Triandis’ Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour
|
Triandis’ Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour in
understanding software piracy Behavior in South Africa Contex
Robinson, J. (2010). Triandis'
theory of interpersonal behaviour in understanding software piracy behaviour
in the South African context (Doctoral dissertation). p.12-33
|
…
1.3 Triandis’ (1977) Theory of Interpersonal
Behaviour (TIB)
Triandis’ (1977) Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour (TIB) belongs to a
school of cognitive models, namely that of Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1975) Theory
of Reasoned Action and Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Milhausen,
Reece & Perera, 2006). The Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned
Behaviour state that the key determinant of behaviour is an individual’s
intention to perform a specific act. The original model, Theory of Reasoned
Action, was revised and modified, as it did not include behaviours over which
people have incomplete volitional control. Therefore, the Theory of Planned
Behaviour stated that intention can only lead to behaviour if the particular
behaviour is under volitional control (if the person can decide at will to
perform or not to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)). The Theory of Planned
Behaviour model consists of “attitudes towards the behaviour’, “ subjective
norms’, and „perceived behavioural control’ which in turn influence intention
which in turn influences the performance of behaviour.
Triandis (1977) goes beyond these theorists in his tri-level TIB model
by adding habits and the presence of facilitating conditions that either enable
or hinder the performance of a particular behaviour (Milhausen, Reece &
Perera, 2006). Fishbein’s model differs from Triandis’ TIB, in the sense that
Fishbein was interested in accounting for the most variance with the fewest
variables, whereas Triandis is interested in accounting for the most variance
in total, because even a small amount of variance may be socially important, if
the behaviour in question is critical (Triandis, 1977). The two models have
three specific differences. Firstly, the TIB takes into account habits and
facilitating conditions as intervening between intention and behaviour, while
Fishbein emphasises that behaviour is a direct function of intentions.
Secondly, the TIB considers roles, self-image, and interpersonal agreements,
which are not considered in the Fishbein model. Fishbein states that the
influence of the above factors will be felt through the individual’s attitude
toward the behaviour. Thirdly, the TIB uses affect towards behaviour as a
separate factor, whereas, Fishbein assumes that affect is the sum of the
perceived consequences multiplied by the value attached to these consequences
(Triandis, 1977).
Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behaviour has been used widely in
understanding a variety of unethical human behaviours and many studies have
demonstrated the model’s strong predictive power (Sutton, 1998). Yet, numerous
studies (Milhausen, Reece & Perera, 2006; Pee, Woon & Kankanhalli,
2008; Montano, 1986; Valois, Desharnais & Godin, 1988) have also indicated
that Triandis’ Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour (TIB) is a more comprehensive
model and has additional explanatory value than other behavioural models (TRA
and TPB), yet it has been overlooked and as a result used less frequently. The
TIB includes all aspects of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Theory
of Planned Behaviour (TPB) models, and includes additional components that add
to its predictive power, namely that of habits, facilitating conditions and
affect (Limayem et al., 2004; Woon & Pee, 2004). Previous research
making use of Triandis’ TIB has found that including factors such as habit
increases the model’s predictive power over other models such as the TPB
(Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003: as cited in Woon and Pee, 2004; Thompson, Higgins
& Howell, 1991, 1994).
Triandis’ TIB has been used and applied in numerous contexts regarding
behaviour in studies post-2000, including Internet abuse in the workplace (Woon
and Pee, 2004), sexual behaviour at a Mardi Gras (Milhausen, Reece &
Perera, 2006), non-work related computing in the workplace (Pee, Woon &
Kankanhalli, 2008), predicting students’ car use for university routes (Bamberg
& Schmidt, 2003), telemedicine adoption by physicians (Gagnon, Godin,
Gagne, Fortin, Lamothe, Reinharz & Cloutier, 2003), and predicting
undergraduate condom use (Boyd & Wandersman, 2006), to name but a few.
Triandis (1977) stated that interpersonal behaviour is a multifaceted
and complex phenomenon, due to the fact that in any interpersonal encounter, a
person’s behaviour is determined by what that person perceives to be
appropriate in that particular situation. This behaviour is subsequently
determined by what others pressure them to do, the extent to which the
individual enjoys or dislikes the behaviour, and the consequences that are
perceived to be associated with the particular behaviour including the extent
to which the person values these consequences (Triandis, 1977). Previous
behaviours are primarily interpreted according to what is assumed to be the
cause of these behaviours. The entire social setting, including aspects of an
individual’s personality, has the power to influence and modify interpersonal
relations (Triandis, 1977). Triandis’ TIB is predominately used to gain a
comprehensive understanding as to what determines behaviour or what factors
cause behaviour in general. The TIB is useful in explaining and understanding
complex human behaviours predominately those behaviours that are influenced by
their social and physical environments (Milhausen, Reece & Perera, 2006).
Triandis (1977) stated that intentions are formed as a result of
the key role that is played by both social factors and emotions and then
overtly argued that behaviour was primarily a function of the intention
to engage in the act (comprised of perceived consequences, affect and social
factors), habits (frequency of past behaviour), and facilitating conditions
which he considered to be the present situational constraints and conditions.
