Abstract
Background:
Littering has been identified as a major issue in India that has negative impacts on the environment as well as public health.
Focus of the article:
Guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior, this empirical study determines the influence of three major concepts namely attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy on the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior.
Research Hypotheses:
The hypotheses stipulate that attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy have a significant influence on the intention to perform anti-littering behavior.
Methods:
In total, 750 individuals were interviewed at 34 locations across the states of New Delhi and Punjab (India) in a field survey. The data have been analyzed through confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS 21.0 to classify the considerations of the antecedents of the intention according to their relative significance using the natural gaps in standardized regression weight values. Subsequently, path analysis has been used to test a series of hypotheses concerning the direct effects of attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy on the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior.
Results:
The findings of the study revealed that all three constructs; attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy have a significant influence on the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior. Subjective norms influence intention to the highest extent closely followed by attitude.
Recommendations for Research/Practice:
Social marketers are recommended to target subjective norms and attitude while designing social marketing interventions to promote anti-littering behavior.
Limitations:
One limitation of this study is the existing gap between self-reported behavioral intention and actual behavior.
Keywords
Littering is the result of modern lifestyle existing in various developing and developed nations of the world. It is a serious problem that has economic, environmental, and health consequences (Ojedokun & Balogun, 2011). The past research defines litter as anything such as food, cloth, plastic that is either not disposed of properly or is disposed of at an unwanted location (Ajzen, 1985; Geller, 1980; Hansmann & Scholz, 2003; Keep America Beautiful, 2009; Schnelle et al., 1980; Schultz et al., 2011; Stokols & Altman, 1987). Littering is the most ignored but prominently visible environmental issue (Finnie, 1973).
Although the litter is generated from various sources, yet it can be categorized into various types based on its origin such as litter generated by industries, moving vehicles, construction and demolition sites, uncovered trucks, households (Keep America Beautiful, 2009). The literature manifests that the majority of the litter is generated from individual disposal (Schultz et al., 2011). While all types of litter are unsightly, the current study is focused on the hand-held litter that can be disposed of in a trash receptacle.
Despite evidence of the widespread negative effects of littering, people still indulge in littering. The behavior is a force of habit, repetitive, and instinctive for most of the individuals (Ojedokun & Adekunle, 2013).
Littering is a serious social problem (Ong & Sovacool, 2012). Therefore, it requires a multifaceted approach that targets behavior change. Takahashi (2009) in the study “assessing the role of social marketing in changing environmental behavior” found that this area is highly under-researched. It was also evident in the study that very little literature (2%) exists on tackling the issue of littering behavior, especially in developing countries. The present study responds to the call of Takahashi (2009) to focus on applying the field of social marketing to target pro-environmental behaviors in developing countries.
Littering has been identified as a major issue in India that has negative impacts on the environment as well as public health. A major campaign namely Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission) was launched to curb this issue but it has not been successful in eradicating this menace. This leads to a supposition that it is imperative to apply a behavior change model to deeply understand this issue. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) has been considered the most accurate theory to study and predict pro-environmental behaviors and pro-environmental behavioral intentions (Steg & Vlek, 2007). TPB has been extensively used to predict waste disposal behaviors (Karim et al., 2013; Pakpour et al., 2014). A past study conducted by Talooki et al. (2018) confirmed the efficacy of TPB in predicting the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior.
Hence, guided by the TPB, the present study attempts to assess the influence of attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy on the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior.
Theoretical Background
The TPB suggests that the attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control together influence the intention to adopt the desired behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). The current study employs the primary determinants of TPB to understand the intention.
Attitude
Attitude can be defined as the positive or negative evaluation of performing the desired behavior such as anti-littering (Ojedokun, 2011). Littering attitude can be defined as the tendency of an individual to evaluate positively or negatively the act of throwing any type of waste on the ground in various public locations (Ojedokun, 2015). All the litter that has been accumulated in the environment is due to the careless and negligent attitude (Waghorn-Lees et al., 2013). The past research reveals that attitude toward littering behavior can influence the littering behavior in an area (Zurbruegg, 2003). Various organizations such as Keep America Beautiful have been successful in changing littering behavior because their research was focused on attitude (Beck, 2007; Grasmick et al., 1991; Lehman & Geller, 2004; Reiter & Samuel, 1980). Various scholars in the past have suggested focusing on attitude to solve attitudinal issues like littering in a community (Ojedokun, 2015; Schmuck & Vlek, 2003). Hence, the following hypothesis was formulated: H1. Attitude has a significant influence on the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior.
