The importance of selecting appropriate adjective pairs for measuring attitude based on the semantic differential method

Quatity & Quantity 25: 57-68, 1991. @I 1991 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

The importance of selecting appropriate adjective pairs for measuring attitude based on the semantic differential method

PIERRE VALOIS & GASTON GODIN Groupe de recherche sur les aspects psychosociaux de la Sante’ (GRAPS), School of Nursing, Lava1 University, Ste-Foy (Qukbec), GlK 7P4 Canada

Abstract. The aim of this study is to verify whether a given semantic differential scale is appropriate for measuring attitudes toward four health-related behaviors: smoking cigarettes; using oral contraceptives; breast self-examination; and using dental floss. 193 undergraduate university women completed an attitudinal questionnaire concerning these behaviors and three months later the corresponding behaviors were self-reported. Internal consistency values varied from 0.49 to 0.83 and the attitude-behavior correlations fluctuated between 0.12 and 0.64. The lowest alpha value was associated with the lowest attitude-behavior correlation. The results are discussed in terms of the relevance and the semantic stability of the pair of adjectives used to assess the attitude construct.

Key words. Attitude, semantic differential, behavior, internal consistency.

Each year, many publications in marketing, education and psychology report survey results concerning the association between attitude and behavior. Regardless of the field of investigation, the strength of association between attitude and behavior varies. Cooper and Croyle (1984) have proposed that theoretical and methodological factors influence the relation between attitude and behavior. The theoretical factors include: the degree of personal social involvement regarding the behavior (Frideres et al., 1971; Albrecht et al., 1970), the level of direct experience with the behavior (Fazio and Zanna, 1981) and the variety of definitions of attitude that have been proposed (Allport, 1935; Anderson, 1988).

One of the major methodological factors affecting the strength of the relationship between attitude and behavior is the degree of correspondance between measures of attitude and behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977). Consistent with Thurstone’s position (1931), Fishbein and Ajzen define attitude as “the amount of affect for or against some objects” that is “measured by a procedure which locates the subject on a bipolar affective or evaluative dimension vis-ci-vis a given object” (p. 11). Subsequently, they measured attitude with the semantic differential method developed by Osgood et al. (1957). This method consists in evaluating a given object (a behavior or action) on a set of 7-point bipolar scales (for instance, good-bad, wise-

58 Pierre Valois and Gaston Godin

foolish, high-low). Thus, the selection of the scale pairs from the list of potential item pairs domain is critical to the measurement of a given attitude. This selection of pairs from a domain of potential paired adjectives appears to have been largely overlooked by researchers in this field.

To investigate the selection of item pairs, several studies were examined that represent the health field in which the attitude construct was measured according to the semantic differential method (Table 1). Most of these studies applied the Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) theoretical framework. Table 1 indicates that few authors provide both the pairs of adjectives that are used to measure attitude as well as the reliability (internal consistency, stability) of the attitude construct (7 out of 29 studies). Moreover, some researchers provided information on either the adjective pairs used or the reliability of the scale (17 out of 29 studies); others did not provide any scale information (5 out of 29 studies).

Table 1 also indicates that different studies that have addressed the same topic have not used the same pairs of bipolar adjectives. In the two studies of family planning, for example, attitude was measured with the scales of good-bad, nice-awful and pleasant-unpleasant by Jaccard and Davidson (1975) and with the scales of good-bad, foolish-wise and harmful-beneficial by Fishbein and Jaccard (1973).

Often the number of scale pairs used differs between studies. Attitude toward blood donation was operationalized as the sum of three scales (good- bad, pleasant-unpleasant and nice-awful) by Pomazal and Jaccard (1976) and as the sum of five scales (good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant, safe-unsafe, punishing-rewarding and wise-foolish) by Bagozzi (1982). Thus, the present study examines whether the same set of pairs of bipolar adjectives was appropriate for measuring attitude toward different health related behaviors. For this purpose a pre-selected set of four bipolar adjectives was applied to the behaviors of smoking cigarettes, use of oral contraceptives, breast self- examination and use of dental floss.