The tri-level model (see Figure 1) developed by Triandis (1977) states that the
first level is concerned with the way personal characteristics and prior
experiences shape personal attitudes, beliefs and social factors related to the
behaviour. The second level explains how cognition, affect and social
determinants and personal normative beliefs influence the formation of
intentions with regards to a specific behaviour. The third level states that
intentions regarding the behaviour, prior experience and situational conditions
predict whether or not the person will perform the specific behaviour in
question (Milhausen, Reece & Perera, 2006).
Figure 1: Modified Diagrammatic representation of TIB (Egmond & Bruel, 2007).
The TIB model,
as shown in Figure 1, starts with examining the behaviour itself and from that
point works backwards, identifying the other determinants of behaviour. The
theoretical concepts that make up the model of interpersonal behaviour will be
discussed in this manner.
1.3.1 Model of Interpersonal Behaviour
Acts (Behaviour)
The first of
the concepts that make up the TIB model is what is referred to as acts. At a
basic level, a particular act is conceptualized as a socially defined pattern
of muscle movements which differ in terms of duration, intensity, frequency and
the possibility of occurrence (Triandis, 1977). Specific acts, for example
hitting a person or taking off one’s hat are too brief, are subject to too many
influences and too numerous to constitute the appropriate primitive terms of
good theory (Triandis, 1977). Behaviours of this nature do not have meaning in
themselves, due to the fact that they acquire meaning only from the contexts in
which they occur. According to Triandis, behaviour in any situation is a
function partly of the intention, partly of habitual responses, and partly of
the situational constraints and conditions present in any particular situation
in which a behavioural response is initiated (Egmond & Bruel, 2007:
Jackson, 2005). The frequency of a particular behaviour is partly determined by
how natural the act (software piracy) is for the individual. Behaviours that
are natural for an individual have different determinants to those behaviours
that rarely occur and that the individual is not prepared for (Triandis, 1977).
In terms of behaviour, Triandis states that a person is neither fully
deliberative nor fully automatic, neither fully autonomous nor entirely social.
Behaviour is influenced by moral beliefs, but the impact of these is moderated
both by emotional drives and cognitive limitations (Egmond & Bruel, 2007).
Goals and Intentions
Goals and
intentions refer to the second aspect of the model. Behaviours (acts) are
characteristically the result of the particular goals and intentions that an
individual has. A goal “is an outcome of a sequence of specific acts”
(Triandis, 1977, p.5). However, a behavioural intention “is a cognitive
antecedent of an act” (Triandis, 1977, p.5). Triandis (1980) stated that,
“intention represents an individual’s conscious plan or self-instruction to
carry out a behaviour” (cited in Woon & Pee, 2004. p 81). Intentions are
considered as either specific or general. Behaviours are connected to specific
intentions, as the pattern of behaviour is organized, sequential, and is specific
17 to a particular goal. Any specific intention is normally the manifestation
of a number of different general intentions (Triandis, 1977) as intentions are
influenced by rational thought, and social, normative and emotional factors
(Martiskainen, 2007; Jackson, 2005).
Norms
Norms are
defined as the “beliefs that certain behaviours are correct, appropriate, or
desirable and other behaviours are incorrect, inappropriate, immoral or
undesirable” (Triandis, 1977, p.8). Norms are the social rules about what
should or should not be done (Egmond & Bruel, 2007). Particular norms that
an individual holds are predominately a function of the societal group to which
the individual belongs. As a result, some norms are weak whilst others are
particularly strong; some norms apply to all people whilst other norms only
apply to certain people in particular situations. Breaking a norm can result in
certain consequences; however these consequences are diverse and vary between
groups and individuals (Triandis, 1977).
Roles
Roles refer to
sets of behaviours that are considered appropriate for people holding
particular positions in a group (Triandis, 1977). Roles and role behaviours are
defined differently in different societies. Many traditional societies shape
their different roles in order for them to become consistent so that role
conflict is avoided (Triandis, 1980). However, in modern societies roles are
constantly changing and individuals find themselves belonging to a variety of
groups that make conflicting demands upon them, resulting in role conflict
(Triandis, 1977).
Self-image
Self-image
falls in line with norms and roles; however self-image refers to “a person’s
ideas about who he or she is” (Triandis, 1977, p.9). Self-esteem, referring to
how valuable a person feels they are; and the ideas an individual has regarding
what behaviours are correct, appropriate or desirable all form part of the
„ideas’ that a person holds regarding who he or she is. If an individual thinks
of him/herself as 18 moral, their behaviour is likely to be of a high moral
standard unlike an individual who does not have a thought of that nature
(Triandis, 1977). Self-concept refers to the idea that a person has of
him/herself as mentioned above, however it also refers to the goals that are
appropriate for the person to pursue, and the behaviours that the person does
or does not engage in (Egmond & Bruel, 2007).