Subjective Norms
Subjective norm is the perception of an individual of whether his social circle will approve or disapprove of the behavior. Hence, the individual’s behavior is motivated by what their peers will do (Burchell et al., 2013). The literature suggests that the concept of subjective norms is extremely crucial to understand the social behavior of an individual (Berkowitz, 1972b; McKirnan, 1980). The role of subjective norms has been examined in various behaviors such as littering (Cialdini et al., 1990; Kaiser & Scheuthle, 2003; Wiidegren, 1998). The research further emphasizes the strong relationship between subjective norms and littering versus anti-littering behavior. It has been shown in various studies that people tend to indulge in littering behavior more in an already littered area because it sets a norm that littering is acceptable (Finnie, 1973; Krauss et al., 1978; Reiter & Samuel, 1980). The past research on recycling behavior reveals that subjective norms have a significant positive influence on the intention to adopt the desired behavior (Chen & Tung, 2010; Tih & Zainol, 2012). The two types of subjective norms that are important concerning littering behavior are descriptive norms and injunctive norms (Lyndhurst, 2013). In an already clean environment, both descriptive and injunctive norms restrict littering. However, in the case of a littered environment, only injunctive norms work because injunctive norms have trans-situational influence (Reno et al., 1993). It was argued by Cialdini et al. (1990) that descriptive norms offer an advantage as a shortcut to decide how to behave in a certain situation because these motivate the individuals by giving evidence of effective action. In further research conducted by Reno et al. (1993), it was proved that descriptive norms successfully motivate the decision of an individual not to litter. They also demonstrated in their experimental research that subjective norms significantly affect human behavior. However, various research studies have identified subjective norms to be the weakest variable to predict the intention to adopt the desired behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Wankel & Mummery, 1993). It was identified by Armitage and Connor (2001) in their meta-analysis that the reason for subjective norms being weak is the use of the single item to measure the variable. The predictive weakness of the norms can be improved, if the subjective norms are measured by measuring both injunctive and descriptive norms (Cialdini, 2003). Additionally, Ajzen (2002) emphasized that the items reflecting only injunctive norms have low variability and it is important to include items reflecting descriptive norms to get rid of this problem. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed: H2. Subjective norms have a significant influence on the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior.
Self-Efficacy
It is the belief people have in their motivation, available resources, and actions to successfully perform the desired behavior (Arnould et al., 2004). People at different levels of self-efficacy perceive the same issues in different ways (Bandura, 2001). In the case of littering, self-efficacy refers to an individual’s perception that they possess the required knowledge and skills to successfully prevent littering. Individuals who do not have confidence in their abilities are less likely to perform the desired behavior because they believe that their efforts in carrying out littering prevention behavior will not reduce the littering problem. Therefore, it can be derived that individuals are more likely to perform anti-littering behavior, if they have high self-efficacy for performing the desired behavior (Ojedokun, 2013). The past research has also revealed that the social marketing campaigns involving enhancement of self-efficacy were more successful in changing behavior than the campaigns not inclusive of this component (Birkett & Hotz, 1994). Various studies conducted on pro-environmental behaviors also indicate the importance of considering self-efficacy in predicting behavior (Axelrod & Lehman, 1993; Huebner & Lipsey, 1981). Ajzen (1991) has argued in his theory that the concepts of PBC and self-efficacy are identical but the past research has demonstrated that these two concepts are different from each other (Armitage & Conner, 1999; Manstead & van Eekelen, 1998; Sparks et al., 1997; Terry & O’Leary, 1995). White et al. (1994) have found in their study on the use of condoms that PBC influences behavior, whereas self-efficacy influences the intention to adopt the desired behavior. It was also found in different studies conducted by White et al. (1994) and Terry and O’Leary (1995) that PBC influences exercise behavior directly, whereas self-efficacy predicts intention to adopt the exercise behavior. Furthermore, Werle (2011) has identified self-efficacy as a major determinant in preventive health behaviors because self-efficacy directly predicts intention (Bandura, 1997). This led to propose the following hypothesis: H3. Self-efficacy has a significant influence on the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior.
