigated. The results indicated that the best predictors of attendance at the training session were one's desire or motivation to attend the training session and the extent to which one perceived pressure from his or her supervisor to do so. Consistent with the theory of reasoned action, the motivation to attend training was predicted accurately from attitudes and subjective norms (R=.76, p < .001). Moreover, these attitudes and subjective norms were themselves predicted from a consideration of behavioral and normative beliefs, and key beliefs underlying one's desire to attend were identified. However, a consideration of perceived control did not improve the prediction of one's desire to attend training, and neither perceived control nor behavioral self‐predictions improved prediction of actual attendance. The discussion focused on the roles of perceived control and different measures of intention in behavioral prediction.

Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to weight control in an overweight cohort. Results from a pan-European dietary intervention trial (DiOGenes)

“…Previous studies have demonstrated close relationships between intention, desire, and expectation in predicting behaviour using the TPB model (Armitage & Conner, 2001;Fishbein & Stasson, 1990;Warshaw & Davis, 1985). Initial correlation analyses failed to show a significant relationship between intention and behaviour at any of the time points.…”

“…Previous studies have demonstrated close relationships between intention, desire, and expectation in predicting behaviour using the TPB model (Armitage & Conner, 2001;Fishbein & Stasson, 1990;Warshaw & Davis, 1985). Expectations and desires have both been shown to be better than intentions at predicting behaviour (Fishbein & Stasson, 1990;Warshaw & Davis, 1985).…”

“…Previous studies have demonstrated close relationships between intention, desire, and expectation in predicting behaviour using the TPB model (Armitage & Conner, 2001;Fishbein & Stasson, 1990;Warshaw & Davis, 1985). Expectations and desires have both been shown to be better than intentions at predicting behaviour (Fishbein & Stasson, 1990;Warshaw & Davis, 1985). One meta-analytical review concluded that perceived behavioural control, subjective norm, and attitude were better at predicting desire than they were at predicting intention, whereas intentions and expectations were better than desires at predicting actual behaviour (Armitage & Conner, 2001).…”

Social determinants of food choice

“…Thus, this model has validity both in the study of general consumer choice and the study specifically of food choice. The incorporation of perceived control has received some support in social psychological applications (for example, see Ajzen, 1988), and in studies of weight loss (Schifter & Ajzen, 1985) and dietary health behaviours (Ajzen & Timko, 1986), although not in all applications (Fishbein & Stasson, 1990). In a study of biscuit and bread consumption (Sparks et al 1992), intentions to consume wholemeal bread were not influenced by perceived control but intentions to consume biscuits were.…”

Is Leadership Part of Me? An Identity Approach to Understanding the Motivation to Lead

“…Drawing on previous motivation (e.g., Fishbein & Stasson, 1990;Hurtz & Williams, 2009;Singer, 1991;Tubbs & Ekeberg, 1991) and leadership theories (e.g., Ashforth, 2001;Charan et al, 2001;Ibarra et al, 2010;Lord & Hall, 2005), we propose that self-exemplar role comparisons are mainly performed with the identity verification purpose of assessing personal adjustment with the leadership role in terms of skills and behaviors (i.e., manifest self-concept dimensions), and they serve to gain confidence in feeling capable of succeeding in the leadership role (i.e., the "I can" component of motivation). In contrast, self-prototypical role comparisons are used with the identity verification purpose of assessing the individual match to the leadership role in terms of values, meanings or ideologies (i.e., deep self-concept dimensions), and they serve to evaluate the extent to which leadership activities are attractive, self-relevant and fuel authentic feelings (i.e., the "I like" component of motivation).…”