Theory of Planned Behaviour

The TPB has stemmed from the theory of reasoned action (hereafter, TRA) with one distinct difference, the TRA states that behavioural intentions cause the behaviour and are based on human beings’ belief that a particular outcome can be achieved by performing a particular action (Ajzen, 1991). The basis of such belief is on a person’s attitude and subjective norms towards performing the behavior, where attitude influences the behaviour, and subjective norms regulate it (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Ajzen, 1991; Madden et al., 1992). 

As stated, the TPB presented in Figure 1 has one distinct difference from the TRA: perceived Behavioural Control (hereafter, PBC) (Ajzen, 1991). This perceived control is influenced by the possession of resources and the possibilities of carrying out a given behaviour (Hameed, Waris, & Haq, 2019; Waris et al., 2022). The more resources and possibilities an individual have, more important the PBC is. This PBC is treated as an external variable that has both direct effect on behaviour and indirect impact through behaviour intention (Madden et al., 1992).

The theory is also based on two other factors similar to the TRA (Ajzen, 1991). The behaviour of a human being is the direct result of an intention to behave in a particular manner, which is based first on attitude towards behaviour which encompasses the overall evaluation of behaving in a specific manner and the general perception about the cost and benefit of that particular behaviour (Hameed et al., 2021; Madden et al., 1992). Secondly, the theory bases intention on subjective norms, which reflects the social pressure the person perceives about behaving in a particular manner, it is the pressure of expectations of the relevant reference group on a person concerning the behaviour (Butt, Khan, & Hameed, 2022; Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). Research on green energy consumption has shown that social influences play an important role in individuals’ continuous green behaviour and such influences should be encouraged (Hafner, Elmes, Read, & White, 2019). Thus, subjective norms like attitude are an evaluation of cost and benefit; however, this is about social cost and benefit  (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007; Soomro et al., 2022).

Issues with Theory of Planned Behaviour

Kaiser et al. (2006) reported that researchers have failed to provide or prove a general version of the TPB that does not falsify the compatibility principle in explaining an entire class of behaviour, specifically those related to pro-environmental behaviour (Kaiser et al., 2006). Not many researchers have been keen on experimentally testing TPB, and few, that did perform experimental tests, ended up with results that did not support the assumption of the TPB (Sniehotta, Presseas, & Araujo-Soares, 2014). A systematic review of 24 studies that used TPB in developing or evaluating interventions found that the evidence was insufficient to prove the theory’s usefulness (Hardeman et al., 2002). Researchers have also performed a factorial experimental test of TPB’s cognitive predictors, showing that these predictors could not modify the target variables (Mccarty, 1981). In cases where they could change cognition, these changes did not result in modifying behaviour (Chatzisarantis & Hagger, 2005). 

A literature review has revealed numerous criticisms towards TPB (Sniehotta et al., 2014). One general argument about the developed theory is its incapability towards empirical falsification.

Many believe that hypotheses developed from theory are merely common-sense statements that cannot be falsified (Odgen, 2003). Others argue in relation to the exclusive focus of TPB on rational reasoning, leaving out unconscious influence on behaviour (Sheeran, Gollwitzer, & Bargh, 2013). Moreover, the theory ignores the role of emotions on behaviour, especially those, whose outcomes are difficult to anticipate (Conner, Godin, Sheeran, & Germain, 2013). Many researchers have shown empirical evidence that proves the effects of past behaviour on cognition and, ultimately, on future behaviour, a phenomenon which has not been considered by the TPB (Hameed & Khan, 2020; Khan et al., 2022; Mceachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011).

The TPB has also been criticized for its limited predictive validity, researchers believe that the constructs of TPB do not cover many variations in observed behaviour, more specifically, the problem of ‘inclined abstainers’ that is a condition where individuals, despite forming the intention to refrain from acting are not covered by the theory  (Orbell & Sheeran, 2011). Furthermore, studies found significant evidence that factors like age, social and economic status, health, and others caused consumer behaviours, when TPB constructs were kept constant or controlled  (Sniehotta, Gellert, Whitam, Crombie, & Mcmurdo, 2013). Some other factors driving behaviour or modification in behaviour found in the studies, include factors like habit, strength  (Gardner, Brujin, & Lally, 2011); motivational measures like identity, self-determination, and anticipated regret , along with self-regulatory measures like planning, to be able to cause behaviour regularly and are not covered by the constructs of TPB (Conner & Armitage, 1998).Sniehotta et al. (2014) noted that researchers believe TPB is no longer valid, as it has not been proven accurately through empirical evidence. It has simply become outdated and is no longer considered a theory that is capable of predicting behaviour or behavioural change because of TPB’s limitations that it has failed to trigger sustainable consumption behaviours among the consumers that are better for the environment and the ecosystem.

