The Conceptual Organization of Behavior and Attitude-BehaviorConsistency

Mahmood M. Hajjat, Ohio State University

ABSTRACTThe attribute-processing perspective views

behavior as being driven primarily by cognitionsand as being instrumental to the realization ofconsumption objectives. Altematively, the recentsurge of interest in the role of affect in buyingbehavior suggests that behavior may beconsummatory (noninstrumental) and driven byemotions. Therefore, the validity of the single-component perspective was tested against a twocomponent (consummatory and instrumental) modelof behavior. Additionally, the effect of focusing onan attitude con^xment (affective/cognitive) onattitude-behavior relation was examined. Resultsindicate that the two-component model achieveddiscriminant and convergent validity whereas thesingle-component model did not. Moreover,attitude-behavior correlations were higher whenattitude and behavior were infiuenced by tiie sameattitude component than when they were influencedby different attitudinal components.

INTRODUCTIONA basic tenet of the attribute-processing

perspective is that the comprehension of the brandattribute claims leads to a change in consumers'stored cognitions. Thus, consumers are postulatedto be problem-solvers and rational buyers who "basetheir decisions on the persuasive informationprovided" (Day 1973). The logical fiow of tiiestages of cognitive processing (e.g. attributecomprehension-attitude-behavipr-problem solving)assumes causation and assumes that behavior isinstrumental to the realization of enduring goals(e.g., problem solving). Altiiough it continues toexplain important consumption phenomena, theattribute-processing perspective has failed to produceconsistent findings regarding attitude-behaviorconsistency (e.g. Ajzen and Fishbein 1977).

The restricted conceptualization of attitudeand behavior in the attribute- processing perspectivehas contributed greatiy to this failure. For example,it is frequentiy argued that attitude may not befomied from decomposable origins (e.g. physicalattributes) rather it may "involve a gestalt,configural aj^aisal of the stimulus object, goingbeyond the assessment of Ihe utility contributed byeach individual attribute" (Batra 1986). It is alsogenerally accepted that consumption may notinvolve solving a problem, or realizing other suchenduring goals. It may involve instead somesensory pleasures, joy, and emotional responses(Holbrook and Hirschman 1982). It tppeais thatihere are situations in which attitude would be basedon affect rather than cognitions and consumptiongoals would be transient rather than enduring. Insuch situations, behavior should be viewed as beingconsummatory (e.g. to obtain pleasure) and driven

by affect ratiier than instrumental (e.g. to achieveenduring goals) and driven by cognitions.

This article has two purposes. The first is toprovide empirical tests of the validity of theseconceptualizations by contrasting a single-component with a two-component (consummatoryand instrumental) model of behavior. The second isto provide empirical evidence as to whether focusingon either attitude component (affective/cognitive)affects attitude-behavior relation.

The next section is a discussion of theconceptual organization of attitude. It is followed bya conceptual analysis of behavior and a discussionof the effects of thought on attitude-behaviorconsistency. Finally, an experiment designed forachieving the research objectives is outiined and thefindings are thoroughly examined.

ATTITUDE ORGANIZATIONThe attitude concept was originally defined as

being a single-component entity of likes anddislikes (e.g., Bem 1970). This concept wassubsequentiy reconceptualized to include cognitionand conation in addition to affect (e.g.,Kotiiandapani 1971, McGuire 1969). The latterdefinition has received some empirical supporL Inan experiment that was designed for predictingcontraceptive behavior among low income Negrowomen, Kotiiandapani (1971) examined thediscriminant and convergent validity of thistripartite classification. He found convincingevidence both to support this classification and toconclude that conation was a better predictor ofcontraceptive behavior than either of the other twocomponents of attitude (Kothandapani 1971).