Method

Respondents and procedure

Participants in this study were 217 undergradate university women enrolled in a program of nursing. The study was conducted in the context of regular class meetings. The study was described as a survey designed to understand health-related behaviors. At the beginning of the trimester, each student was asked to complete an attitudinal questionnaire about the four health-related behaviors: (1) smoking cigarettes (SC); (2) use of oral contraceptives (OC);

Table

1.

Sum

mar

y of

stu

dies

whi

ch

have

mea

sure

d at

titud

e wi

th

a se

man

tic

diffe

rent

ial

met

hod

acco

rding

to

rec

omm

enda

tions

of

Fi

shbe

in an

d Aj

zen

(197

5).

Stud

y Be

havio

ral

dom

ain

Scale

’ Ad

ject

ives

Relia

bility

Ajze

n &

Tim

ko

vario

us h

ealth

Co

mpl

ete

usef

ul/u

sele

ss

Fact

or 1

(1

986)

pr

actic

es

(414

) go

od/b

ad

a =

0.79

ha

rmfu

l/ben

efici

al wi

se/fo

olish

Co

mpl

ete

inter

estin

g/bo

ring

Fact

or 2

(4

/4)

hard

/sof

t a

= 0.

65

pleas

ant/u

nplea

sant

ho

t/col

d

Bago

zzi

(198

2)

Bago

zzi

(198

6)

blood

do

natio

n

blood

do

natio

n

Bear

den

& W

oods

ide

(197

8)

mar

ijuan

a co

nsum

ptio

n

Beck

& D

avis

(198

4)

smok

ing

cigar

ette

Budd

& S

penc

er

drink

ing

(198

4)

alcoh

olic

drin

ks

Com

plet

e (5

/5)

good

/bad

ple

asan

t/unp

leasa

nt

safe

/uns

afe

punis

hing/

rewa

rding

wi

se/fo

olish

a =

0.95

Com

plet

e (4

14)

Parti

al (3

/?)

Parti

al (2

/?)

Com

plet

e (4

14)

favo

urab

lelun

favo

urab

le po

sitive

/neg

ative

ple

asan

t/unp

leasa

nt

good

/bad

N/A

fool

ish/w

ise

harm

ful/b

enef

icial

bad/

good

N/A

harm

ful/b

enef

icial

wise

/fool

ish

a =

0.88

pleas

ant/u

nplea

sant

en

joyab

le/un

enjoy

able

satis

fyin

g/un

satis

fyin

g go

od/b

ad

a =

0.93

Table

1.

(co

ntinu

ed)

Stud

y Be

havio

ral

dom

ain

Scale

’ Ad

ject

ives

Relia

bility

Chaik

en

& Ba

ldwin

(198

1)

Chas

sin,

Pres

son,

Be

nsen

berg

, Co

rty,

Olha

vsky

&

Sher

man

(1

981)

David

son

& Ja

ccar

d (1

979)

David

son,

Ja

ccar

d,

Tria

ndis,

M

oral

es

& Di

az-G

uerre

ro

(197

6)

Fish

bein

& Co

ombs

(1

974)

Fred

rick

& Do

sset

t (1

983)

being

env

iron-

m

enta

list/

cons

erva

tioni

st

smok

ing

cigar

ette

fam

ily p

lannin

g

fam

ily p

lannin

g N/

A

votin

g be

havio

r

class

atte

ndan

ce

Com

plet

e W

)

Parti

al (?

13)

Com

plet

e (3

13)

Com

plet

e (5

15)

Parti

al (4

17)

good

/bad

wi

se/fo

olish

ple

asan

t/unp

leasa

nt

heal

thy/

sick

bene

ficial

/har

mfu

l

fun/

? pl

easa

nt/?

ni

ce/?

N/A

2 3 -?

s 0

N/A

6.