Intention
The most effective method to influence an individual’s behavior is to induce him for developing implementation intention to adopt the desired behavior (Gollwitzer, 1999). Intention indicates how motivated a person is to perform the desired behavior and assesses the magnitude of effort the person is likely to put in performing that behavior (Azjen, 1991). Pakpour et al. (2014) concluded that there is a strong correlation between intention and recycling behavior. Zhang et al. (2015) also found in their study on waste separation behavior that the increased intention to engage in the given behavior significantly improves the chances of a person indulging in that behavior.
Research Methodology
The present study has been carried out to determine the influence of attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy on the intention to adopt anti-littering behavior. The study also assesses the significance of different considerations relating to attitude, subjective norms, self-efficacy, and intention.
Data Collection and Sample
A cross-sectional survey was conducted in which 750 respondents were interviewed over 8 months. The sample size was based on the populations of the two states Punjab and Delhi according to the Census of India, 2011. The sample size comprises 380 respondents from Punjab and 370 respondents from Delhi with a 95% confidence interval and a 5% margin error. The respondents for the survey were selected by using judgment and random sampling techniques. Initially, the target sites with a high incidence of littering were identified based on insights in each city such as general market areas, bus stands, educational institutions, religious places, medical stores, grocery stores, parks, and recreation areas. Thereafter, the specific sites to conduct the survey were chosen based on random sampling technique from the pool of target research sites. The survey was conducted in 20 sites in Punjab and 14 sites in Delhi. The respondents were chosen randomly from these target sites between 11 AM and 8 PM on all weekdays. The subjects who disposed of the waste properly as well as those who disposed of the waste improperly were chosen for the study. Anyone who came into notice or sight was approached. Their incidence rate was about 40% of people who were present at selected sites. 938 people were contacted in total, out of which 750 gave their consent for giving responses at a completion rate of 80%. Based on the respondent’s consent for participation, in-depth structured interviews were conducted based on the questionnaire. Interviews were conducted at different times of the day and during all week-days to maximize heterogeneity in the responses.
Measures
A 5-point Likert scale (1-strongly agree to 5-strongly disagree) was used on the items derived from the literature. The scale included 33 items (4 items to measure intention, four items to measure self-efficacy, five items to measure subjective norms, and 20 items to measure attitude) adopted from studies conducted by Luszczynska and Shwarzer (2005), Tarkiainen and Sundqvist (2005), and Ojedokun (2015). The scale to measure attitude was taken from the past study conducted by Ojedokun (2015) on littering attitude.
Results
Results of the Measurement Model
The data have been analyzed through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to achieve the first objective and to evaluate the reliability and validity of the four proposed constructs. The CFA has been applied on the four constructs; attitude, subjective norms, self-efficacy, and intention. In total, 33 predictors were operated using the method of Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) on the covariance diagram of the four constructs (Figure 1). The β values obtained from the CFA that are equal to/above 0.4 have been accepted according to the recommended limit by Bagozzi and Baumgartner (1994). The considerations of all the antecedents were then categorized into “most significant” (SRW ≥ 0.790), “very significant” (SRW ≥ 0.7 and <0.790), “significant” (SRW ≥ 0.6 and <0.7) and “less significant” (SRW ≥ 0.5 and <0.6) based on the natural gaps in the β values.
Measurement model.
Most significant considerations
As shown in Table 1, the most significant considerations include “people around me believe that it is not cool to litter” (SN2: SRW = 0.854, p < 0.01), “I am certain I will not litter even if others do not appreciate when I dispose of the litter properly” (SE3: SRW = 0.834, p < 0.01), “I am certain I will not litter even if I am in a hurry” (SE1: SRW = 0.827, p < 0.01), “my close friends and family members would appreciate it if I would not litter” (SN4: SRW = 0.824, p < 0.01), and “one should not bother about it if it doesn’t affect one’s life” (A2: SRW = 0.802, p < 0.01).
Relative Importance of Different Considerations of Antecedents to Intention.