However, the inclusion of conation in attitudestructure is not universally accepted. This is becausethe difficulty^ of directly observing overt behaviorhas resulted in the use of conation as a surrogate forbehavior by many researchers. This conceptualequivalence explains findings of higher conationthan affect or cognition-behavior correlations.Moreover, a behavior involving the use of a drug(e.g., contraceptive) that could produce genuinehealth problems might be more influenced by amedical decision (e.g., prescription) than by affector cognition. Thus a midpoint position whichcontends that attitude is composed of only affect andcognition is adopted here. At the same time,conation is considered to be an evaluative responsebased on the more accessible, more salient of onlytwo attitude components - affect or cognition (e.g.,Bagozzi and Bumkrant 1979, Millar and Tesser1986). The affective component of attitude toward abrand is thought to contain the feelings (e.g.,pleasure, happiness, joy) that may be evoked by thebrand and the cognitive component is thought tocontain the encodings of physical attributes of, andbeliefs about the brand (e.g., price, size,

7 7 7 Advances in Consumer ResearchVolume 17, & 1990

778 / The Conceptual Organtzatton of Behavtor and Attttude-Behavtor Conststency

effectiveness). Bagozzi and Bumkrant (1979)examined the validiQr of a single-component modelof attitude and conq>ared it to a two-componentmodel. They reported evidence to support anaffective-cognitive conceptualization and lack ofevidence to support a single-component model ofattitude.

BEHAVIOR ORGANIZATIONMuch research indicates that all products, no

matter how mundane, carry attributes such aspackaging, color, or taste that are not central to theobjective value (e.g., effectiveness) of the product -symbolic features. It is also known that peoplemake decisions so as to experience an emotion or torealize some type of utility. For example, a personmay drive to a shopping mall on a nice evening justto enjoy him/herself by looking at store windowswhile another may do the same thing to maintaingood health by buying a needed prescription.Similarly, a customer may purchase a product (e.g.,toothpaste) because its symbolic features (e.g.,taste) are richer and more salient than its objectiveattributes (e.g., fiouride) while another may do thesame thing for just the opposite reason.

It appears that purchase behavior can bedifferentiated along customers' expectations fromconsuming the product (e.g., freshness/healthy gumsfrom consuming toothpaste). Thus, purchasebehavior that stems primarily from the pursuit ofsensory pleasures, happiness, or any emotionalresponses consummated coincident withconsumption of die product is different frompurchase behavior that stems primarily frx>m thepursuit of objectives that last beyond the time ofactual consumption. These two types of behaviordepend on the primary stimuli, and are calledconsummatory behavior (primary stimuli areimmediate consummatory emotional responses) andinstrumental behavior (primary stimuli are enduringobjectives).

Figure 1 shows path diagrams of a single-component and a two-component model of behavior.A confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL VI(Joreskog and Sorbom 1984) was used for testingthe fit of each model.

The single-component model achievesconvergent validity if (a) responses that differentiateconsummatory from instrumental behavior exhibithigh intercorrelations and (b) an insignificant chi-square is obtained. Discriminant and convergentvalidi^ of the two-component model will beachieved if (a) within-component correlations arehigh, (b) across-component correlations arelogically consistent and significantly lower thanwithin- component correlations, (c) rho-statistic(Bentler and Bonett 1980) is within an acceptablerange (p^.90), and (d) root mean square residual(RMSR) is within an acceptable range(RMSR<0.10). A final test of the overall fit of bothmodels based on an inferential evaluation of nestedmodels (Long 1988) could be carried out todetermine which model fits the data better. Based onthis analysis, the following hypotheses were tested:

HI: A two-component (consummatory andinstrumental) model of behaviorachieves discriminant and convergentvalidity whereas a single-componentdoes iK>t

H2: A two-component (consummatory andinstrumental) model of behavior fits thedata better dian a single-componentmodel.

EFFECTS OF THOUGHT O NATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR RELATION

In recent years, research in attitude-behaviorrelation has proliferated and has i»imarily examinedthe conditions under which attitude and behaviorwould or would not correlate (Wilson, Dunn, Bybee,Hymann, and Rotondo 1984). An area that hascaptured much attention, and is also the focus of thisarticle, is the effect of affective and cognitive focuson attitude-behavior consistency. In one study,Fazio, Zanna, and Cooper (1978) stimulated theirsubjects to think about the attitude objects (puzzles)by instructing them to empathize with a similarindividual on a videotape who was playing with thepuzzles. Fazio et al. (1978) found that whensubjects were instructed to think about the attitudeobjects (puzzles), the amount of salient informationabout the attitude objects increased. Hie attitudes ofthose subjects who were led to focus on the attitudeobjects were also found to be better predictors ofbehavior than subjects' attitudes in tiie controlcondition (who did not think about the attitudeobjects).