!i

good

/bad

ni

ce/a

wful

ple

asan

t/unp

leasa

nt

N/A

good

lbad

harm

ful/b

enef

icial

wise

/fool

ish

clean

/dirt

y sic

k/he

alth

y

impo

rtant

/uni

mpo

rtant

wo

rthle

ss/v

alua

ble

good

/bad

re

ward

ing/p

unish

ing

N/A

N/A

N/A

a =

0.87

Godin

, Va

lois,

Sh

epha

rd,

Desh

arna

is (1

987)

Grub

e,

Mor

gan

& M

cGre

e (1

986)

Katz

(1

982)

Man

stea

d, P

levin

& Sm

art

(198

4)

Mar

siglio

(1

988)

McC

aul,

O’Ne

ill &

Glas

gow

(198

8)

exer

cise

beha

vior

smok

ing

cigar

ette

sent

ence

re

com

men

datio

n

brea

st/b

ottle

fe

eding

live

with

the

ir ch

ild a

nd p

artn

er

dent

al flo

ssin

g

Com

plet

e (5

15)

Com

plet

e (4

/4)

Com

plet

e (5

15)

Com

plet

e (fm

Com

plet

e (3

13)

Com

plet

e (5

/5)

good

/bad

ha

rmfu

l/ben

efici

al ex

citing

/bor

ing

inco

nven

ient

/con

veni

ent

enjoy

able/

unen

joyab

le

good

/bad

ple

asan

t/unp

leasa

nt

enjoy

able/

unen

joyab

le lik

e/di

slike

bene

ficial

/har

mfu

l go

od/b

ad

suffi

cient

luns

uffic

ient

us

eful

/use

less

wi

se/fo

olish

unple

asan

t/plea

sant

em

barra

ssin

g/no

t em

barra

ssing

he

alth

y/un

heal

thy

repu

lsive

/attr

activ

e co

nven

ient

/inco

nven

ient

un

natu

ral/n

atur

al

bad/

good

fo

olish

/wise

ha

rmfu

l to

me/

help

ful

to m

e

good

/bad

be

nefic

ial/h

arm

ful

pleas

ant/u

nplea

sant

wi

se/fo

olish

va

luab

le/w

orth

less

a =

0.74

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


Tim

ko

(198

7)

callin

g th

e do

ctor

an

d m

onito

ring

the

brea

st c

hang

e on

on

e’s o

wn

Com

plet

e (ll/

ll) fo

olish

/wise

we

ak/s

trong

ai

mle

ss/m

otiva

ted

usel

ess/

usef

ul

pass

ive/a

ctive

sic

k/he

alth

y ba

d/go

od

harm

ful/b

enef

icial

impr

actic

al/p

ract

ical

objec

tiona

ble/a

ccep

table

im

poss

ible/

man

agea

ble

Tone

atto

& B

inik

(198

7)

dent

al flo

ssin

g N/

A N/

A

Valo

is,

Desh

arna

is,

Godin

(1

988)

exer

cise

beha

vior

Com

plet

e (6

/Q

unhe

alth

y/he

alth

y ba

d/go

od

usel

ess/

usef

ul

unple

asan

t/plea

sant

du

ll/int

eres

ting

borin

g/sti

mula

ting

N/A

N/A

cy =

0.72

Wils

on,

Mat

hews

, &

Harv

ey

(197

5)

purc

hasin

g Co

mpl

ete

toot

hpas

te

(4/4

) fo

olish

/wise

go

od/b

ad

harm

ful/b

enef

icial

rewa

rding

/pun

ishing

N/A

Youn

g &

Kent

(1

985)

go

ing c

ampin

g N/

A N/

A N/

A

‘com

plet

e =

all d

etai

ls ar

e pr

ovide

d.

parti

al =

an in

com

plet

e inf

orm

ation

is

given

con

cern

ing

the

pair

of a

djec

tives

. N/

A =

the

infor

mat

ion

is no

t av

ailab

le.


(3) breast self-examination (BSE); and (4) use of dental floss (DF). At the end of the trimester, the remaining students (193) were asked to report their behaviors over the past three months.

In order to control for the order effect, four sequences of the attitudinal questionnaire were used: (1) SC, OC, BSE, DF (n = 47); (2) DF, SC, OC, BSE (n = 47); (3) BSE, DF, SC, OC (n = 48); and (4) OC, BSE, DF, SC (n = 51). The same technique of rotation was applied for the assessment of the four self-reported behaviors.

Each measure of attitude-toward-the-act was assessed by summing the score of the four ‘I-point scale pairs. The endpoints of unpleasant-pleasant, health-unhealthy, bad-good and useful-useless were used to evaluate each of the four attitudes. The scores of the second and fourth scale pairs were inversed for computation.