Affect
Affect toward
a particular behaviour refers to the emotions an individual feels at the
thought of a particular behaviour (in this study, software piracy). Affect
represents an emotional state that the performance of a particular behaviour
evokes for that individual (Gagnon, Sanchez & Pons, 2006). Affect refers to
an individual’s feelings of elation, pleasure, distaste or discontentment with
regards to the particular behaviour in question (Triandis, 1977). These
emotions can either be positive (pleasant) or negative (unpleasant) and either
strong or weak (Triandis, 1977). Behaviour may be associated with pleasant
stimulation or with disgust, anxiety or distress.
Perceived Consequences
Perceived
consequences refer to the subjective probability that certain consequences will
follow on from a particular behaviour and that the outcome generated will
either hold a positive or negative value for the individual (Woon & Pee,
2004). Triandis (1977) states, that the connection between behaviour and
perceived consequences is not always strong. What an individual perceives to be
a consequence of their behaviour and the actual consequence that occurs as a
result of that behaviour, may differ to a lesser or greater degree (Triandis,
1977). Individuals attach value to consequences, which refers to how good or
bad a person would feel if the anticipated consequence were to happen (Limayem
et al., 2004). When individuals engage in certain behaviours, they do not
always react to the positive outcomes with the same enthusiasm, nor do they get
equally upset when the behaviour results in negative outcomes (Triandis, 1977).
The following section will discuss the relation between habit, intention and
facilitating conditions in determining behaviour.
1.3.2. Relations among Concepts
Triandis
(1977) states, that the above concepts are related to one another and to the
probability that a particular behaviour will occur.
Determinants of the probability of an Act
The
probability that a particular behaviour will occur is determined by three
factors; habit (the strength of previous behaviour in producing the target
behaviour), behavioural intention (the intention to engage in the particular
act), and facilitating conditions (the presence or absence of conditions that
facilitate the performance of a particular behaviour) (Triandis, 1977; Osbourne
& Clarke, 2006).
In Triandis’
TIB model, he strongly emphasises the importance of past behaviour on the
present situation (Jackson, 2005). As a result, habit to act is measured by the
number of times the behaviour has already been performed by the individual in
the past. Intention refers to the actual behavioural intention a person has to
engage in a particular behaviour (Triandis, 1977). Facilitating conditions
refer to the ability of the person to actually carry out the behaviour, the
individuals’ arousal to carry out the act, and the person’s knowledge of how to
carry out the target behaviour (Osbourne & Clarke, 2006). Triandis (1977)
states that if a person knows the weight carried by habit and intentions, he or
she will be able to gauge the probability of a particular behaviour occurring.
Habits and intentions are therefore able to predict the probability of an act,
and each variable makes an independent contribution to the prediction.
Triandis
(1977) maintained that the potential to engage in a particular behaviour is
higher the greater the weight exerted by habit. A habit is considered strong
for a number of reasons; the person may engage in the behaviour naturally or
the individual may have received positive, large and frequent reinforcement for
performing that behaviour in the past; and may have developed the expectation
that behaving in this way would lead to reinforcement (Triandis, 1 977). The
potential to carry out a particular behaviour is proportional to the
behavioural intention which corresponds to that act. Habits and intentions are
dependent on the ability of the individual to carry out the particular act
(Egmond & Bruel, 2007). It is imperative to understand that the 20 weight
of habit is contingent on whether the behaviour in question is over-learned or
automatic as opposed to deliberate requiring the cognitive processes of thought
and planning. Therefore, the weight of habit will be larger when the behaviour
is more deliberate (Triandis, 1977). Behavioural intention requires the
activation of cognitive processing of information, which takes more time to do,
than the activation of habits. Theoretically, behavioural intention and habit
are related, because if intentions are relatively constant over time, they will
inevitably cause the same behaviour over and over. Habit reflects the frequency
of this behaviour. As the behaviour becomes repeated more frequently, habit
increases and becomes a more accurate predictor of behaviour than intention
(Triandis, 1977). When behaviour is new and unlearned, intention is solely
responsible for the behaviour, whilst when the behaviour is old and
over-learned and has been performed numerous times, the behaviour is then said
to be under the control of habit. Habit is also deemed to be in control of the
behaviour when the individual is highly emotionally aroused (Triandis, 1977).
The social
situation and individual differences also play a role in the strength of habit.
When the current social situation resembles situations in which the behaviour
has occurred in the past, the weight of habit will be larger (Triandis, 1977).
The weight of intention is also contingent on the social situation and on
individual personality differences. When the social situation is new and the
behaviour has not yet become automatic or over-learned, the weight of intention
will be larger compared to the weight in situations that are familiar
(Triandis, 1977).