Very significant considerations
The very significant considerations include “I can participate in removing litter” (A10: SRW = 0.783, p < 0.01), “litter is considered only a problem if it hurts one’s well-being” (A14: SRW = 0.778, p < 0.01), “will carry my litter to the nearest bin if the bin is full” (A4: SRW = 0.777, p < 0.01), “feel under social pressure to not litter” (SN5: SRW = 0.765, p < 0.01), “I believe litter does not hurt anyone” (A5: SRW = 0.759, p < 0.01), “seeing someone littering upsets me” (A8: SRW = 0.753, p < 0.01), “it is ok to throw litter if the bin is full” (A11: SRW = 0.746, p < 0.01), “I will manage to not litter even if I find it difficult to keep litter in my pocket/bag until I find a litter bin” (SE2: SRW = 0.735, p < 0.01), “I don’t worry about littered surrounding” (A3: SRW = 0.719, p < 0.01), and “it would elevate my image in the social circle if I would not litter” (SN3: SRW = 0.710, p < 0.01).
Significant considerations
As presented in the Table 1, the significant considerations include “litter is only considered a problem if it hurts other’s well-being” (A18: SRW = 0.690, p < 0.01), “the trend to indulge in anti-littering behavior among people around me is increasing” (SN1: SRW = 0.676, p < 0.01), “I am certain I will not litter even if my surroundings tempt me to do so” (SE4: SRW = 0.663, p < 0.01),”litter ruins the environment” (A17: SRW = 0.659, p < 0.01), “seeing litter in drainage upsets me” (A7: SRW = 0.650, p < 0.01), “I feel uncomfortable if I am in littered surrounding” (A12: SRW = 0.635, p < 0.01), “I feel angry when I see people littering” (A13: SRW = 0.629, p < 0.01), “if I have time or money, I will devote it to remove litter from community” (A20: SRW = 0.621, p < 0.01), “I am not comfortable in littered surrounding” (A9: SRW = 0.620, p < 0.01), “throwing small items on ground is not littering” (A19: SRW = 0.617, p < 0.01), and “I will report a person if I see him littering” (A21: SRW = 0.609, p < 0.01).
Less significant considerations
According to Table 1, the less significant considerations include “any member caught littering must be punished” (A15: SRW = 0.574, p < 0.01) and “when I see people littering, I will tell them that public places are an extension of their homes” (A22: SRW = 0.551, p < 0.01).
Most significant considerations of anti-littering intention
As indicated in Table 2, the most significant considerations of anti-littering intention are “I intend to continue to engage in the anti-littering behavior” (AI3: SRW = 0.921, p < 0.01), “I am likely to engage in the anti-littering behavior in the forthcoming month” (AI4: SRW = 0.848, p < 0.01), and “I intend to engage in the anti-littering behavior” (AI1: SRW = 0.790, p < 0.01).
Relative Importance of Considerations of Intention.
Very significant considerations of anti-littering intention
The very significant consideration of anti-littering intention is “I intend to follow the guidance of the community members” (AI2: SRW = 0.685, p < 0.01).
Reliability analysis
The construct reliability has been checked to make sure that all the predictors are inter-correlated and predict the same construct (Hair et al., 2010). Their reliability has been checked by composite reliability. The composite reliability of all the constructs is ≥ 0.6 as suggested by Hair et al. (2010) and Bagozzi and Yi (1988). The internal consistency has also been checked by using Cronbach’s α. The Cronbach α values of the four constructs have been found more than or equal to 0.7, all according to the suggested cut-off (Nunnally, 1978; Roberts & Wortzel, 1979).
Validity analysis
In the present study, convergent validity and discriminant validity have been tested. The convergent validity of the constructs has been tested by Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and the discriminant validity has been checked by using squared correlations. The AVE values of all the constructs are more than or equal to 0.5 that supports their convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The squared correlations of all the four constructs have been found less than their respective AVE values that support their discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The results displaying the composite reliability, Cronbach’s α, and AVE values of the four constructs have been shown in Table 3.
Reliability and Validity Analysis.
Note. AVE = Average Variance Extracted.