Norm Activation Model

Many researchers have theorized the NAM to achieve pro-environmental behaviour (Chakraborty et al., 2017; Lindenberg & Steg, 2007; Rezvani et al., 2018). The model uses personal norms to predict behaviour and states that these norms are actively experienced by human beings “as feeling of moral obligation, not as intentions” (Schwartz, 1977). According to the model, these personal norms are determined by the two factors: one is the understanding that performing or not performing a particular behaviour has certain consequences, and the second is the sense of responsibility in performing or not performing a specific behaviour (Hameed & Khan, 2020; Onwezen, Antonides, & Bartels, 2013). However, some studies show that these factors are interrelated; it is believed that an individual must first be aware of the consequences of performing or not performing a particular behaviour before feeling responsible for it (Groot & Steg, 2009; Khan, Hameed, Hussainy, & Riaz, 2022). Figure 2 represents the norm activation model. We have opted for a similar stance in our theoretical evaluation of the model. 

Issues with Norm Activation Model

One of the significant issues of NAM is that it only considers experienced emotions; however, the concept of anticipated emotion, the emotion an individual will experience in anticipation of future behaviour and outcomes, is not covered by NAM (Mellers & Mcgraw, 2001). Some researchers believe these anticipated emotions to be more severe than those experienced after behaviour and have been found in several studies to influence behaviour (Onwezen et al., 2013). Scholars believe that expected behaviour influences the decision-making process (Mellers & Mcgraw, 2001) because individuals always endeavor to endure positive emotions and avoid negative emotions (Fridja, 2007). Another issue of NAM is the application of causality of effect several studies have failed to prove the causal relationship between personal norms and anticipated emotions. It is unclear whether anticipated emotions influenced or developed personal norms or whether these emotions were influenced by the personal norms (Onwezen et al., 2013). Another issue of concern, that a few researchers have raised, is the impact of culture on behaviour, and they believe that NAM cannot be generally applied through all the cultural groups to achieve pro-environmental behaviour (Milfont, Sibley, & Duckitt, 2010). Hindrance in using NAM to achieve environmentally friendly behaviour is social desirability; if social groups do not support such behaviours, it will be extremely difficult for the individuals to behave in such a manner despite anticipating positive emotions and having personal norms (Onwezen et al., 2013).  

Another problem faced during the NAM testing of the model variables, multicollinearity was found in some of the studies which means the effects of the variable on each other are more interconnected and complicated and not as simple as shown in Figure 2  (Han, 2014). Moreover, in the concept of defence, an individual can simply go into denial in the first two stages of the model, meaning that in the stages of awareness and responsibility, if an individual feels obligated to perform a particular action, then that individual can employ four different types of denials to offset the obligation towards a specific behaviour. These denials are denial of need, denial of practical action, denial of ability, and denial of responsibility and thus are capable of altering behaviour and need to be incorporated in the model (Blamey, 1998; Schwartz & Howard, 1981). Another issue faced in NAM is that individuals are often time-constrained; therefore, allocation is required to evaluate the consequences of performing or not performing a particular behaviour, depending on the severity of the need and the anticipated cost of making a decision  (Blamey, 1998). 

In the context of achieving pro-environmental behaviour, NAM leaves out another important factor: an individual’s attitude towards the behaviour and social norms. Many researchers have shown that these factors need to be incorporated into NAM along with the existing predictors of behaviour (Han, 2014; Khan & Hameed, 2019; Onwezen et al., 2013). Attitude towards behaviour entails a favourable or unfavourable evaluation or appraisal of the behaviour. On the other hand, social norms are the perceived pressure of society or social group an individual feels towards performing or not performing a particular behaviour (Ajzen & Madden, 1986). These factors are highly influential in many pro-environmental behavioural studies that employ NAM (Mathies, Selge, & Klockner, 2012).              

