Perceived Behavioral Control Self Effica
Perceived Behavioral Control Self Effica
zyxwv
zyxwv
Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of
Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior1
ICEKA J Z E N ~
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988, 1991) has emerged as one of
the most influential and popular conceptual frameworks for the study of human
action (Ajzen, 200 1). Briefly, according to the theory, human behavior is guided
by three kinds of considerations: beliefs about the likely consequences or other
attributes of the behavior (behavioral beliefs), beliefs about the normative expec-
tations of other people (normative beliefs), and beliefs about the presence of fac-
tors that may further or hinder performance of the behavior (control beliefs). In
their respective aggregates, behavioral beliefs produce a favorable or unfavorable
attitude toward the behavior; normative beliefs result in perceived social pressure
or subjective norm; and control beliefs give rise to perceived behavioral control,
the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior. In combination, atti-
tude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perception of behavioral control
lead to the formation of a behavioral intention. Finally, given a sufficient degree
of actual control over the behavior, people are expected to carry out their inten-
tions when the opportunity arises. Intention is thus assumed to be the immediate
antecedent of behavior. However, because many behaviors pose difficulties of
execution that may limit volitional control, it is useful to consider perceived
zyxw
'1 am grateful to Paul Sparks for his comments on an earlier version of this article.
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Icek Ajzen, Department of Psy-
chology, Tobin Hall-Box 37710, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-7710. E-mail:
zyxwvuts
[email protected]
zyxwv
zyxwvu 665
behavioral control in addition to intention. To the extent that people are realistic
in their judgments of a behavior’s difficulty, a measure of perceived behavioral
control can serve as a proxy for actual control and contribute to the prediction of
the behavior in question. Support for the theory in general is summarized in a
meta-analysis (Armitage & Conner, 2001), a review of the literature (Sutton,
1998), and a summary of its applications to health-related behavior (Conner &
Sparks, 1996). In addition, a review of recent research on the theory of planned
behavior can be found in Ajzen (2001).
obstacles, and volitional control over behavior is therefore best considered a mat-
ter of degree rather than kind, The concept of perceived behavioral control was
zy
zy667
zyx
equal, a high level of perceived control should strengthen a person’s intention to
perform the behavior, and increase effort and perseverance. In this fashion, per-
ceived behavioral control can affect behavior indirectly, by its impact on inten-
zyxwvuts
tion. And when perceived behavioral control is veridical, it provides useful
information about the actual control a person can exercise in the situation and can
therefore be used as an additional direct predictor of behavior.3
Perceived Self-EfJicucy
3Logically, perceived behavioral control, rather than having a direct effect, is expected to interact
with attitudes and with subjective norms in determining intentions, and with intentions in its effects
on behavior (Ajzen, 1985). Empirically, however, interactions of this kind can be expected only if
values of the predictor variables cover the full range of possible scores, such that the product term is
fully expressed in the prediction. Research to date has revealed little evidence for the expected inter-
actions, and the simpler additive model has been used in most applications.
668 ICEK AJZEN zyxwvutsr
zyx
sequence or under a variety of circumstances (Bandura & Cervone, 1983;
Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Bandura & Wood, 1989).
It can be seen that perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy are quite
similar: Both are concerned with perceived ability to perform a behavior (or
sequence of behaviors). In retrospect, the decision to use the term “perceived
behavioral control” to denote this component in the theory of planned behavior
may have been misleading. This term has sometimes been taken to refer to the
belief that performance of a behavior affords control over attainment of an out-
come. This, of course, is not the intended meaning. Perceived behavioral control
zyxwvutsrqp
simply denotes subjective degree of control over performance of the behavior
zyxwvuts
itself. The distinction here is the same as that between efficacy expectation (i.e.,
the perceived ability to perform a behavior) and outcome expectation (i.e., the
zyxwvu
perceived likelihood that performing the behavior will produce a given outcome;
Bandura, 1 977).4 To avoid misunderstandings of this kind, the term “perceived
behavioral control” should be read as “perceived control over performance of a
behavior.”
Like attitude and subjective norm, perceived behavioral control can be mea-
sured by asking direct questions about capability to perform a behavior or indi-
rectly on the basis of beliefs about ability to deal with specific inhibiting or
facilitating factors. The great majority of studies performed to date have used the
direct approach, but belief-based measures have the advantage of providing
insight into the cognitive foundation underlying perceptions of behavioral con-
trol.
