Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Alternative hierarchies of the attitude-behavior relationship: The impact of brand commitment and habit

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The theory of reasoned action and the low-involvement hierarchy model were tested using cross-lagged panel correlation. It was proposed that the low-involvement hierarchy model would more accurately reflect the behavior of low-brand-committed individuals and that the theory of reasoned action would more accurately reflect the behavior of high-brand-committed individuals. Although the findings did not completely support these hypotheses, the general thrusts of the hypotheses appear to be supported. Additionally, behavior was hypothesized and shown to influence habit for all individuals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein. 1980.Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, Raymond A. 1964. “The Obstinate Audience.”American Psychologist 19(May):319–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, Sharon E., Lynn R. Kahle and Pamela Homer (forthcoming). “The Involvement-Commitment Model: Theory and Implication.”Journal of Business Research.

  • Bem, Daryl. 1972. “Self Perception Theories.” InAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology. Ed. Leonard Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, Peter M. and George Speckart. 1979. “Models of Attitude-Behavior Relations.”Psychological Review 86 (September): 452–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, Peter H. and Marsha L. Richins. 1983. A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions.”Journal of Marketing 47 (July): 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnkrant, Robert E. and Thomas J. Page, Jr. 1982. “An Examination of the Behavioral Convergent Discriminant, and Predictive Validity of Fishbein’s Intention Model.”Journal of Marketing Research 19 (November): 550–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calder, Bobby J. 1979. “When Attitudes Follow Behavior—a Self-Perception/Dissonance Interpretation of Low Involvement. InAttitude Research Plays for High Stakes. Eds. John C. Maloney and Bernard Silverman. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. 1963.Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Thomas D. and Donald T. Campbell. 1979.Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settigns. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, Lawrence A. and James R. Taylor. 1983. “Psychological Commitment and its Effects on Post-Decision Evaluation and Preference Stability Among Voters.”Journal of Consumer Research 9 (March): 413–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, George S. 1969. “A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty.”Journal of Advertising Research 9 (September): 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillehay, Ronald C. 1972. “On the Irrelevance of the Classical Negative Evidence Concerning the Effect of Attitudes on Behaviors.”American Psychologist 28 (October): 887–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, Mary M. 1983. “Teens—the Soft Drink Generation.”Advertising Age M-33-M-34.

  • Fishbein, Martin. 1980. “A Theory of Reasoned Action: Some Applications and Implications.” InNebraska Symposium on Motivation. Ed. Monte M. Page. Vol. 27, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Icek Ajzen. 1974. “Attitudes Toward Objects as Predictors of Single and Multiple Behavioral Criteria.”Psychological Review 81 (January): 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1975.Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilles, W. Scott and Lynn R. Kahle. 1985. “Social Contract and Social Integration in Adolescent Development.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 (October), 1114–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild. 1977. “A Paradigm for Research on Consumer Involvement.” Unpublished paper, Graduate School of Business, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, Jacob and Robert W. Chestnut. 1978.Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management. N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, Jacob and David B. Kyner. 1973. “Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchasing Behavior.”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (February): 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, Lynn R. 1984.Attitudes and Social Adaptation: A Person-Situation Interaction Approach. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Sharon E. Beatty. 1987. “The Task Situation and Habit in the Attitude-Behavior Relationship: A Social Adaptation View.”Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 2(2, part 1): 219–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, David M. Klingel, and Richard A. Kulka. 1981. “A Longitudinal Study of Adolescents’ Attitude-Behavior Consistency.”Public Opinion Quarterly 45 (Fall): 402–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, Richard A. Kulka and David M. Klingel. 1980. “Low Adolescent Self-Esteem Leads to Multiple Interpersonal Problems: A Test of Social Adaptation Theory.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (September): 496–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and D.B. Kyner. 1973. “Brand Loyalty versus Repeat Purchasing Behavior.”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (February): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, David A. 1973. “Cross-Lagged and Synchronous Common Factors in Panel Data.” InStructural Equation Models in the Social Sciences. New York: Seminar Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1975. “Cross-Lagged Panel Correlation: A Test for Spuriousness.”Psychological Bulletin 82 (November): 887–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, David A. 1978.PANEL: A Computer Program for Panel Data Analysis. Department of Psychology Research Report, University of Connecticut.