In contrast, Wilson et al. (1984), using asimilar paradigm, found results that werecontradictory to those reported by Fazio et al.(1978). Wilson et al. (1978) predicted thatanalyzing the reasons for one's own attitude(thinking in terms of why a person feels the ways/he does) would shift attitude in a direction awayfrom behavior, thus attitude-behavior correlationwould be low. In a series of experiments usingpuzzles, vacation scenes, and dating mates asattitude objecu, Wilson et al. (1978) found thatwhen subjects analyzed the reasons of why theywould or would not like the attitude object, theirself-reported attitudes accounted for only 1% of dievariance of behavior while subjects' attitudes in thecontrol condition were found to accoimt forapproximately 30%.

In an attempt to provide a resolution to theapparent contradictory findings, Millar and Tesser(1986) conducted an experiment in which they usedpuzzles, similar to those used in Wilson et al.(1978), as attitude objects. Millar and Tesser (1986)reasoned that if attitude report and behavioremanated from the same attitudinal component(either affective or cognitive), attitude-behaviorconelation would be high. And, if behavior wasinitiated by an attitudinal component that would bedifferent from that component dictating attitudereport, attitude-behavior correlation would be low.

Advances In Consumer Research (Volume 17) I 779

FIGURE 1Path Diagram of a single-compon^t and a two-component model of behavior

a. Single-component model

b. Two-component model

3g IH

Note: Cons. Behavior-consummatory behavior; Ins.iBehavior-instrumental behavior; Happy-happiness; Joy-joy; Qieer-cheerfulness; Refresh-refreshment; Health-gum health; Cavred-cavity reduction; Bright-brightness; Tarred-tartar buildup reduction.

In MiUar and Tesser (1986), the time spent playingwith each puzzle, the proportion of each puzzlechosen, and the order of choice in a free-play periodwere recorded for each subject. The play time forsubjects in the cognitive and affective-focusconditions was correlated with their attitude reports.These correlations were higher when behavior andattitude reports were driven by the same attitudecomponent (a match situation) than when each wasdriven by a different component (a mismatchsituation).

However, one could argue that somemethodological issues in Wilson et al. (1984) and inMillar and Tesser (1986) may have contaminated

their findings. In formulating a general evaluativeresponse about an attitude object, some of its salientobjective attributes or symbolic features would bemore important than others. Thus, it is possiblethat subjects' attitudes toward the attitude objects(puzzles were used in both studies, and vacationscenes and dating mates were used in the first) mighthave had more symbolic or hedonic than physical orattribute origins. For example, the joy of triumphor the agony of defeat probably infiuences one'sliking or dislike of a puzzle far more than thepuzzle's contribution to one's analytic ability.Thus, since Wilson et al's (1984) subjects did nothave a large number of cognitions to begin with.

780 / The Coneeptual Organization of Behavior and Attitude-Behavior Consistency

they may have generated a biased set of reasons, justto appear more analytical, that might not haverefiected their true attitudes.

Similarly, since Millar and Tesser's (1986)subjects in the cognitive-focus condition did nothave many relevant attributes about the puzzles tostart with, they may also have generated a biased setof reasons, but to a lesser extent than in Wilson etal. (1984). In fact. Millar and Tesser (1986)reported insignificant differences between affective-and cognitive-focus condition conelations whensubjects' behavior was driven by cognitions, and theproportion of puzzles chosen and order of choicewere used as behavioral measures.

Second, since Millar and Tesser (1986) didnot include a control cell to compare with, it isdifficult to conclude whether analyzing reasons inthe cognitive-driven behavior condition increasedattitude-behavior correlations or just did not decreasethem. For the same reason, it is also difficult toconclude whether focusing on the affectiveconqx>nent of attitude in the affective-drivenbehavior condition increased attitude-behaviorcorrelations or simply did not decrease them. Third,considering the time span over which Millar andTesser's (1986) study was completed (a few minutes),it could be argued that salient-attitude reports in thecognitive focus condition might have habituatedsubjects' behavioral responses when behavior wasdriven by the same cognitions. Thus, the observedconsistency between attitudes based on cognitionsand behaviors driven by these cognitions mighthave been infiated.