Results of the Structural Model
The results of the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis show a good fit of the survey data to the proposed theoretical model (Table 4). Having confirmed the validity and reliability of all the four constructs, the structural relationships between latent constructs were tested using SEM (Figure 2). Table 5 represents the significant and insignificant factor loadings for all the proposed hypotheses (Figure 3).
Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Fitted SEM Model.
Structural model.
Structural Equation Model Analysis.
Note. Critical ratios that are above 1.96 are found to be significant at 0.05 level. SN = Subjective Norms, SE = Self-efficacy, A = Attitude, AI = Anti-littering Intention. *Significant at 0.05 level.
Final model. Note. indicates significant paths at p < 0.05. * indicates the significant critical ratios extracted from SEM-AMOS output.
Fitting the model to the data of the survey shows that subjective norm (SN) (β = 0.320) has the greatest influence on the anti-littering intention (AI) followed by attitude (A) (β = 0.309) and self-efficacy (SE) (β = 0.137). Hypotheses H1, H2, and H3 are supported in terms of the significant influence of attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy on anti-littering intention. Overshadowed by the relatively strong effect of attitude and subjective norms on the anti-littering intention, self-efficacy results in having a weaker (β = 0.137) though significant (CR > 1.96) effect on the anti-littering intention.
Discussion
The present study explored the influence of attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy on anti-littering intention. Structural equation analysis revealed a good fit between the proposed model and data. The results of the path analysis of the Structural Equation Model reveal that the variables subjective norms and attitude carry more weights than self-efficacy in explaining anti-littering intention. The strong effect of subjective norms on anti-littering intention is especially noteworthy. It is contrary to the previous studies where the influence of subjective norms has been proven to be weaker than the influence of attitude in predicting intention. Armitage and Conner (2001) in their meta-analysis explained that the weak correlation between the norms and intentions is due to the weaknesses in the construct’s measurement. The subjective norms have usually been measured by a single item in various studies causing its weak predictive power. Armitage and Conner (2001) demonstrated in the meta-analysis of single vs. multiple-item measures of subjective norms that the subjective norms when measured by multiple items had stronger correlations with intention. Ajzen (2002) also suggested the inclusion of the items to measure descriptive norms and injunctive norms in the measure of subjective norms. The current research used a multiple-item scale to measure subjective norms that might have led to a relatively strong relationship between subjective norms and intention. Additionally, in the Indian context, prevalent norms favoring littering and tight culture ensuring conformance to those norms justify the significance of this construct. Indian culture is a very tight culture, where the strength of social norms is extremely high especially relating to ritual purity (Coffey et al., 2017). The streets are littered in the country, whereas the homes are spectacularly clean because littering on the road or streets is a norm and an unclean house is frowned upon. Hence, everything that is undesirable inside the house finds its way on the road and streets.
The results reveal that attitude also has a significant influence on anti-littering intention. There is a marginal difference between the β values of the attitude and subjective norms. Attitude is a very important construct that has a significant influence on anti-littering intention.
The results provided empirical support to the link between self-efficacy and intention. It is in line with the findings of various other studies that the influence of self-efficacy on behavior is mediated by the intentions to perform desired behavior (McCaul et al., 1988; Terry, 1993). The present study found evidence that the control component self-efficacy has a significant link (β = 0.137) with the intention and it could be beneficial to include self-efficacy as a predictor of behavioral intentions. Hence, it supports Bandura’s (1997) finding that the intention of people to engage in desired behavior is influenced by self-efficacy.
The CFA results reveal that the most significant consideration concerning attitude toward anti-littering behavior is “one should not bother about it if it doesn’t affect one’s life.” This finding highlights the indifferent attitude of the people in the country toward littering. “People around me believe that it is not cool to litter” and “My close friends and family members would appreciate it if I would not litter” are the most significant considerations relating to subjective norms. These considerations are highly relevant in the Indian context because the tight culture in the country does not allow deviant or non-conforming behavior. The results reveal that the most significant consideration relating to self-efficacy is “I am certain I will not litter even if others do not appreciate when I dispose of the litter properly.” This further signifies the strength of subjective norms in predicting anti-littering intention in India. This is so because probably an individual with high self-efficacy will be motivated enough to go against the prevalent norms that favor littering behavior in the country.
