The role of behavioral intentions in the prediction of behavior

Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 125, Issue 2, 1985, Pages 149-155

  Katz, Janet ^a  

^a OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924479175     PISSN: 00224545     EISSN: 19401183     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1985.9922867     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1969. The prediction of behavioral intentions in a choice situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5: 400–446.
2. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1973. Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27: 41–57.
3. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1974. Factors influencing intentions and the intention-behavior relationship. Human Relations, 27: 1–15.
4. Albrecht, S. L. and Carpenter, K. E. 1976. Attitudes as predictors of behavior versus behavior intentions: A convergence of research traditions. Sociometry, 39: 1–10.
5. Bentler, P. M. and Speckart, G. 1979. Models of attitude-behavior relations. Psychology Review, 86: 452–464.
6. Carter, R. M. 1966. It is respectfully recommended…. Federal Probation, 30: 38–42.
7. Carter, R. M. 1967. The presentence report and the decision-making process. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 4: 203–211.
8. Carter, R. M. and Wilkins, L. T. 1967. Some factors in sentencing policy. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 58(4): 503–514.
9. Curry, P. M. Jr. 1975. Probation and individualized disposition: A study of factors associated with the presentence recommendation. American Journal of Criminal Law, 4: 30–36.
10. Dawson, R. O. 1969. Sentencing, Boston: Little, Brown.
11. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
12. Gottfredson, D. M. and Gottfredson, G. E. 1969. Decision-maker attitudes and juvenile detention. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 6: 177–183.
13. Hagan, J. 1975. Law, order and sentencing: A study of attitude in action. Sociometry, 38(3): 370–382.
14. Heberlain, T. A. and Black, J. S. 1976. Attitudinal specificity and the prediction of behavior in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33: 474–479.
15. Kingsnorth, R. and Rizzo, L. 1979. Decision-making in the criminal courts. Criminology, 17: 3–14.
16. Liska, A. E. 1974. Attitude-behavior consistency as a function of generality equivalence between attitude and behavior objects. Journal of Psychology, 86: 217–228.
17. Liska, A. E. The effects of attitudes on behavior: Research directions for the 1980s. Presented at the American Sociological Association.
18. Perry, R. W. 1976. Attitude scales as behavior estimation devices: Scale specificity and prediction accuracy. Journal of Social Psychology, 100: 137–142.
19. Reed, J. P. and King, C. E. 1966. Factors in the decision-making of North Carolina probation officers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 3: 120–128.
20. Robinson, J. and Takagi, P. T. 1976. “The parole violator as an organizational reject”. In Probation, parole and community corrections, Edited by: Carter, R. M. and Wilkins, L. T. New York: Wiley.
21. Schuman, H. and Johnson, M. P. 1976. Attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 2: 161–207.
22. Songer-Nocks, E. 1976. Situational factors affecting the weighting of predictor components in the Fishbein model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12: 56–69.
23. Tarter, D. L. 1976. Toward predictive of attitude-action discrepancy. Social Forces, 67: 378–405.
24. Weigel, R. H. and Newman, L. S. 1976. Increasing attitude-behavior correspondence by broadening the scope of the behavioral measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33: 793–802.
25. Weigel, R. H., Vernon, D. T. A. and Tognacci, L. N. 1974. Specificity of attitude as a determinant of attitude-behavior congruence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: 724–728.
26. Wicker, A. W. and Pomazal, R. L. 1971. The relationship between attitude and behavior as a function of the specificity of attitude object and presence of a significant person during assessment conditions. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 2: 26–31.