While taking these issues into consideration,the conceptual parallel between affective (cognitive)attitude that is based on feelings (cognitions) andconsummatory (instrumental) behavior that isstimulated by symbolic (objective) attributes of theproduct was maintained in the present research. Inthe course of doing so, a research paradigm that issimilar to those used by Wilson et al. (1984) andMillar and Tesser (1986) was utilized. Second, theattitude objects employed in this research wereproducts (toothpaste brands) that would havedifferent symbolic origins (e.g. packaging, color)for the hedonic component of attitude and severalphysical origins (e.g. fiuoride, abrasive) for thecognitive component. Third, a control group wasincluded and attitude-behavior correlations for allexperimental cells were compared with those of thecontrol group. Finally, subjects' actual behaviorwas observed one week after obtaining self-reportedattitudes. The following hypotheses were tested:

H3: If attitude report and behavior areinfiuenced by the same attitudecomponent (affective/cognitive),attitude-behavior correlation would behigh; whereas if they are infiuenced bydifferent attitude components, attitude-behavior correlation would be low.

H4: Focusing on the attitude component thatdrives behavior would result in a high

attitude-behavior correlation; whereasdie lack of focus on a specific attitudecomponent would result in a lowattitude-behavior correlation.

M E T H O DFifty six male and fifty two female

undergraduate students from a marketing course at amajor mid-westem university completed a shortquestionnaire that was designed to measure initialattitudes and initial behavioral intentions. Aftercollecting this instrument, subjects were randomlyassigned to one of 2 (affective/cognitive attitudefocus) / 2 (consummatory^nstrumental behavior)cells and a control condition. Subjects completedanother questionnaire (ostensibly for a differentexperiment), were thanked, and promised a gift (wasintended to measure actual choice) in the comingdays.

ProcedureOn the first questiormaire, subjects provided

some demographical data, recalled as many brands asthey could from four different product classesincluding toothpaste, ranked the recalled brands, andindicated their preferences. The purpose of thisinstrument was to facilitate the contrast of subjects'initial to post-experimental attitude-behaviorcorrelations. The second questioimaire contained thefollowing regarding each of five toothpaste brands:(a) a black-and-white picture of the brand, (b) a 9-point bipolar scale for measuring the attitude towardbrand, (c) eight 9-point bipolar scales for measuringbehavioral responses that, based on a pretest, werefound to differentiate consummatory frominstrumental behavior, (d) a thought-listing questionfor measuring the degree of affective and cognitivefocus, and (d) a purchase intention question. Thisinstrument was designed to measure the differentialeffects of experimental manipulations.

Subjects were approached by an experimenterwho, as a cover story, claimed that the purpose ofthe first questionnaire was to measure market sharefor the brands that subjects could recall. They weregiven two minutes for each product category andwere instructed not to tum pages unless they weretold. After collecting the first instrument,participants were ^>proached by anotherexperimenter who distributed the second instrumentand asked them to read and follow all instructionscarefully. They were given all the time they neededfor examining the picture of any brand and foranswering the questions.

Subjects were asked to keep a little numbered-post-it note from the first questionnaire, attach thenote to the second questionnaire, write tiie numberof the note on a little card attached to the secondquestionnaire, and keep the card to claim the gift.When gifts were claimed a week later, each subjectdeposited his/her claim card in the same box fromwhich the toothpaste tube was chosen. Finally, theresearcher mached the questionndres and the card toisolate the responses of each individual.

Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 17) I 781

Experimental ManipulationsAn important issue in this research was

whether to use fictitious (novel) or familiar andpopular brands as attitudinal objects. The selectionof well- known over fictitious brands was governedby a number of {nractical and theoreticalconsiderations. These were: (a) an attempt toresemble a marketing situation as close as possible,(b) an attempt to measure overt behavior under thevolitional control of subjects and correlate thisindex of observed behavior with attitude so as toproperly illustrate attitude-behavior consistency, (c)an attempt to equate all recall cues across brands andsubjects (the brand picture was the only cue), (d) anattempt to stimulate subjects to report realsentiments from their past experiential consumptionepisodes, and (e) an attempt to eliminate thelikelihood of generating artificial (biased) inferentialinformation, thoughts, and sentiments that would beotherwise increased if written attributes, needed withnovel brands, were provided.