4Related to this issue, it has recently been suggested that perceived self-efficacy, as indexed by
judgments of easy-difficult, may be indistinguishable from attitude toward the behavior (Leach,
Hennessy, & Fishbein, 1999). Conceptually, however, the two constructs are quite distinct. Attitude
toward a behavior IS related to the subjective values of the behavior’s perceived outcomes-that is,
outcome expectancies, whereas self-efficacy or perceived behavioral control has to do with perceived
ability to perform the behavior (is., self-efficacy expectations).
PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
respect to each. Respondents can be asked to indicate (a) the perceived likelihood
(or frequency) of a given control factor being present (strength of control belief),
zy
zy 669
and (b) the extent to which the control factor’s presence has the power to facili-
tate or impede performance of the behavior (power of control belief).
For example, in the pilot phase of a study on leisure behavior (Ajzen &
Driver, 199l), college students identified four factors that could make mountain
zyxwvu
zyxw
climbing easier or more difficult for them: good weather, not having proper
equipment, living near mountains, and lacking skills and knowledge. In the main
study, a new sample of respondents indicated, with respect to each of these fac-
tors, the extent to which it was true for them and the effect it would have on their
ability to go mountain climbing. The following items illustrate the measurement
climbing.
zyxwv
True: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : F a l s e
Not having the proper equipment makes mountain
50ptimal scaling procedures should be applied to determine unipolar or bipolar scoring of these
scales (Ajzen, 1991).
zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvut
670 ICEK AJZEN
Table 1
Orbell
(1 999b,
Study 2)
zyxw
Source
Sheeran and
Behavior
the next 3
weeks
very difficult
Items used
Taking a multi- For me to . . . would be very easy-
vitamin pill
every day for If I want to I will easily be able to . . .
The number of external influences
that may prevent me from . . .
How much control do you think you
have over your ability to . . .
Reli-
ability
.90
Direct Measures
zyxwvu
In a parallel fashion, direct measures of perceived behavioral control are
designed to capture the perceived facilitating and inhibiting effects of all accessi-
ble control factors. A variety of direct questions have been used to elicit respon-
dents’ perceptions of the extent to which they are capable of performing a given
behavior or attaining a behavioral goal. Table 1 displays items used in a sample
of recent studies, together with the reported reliabilities (usually alpha coeffi-
cients) of the composite scores. Clearly, there is considerable commonality in the
zyx
items employed, some dealing with the ease or difficulty of performing a behav-
ior, others with the degree of control over performing it. In the set of studies
shown in Table 1, the internal consistencies or reliabilities of the measures were
quite high, ranging from .61 to .90. A meta-analysis of 90 studies that assessed
perceived behavioral control in the context of the theory of planned behavior
showed the average alpha coefficient to be about .65 (Cheung & Chan, 2000).
Interestingly, the meta-analysis also revealed that, in comparison to the reliabili-
ties of attitudes and subjective norms, the alpha coefficients of perceived behav-
ioral control measures varied considerably across studies. The measures used in
some studies had relatively low reliability while in other studies, their reliability
was very high. These findings suggest that it is possible to obtain high reliabili-
ties with direct measures of perceived behavioral control, but this is not assured
and care must be taken in the formative stages of the research to formulate appro-
priate control items.6
6Because belief-based measures of perceived behavioral control rely on accessible beliefs gener-
ated by the research population, the question of reliability is of less relevance there. According to the
theory, perceived behavioral control is based on all accessible control beliefs, whatever their internal
reliability. Just as it is possible for attitudes to reflect an evaluatively ambivalent set of behavioral
beliefs, so too can perceived behavioral control reflect a set of control beliefs that are internally incon-
sistent-some implying high control, others low control.
672 zyxwvut
zyxwvuts
ICEK AJZEN
to perform a behavior is, in fact, quite consistent with Bandura’s (1997) use and
operationalization of the term. In work with the self-efficacy concept, partici-
zy
zyxwvu
zyxwv
pants are typically asked to rate their confidence in their ability to perform a
behavior under a variety of circumstances. For example, in a study of snake pho-
bia, participants rated their capability of executing a series of 18 progressively
more threatening interactions with a boa constrictor (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer,
1977; see also Bandura, 1977). The ratings were made on a 100-point scale rang-
ing, in 10-unit intervals, from 1 (great uncertainty) to 100 (complete certain@).
