{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/19768"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/19768","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Reasons theory and the belief-based components in the theory of planned behavior: Attempting to directly understand behavior","abstract":"\"Recent work by Westaby and Fishbein (1994) and Westaby, Fishbein, and Aherin (1994) demonstrated that reasons theory may be a powerful tool for predicting and understanding the motivational foundation of behavior. This dissertation describes reasons theory and its central concepts (i.e., potential reasons and activated reasons). The general goal of this dissertation was to better understand the role that reasons theory plays in the prediction and understanding of behavior. Three hypotheses related to this goal were explored: (1) the \"\"activated reasons\"\" conceptualization will explain variance in behavior over and above that explained by the \"\"potential reasons\"\" conceptualization as well as carry most of the predictive weight, (2) using confirmatory factor analysis, \"\"activated reasons\"\" will load on a behavioral motivation construct, and (3) \"\"activated reasons\"\" will explain additional variance in behavior than behavioral, normative, and control belief components taken together in the theory of planned behavior, as well as carry most of the predictive weight. Results provide support for the above hypotheses. In addition, based upon the theory of planned behavior, a supplementary structural model was examined where the behavioral motivation construct (a) predicted behavior and (b) was predicted by the attitude, perceived control, and subjective norm constructs. Results suggest that this model adequately approximated the data. This dissertation also explored which of several belief elicitation methods are needed to sufficiently describe behavior through reasons theory. Although results suggest that the normative belief representation of activated reasons contributed least to the prediction of behavior, the behaviors investigated in this study were not under strong normative control. Future studies may also benefit from using a single \"\"reasons\"\" elicitation as a parsimonious elicitation alternative. Finally, results indicated that the activated reasons conceptualization was best able to differentiate the specific motives underlying behavior relative to (1) potential reasons and (2) the belief-based conceptualizations in the theory of planned behavior. Implications and limitations of this dissertation are discussed.\"","abstract_html":""Recent work by Westaby and Fishbein (1994) and Westaby, Fishbein, and Aherin (1994) demonstrated that reasons theory may be a powerful tool for predicting and understanding the motivational foundation of behavior. This dissertation describes reasons theory and its central concepts (i.e., potential reasons and activated reasons). The general goal of this dissertation was to better understand the role that reasons theory plays in the prediction and understanding of behavior. Three hypotheses related to this goal were explored: (1) the ""activated reasons"" conceptualization will explain variance in behavior over and above that explained by the ""potential reasons"" conceptualization as well as carry most of the predictive weight, (2) using confirmatory factor analysis, ""activated reasons"" will load on a behavioral motivation construct, and (3) ""activated reasons"" will explain additional variance in behavior than behavioral, normative, and control belief components taken together in the theory of planned behavior, as well as carry most of the predictive weight. Results provide support for the above hypotheses. In addition, based upon the theory of planned behavior, a supplementary structural model was examined where the behavioral motivation construct (a) predicted behavior and (b) was predicted by the attitude, perceived control, and subjective norm constructs. Results suggest that this model adequately approximated the data. This dissertation also explored which of several belief elicitation methods are needed to sufficiently describe behavior through reasons theory. Although results suggest that the normative belief representation of activated reasons contributed least to the prediction of behavior, the behaviors investigated in this study were not under strong normative control. Future studies may also benefit from using a single ""reasons"" elicitation as a parsimonious elicitation alternative. Finally, results indicated that the activated reasons conceptualization was best able to differentiate the specific motives underlying behavior relative to (1) potential reasons and (2) the belief-based conceptualizations in the theory of planned behavior. Implications and limitations of this dissertation are discussed."","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Westaby, James Dean"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Triandis, Harry C."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2011,"date_issued":"2011-05-07T12:17:55Z","date_published":"2011-05-07T12:17:55Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:14Z","subjects":["Business Administration, Marketing","Psychology, Behavioral","Business Administration, Management"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["Copyright 1995 Westaby, James Dean"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["AAI9522187","(UMI)AAI9522187"],"render_values":[{"text":"AAI9522187","href":null,"code":true},{"text":"(UMI)AAI9522187","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/19768","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Triandis, Harry C."