Subjects in the affective focus condition wereinstructed to focus on how they felt about each brandwhile they were viewing its picture, whereas thosein the cognitive focus condition were instructed tothink about the reasons that made them feel the waythey did. The purpose of the brand picture waseither to remind subjects of the sentiments andfeelings they experienced whenever they used theproduct in the past or to aid in recalling the storedattributes of, and beliefs about the product. Subjectsin the consummatory behavior condition were led tobelieve that they would receive a social sensitivitytest (how well they would fit with others) at the endof the experiment, whereas those in the instrumentalbehavior condition would receive a brand andattribute-recall test (how much information theycould recall). Neither group was actually tested. Toget maximum help on the anticipated tests, subjectsin the consummatory behavior condition shouldhave heightened their stored feelings and emotionsupon viewing the pictures. While those in theinstrumental behavior condition should haveaxxessed their stored belief and brand-attdbuteinformation. Subjects in the control condition werenot given attitude focus and behavior manipulationinstructions.

Attitude and Behavior MeasuresEach subject indicated on 9-point bipolar

scales how much s/he liked or disliked each brand.One on the scale indicated dislike very much and 9indicated like very much. Behavior was observedone week after completing the questionnaires; eachsubject chose and received one tube of toothpastefrom the five brands used.

Affective and Cognitive Focus MeasuresSubjects listed all the thoughts that occurred

to them whUe they were examining the picture ofeach brand. These thoughts were later coded by twojudges into feelings and reasons. The two codingsets were highly correlated (r=0.93). The feelings

represented the affective focus and the reasonsrepresented the cognitive focus.

Responses Differentiating ConsummatoryFrom Instrumental Behavior

Each subject indicated on 9-point bipolarscales how much s/he agreed or disagreed with fourconsummatory and four instrumental behaviorstatements regarding each brand. Therepresentativeness of these statements toconsummatory and instrumental behavior wasestablished by a pretest of twenty subjects from thesame population. Consummatory behaviorstatements tapped the degree of happiness (happy),joy (joy), cheerfulness (cheer), and refreshment(refresh) felt by each subject if the brand oftoothpaste under consideration was used.Instrumental behavior statements measured theextent of belief that the brand of toothpaste mightcontribute to gum health (health), cavity reduction(cavred), teeth brightness (bright), and tartar-buildup reduction (tarred). On all scales, 1 indicatedcompletely disagree and 9 indicated completelyagree.

ANALYSIS A N D RESULTS

Confirmatory Factor AnaiysisFor the single-component model to achieve

convergent validity and provide a good fit, thevariables differentiating consummatory frominstrumental behavior should exhibit highintercorrelations and an insignificant chi-squareshould be obtained. The test of this model usingUSREL VI gave zero correlations and a significantchi-square (%28=3629, p=0.0). Thus, the singlecomponent model did not achieve convergentvalidity and it could not be accepted without testinga two-component model.

In the two-component model, the first set offliese variables (happy, joy, cheer, and refresh) washypothesized to have high loadings(%,j}-X4|) <"*consummatory behavior and zero loadings (X^^on instrumental behavior. The second set (health,cavred, bright, and taned) was hypothesized to havehigh loadings {X^2'^S2) °" instrumenul behavior

and zero loadings (Xj2 -^42 ) on consummatorybehavior. The conelation «>2i) between the twocomponents of behavior should not be high.

The conelation matrix used in the analysis(not included) showed that variables loading onconsummatory behavior were highly conelated(r=0.70 to r=0.94) and variables loading oninstrumental behavior were highly conelated (r=0.61to r=0.83) while across-component conelations werelow. nSREL estimates showed high loadings fromthe first set of variables on consummatory behavior(happy=0.962, joy=0.972, cheer=0.956, andrefresh=0.735), high loadings from the second set ofvariables on instrumental behavior (health=0.918,cavred=0.877, bright=0.731, and taned=0.800), lowconelation between consimunatory and instrumental

I The Coneeptual Organization of Behavior and Attitude-Behavior Consistency

HGURE 2Mean feelings and mean leasons generated in thought listing protocol

1.2

•a M 0.8

1 a 0.6

If 0.42 .S 0.2

0.0

1.15

75

ControlAffective focusCognitive focus

feelings reasons

behavior (^21'=0.37), high Bentier and Bonett's rho-

statistic (p=0.90). and a low root mean squareresidual (RMSR=0.1). These results indicate that thetwo-component model (consummatory andinstrumental) achieved discriminant and convergentvalidity.