In another study using the same rating scale (Bandura & Schunk, 198 l), children
were shown 25 subtraction problems of varying difficulty levels and were asked
to rate their certainty that they could solve each. This approach is considered to
be the standard methodology for assessing efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997).
Empirical research provides considerable evidence for the distinction
between measures of self-efficacy (ease or difficulty of performing a behavior)
and measures of controllability (beliefs about the extent to which performing the
behavior is up to the actor). The meta-analysis of perceived behavioral control
mentioned earlier (Cheung & Chan, 2000) classified studies in terms of the type
of items employed. A small number of studies used only questions related to con-
trollability. However, most employed either self-efficacy items alone, or a mix-
ture of self-efficacy and controllability items. Perceived self-efficacy was found
to account for significant portions of variance in intentions, beyond attitudes and
subjective norms, and in behavior, over and above intentions. In contrast, con-
trollability added significantly to the prediction of behavior but not to the predic-
tion of intentions, while the mixed sets of items significantly improved prediction
of intentions but not of behavior.
The studies included in Cheung and Chan’s (2000) meta-analysis did not set
out to test the distinction between self-efficacy and controllability. In recent
years, several investigators have explored this distinction explicitly by examining
its discriminant validity and by comparing the predictive validities of self-effi-
cacy and controllability measures in the same study. Table 2 summarizes the
types of items that have been used to distinguish between the two constructs, and
shows the reliabilities of the corresponding measures (except for the study by
Manstead and van Eekelen, 1998, which did not report reliability coefficients).
Terry and O’Leary (1995) applied the theory of planned behavior to the pre-
zyxwv
diction of regular exercise (at least 20 min three times a week for 2 weeks). Per-
ceived controllability was assessed by means of four items, and perceived self-
efficacy by means of three items. Participants reported their actual exercise
behavior 2 weeks following administration of the theory of planned behavior
questionnaire. Structural equation modeling confirmed the two-factor structure
of perceived behavioral control: A model that contained self-efficacy and con-
trollability as separate latent variables provided a significantly better fit to the
data than did a model that combined the seven indicators of perceived behavioral
zyxwvutzy
zy
zyxwvutsrzyxwvut
PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL 673
Table 2
zy
Self-Eficacy Versus Controllability
Sample items Relia-
Source Behavior Self-efficacy Controllability bilitya
~~
control into a single latent variable. As can be seen in Table 2 , the sets of items
comprising the two constructs each had high reliability (a = .80 and .85, respec-
tively); the reliability of the combined measure was not reported. As to predictive
validity, the self-efficacy measure revealed a strong and significant path to inten-
tions but not to behavior, whereas perceived controllability had no effect on
intentions but was a significant predictor of actual behavior.
A conceptually similar study was reported by Manstead and van Eekelen
(1 998) who asked high school students to respond to a theory of planned behav-
ior questionnaire concerning the goal of attaining at least a 7 (out of 10) in
upcoming exams in History, English, and Physics classes. The questionnaire
included six items designed to assess perceived behavioral control. A principal
components analysis followed by oblique rotation revealed two factors, one com-
prised of self-efficacy items, the other of controllability items (see Table 2 for
examples). Multiple regression analyses were performed to test the predictive
validity of the two control factors. Contrary to the findings reported by Terry and
O’Leary (1995), self-efficacy was found to make significant contributions to the
prediction of intentions as well as actual grade attainment in all three classes,
whereas controllability predicted neither.
Two studies by Armitage and Conner (1 999a, 199913) looked at eating a low-
fat diet in different populations. In one study (Annitage & Conner, 1999b), a the-
ory of planned behavior questionnaire was administered at two points in time,
while in the other (Armitage & Conner, 1999a) behavior was assessed 1 month
after administration of the initial questionnaire. In each study, principal compo-
nents analysis of the self-efficacy and controllability items, followed by orthogo-
nal rotation, revealed that the two expected factors and alpha coefficients
(ranging from .70 to .87) of the factor-based scores were satisfactory. With
respect to the prediction of intentions and behavior, the two studies revealed
somewhat different patterns. In the first study (Armitage & Conner, 1999b),
when the two measures were entered into a regression equation together with the
other variables in the theory of planned behavior, only perceived self-efficacy
accounted for independent variance in intentions, and neither measure added to
the prediction of behavior. In the second study (Armitage & Conner, 1999a),
self-efficacy added to the prediction of intentions and behavior, while controlla-
bility had little effect.