Situations
characterized by high levels of uncertainty, threat or anxiety lead to
individuals experiencing elevated levels of arousal. In situations of this
nature, the weight of habit becomes much larger than that of intention. Arousal
increases the weight of habit further, so that for over-learned behaviours,
arousal will lead to the improved performance of that particular act (Triandis,
1977). When an individual comes into contact with an entirely new behaviour,
the weight of habit is seldom significant. However, when arousal increases the
weight of habit, it interferes with the new behaviour and as a result
performance of that behaviour weakens (Triandis, 1977). 21
Triandis
(1980) stated that facilitating conditions include the individual’s ability to
perform the act, their level of arousal in regard to the act, the difficulty of
the act, the individual’s possession of the knowledge required to perform the
act, and the environmental factors present that increase the probability of the
behaviour (cited in Osbourne & Clarke, 2006). At any level of habit or
intention, the absence or presence of facilitating conditions will have an
affect on whether or not the behaviour will be performed. Therefore, if the
situation does not allow the individual to carry out the behaviour, habit and
intention will have limited relevance (Gagnon, Sanchez & Pons, 2006). As
mentioned earlier, when habit has a high/strong weighting the execution of the
target behaviour is highly probable. In this instance, facilitating conditions
are enabling the behaviour to take place. The objective factors in the
environment are conducive to pirating software and are therefore allowing the
target behaviour to be executed with ease. However, if the external objective
factors in the environment hinder or impede the behaviour from being executed,
it is then that the high/strong weighting of habit will be obsolete in the
sense that the facilitating conditions will prevent the behaviour from being
executed.
As mentioned,
an individual must have the ability or skill to carry out the behaviour that he
or she has the desire to perform (Triandis, 1980). For example, an individual
who has the desire to make unauthorised copies of software needs to possess the
required skills to actually perform the behaviour. Facilitating conditions
predominately refer to any environmental conditions that make a particular
behaviour easy to accomplish, for example the availability of the needed
resources or lack of security measures in place that enable an individual to
easily engage in a particular behaviour (Osbourne & Clarke, 2006). The
environment, in which people find themselves, increases the probability of
certain types of behaviours and decreases the probability of others. Triandis
(1977) strongly states that facilitating conditions need to be assessed in
order to effectively predict behaviour. Triandis (1980) stated that
facilitating conditions directly affect the actual behaviour rather than
intentions because one might have the intention to perform a certain act, but
the environment may not support the behaviour in question and as a result would
not be able to be executed (cited in Osbourne & Clarke, 2006). 22
The determinants of Behavioural Intention
The intention
to perform a particular behaviour is determined by three factors: social
factors, affect in regard to the behaviour, and perceived consequences of the
behaviour including the value attached to the consequences (Triandis, 1980).
Social factors
are the norms, roles, and general behavioural intentions that form as a result
of the interactions between an individual and the people around them. Triandis
(1977) includes „contractual arrangements’ under social factors, which are made
by an individual with other people including how a person considers a
particular behaviour to be consistent with their own self-concept. Perceived
social pressure to or not to engage in a particular behaviour affects the
intentions to perform an act (Limayem et al., 2004).
Triandis
(1977), states that all the factors (to be discussed below) are included under
social factors as they all form part of the social component. Rules of
behaviour determine some of the variance of behaviour in many social
situations. Behaviour in social situations that individuals encounter on a
daily basis is predominately governed by a set of rules that dictate how they
should behave (Triandis, 1977).
Contractual
arrangements are normally rather specific. An arrangement can be as simple
as two people arranging to meet at a certain time. Arrangements become the
goals that guide a specific chain of behavioural intentions (Triandis, 1977).
Therefore, in light of the above example, behavioural intentions such as
walking to the car, starting the ignition, driving to the meeting place and so
on are all done before meeting at the specified arranged time. Self-monitoring
is “self-observation and self-control guided by situational cues to social
appropriateness” (Triandis, 1977, p.14). Individuals often decide, prior to
social encounters, the „line’ they want to take in presenting themselves to
other people. As a result, individuals make sure that their behaviour sticks
closely to the „line’ that they have previously decided on. Individuals differ
with regard to their self-monitoring. People high in self-monitoring are good
at learning what is socially appropriate in new situations; they have superior
control over their emotional expressions and are able to use their abilities
more effectively in creating the impressions that they desire (Triandis, 1980).
The self-concept refers to “self-attributed traits and behaviour
patterns” (Triandis, 1977, p.14). Certain behaviours are typically felt to be
more consistent with an individual’s self-concept than others. For example, the
behaviour of „typing an article’ may be more consistent with an individual’s
self-conception than the behaviour of „hitting somebody’. An individual’s
behavioural intention will follow from these self-attributed traits. Therefore,
self-conceptions have the power to either facilitate or impede an individual’s
particular behavioural intention (Triandis, 1980). Our self-concept is strongly
influenced by how people around us think of us. This is communicated to us in
the way that people act around us, which indicates that we are one thing rather
than another. The memory that an individual has of their past behaviour is
another contributing factor to their self-concept (Triandis, 1977). An
individual’s self-concept is the theory that the individual has constructed
about himself or herself, referred to as self-theory. An individual’s belief
about the correctness of behaviour can be a powerful predictor of whether or
not they will engage in that particular act (Triandis, 1977). Miniscule changes
that occur in a person’s self-concept have the potential to change or alter
behaviour. Most people behave in ways that are consistent with their
self-concept. For example, if an individual conceptualises him/herself as a
„bad’ person, they will be more prone to engage in behaviours that are
typically characterised as „bad’. The strength of social factors reflects the
clarity of the norms, roles, self-concept and interpersonal contracts. The
weight that social factors will have is reflected in the extent to which the
person believes that they will be exposed if they deviate from the norm,
reflecting the strength of the individual’s moral development (Triandis, 1977).