For each behavior, the subjects were asked to indicate their personal status concerning these behaviors over the past three months. The choices offered for each behavior were as follows: (a) smoking cigarettes: (1) did not smoke, (2) smoked a few cigarettes per month, (3) smoked a few cigarettes per week, and (4) smoked daily; (b) oral contraceptives: (1) did not use, (2) stopped using during the last three month-period, and (3) used regularly; (c) breast self-examination: (1)‘not at all, (2) once, (3) twice, and (4) three times during the last three months; (d) dental flbss: (1) not at all, (2) about once per month, (3) about twice a month, (4) about three times a month, and (5) at least once per week.

Results

Questionnaire-order effect

The measure of attitude toward each of the four health-related behaviors was not affected by the administration of four sequences of the questionnaire. The means of attitudes toward a given behavior did not differ among the four versions of the questionnaire: (1) [SC: F (1,189) = 0.74, p < 0.981; (2) (DC: F (1,189) = 2.18, p < 0.101; (3) [BSE: F (1,189) = 1.04, p < 0.391; and (4) [DF: F (1,189) = 0.88, p < 0.461. Similarly, the means of behaviors did not differ among the four versions of the self-reported questionnaire: (1) [SC: F (1,189) = 0.34, p < 0.801; (2) [DC: F (1,189) = 0.48, p < 0.701; (3) [BSE: F (1,189) = 0.66, p < 0.591; and (4) [DF: F (1,189) = 0.71, p < 0.551.

Main study results

In order to identify the influence of using the same set of scale pairs on the attitude-behavior relation, the analyses were performed in two steps. The

Selecting appropriate adjective pairs 65

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of the scale pairs for each measure of attitude

Attitudinal domain

Scale pairs SC

Unpleasant-pleasant 2.13(1.81) Unhealthy-healthy 1.44(1.04) Bad-good 1.54(1.13) Useless-useful 1.46(1.10)

note: possible scores range from 1 to 7. SC: smoking cigarettes OC: oral contraceptives BSE: breast self-examination DF: dental floss

OC BSE DF

3.36(1.61) 4.31(0.98) 4.63(1.34) 3.28(1.58) 6.08(1.11) 6.32(0.94) 3.37(1.55) 6.15(0.92) 6.23(0.90) 4.33(2.31) 5.68t1.85) 5.69(1.69)

first step consisted of verifying the internal consistency of the attitude construct and the item-total correlations. In the second step, the Pearson correlation coefficient was computed for each attitude-behavior relation.

The mean of each scale pair for each measure of attitude is presented in Table 2. The item-total correlations are presented in Table 3. The Cronbach alpha coefficients for the measures of attitude toward smoking cigarettes, using oral contraceptives, breast self-examination, and using dental floss, were 0.67, 0.83, 0.49, 0.61, respectively.

The attitude-behavior correlation coefficients were 0.64 (p < 0.0001) for smoking cigarettes, 0.62 (p < 0.0001) for using oral contraceptives, 0.12 (p < 0.04) for breast self-examination, and 0.29 (p < 0.0001) for using dental floss.

Discussion

The present results indicate that a given set of scale pairs cannot be used to measure attitude toward different health-related behaviors. These results are

Table 3. Item-total correlations and Cronbach alpha coefficients for each measure of attitude

Scale pairs SC

Unpleasant-pleasant 0.63 Unhealthy-healthy 0.26 Bad-good 0.55 Useless-useful 0.47

Alpha 0.67

Attitudinal domain

oc BSE DF

0.70 0.20 0.19 0.70 0.32 0.55 0.73 0.41 0.69 0.59 0.33 0.35

0.83 0.49 0.61

SC: smoking cigarettes OC: oral contraceptives BSE: breast self-examination DF: dental floss


in agreement with the point of view of Osgood et al. (1957), who have indicated that one should be careful in selecting the scale pairs. They have proposed that the selection of items should be based on their relevance to the behavior or action being assessed and their semantic stability for the behavior under study. In the present study, for example, use of the unpleasant-pleasant pair of adjectives is relevant to smoking cigarettes, using oral contraceptives and dental floss. Use of this adjectival pair is non-relevant to breast self-examination, however, because it is unlikely that perception of the behavior as pleasant/unpleasant favors the development of one’s attitude toward performing breast self-examination.