The last goodness-of-fit test conducted herewas an inferential evaluation of nested models.Since the free parameters in the single-componentconstitute a subset of the free parameters in the two-component model, it was possible to test a nullhypothesis that the single-component fits the databetter than the two-component model. If the nullhypothesis could not be rejected (by obtaining aninsignificant chi-square). then the single-componentwould be more desirable than the two-componentmodel because the first would be more parsimoniousthan the second. The test resulted in a significantchi- square (X9=3472. p=0.0). thus the nullhypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that thetwo-component model of behavior (consummatoryand instrumental) fits the data better than the single-component.

Attitude-Behavior RelationThe number of reasons for each subject was

analyzed in a 2 (consummatory vs. instrumental) / 2(affective vs. cognitive) / 2 (male vs. female)ANOVA. The only significant source of variationwas thought focus. F(l,86)=9.45. P=0.0028.Subjects in the cognitive focus condition producedmore reasons (M=0.75) than did subjects in theaffective focus condition (M=0.39). F(1.86)=4.58.P=0.0051. The number of feelings produced bysubjects was also analyzed in a similar ANOVA andthought focus was the only significant source ofvariation. F(l,86)=17.77, P=0.0001. Subjects inthe affective focus condition generated more feelings(M=1.15) than did subjects in the cognitive focus

condition (M=0.47). F(1.86)=6.96. P=0.0003 (seefigure 2).

Two measures of behavior were constructedand correlated with subjects' self-reported measuresof liking and dislike of the five Is-ands oftoothpaste, actual choice of toothpaste and the tubesize. Correlations were transformed to z-scores andanalyzed in two separate 2 (constunmatory vs.instrumental) / 2 (affective vs. cognitive) / 2 (malevs. female) ANOVAs. The two ANOVAs gaveidentical results. The only significant interactingeffect was type of behavior / type of focus,F(l,86)=16.9, P=0.0001. Subjects in theinstrumental behavior condition had higher attitude-behavior correlations when they focused on theircognitions (M=0.66) than when they focused ontheir feelings (M=0.38), F(l,40)=2.77, P=0.05.Similarity, subjects in the consummatory behaviorcondition had higher attitude-behavior correlationswhen they focused on their feelings(M=0.63) thanwhen they focused on their cognitions (M=0.31),F(l,44)=5.03, P=0.004. It is interesting to notethat subjects in the control condition had attitude-behavior mean correlations of M=0.40 (see figure3).

DISCUSSIONThis article has demonstrated that consumers'

behavior can be differentiated according toconsumers' expectations from consuming theproduct A two- component model of behaviorachieved discriminant and convergent validitywhereas a single-component model did not.Focusing on the attitude component(affective/cognitive) that drives behavior(consummatory^instrumental) increased attitude-behavior correlation above that in the controlcondition (when subjects were not instructed tofocus). Altematively, focusing on the attitudecomponent that does not drive behavior decreased

Advances In Consumer Research (Volume 17) I 783

FIGURE 3Mean cotielations of attitude and behavior

0.0

.38

ControlAffective focusCognitive focus

Instrumental Consummatory

attitude-behavior correlation below that in thecontrol condition.

It is possible that subjects' age and purchaseexperience may have contributed to the observeddifferences in attitude-behavior correlations. Thispossibility was investigated ini a number ofadditional analyses. First, a 2 (type of behavior) / 2(type of focus) / 2 (sex) / 4 (piirchase frequency) / 5(age group) ANOVA indicated |that significantdifferences between mean correlations at 0.08significance level still existed tod the only two-wayinteraction to reach significance was type of focus /type of behavior, F(l,86)=5.36, P=0.02. Second, a5 (age group) / 4 (purchase frequency) / 2 (sex)ANOVA indicated that no significant main orinteracting effect was produced by any of thesevariables, F(25,62)=1.41, P=O.H. Third, meancorrelations of attitude and behavior, attitude andbehavioral intention, and initial attitude and initialbehavioral intention for experimental conditions,were compared to those for the control condition.This analysis showed that there were no significantdifferences between mean correlations of the fivegroups (F^l.87, P^.15) except between attitude-behavior mean correlations. These findings clearlyindicate that factors other than the type of focus andthe type of behavior do not explain the observeddifferences in attitude- behavior correlations.