Therefore, if the individual’s behaviour is under surveillance, the weight of
the social component will be large. When a person’s behaviour is covert, it
will have a smaller social weight than when it is overt. Surveillance of an
individual’s behaviour is linked to perceived social pressure, which refers to
the person’s perception of whether most people important to them think that the
behaviour should be performed or not (Limayem et al., 2004).
Affect
associated with behaviour refers to the particular assembly of emotions
that become activated at the thought of the behaviour (Limayem et al., 2004).
“Cues associated with any behaviour, including special cues such as the
cognitive representation of the behaviour as a behavioural intention, become
associated with certain pleasant or unpleasant outcomes” (Triandis, 1977, p.
16). Behaviours that elicit a particular emotional response may also elicit a
variety of behaviours that are consistent with that specific response. There is
an association between emotion and behaviour because the thought of the
particular behaviour (conditioned stimulus) becomes associated with the
emotions attached to pleasant or unpleasant events (unconditioned stimuli)
(Triandis, 1977). The affective components strength is dependent on the
intensity and frequency of associations of the behaviour with positive or
negative events (Triandis, 1980).
Perceived
Consequences are an inevitable outcome of engaging in any behaviour. When a
particular behaviour leads to a certain outcome and this occurs frequently, the
connection between behaviour and the perceived consequence becomes stronger
(Osbourne & Clarke, 2006; Triandis, 1977). The value of perceived
consequences is dependent on the subjective probability that a particular
consequence will follow the behaviour, including the value of that consequence
to the individual (Gagnon, Sanchez & Pons, 2006). Human behaviour is
predominately goal-directed, we predominately engage in behaviours with the aim
of attaining a particular goal that holds a specific value that we desire.
Perceived consequences are activated when an individual focuses on a goal;
however, the behaviour may not take place if the social factors and affect
toward that behaviour are larger or have a greater impact on the individual
than the perceived consequences (Triandis, 1977). A particular behaviour may be
perceived to lead to a high valued goal; however the individual may experience
higher levels of negative affect with regards to the behaviour in question or
pressure from his or her peers to refrain from engaging in the behaviour. As a
result the behaviour may not take place (Triandis, 1977). This idea of
perceived consequences is similar to what Bandura (1977) termed outcome
expectations in his Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Outcome expectations refer
to an individual’s perceptions of the specific outcomes that will be generated
as a result of behaviour (Bandura, 1977). Bandura (1986) stated that
individuals are motivated to engage in a particular behaviour when they have
anticipated the possible outcomes of that behaviour prior to its execution and
the outcomes are of a high value to the individual. As a result, the
anticipated outcome acts as an incentive to behave in a certain manner (Peters,
2009). The strength of perceived consequences or outcome expectations is high
when the behaviour is frequently and consistently connected with consequences
25 and when these consequences have a high perceived value, which is either
positive or negative (Osbourne & Clarke, 2006). The actual consequences of
behaviour serve as feedback (reciprocal exchange), modifying the above components
that determine behaviour. Therefore, behaviour has the potential to change
attitudes (Triandis, 1977).
Triandis
(1977) states that one of the problems surrounding the relationship between
attitudes and behaviour is that different researchers have measured attitudes
in varying ways. Behavioural intention is the best measure for predicting
behaviour, however, since behavioural intention is related to affect, one needs
to also consider the studies in which the affect toward the behaviour was
measured as suitable for the illustration of the relationship of attitudes to
behaviour (Triandis, 1977). Distinctions between different aspects of the
attitude concept are somewhat unclear. However, according to Bandura’s SCT
(1984) an individual’s cognitions play an important role in influencing
behaviour, and as a result an individual’s attitude towards the target
behaviour is vital. The reason being that attitudes can be conceptualised as
either favourable or unfavourable towards a particular behaviour, influencing whether
or not it will be performed (Bandura, 1984). Triandis (1977) states that attitude
is a nonexpert’s concept and should be used by social scientists in a loose
way, as nonexperts use it. Therefore, Triandis (1977) maintains that an
attitude is “an idea charged with affect, predisposing action” (Triandis, 1977,
p.200). This definition includes belief, affect, and behavioural intentions
toward the attitude object. In Triandis’ (1977) TIB, he uses the concept of
attitude loosely because most researchers do not distinguish affect from
behavioural intention and often include elements of both when measuring
attitude. Taking Triandis’ view into account, research has shown that a person’s
attitude towards behaviour (software piracy in this case) is affected by the
cognitive beliefs that the person holds regarding the outcomes that will follow
from that behaviour (Al-Rafee & Cronan, 2006). The TIB model predicts that,
when habit has a high weighting or when facilitating conditions make the
behaviour impossible to carry out, attitudes will then be unrelated to
behaviour.