Finally, in an investigation of reducing red meat consumption, Sparks,
Guthrie, and Shepherd (1997) started with a set of 25 perceived behavioral con-
trol items culled from published research. Cronbach’s alpha for the total set of
items was .93, indicating very high internal consistency. Nevertheless, a principal
components factor analysis, followed by orthogonal rotation of the first two fac-
tors, helped to create separate measures of self-efficacy and controllability. The
five items loading highest on each of the two factors were selected (see Table 2
for examples). The reliabilities of these measures were .90 and .83. However,
PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL zy
zy675
zy
iors, perceived controllability had no significant effects on intentions and in only
one case did it account for a significant proportion of variance in behavior. These
findings are to some degree compatible with the results of the meta-analysis by
Cheung and Chen (2000). This analysis showed that self-efficacy measures
zyxw
accounted for additional variance in intentions as well as behaviors, but control-
lability items predicted intentions only when combined with self-efficacy items.
A pure measure of perceived controllability did, however, account for additional
variance in behavior.
zyxwvuts
tors (ability or effort), but less so when perceived to be due to external factors
(task difficulty or luck; Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, & Rosenbaum, 1971;
Weiner & Kukla, 1970). Unfortunately, the internal versus external locus of a
control factor is often confused with control or lack of control over performance
of the behavior. This confusion can perhaps be traced to the concept ofperceived
locus of control (Rotter, 1966). People are said to differ in the extent to which
they view rewards, punishments, or other events in their lives as caused by their
own actions or by factors beyond their control. In a somewhat misleading
zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
676 ICEK AJZEN
zyx
fashion, perceived behavioral control over outcomes is termed internal locus of
control whereas the perception that outcomes are determined by nonbehavioral
factors is termed external locus of control. However, closer analysis reveals that
perceived control over an outcome or event is independent of the internal or
external locus of the factors responsible for it. For instance, fear of flying is an
internal factor but people may nevertheless feel that they have little control over
it. Conversely, cooperation by another person is external, yet we may believe that
we would encounter little difficulty in securing the needed cooperation. In fact,
the same factor C for example, ability, an internal factor C is viewed by some
people as malleable and potentially under volitional control, and by other people
as immutable and hence not amenable to control (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Hong,
Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999).
The mistaken equation of control over performance of a behavior with inter-
nal locus, and lack of control with external locus, is also apparent in discussions
of self-efficacy versus controllability. Self-efficacy beliefs are said to reflect
internal factors whereas beliefs about the controllability of the behavior are
assumed to deal with external factors (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 1999b;
Manstead & van Eekelen, 1998; Terry & O’Leary, 1995). To be sure, the empiri-
cal evidence leaves little doubt that perceived self-efficacy differs substantially
from perceived controllability. Items that load highly on the self-efficacy factor
deal with the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior, with people’s confi-
dence that they can perform it if they want to do so. On the other hand, controlla-
bility involves people’s beliefs that they have control over the behavior, that
performance or nonperformance of the behavior is up to them. However, the fact
zy
that self-efficacy beliefs can be reliably distinguished from perceived controlla-
bility tells us very little about the nature of these constructs. Specifically, no
independent evidence has been provided for the view that self-efficacy reflects
internal barriers and facilitators whereas perceived controllability reflects beliefs
about the operation of external factors. The ease or difficulty of performing a
behavior is conceptually independent of internal versus external locus. I may
believe that it would be easy for me to eat a low-fat diet because I have familiar-
ized myself with the fat contents of various foods (an internal factor) or because
low-fat foods are readily available (an external factor). Similarly, I may believe
that I have limited control over eating a low-fat diet because I have little will-
power (an internal factor) or because the dining hall where I have most of my
meals provides no information about the fat content of the food that is served (an
external factor). Most likely, perceived ease or difficulty of performing a behav-
ior reflects beliefs about the presence of internal as well as external factors that
may further or impede performance of a behavior, and the same is true of per-
ceived controllability.