CONCLUSIONThough the attribute processing perspective

has yielded valuable insights into consumer attitude-behavior relation, it falls far short of completelyexplaining the consumption phenomena. Thefindings of this research provide partial support tothe notion that purchase behavior is largelydependent on the expectations ^f the consumer inconsuming the product. Cunent findings are alsoconsistent with findings in social psychology, andare apparent in some of the cunent advertisingpractices. For example, AT&T appeals to both

behavioral components by airing two differentadvertisements, "reach out and touch some one" andthe "price of the call" ads. Toothpaste commercialsare usually diversified to appeal to the majority ofconsumers by emphasizing the benefits (e.g. fewercavities) and/or stressing the consumptionexperience (e.g. fresh breath) consumers can expectfrom using the brand. Even beef is advertised as ared, tasty, and delicious meat and as a good source ofnecessary nutrition.

R E F E R E N C E SAjzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977), "Attitude-

Behavior Relations: A 'Theoretical Analysis andReview of Empirical Research," PsychologicalBulliten, 84,888-918.

Bagozzi, R. and Bumkrant, R. (1979), "AttitudeOrganization and the Attitude-BehaviorRelationship," Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology. VoL37, No.6, 913-29.

Batra, R. (1986), "Affective Advertising: Role,Processes, and Measurement," in The Role ofAffect in Consumer Behavior: EmergingTheories and Applications, R. Peterson, W.Hoyer, and W. Wilson (eds.), Lexington, MA:D.C. Heath and Company.

Bem, D. J. (1970), Belies, Attitudes, and HumanAffairs, Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth PublishingCompany, Inc.

Bentier, P. and Bonett, D. (1980), "SignificanceTests and Goodness-of-Fit in the Analysis ofCovariance Stmcture," Psychological Bulliten,88, 588-606.

Day, O. (1973), "Theories of Attitude Structure andChange," in Consumer Behavior: TheoreticalSources, Ward and Robertson (eds.), Engle WoodQiffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

784 / The Conceptual Organization of Behavior and Attitude-Behavior Consistency

Fazio, R., Zanna, M., and Cooper, J. (1978), "DirectExperience and Attitude-Behavior Consistency:An Information Processing Analysis,"Personality and Social Psychology Bulliten,Vol.4, No.l, 48-51.

Holbrook, M. and Hirschman, E. (1982), "TheExperiential Aspects of Consumption: ConsumerFantasies, Feelings, and Fun," Jourrud ofConsumer Research, Vol.9, 132-40.

Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1984), USREL VI:User's Guide, Mooresvill, Lidiana: ScientificSoftware, Inc.

Kothandapani, V. (1971), "Validation of Feeling,Belief, and Intention to Act as ThreeComponents of Attitude and Their Contributionto Prediction of Contraceptive Behavior," Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.19,No.3, 321-33.

Long, J. (1988), Confirmatory Factor Analysis.Sage University Paper Series on QuantitativeApplications in the Social Sciences 07-033,Beverly Hills and London: Sage Pubns.

McGuire, W. J. (1969), "The Nature of Attitudes andAttitude Change," in Handbook tf SocialPsychology, Vol. HI (2nd ed.), G. Lindzey and E.Aronson (eds.), Reading, Mass.: Adison-WiselyPublishing Company, Inc.

MiUar, M. and Tesser, A. (1986), "Effects ofAffective and Cognitive Focus on the Attitude-Behavior Relation," Jourrud of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51, 270-76.

Wilson, T., Dunn, D., Bybee, J., Hyman, D., andRotondo, J. (1984), "Effects of AnalyzingReasons on Attitude-Behavior Consistency,"Journal cf Personality and Social Psychology,Vol.47, No.l, 5-16.