Numerous
models and theories have been proposed to understand what influences the
adoption of certain behaviours. Triandis’ TIB encompasses many of the
behavioural determinants found in other psychosocial theories, for example
Ajzen’s TPB and Bandura’s SCT (Gagnon, Sanchez & Pons, 2006). All three
theories have proven their 26 effectiveness in predicting and explaining a
variety of human behaviours in differing contexts. These theories are similar and
conceptually overlap, however, SCT and TPB have been used more frequently in
the study of behaviour than has Triandis’ TIB. The TIB includes all aspects of
the TPB model, however it includes additional components that add to its
predictive power, namely that of habits and facilitating conditions (Limayem
et al., 2004; Woon & Pee, 2004). Previous research making use of Triandis’
TIB has found that including factors such as habit increases the model’s
predictive power (Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003: Woon & Pee, 2004; Thompson,
Higgins & Howell, 1991, 1994). As seen above, the TIB has proven its
predictive capabilities in explaining and predicting behaviour. The question
then arises of why it has not been used in research to the same degree as these
other psychosocial models.
Several major
criticisms have been launched at Triandis’ TIB. Godin (2008) stated that the
TIB is used less frequently by researchers due to the fact that researchers
prefer parsimonious (less complex) models. Generally, the more complex a model
is, the less it is used in empirical research (Martiskainen, 2007). The TIB
contains more variables and constructs that were initially not given much
attention within other similar models (facilitating conditions and habits).
Another reason why the TIB may be used less frequently is that Triandis does
not provide clear guidelines for the operational definition of the variables
within his model, unlike the TPB for example. The operational definitions of
the variables within the TIB are left to the researcher without clear
specifications from Triandis. For example he does not specify the rules for
measuring facilitating conditions in reference to a particular behaviour. Godin
(2008) states that many researchers were previously unaware that important concepts
such as facilitating conditions were apart of the TIB, as many of Triandis’
concepts were incorporated into the TPB as an extended TPB. However, Triandis
was one of the first to specify that facilitating conditions have a moderating
effect on the intention – behaviour relationship, and that as the influence of
habit increases in reference to behaviour, the role of intention weakens.
Within the above noted criticism of Triandis’ TIB, one needs to appreciate the
continued valuable predictive power of the model with regards to behaviour
(Godin, 2008).
Triandis (1977) stated that the capacity of
his model to predict behaviour is limited by certain conditions. When the
components of the model are consistent, behaviour can 27 be predicted very
well. However, when the components are inconsistent, the difficulty by which
behaviour is predicted increases. Culture also plays a role, as behaviour can
be over-determined by the predictor variables or predictors can be in conflict
with one another, which results in prediction error. Prediction of behavior is
more accurate when intentions are highly specific; however prediction is
difficult when the individual is not highly committed to a certain position
(Triandis, 1977).
1.4 Application of Triandis’ TIB in Software Piracy Research
The most
recent and only published study on software piracy making use of Triandis’ TIB
was conducted by Limayem, Khalifa and Chin (2004), which looked at factors
motivating software piracy. The study used a subset of Triandis’ model as other
factors (history, culture, ecology, and social situation) were not included as
they did not directly influence the two predominant factors that the study was
researching, namely that of intentions and behaviour. Limayem et al (2004)
hypothesised that these factors did not relate directly to intentions and
behaviours. However, there was no indication that the factors excluded from the
model were based on empirical investigations, but rather on the authors’
choices. Limayem et al (2004) stated that while these factors may influence
software piracy intentions and behaviour, they argued that they would not be
able to add extra explanatory power in the predictive sense when the more
immediate factors were included in the model.
Limayem et al (2004) stated that factors such as personality,
biological and genetic factors were excluded from the model as they did not
seem to have well-established measures and were not immediate antecedent
factors to intentions and actual behaviour. Limayem et al’s (2004) study consisted
of three stages, belief elicitation, a survey of intentions and beliefs, and a
survey of piracy behaviour. The purpose of the belief elicitation stage was to
gain a list of formative items measuring the specific perceived consequences,
facilitating conditions, and social factors that impacted on intentions and
behaviours. There was a three-month period between survey two and three,
therefore making it a longitudinal study. The results of the study indicated
that perceived consequences and social factors had a substantial impact on
intentions. Social factors were more influential on intentions than affect.
Results also indicated that habits reinforced affect with regards to software
piracy. Habits and facilitating conditions significantly affected software
piracy behaviour. However, contrary to expectations, intentions did not have a
significant influence on behaviour (Limayem et al., 2004).
Limayem et al (2004) acknowledged possible limitations pertaining to
their research, namely that of the possibility of participants under-reporting
their actual piracy behaviour and the lack of generalizability as a student
sample was used. The survey used to assess software piracy behaviour focussed
on whether or not the participant had pirated and if so what quantity of
software they had pirated three months prior to filling out the first
questionnaire; however it failed to assess the act of giving the pirated
software to someone else. Limayem et al (2004), suggested that future research
should explore the type of software being pirated and the context in which the
piracy was occurring as well as the development of a more elaborate model that
incorporated additional antecedent factors beyond intentions (Limayem et al.,
2004).