Semantic stability, on the other hand, refers to the different interpretations that can be applied to a single scale pair. In the present study, the good- bad scale for the measure of attitude toward breast self-examination lacks stability because some individuals could give a different meaning to this scale pair. Few individuals could see this behavior as good for health reasons whereas other individuals could interpret this behavior as prescribed by religious beliefs.

The internal consistency of the attitude construct is consistent with the above observations and is influenced by the relevance and the semantic stability of the pair of adjectives selected. This psychometric flaw could influence the attitude-behavior relationship as shown by the present results; for example, the lowest Pearson correlation coefficient between attitude and behavior in the present study was found for the breast self-examination (r = 0.12) that also had the lowest Cronbach alpha value (a = 0.49). The results of the present study suggest that it is very important that studies reporting results concerning the attitude-behavior relation provide complete information on the pair of adjectives selected and the reliability of the scale. Without this information, it is extremely difficult to know the value of the reported finding.

In summary, the present research suggests that the attitude-behavior relations can be affected by the selection of the scale pairs. Therefore, researchers should exercise care in the selection of a given set of adjectival pairs for the study of behaviors, and should report the information concerning the psychometric properties of the semantic differential scale.

References

Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein (1977). “Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research”; Psychological Bulletin 84: 888-918.

Selecting appropriate adjective pairs 67

Ajzen, Icek and Christine Timko (1986). “Correspondence between health attitudes and behavior”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology 1: 259-276.

Albrecht, Stan L., Melvin L. DeFleur, and Lyle G. Warner (1972). “Attitude-behavior relation- ships: A reexamination of the postulate of contingent consistency”, Pacific Sociological Review 15: 149-168.

Allport, Gordon W. (1935), “Attitudes”, in C. Murchison (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychol- ogy, Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

Anderson, L.W. (1988). “Attitudes and their measurement”, pp. 421-426 in V.P. Keeves (ed.), Educational Research, Methodology and Measurement: An International Handbook, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1982). “A field investigation of causal relations among cognitions, affect, intentions, and behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research 19: 562-584.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1986), “Attitude formation under the theory of reasoned action and purposeful behavior reformulation”, British Journal of Social Psychology 25: 95-107.

Bearden, William 0. and Arch G. Woodside (1978). “Situational and extended attitude models as predictors of marijuana intentions and reported behavior”, The Journal of Social Psychol- ogy 106: 57-67.

Beck, Kenneth H. and Clive M. Davis (1984). “Predicting smoking intentions and behaviors from attitudes, normative beliefs, and emotional arousal”, Social Behavior and Personality 8: 185-192.

Budd, Richard J. and Christopher Spencer (1984). “Latitude of rejection, centrality and cer- tainty: variables affecting the relationship between attitudes, norms and behavioural intentions”, British Journal of Social Psychology 23: l-8.

Chaiken, Shelly and Mark W. Baldwin (1981). “Affective-cognitive and the effect of salient behavioral information on the self-perception of attitudes”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41: 1-12.

Chassin, Laurie, Clark C. Presson, Michele Bensenberg, Eric Corty, Richard W. Olshavsky, and Steven J. Sherman (1981). “Predicting adolescents’ intentions to smoke cigarettes”, Journal of Health and Social Behaviors 22: 445-455.

Cooper, Joel and Robert T. Croyle (1984). “Attitudes and attitude change”, Annual Review of Psychology 35: 395-426.

Davidson, Andrew R. and James J. Jaccard (1979). “Variables that moderate the attitude- behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy 37: 1364-1376.

Davidson, Andrew R., James J. Jaccard, Harry C. Triandis, Maria Luisa Morales, and Rogelio Diaz-Guerrero (1976). “Cross-cultural model testing: Toward a solution of the etic-emit dilemma”, International Journal of Psychology 11: 1-13.

Fazio, Russell H. and Mark P. Zanna (1981). “Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 14: 161-202.

Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975). Behef, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An lntroduc- tion to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fishbein, Martin and Fred S. Coombs (1974). “Basis for decision: an attitudinal analysis of voting behavior”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 4: 95-124.

Fishbein, Martin and James J. Jaccard (1973). “Theoretical and methodological considerations in the prediction of family planning intentions and behavior”, Representative Research in Social Psychology 4: 37-51.

Fredricks, Arlene J. and Dennis L. Dossett (1983). “Attitude-behavior relations: A comparison of the Fishbein-Ajzen and the Bentler-Speckart models”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 501-512.

Frideres, James S., Lyle G. Warner, and Stan L. Albrecht (1971). ‘The impact of social constraints on the relationship between attitudes and behavior”, Social Forces 50: 102-112.

Godin, Gaston, Pierre Valois, Roy J. Shephard, and Raymond Desharnais (1987). “Prediction of leisure-time exercise behavior: A path analysis (LISREL V) model”, Journal of Behavioral Medicine 10: 145-158.


Grube, Joel W., Mark Morgan, and Sheila T. McGree (1986). “Attitudes and normative beliefs as predictors of smoking intentions and behaviours: A test of three models”, British Journal of Social Psychology 25: 81-93.

Jaccard, James and Andrew R. Davidson (1975). “A comparison of two models of social behavior: Results of a survey sample”, Sociometry 38: 497-517.

Katz, Janet (1982). “The impact of time proximity and level of generality on attitude-behavior consistency”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 12: 151-168.

Manstead, A.S.R., C.E. Plevin, and J.L. Smart (1984). “Predicting mothers’ choice of infant feeding method”, British Journal of Social Psychology 23: 223-231.

Marsiglio, William (1988). “Commitment to social fatherhood: Predicting adolescent male’s intentions to live with their child and partner”, Journal of Marriage and the Family 50: 427- 441.

McCaul, Kevin D., H. Katherine O’Neill, and Russell E. Glasgow (1988). “Predicting the performance of dental hygiene behaviors: An examination of the Fishbein and Ajzen model and self-efficacy expectations”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 18: 114-128.

Olson, James M. and A. Victoria Cal (1984). ‘Source credibility, attitudes and the recall of past behaviours”, European Journal of Social Psychology 14: 203-210.

Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957). The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Pomazal, Richard J. and James J. Jaccard (1976). “An informational approach to altruistic behavior”; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33: 317-326.

Riddle, Patricia IS. (1980). “Attitudes, beliefs, behavioral intentions, and behaviors of women and men toward regular jogging”, Research Quarterly of Exercise and Sports 51: 663-674.

Schifter, Deborah E. and Icek Ajzen (1985). “Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy 49: 843-851.

Seibold, David R. and Roy E. Roper (1979). “Psychosocial determinants of health care intentions: Test of the Triandis and Fishbein models”, pp. 625-643 in D. Nimmo (ed.), Communi- cation Yearbook 3, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Shimp, Terence A. and Alican Kavas (1984). “The theory of reasoned action applied to coupon usage”, Journal of Consumer Research 11: 795809.

Thurstone, Leon L. (1931). “The measurement of social atitudes”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 26: 249-269.

Timko, Christine (1987). “Seeking medical care for a breast cancer symptom: Determinants of intentions to engage in prompt or delay behavior”, Health Psychology 6: 305-328.

Toneatto, Tony and Yitzchak Binik (1987). “The roles of intentions, social norms, and attitudes in the performance of dental flossing: A test of the theory of reasoned action”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 17: 593-603.

Valois, Pierre Raymond Desharnais, and Gaston Godin (1988). “A comparison of the Fishbein and Ajzen and the Triandis attitudinal models for the prediction of exercise intention and behavior”, Journal of Behavioral Medicine 11: 459-472.

Wilson, David T., H. Lee Mathews, and James W. Harvey (1975). “An empirical test of the Fishbein behavioral intention model”, Journal of Consumer Research 1: 39-48.

Young, Robert, A. and Anne T. Kent (1985). ‘Using the theory of reasoned action to improve the understanding of recreation behavior”, Journal of Leisure Research 17: 90-106.

Documents

The importance of selecting appropriate adjective pairs for measuring attitude based on the semantic differential method