Consistent with this line of reasoning, perceived behavioral control in the the-
ory of planned behavior refers generally to people’s expectations regarding the
PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
degree to which they are capable of performing a given behavior, the extent to
which they have the requisite resources and believe they can overcome whatever
zy
zy 677
obstacles they may encounter. Whether these resources and obstacles are internal
or external to the person is immaterial. The theory is concerned only with the
extent to which they are believed to be present and are perceived to facilitate or
impede performance of the behavior under consideration. When people believe
that they have the required resources and opportunities (e.g., skills, time, money,
cooperation by others), and that the obstacles they are likely to encounter are few
and manageable, they should have confidence in their ability to perform the
behavior and thus exhibit a high degree of perceived behavioral control. Con-
versely, when they believe that they lack requisite resources or that they are
likely to encounter serious obstacles, they should judge performance of the
behavior to be relatively difficult and hold a low level of perceived behavioral
control. This is true, whether the resources and obstacles in question are located
internally or externally.
There is also no indication in Bandura’s theorizing that self-efficacy beliefs
are restricted to internal factors (see Bandura, 1997, for an in-depth discussion of
self-efficacy). This is confirmed by examining specific control beliefs sometimes
assessed in work with the self-efficacy construct. For example, in a study dealing
with the ability to find a job and housing (Epel, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 1999),
homeless people were asked to rate, on a 9-point scale, the strength of their
beliefs that they can construct a resum&,impress employers and rental agents,
and get others to help them, all factors that could influence attainment of the
behavioral goals. The ability to construct a rtsumt and impress others could be
considered internal factors, but receiving help from others usually would be clas-
sified as an external factor.’
To be sure, it is possible that respondents confronted with questions about
their ability to perform a behavior (self-efficacy items) consider mainly internal
rather than external factors, and that beliefs about external factors are more
readily accessible when respondents ponder whether performance of the behavior
is completely up to them (controllability questions). However, whether this is in
fact the case is an empirical question and cannot be taken for granted. Of the five
studies summarized in Table 2, only one (Armitage & Conner, 1999b) examined
the relation of specific beliefs to the separate measures of self-efficacy and con-
trollability, and it demonstrated the problematic nature of the distinction between
internal and external locus of causality. Seven control beliefs were identified in
this study and were used to predict self-efficacy and controllability by means of
multiple regressions. Some of the beliefs seemed to tap internal factors (e.g., “To
’Note that respondents were asked about their ability to attain control over the external factor.
Thus, although receiving help from others is an external factor whose presence would facilitate per-
formance of the behavior, the crucial issue for perceived control over the behavior is whether people
believe that it is within their power to secure the needed help.
zyxwvuts
678zyxwvutsr
ICEK AJZEN
eat a low-fat diet requires willpower”), others external factors (e.g., “Eating a
low-fat diet costs too much money”). Still other beliefs would be difficult to clas-
sify. For example, the belief that “eating a low-fat diet is inconvenient” may refer
to an internal disinclination to prepare low-fat foods or to external lack of avail-
zy
ability. Similarly, “I don’t always know which foods are low in fat” may reflect a
failure to obtain the needed information (internal) or its lack of availability
(external). As might be expected, therefore, the results of the study were rather
ambiguous. In general, there was considerable overlap between control beliefs
zyxwvu
that predicted controllability and self-efficacy. Two beliefs considered to reflect
internal factors (“I do not have enough time to eat a low-fat diet” and “I have
zyxwvutsrqpo
always eaten a low-fat diet”) had significant regression weights in the prediction
of self-efficacy as well as controllability, and examination of the zero-order cor-
relations revealed significant associations between all seven beliefs and each of
the two control indices.
Perceived
zy
zy679
behavioral
zyxw
control
controlla-
zyxwvutsr
Figure 1. Hierarchical model of perceived behavioral control.
good fit to the data (Manstead & van Eekelen, 1998) suggests a substantial
correlation between the components. Finally, mixed measures that contain self-
efficacy as well as controllability items show considerable internal consistency
(Cheung & Chan, 2000). In fact, the highest internal consistency was reported for
a large set of mixed items (Sparks et al., 1997).
Often adapting items used in prior investigations, most studies reported in the
literature have assessed perceived behavioral control by means of a few arbitrarily
selected questions whose reliability was not established in prior research, a prac-
tice that is contrary to recommended scale construction procedures (Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975). My colleagues and I are guilty of similarly negligent practices in
our own research. As a result, measures of perceived behavioral control have often
lacked high internal consistency. The findings reviewed earlier indicate that this is
not an inevitable property of inclusive measures. Careful selection of control items
in formative research can produce measures of perceived behavioral control that
reflect self-efficacy as well as controllability, yet have good psychometric proper-
ties. For some purposes, it will be sufficient to compute a single overall index of
perceived behavioral control, but at other times the objectives of a research pro-
gram may require separate measures of self-efficacy and controllability.
zy
between self-efficacy and controllability by entering separate indices into the
zyxwvu
prediction equation.