1.5 Variables and structural model used in the current research
Perceived Consequences The cognitive or attitudinal element of the
model refers to the evaluation of the possible perceived consequences of
engaging in the behaviour. Triandis (1980) stated that all behaviours are
perceived as having potential outcomes that are either of a positive or
negative value including the probability that the outcome will occur (Woon
& Pee, 2004) and induce a specific consequence or potential outcome
(Limayem et al., 2004). Triandis (1977) maintains that attitudes or potential
outcomes influence an individual’s intention to perform a certain behaviour,
namely that of the unauthorised copying of software.
Social Factors
Social factors are a composite of norms, roles and self-concept and
together have the power at a societal level to influence an individual’s
intention towards a particular behaviour (Limayem et al., 2004). Triandis
(1980) stated that, “social factors refer to the individual’s internalization
of the reference groups’ subjective culture, the specific interpersonal
agreements that the individual has made with others in specific social
situations” (Woon & Pee, 2004.p 81). Social factors and emotions play an
important role in forming intentions towards a particular behaviour (Jackson,
2005). It is this social pressure that has an effect on intentions of whether
or not an individual will perform a specific behaviour. Therefore, it is the
social pressure at the societal level that has the potential to influence a
person’s intention to engage in certain behaviours (Limayem et al., 2004).
Affect
Triandis (1977) stated that affect refers to the pure emotion of joy,
elation, pleasure, depression, distaste, discontentment, or hatred an
individual feels with regards to a particular behaviour. Affect is included in
Triandis’ TIB model as he states that literature shows a significant
relationship between an individual’s affect towards a particular behaviour and
their subsequent intention to perform that particular act (Limayem et al.,
2004).
Intentions
Triandis (1980) stated that, “intention represents an individual’s
conscious plan or self-instruction to carry out a behaviour” (cited in Woon
& Pee, 2004. p 81). Intentions represent the degree to which an individual
is willing to try and invest in the particular behaviour or the amount of
effort one is willing to exert in order to perform a particular act. Numerous
studies hypothesize that intentions are usually precise predictors of behaviour
(Woon & Pee, 2004; Limayem et al., 2004). In Triandis’ view, intentions are
immediate antecedents of behaviour (Milhausen, Reece & Perera, 2006).
Triandis (1980) stated that behavioural intention refers to the instructions
that people give to themselves to behave in particular ways in certain
situations (cited in Osbourne & Clarke, 2006).
Habit
Triandis (1980) stated that a habit refers to behaviour that has become
automatic and therefore occurs without self-instruction and deliberation.
Habitual behaviour is a 30 form of automatic and routine behaviour; it refers
to behaviour that individuals repeat due to the fact that the behaviour is
either easy, comfortable or rewarding (Egmond & Bruel, 2007). When
behaviour is habitual, the individual does not engage in reasoning of what may
be the best thing to do, as the actual behaviour becomes the individual’s goal
in itself rather than the imagined expected outcomes associated with the target
behaviour (LaRose et al., 2005). Triandis’ TIB states that the influence of
prior experience (habit) is strongest when behaviour parallels closely to a
previous behaviour and when that previous behaviour occurred frequently
(Milhausen, Reece & Perera, 2006), including the ability of the individual
to have the know-how to accomplish specific tasks and behaviours (Limayem et
al., 2004). It is through repetition that a „loop’ of automatism develops
(Egmond & Bruel, 2007). Triandis (1977) strongly emphasized the effect of
habit in influencing behaviour and a variety of studies (Cronan, &
Al-Rafee, 2008; Woon & Pee, 2004) have shown its effectiveness in
predicting future behaviour. A habit is the general tendency an individual has
towards making unauthorised copies of software based on prior experience as it
is concerned with a lack of thinking and reasoning processes with regards to
the target behaviour.
Included in the notion of habit is deficient self-regulation which
refers to a state of inadequate self control over behaviour (LaRose, Mastro
& Eastin, 2001; LaRose & Kim, 2006). Bandura’s (1991) self-regulation
mechanism of SCT describes how individuals observe their own behaviour, judge
the behaviour according to personal and societal standards, and then
self-administer incentives to change their behaviour (cited in LaRose, Lai,
Lange, Love & Wu, 2005). However when self-regulation is deficient, target
behaviours (pirating software) may increase, predominately as a result of
habit. As mentioned, the deficient self-regulation conceptualization includes
the notion of habit and the repetition of behaviour without active
self-instruction (LaRose & Kim, 2006). The connection between self-reactive
outcomes and deficient self-regulation is important because it is implicated in
the formation of unregulated, repeated, habitual behaviour. In extreme
circumstances when excessive use causes serious consequences, such behaviour
can be referred to as addictive (LaRose & Kim, 2006). Habit, usually
understood in terms of the frequency of past behaviour, can be used to explain
additional variance in behaviour. The inclusion of deficient selfregulation
within the concept of habit leads to habit being conceptualised as a mental
process rather than as an association between measures of past and probable
future behaviour (Peters, 2009). Habit is viewed as an automatic recurring
behavioural pattern that follows a set cognitive schema (LaRose et al., 2005).