To conclude, the findings of the study confirm the role of attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy in influencing the anti-littering intention, with subjective norms having the greatest impact on intention. The present study also provided evidence of a significant link between self-efficacy and intention, a finding that supports the revision in the behavioral control component of the theory of planned behavior. However, it is yet to be established how does self-efficacy in contrast to behavioral control affects the mediation of intention on behavior and how does it directly influence behavior.
Implications
The study contributes both to the literature and social marketing practices. The study tested the significant influence of attitude, subjective norms, and self-efficacy on the intention to perform anti-littering behavior in a developing and the world’s second most populated country, India. Social marketing practitioners can consider the importance of the most significant factor “subjective norms” in designing anti-littering interventions. The salient descriptive norms by providing clean surroundings may probably engage individuals in anti-littering behavior (Cialdini et al., 1990; Reno et al., 1993). High-littering implies permissive descriptive norms. To overweigh such permissive norms, the trans-situational influencing power of restrictive injunctive norms may be harnessed (Reno et al., 1993). The municipal corporations in urban areas and gram panchayats in rural areas may sweep all the litter that may act as a nudge in the form of the injunctive norm to signify that littering is not approved in society. The present study highlights that people in general do not find it cool to litter. The area-wise anti-litter management teams of volunteers from among local residents may be constituted to keep vigil and maintain litter-free premises. Individuals with high self-efficacy may be persuaded to join the campaigns. Positive reinforcements such as recognition and rewards may probably encourage such volunteers. In an effort to make individuals accountable for anti-littering behavior, the contests between different areas of the city or between different cities or between different villages may be organized (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007, 2013; Maki et al., 2016). The present study also manifests that appreciation by close friends and family for not littering is an important consideration. According to cultivation theory (Gerbner & Gross, 1976), media influences behavior. Radio and TV heavy broadcast can mainstream anti-littering campaigns. Simulation heuristics (Kahneman & Tversky, 1982) in terms of portraying cleaned places of the country and their health benefits may be experimented with to persuade individuals for anti-littering intentions.
To make a breakthrough into the indifferent attitude of people toward anti-littering, anti-littering media campaigns, direct face to face persuasive communication, self-referencing tasks through gaming, and education about waste management in schools may probably sensitize and foster a positive attitude toward anti-littering behavior (Hansmann & Steimer, 2015; Reich & Robertson, 1979).
Self-efficacy can be enhanced by building self-confidence among people to signify that they can significantly contribute to the cleanliness of the environment. Additionally, school children and college goers may be involved in anti-littering activities to instill confidence that they may overcome the littering issue. The eminent citizens may be involved as role models to verbally persuade, motivate, and encourage the citizens not to litter.
The marketers may develop a consortium of strategies that should complement each other synergistically. Any strategy individually may have relatively less impact than another but may be instrumental in catalyzing the effects of others. For instance, building self-efficacy and triggering a positive attitude may help in building a social movement toward anti-littering and cleanliness through volunteering.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Future research directions are suggested based on the limitations of the current study. Although the current study makes a significant contribution to the existing literature by testing a few basic premises of the original theory of planned behavior and the revised control component, yet it has some limitations. The first limitation is that the study is limited to only two states; Punjab and Delhi. Although Delhi being the capital of India was chosen because it is representative of the whole country, but the findings can still not be generalized. The research can be performed on other geographical areas in India for a deeper understanding and generalizing the model. Secondly, the influence of the demographics has not been studied in the current research. Future studies can include the demographic variables in the research to understand their influence on these constructs. The inter-relationships between different antecedents have not been studied. In future studies, it can be analyzed whether different antecedents reinforce each other. The reliance of the study on the self-reported measures is another limitation of the study. Finally, some researchers have highlighted the gap between self-reported intention and actual behavior (Echegaray & Hansstein, 2017; Halder et al., 2016). The behavioral, control and normative components significantly influence intention but they do not always lead to engaging in the desired behavior. Future studies should include other variables in the model based on TPB to address this intention-behavior gap. According to the theory of trying (Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990), the frequency of past trying may be one of the impediments in turning intention into behavior. Also, according to the theory of interpersonal behavior (Triandis, 1977), the degree of habitual behavior and facilitating conditions for desired behavior in addition to positive intention are significant for behavioral outcomes.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