References
zyxwvut
from self-efficacy: Predicting consumption of a low-fat diet using the theory
of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,72-90.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Assess-
ment of predictive validity and “perceived control.” British Journal of Social
zyxw
Psychology, 38,35-54.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior:
A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40,47 1-499.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psy-
chologist, 44, 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1 99 1). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50,248-287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY
Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive
theory. Psychology and Health, 13,623-649.
zyxwv
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating
behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,
125-139.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mecha-
nisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal ofperson-
ality & Social Psychology, 45, 1017- 1028.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and
intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality &
zyxwv
Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and perfor-
mance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 56, 805-814.
Cheung, S.-F., & Chan, D. K.-S. (2000). The role ofperceived behavioral control
in predicting human behavior: A meta-analytic review of studies on the
theory of planned behavior. Unpublished manuscript, Chinese University of
Hong Kong.
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior:
A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 28, 1429-1464.
Conner, M., & McMillan, B. (1999). Interaction effects in the theory of planned
behavior: Studying cannabis use. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38,
195-222.
zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zy
z
zyxwvut
682 ICEK AJZEN
Conner, M., Sheeran, P., Norman, P., & Armitage, C. J. (2000). Temporal stabil-
ity as a moderator of the relationships in the theory of planned behavior. Brit-
ish Journal of Social Psychology, 39,469-494.
Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (1996). The theory of planned behaviour and health
behaviours. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behaviour:
Research and practice with social cognition models (pp. 121-I 62). Bucking-
ham, UK: Open University Press.
Courneya, K. S., Bobick, T. M., & Schinke, R. J. (1999). Does the theory of
planned behavior mediate the relation between personality and exercise
behavior'? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 3 11-324.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation
and personality. Psychological Review, 95,256-273.
Epel, E. S., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1999). Escaping homelessness: The
influences of self-efficacy and time perspective on coping with homelessness.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 575-596.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefi attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Godin, G., Maticka-Tyndale, E., Adrien, A., Manson-Singer, S., Willms, D., &
Cappon, P. ( 1996). Cross-cultural testing of three social cognitive theories:
An application to condom use. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26,
1556- 1586.
Hong, Y.-y., Chiu, C.-y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999).
Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588-599.
Leach, M., Hennessy, M., & Fishbein, M. (1999). Perception of easy-difficult:
Attitude or self-qfficacy? Unpublished manuscript.
Manstead, A. S. R., & van Eekelen, S. A. M. (1998). Distinguishing between
perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy in the domain of academic
intentions and behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1375-
1392.
Netemeyer, R. G., Burton, S., & Johnston, M. (1991). A comparison of two mod-
els for the prediction of volitional and goal-directed behaviors: A confirma-
tory analysis approach. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 87- 100.
Rosenberg, M. J. (1 956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53,367-312.
Rosenstock, I. (1 966). Why people use health services. Milbank Memorial Fund
Quarterly, 44,94- 124.
Rotter, J. B. (1 966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs (General & Applied), 80, 1-28.
Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1999a). Augmenting the theory of planned behavior:
Roles for anticipated regret and descriptive norms. Journal ofApplied Social
Psychology, 29,2 107-2142.
zy zy
zy
zyxwvu
PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL 683
Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1999b). Implementation intentions and repeated behav-
zyxwvut
iour: Augmenting the predictive validity of the theory of planned behaviour.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 29,349-369.
Sparks, P., Guthrie, C. A., & Shepherd, R. (1997). The dimensional structure of
the perceived behavioral control construct. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
zyxwvu
chology, 27,418-438.
Sutton, S. (1998). Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well
are we doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 13 17-1338.
Terry, D. J., & O’Leary, J. E. (1995). The theory of planned behaviour: The
effects of perceived behavioural control and self-efficacy. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 34, 199-220.
zyx
Triandis, H. C. (1 977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1 97 1). Perceiv-
ing the causes of success and failure. New York, NY: General Learning
Press.
Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement moti-
vation. Journal of Personality & Social Psycholoo, 15, 1-20.