  • — 1979.Correlation and Casuality. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Donald I. Campbell. 1984. “Methodological Issues in the Analysis of Temporal Data.” InHistorical Social Psychology. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 125–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Judith M. Harackiewicz. 1979. “Cross-Lagged Panel Correlation: Practice and Promise.”Journal of Applied Psychology 64: (August) 372–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, Herbert E. 1965. “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement.”Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (Fall): 349–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, Ellen J. 1978. “Rethinking the Role of Thought in Social Interaction.” InNew Directions in Attribution Research. Eds. John H. Harvey, William Ickes and Robert F. Kidd: Hillsdale, N.Y.

  • LaPiere, Richard T. 1934. “Attitudes vs. Action.”Social Forces 13 (December): 230–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lastovicka, John L. and David M. Gardner. 1977. “Components of Involvement.” InAttitude Research Plays for High Stakes. Eds. J.C. Maloney and B. Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, Gilles and Jean Noel Kapferer. 1985. “Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles.”Journal of Marketing Research 22 (February): 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miniard, Paul W. 1981. “Examining the Diagnostic Utility of the Fishbein Behavioral Intentions Model.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Ed. Kent B. Monroe. Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 42–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Andrew A. 1979. “Involvement: A Potentially Important Mediator of Consumer Behavior.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Ed. W.L. Wilkie Voo. 6. Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Andrew A. and Jerry C. Olson. 1981. “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitudes?”Journal of Marketing Research 18 (August): 318–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, D. 1980. “The Place of Habit in the Control of Action.”Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior 10 (October): 169–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, Richard E. and Lee Ross. 1980.Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelz, Donald C. and Frank M. Andrews. 1964. “Detecting Causal Priorities in Panel Study Data.”American Sociological Review 29 (December): 836–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann. 1983. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement.”Journal of Consumer Research 10 (September): 135–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, Michael L. 1973. Marketing Communications and the Hierarchy-of-Effects. InNew Models for Mass Communication Research. Ed. P. Clark. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 147–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson Thomas S. 1971.Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1976. “Low-Commitment Consumer Behavior.”Journal of Advertising Research 16 (April): 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogosa, D. 1980. “A Critique of Cross-Lagged Correlation.”Psychological Bulletin 88 (September): 245–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selin, Steven W. 1986.A Two-Stage Test of Selected Causal Antecedents of Recreation Program Loyalty. Unpublished dissertation. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, Carolyn W., Musafer Sherif, and R.E. Nebergall. 1965.Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgement Involvement Approach. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Scott M. and Sharon E. Beatty. 1984. “Development of a Generalized Involvement Scale.” InScientific Method in Marketing: Philosophy, Sociology and History of Science Perspectives. Eds. Paul F. Anderson and Michael J. Ryan, Chicago: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traylor, Mark B. 1983. “Ego Involvement and Brand Commitment: Not Necessarily the Same.”Journal of Consumer Marketing 1(2): 75–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and W.B. Joseph. 1984. “Measuring Involvement in Products.”Psychology and Marketing 1:65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, Harry L. 1977.Interpersonal Behavior. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warshaw, Paul R. 1980. “A New Model for Predicting Behavioral Intentions: An Alternative to Fishbein.”Journal of Marketing Research 17 (May): 153–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbraker, John, Brenda Lynn Gibbs, and Lynn R. Kahle. 1983. “Seat Belt Attitudes, Habits, and Behaviors: An Adaptive Amendment to the Fishbein Model.”Journal of Applied Social Psychology 13 (September–October): 406–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter L. 1973. “Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising.”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (February): 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, Judith L. 1985. “Measuring the Involvement Construct in Marketing.”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (December): 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, Gerald and Melanie Wallendorf. 1983.Consumer Behavior Basic Findings and Management Implications. N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Alabama, Alabama, USA

    Sharon E. Beatty

  2. University of Oregon, Eugene, USA

    Lynn R. Kahle

Authors
  1. Sharon E. Beatty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynn R. Kahle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R. Alternative hierarchies of the attitude-behavior relationship: The impact of brand commitment and habit. JAMS 16, 1–10 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723310

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723310

Keywords

Search

Navigation