Goal Framing Theory

A relatively promising theory in the field of environmental psychology is GFT. The theory’s basis lies in different areas of study; its development is strongly influenced by cognitive and social psychology (Khan et al., 2022). Mainly, the theory entails that goals which frame behaviour, knowledge acquisition, attitude formation, evaluation of the situation, and alternative behaviours to be considered. Although many goals influence behaviours, the theory summarized them into three main distinct goals, which are the ‘hedonic goal’, ‘gain goal’ and ‘normative goal' (Khan & Hameed, 2019; Khan & Hameed, 2019; Lindenberg & Steg, 2007; Lindenberg, 2006).  

The hedonic goal (to feel better right now) encompasses all the goals likely to improve one’s feelings in a particular situation (Hameed & Khan, 2020). Under the hedonic frame, human beings and thus subsequent behaviour will be influenced by achieving or avoiding such goals that increase or decreases their pleasure and affect their mood, respectively. Gaining the goal “to guard and improve one’s resources” makes people particularly inclined towards behaving in a manner that either improves or prevents a decrease in one’s resources or efficiency of the resources (Khan et al., 2022). The normative goal is to act appropriately. When normative goals are active, other sub-goals are active i.e. showing good behaviour, acting appropriately, cleaning the environment, etc. (Hameed & Khan, 2020; Khan & Hameed, 2019).

Issues with Goal Framing Theory

One of the issues with the goal framing theory is that generally, there is not single considered goal considered; thus, human behaviour is based on multiple goals in most cases. It is also important to note that these various goals may or may not be compatible with each other, thus resulting in conflict. Nonetheless, from these multiple goals, one goal will likely dominate the framing process of behaviour  (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). However, those goals, that have been ignored and placed, in the background still generate some influence. For example, when a person is in a normative goal frame, behaviour is governed by what is appropriate; he will still choose the most advantageous behaviour. Thus, gaining a goal though not in the picture, will still exert some influence. In summary, background goals can increase or decrease the impact of the main goal frame, leading behaviour  (Lindenberg, 2008).  

Another issue with the GFT is that the three goal frames do not equally influence the behaviour. Among them, the most influential is the hedonic goal frame, which is related to need satisfaction and, thus is the most basic of the goal frames. The other two-goal structures, gain and normative require additional support from the compatible goals in the background to influence behaviour (Lindenberg, 2008). Furthermore, the normative goal frame is more dependent on external support than the gain goal frame, as it results from an individual’s sensitivity towards the social clues. Therefore, normative goal frames will only be able to influence behaviour when the other two-goal frames’ influence behaviour is minimal (Milinski & Rockenbach, 2007). 

Self-Control occurs when an individual tries to alter his or her thoughts, feelings, or behaviour  (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). So, if the behaviour was formed through any goal frames, self-control can be activated, and the behaviour will be altered. It involves overcoming or ignoring competing urges, desires, or behaviours  (Barkley, 1997). It is also important to understand that not all the behaviours initiate self-control. Instead, self-control is the distinction between the automatic and controlled processes of reaching a behaviour  (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). Therefore, if consumers, due to the automatic process of behaviour, are involved in consuming products that are harmful to the ecosystem, need to impose self-control before motivations can be altered. However, it costs to exert self-control in terms of resources like money, time, effort, and others, all of which are limited (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996). 

Another phenomenon that troubles GFT is the ability of human beings to self-regulate, irrespective of the goal frame that was cognitively strong or was likely to cause behaviour humans’ will to intervene and alter behaviour. People’s ability or inability to regulate the goal frames strongly influences their function or behaviour  (Vohs & Baumeister, 2011). Self-regulation, in a simple form, refers to the action needed to be performed by the individuals to either reduce discrepancies between perceived and standard behaviour or, in the case of standard negative behaviours, attempts to increase the discrepancy  (Carver & Scheier, 2001).  For example, people, who engage in smoking or eat more than they should, show their inability to self-regulate hedonic goal frames. This inability poses a long-term negative impact on behaviour  (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Instead of self-regulating, human beings can also ignore the goal frame altogether, which means their goal frames will not influence their behavior, instead their actions will be led by others or peers’ goal frames. In a social group or under the influence of the others, human beings can formulate a mood that will subsequently influence their actions (Lindenberg, 2008; Neumann & Strack, 2000). Exposure to stress may alter behaviour, and the goal framing theory does not consider its impact. Coping with stress requires individual to override existing thoughts, block dominating sensations, control or stop emotions, and shift attention and denial  (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000).