In this view, behaviour incorporates both conscious and unconscious processes.
Triandis (1977) states that “when the behaviour is institutionalized or
routinized - that is, when it has a significant habit component - adding this
information to the information about behavioural intentions greatly increases
the predictability of the behaviour” (Triandis, 1977, p.206).
Facilitating Conditions
Facilitating conditions are defined as the objective factors within the
environment that observers agree will enable certain behaviours to be performed
with ease (Triandis, 1977). Facilitating conditions form a crucial part in
Triandis’ TIB as an individual may have the intention to perform a certain act,
however may be unable to do so as their environment prevents the act from being
performed. Triandis (1977) stated that facilitating conditions directly affect
the actual behaviour instead of the intentions as one may have the intention to
perform a particular behaviour, but if the environment does not support this
behaviour, it will probably not be executed (Osbourne & Clarke, 2006).
Facilitating conditions can either enable or impede the actual act of piracy.
Examples of relevant facilitating conditions may include;
- Inappropriate measures in place to
prevent the use of unauthorised copies of software
- Insufficient software protection to
prevent the unauthorised copying of software
- Lack of awareness and educational
campaigns to prevent the use of unauthorised copies of software
- Access to all the physical resources
needed to make unauthorised copies of software
This research study has
incorporated the concept of need as a motivating factor under
facilitating conditions. The need to engage in the unauthorised copying
of software may be attributed to individuals being required to have certain
software to do their 32 job. The price of software which is an objective factor
in the environment may also facilitate or impede an individuals’ need to make
unauthorised copies of software. If software was priced lower than it currently
is, people may refrain from pirating. In this context, the concept of need refers
to an external need or requirement for the job not the intrinsic need of the
individual. Examples of relevant questions pertaining to the included concept
of need incorporated under facilitating conditions may include;
- Making unauthorised copies of software
as software is unaffordable and certain software is needed for the
requirements of the job
- Making unauthorised copies of software
due to the belief that software is overpriced
Therefore, this research study
has included need under facilitating conditions to ascertain if it will
provide any insight into whether or not people will engage in the act of
software piracy. The research has therefore made use of a modified version of
Triandis’ TIB in order to gain an understanding of software piracy behaviour.
Triandis’ concept of facilitating conditions has been elaborated to include the
concept of need, which may seem obvious, that could be used to gain an
understanding of whether it has a substantial impact on impeding or
facilitating piracy behaviour.
Behaviour
Behaviour refers to the actual physical act of performing a
particular behaviour in the immediate past – within the last three months (Woon
& Pee, 2004). Behaviour tested within the last three months is used within
this research as it has proved to be an effective time frame used in a previous
study (Garbharran & Thatcher, in press). Execution of behaviour in the
immediate past is theoretically different from a habit (LaRose & Kim,
2006). For example, copying software may not occur in the context of deficient
self-regulation but rather as a conscious cognitive process of needing a
certain software package at a specific point in time (it may be cheaper to copy
or obtain a pirated copy of a software package currently needed by the
individual as an external requirement not an intrinsic need). Habit refers to
an individual who makes copies of software that he/she may not currently require;
however engages in the behaviour as a result of unconscious processes,
deficient self-regulation, occurring without self-instruction and deliberation,
rendering the behaviour automatic and therefore repetitive (LaRose et al.,
2005).
In the case of this research
study, behaviour refers to an individual actively engaging in making
unauthorised copies of computer software. Due to the fact that the research is
cross-sectional in nature, behaviour refers to the individual engaging in the
physical act of making unauthorised copies of computer software in the
immediate past (i.e. the last three months). Therefore, habits will determine
how frequent the behaviour has been in the past as a result of deficient
self-regulation (behaviour that is not under the individual’s self-control) and
behaviour will ascertain whether the behaviour is taking place presently under
conscious active decision-making processes. Triandis (1977) maintained that
behaviour is dependent on habits, intentions and facilitating conditions.
The research will test for
moderating effects of facilitating conditions and habits on actual software
piracy behaviour. Moderators refer to variables that affect the direction
and/or strength of the relations between an independent variable and a
dependent variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The research will test for
moderation effects (see Figure 1) of facilitating conditions on the
relationship between intention and behaviour as well as effects on the
relationship between habit and behaviour. The study will also test for
moderation effects of habit on the relationship between intention and
behaviour. The research will test for these possible moderating effects due to
the fact that the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable
depends on the level of the moderator. The level of the moderator can either
increase or decrease the direction and strength of the relationship. The reason
why facilitating conditions and habits will be tested for their moderation
effects is that moderation implies that the causal relation between two
variables changes as a function of the moderator variable (Baron & Kenny,
1986). As mentioned previously, facilitating conditions and habits as possible
moderators may possibly have the power to change the relationships displayed in
Figure 1. The purpose of this research study is to explore some of the
psychological mechanisms that may be able to explain software piracy behaviour.
The knowledge gained from these findings is aimed at predicting which
prevention strategies may be the most effective in combating this globalized
criminal behaviour of software piracy.
Komentar
Posting Komentar