Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
G. Fhaner, M. Hane (1974)
Seat belts: relations between beliefs, attitude, and useJournal of Applied Psychology, 59
B. Jonah, B. Grant (1985)
Long-term effectiveness of selective traffic enforcement programs for increasing seat belt use.The Journal of applied psychology, 70 2
R. Darlington (1968)
Multiple regression in psychological research and practice.Psychological bulletin, 69 3
R. Cialdini, R. Petty, J. Cacioppo (1981)
Attitude and Attitude ChangeAnnual Review of Psychology, 32
A. Davidson, J. Jaccard (1979)
Variables that moderate the attitude–behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37
J. Schofield (1975)
Effect of norms, public disclosure, and need for approval on volunteering behavior consistent with attitudes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31
E. Saltzer (1981)
Cognitive moderators of the relationship between behavioral intentions and behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41
J. Jaccard (1981)
Atttudes and behavior: Implications of attitudes toward behavioral alternativesJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17
M. Zanna, C. Kiesler, P. Pilkonis (1970)
Positive and negative attitudinal affect established by classical conditioning.Journal of personality and social psychology, 14 4
D. Mixon (1980)
The Place of Habit in the Control of ActionJournal for The Theory of Social Behaviour, 10
C. Knapper, A. Cropley, R. Moore (1976)
Attitudinal factors in the non-use of seat beltsAccident Analysis & Prevention, 8
I. Ajzen, M. Fishbein (1977)
Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research.Psychological Bulletin, 84
R. Fazio, M. Zanna (1978)
Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship☆Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14
P. Bentler, G. Speckart (1979)
Models of attitude–behavior relations.Psychological Review, 86
R. Bagozzi, R. Burnkrant (1979)
Attitude organization and the attitude–behavior relationship.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37
E. Geller, L. Paterson, E. Talbott (1982)
A behavioral analysis of incentive prompts for motivating seat belt use.Journal of applied behavior analysis, 15 3
L. Hasher, R. Zacks (1979)
Automatic and effortful processes in memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108
R. Fazio, M. Powell, P. Herr (1983)
Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one's attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44
Schuman Schuman, Johnson Johnson (1976)
Attitude and BehaviorAnnual Review of Psychology, 2
L. Kahle, J. Berman (1979)
Attitudes cause behaviors: A cross-lagged panel analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37
John And, B. Gibbs, L. Kahle (1983)
Seat Belt Attitudes, Habits, and Behaviors: An Adaptive Amendment to the Fishbein ModelJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 13
Mary Zalesny (1985)
Comparison of economic and noneconomic factors in predicting faculty vote preference in a union representation election.Journal of Applied Psychology, 70
Zanna Zanna, Olson Olson, Fazio Fazio (1980)
Attitude‐behavior consistency: An individual difference perspectiveJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14
D. Landis, H. Triandis, John Adamopoulos (1978)
Habit and Behavioral Intentions as Predictors of Social Behavior.The Journal of social psychology, 106 2
G. Fhaner, M. Hane (1973)
SEAT BELTS: FACTORS INFLUENCING THEIR USE - A LITERATURE SURVEYAccident Analysis & Prevention, 5
T. Wilson, D. Dunn, J. Bybee, Diane Hyman, J. Rotondo (1984)
Effects of analyzing reasons on attitude–behavior consistency.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47
The Triandis (1977, 1980) model of habit is applied in an investigation of attitude‐behavior discrepancy for seat belt use behavior. Habit is conceptualized as automated response, and the measure employed here is shown to be discriminated from measures of intentions and behavior. A case is also made for a distinction between pro‐intentional and counter‐intentional habits. Data from a random sample of 197 adult respondents show that the two habits (a) are distinct; (b) operate differently, that is, use habit has a main effect whereas nonuse habit interacts with attitude/intentions; and (c) explain belt use behavior nonredundantly with intention and attitude (e.g., their addition to attitude raises R2 from 38.8% to 62.9%). Theoretical implications for understanding habit processes and programmatic directions for increasing the belt usage are discussed.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology – Wiley
Published: Sep 1, 1988
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.