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Westaby, James Dean"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2011-05-07T12:17:55Z","10000-01-01","1995"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology","Business Administration, Management"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Business Administration, Marketing","Psychology, Behavioral","Business Administration, Management"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 1995 Westaby, James Dean"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["AAI9522187","(UMI)AAI9522187","http://hdl.handle.net/2142/19768"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["\"Recent work by Westaby and Fishbein (1994) and Westaby, Fishbein, and Aherin (1994) demonstrated that reasons theory may be a powerful tool for predicting and understanding the motivational foundation of behavior. This dissertation describes reasons theory and its central concepts (i.e., potential reasons and activated reasons). The general goal of this dissertation was to better understand the role that reasons theory plays in the prediction and understanding of behavior. Three hypotheses related to this goal were explored: (1) the \"\"activated reasons\"\" conceptualization will explain variance in behavior over and above that explained by the \"\"potential reasons\"\" conceptualization as well as carry most of the predictive weight, (2) using confirmatory factor analysis, \"\"activated reasons\"\" will load on a behavioral motivation construct, and (3) \"\"activated reasons\"\" will explain additional variance in behavior than behavioral, normative, and control belief components taken together in the theory of planned behavior, as well as carry most of the predictive weight. Results provide support for the above hypotheses. In addition, based upon the theory of planned behavior, a supplementary structural model was examined where the behavioral motivation construct (a) predicted behavior and (b) was predicted by the attitude, perceived control, and subjective norm constructs. Results suggest that this model adequately approximated the data. This dissertation also explored which of several belief elicitation methods are needed to sufficiently describe behavior through reasons theory. Although results suggest that the normative belief representation of activated reasons contributed least to the prediction of behavior, the behaviors investigated in this study were not under strong normative control. Future studies may also benefit from using a single \"\"reasons\"\" elicitation as a parsimonious elicitation alternative. Finally, results indicated that the activated reasons conceptualization was best able to differentiate the specific motives underlying behavior relative to (1) potential reasons and (2) the belief-based conceptualizations in the theory of planned behavior. Implications and limitations of this dissertation are discussed.\"","Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-07T12:17:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) 9522187.pdf: 4008230 bytes, checksum: c61bb5dd3f21445478dde89a56232fce (MD5) Previous issue date: 1995","Item marked as restricted to the 'UIUC Users [automated]' Group (id=2) by Howard Ding (hding2@illinois.edu) on 2011-05-07T14:39:18Z Item is restricted indefinitely.","Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:16:30-05:00 Original Data Group with Access UIUC Users [automated] Release Date: none Reason: ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","U of I Only"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Reasons theory and the belief-based components in the theory of planned behavior: Attempting to directly understand behavior"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Triandis, Harry C."],"dc:creator":["Westaby, James Dean"],"dc:date":["2011-05-07T12:17:55Z","10000-01-01","1995"],"dc:description":["\"Recent work by Westaby and Fishbein (1994) and Westaby, Fishbein, and Aherin (1994) demonstrated that reasons theory may be a powerful tool for predicting and understanding the motivational foundation of behavior. This dissertation describes reasons theory and its central concepts (i.e., potential reasons and activated reasons). The general goal of this dissertation was to better understand the role that reasons theory plays in the prediction and understanding of behavior. Three hypotheses related to this goal were explored: (1) the \"\"activated reasons\"\" conceptualization will explain variance in behavior over and above that explained by the \"\"potential reasons\"\" conceptualization as well as carry most of the predictive weight, (2) using confirmatory factor analysis, \"\"activated reasons\"\" will load on a behavioral motivation construct, and (3) \"\"activated reasons\"\" will explain additional variance in behavior than behavioral, normative, and control belief components taken together in the theory of planned behavior, as well as carry most of the predictive weight. Results provide support for the above hypotheses. In addition, based upon the theory of planned behavior, a supplementary structural model was examined where the behavioral motivation construct (a) predicted behavior and (b) was predicted by the attitude, perceived control, and subjective norm constructs. Results suggest that this model adequately approximated the data. This dissertation also explored which of several belief elicitation methods are needed to sufficiently describe behavior through reasons theory. Although results suggest that the normative belief representation of activated reasons contributed least to the prediction of behavior, the behaviors investigated in this study were not under strong normative control. Future studies may also benefit from using a single \"\"reasons\"\" elicitation as a parsimonious elicitation alternative. Finally, results indicated that the activated reasons conceptualization was best able to differentiate the specific motives underlying behavior relative to (1) potential reasons and (2) the belief-based conceptualizations in the theory of planned behavior. Implications and limitations of this dissertation are discussed.\"","Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-07T12:17:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) 9522187.pdf: 4008230 bytes, checksum: c61bb5dd3f21445478dde89a56232fce (MD5) Previous issue date: 1995","Item marked as restricted to the 'UIUC Users [automated]' Group (id=2) by Howard Ding (hding2@illinois.edu) on 2011-05-07T14:39:18Z Item is restricted indefinitely.","Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:16:30-05:00 Original Data Group with Access UIUC Users [automated] Release Date: none Reason: ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","U of I Only"],"dc:identifier":["AAI9522187","(UMI)AAI9522187","http://hdl.handle.net/2142/19768"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 1995 Westaby, James Dean"],"dc:subject":["Business Administration, Marketing","Psychology, Behavioral","Business Administration, Management"],"dc:title":["Reasons theory and the belief-based components in the theory of planned behavior: Attempting to directly understand behavior"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology","Business Administration, Management"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:14Z"}