The Conceptual Organization of Behavior and Attitude-Behavior

Consistency
Mahmood M. Hajjat, Ohio State University
ABSTRACT

by affect ratiier than instrumental (e.g. to achieve

enduring goals) and driven by cognitions.
This article has two purposes. The first is to
provide empirical tests of the validity of these
conceptualizations by contrasting a singlecomponent with a two-component (consummatory
and instrumental) model of behavior. The second is
to provide empirical evidence as to whether focusing
on either attitude component (affective/cognitive)
affects attitude-behavior relation.
The next section is a discussion of the
conceptual organization of attitude. It is followed by
a conceptual analysis of behavior and a discussion
of the effects of thought on attitude-behavior
consistency. Finally, an experiment designed for
achieving the research objectives is outiined and the
findings are thoroughly examined.

The attribute-processing perspective views

behavior as being driven primarily by cognitions
and as being instrumental to the realization of
consumption objectives. Altematively, the recent
surge of interest in the role of affect in buying
behavior suggests that behavior may be
consummatory (noninstrumental) and driven by
emotions. Therefore, the validity of the singlecomponent perspective was tested against a two
component (consummatory and instrumental) model
of behavior. Additionally, the effect of focusing on
an attitude con^xment (affective/cognitive) on
attitude-behavior relation was examined. Results
indicate that the two-component model achieved
discriminant and convergent validity whereas the
single-component model did not. Moreover,
attitude-behavior correlations were higher when
attitude and behavior were infiuenced by tiie same
attitude component than when they were influenced
by different attitudinal components.

INTRODUCTION
A basic tenet of the attribute-processing
perspective is that the comprehension of the brand
attribute claims leads to a change in consumers'
stored cognitions. Thus, consumers are postulated
to be problem-solvers and rational buyers who "base
their decisions on the persuasive information
provided" (Day 1973). The logical fiow of tiie
stages of cognitive processing (e.g. attribute
comprehension-attitude-behavipr-problem solving)
assumes causation and assumes that behavior is
instrumental to the realization of enduring goals
(e.g., problem solving). Altiiough it continues to
explain important consumption phenomena, the
attribute-processing perspective has failed to produce
consistent findings regarding attitude-behavior
consistency (e.g. Ajzen and Fishbein 1977).
The restricted conceptualization of attitude
and behavior in the attribute- processing perspective
has contributed greatiy to this failure. For example,
it is frequentiy argued that attitude may not be
fomied from decomposable origins (e.g. physical
attributes) rather it may "involve a gestalt,
configural aj^aisal of the stimulus object, going
beyond the assessment of Ihe utility contributed by
each individual attribute" (Batra 1986). It is also
generally accepted that consumption may not
involve solving a problem, or realizing other such
enduring goals. It may involve instead some
sensory pleasures, joy, and emotional responses
(Holbrook and Hirschman 1982). It tppeais that
ihere are situations in which attitude would be based
on affect rather than cognitions and consumption
goals would be transient rather than enduring. In
such situations, behavior should be viewed as being
consummatory (e.g. to obtain pleasure) and driven

ATTITUDE O R G A N I Z A T I O N
The attitude concept was originally defined as
being a single-component entity of likes and
dislikes (e.g., Bem 1970). This concept was
subsequentiy reconceptualized to include cognition
and conation in addition to affect (e.g.,
Kotiiandapani 1971, McGuire 1969). The latter
definition has received some empirical supporL In
an experiment that was designed for predicting
contraceptive behavior among low income Negro
women, Kotiiandapani (1971) examined the
discriminant and convergent validity of this
tripartite classification. He found convincing
evidence both to support this classification and to
conclude that conation was a better predictor of
contraceptive behavior than either of the other two
components of attitude (Kothandapani 1971).
However, the inclusion of conation in attitude
structure is not universally accepted. This is because
the difficulty^ of directly observing overt behavior
has resulted in the use of conation as a surrogate for
behavior by many researchers. This conceptual
equivalence explains findings of higher conation
than affect or cognition-behavior correlations.
Moreover, a behavior involving the use of a drug
(e.g., contraceptive) that could produce genuine
health problems might be more influenced by a
medical decision (e.g., prescription) than by affect
or cognition. Thus a midpoint position which
contends that attitude is composed of only affect and
cognition is adopted here. At the same time,
conation is considered to be an evaluative response
based on the more accessible, more salient of only
two attitude components - affect or cognition (e.g.,
Bagozzi and Bumkrant 1979, Millar and Tesser
1986). The affective component of attitude toward a
brand is thought to contain the feelings (e.g.,
pleasure, happiness, joy) that may be evoked by the
brand and the cognitive component is thought to
contain the encodings of physical attributes of, and
beliefs about the brand (e.g., price, size,

7 77

Advances in Consumer Research

Volume 17, & 1990

778 / The Conceptual

Organtzatton

of Behavtor

effectiveness). Bagozzi and Bumkrant (1979)

examined the validiQr of a single-component model
of attitude and conq>ared it to a two-component
model. They reported evidence to support an
affective-cognitive conceptualization and lack of
evidence to support a single-component model of
attitude.

BEHAVIOR ORGANIZATION
Much research indicates that all products, no
matter how mundane, carry attributes such as
packaging, color, or taste that are not central to the
objective value (e.g., effectiveness) of the product symbolic features. It is also known that people
make decisions so as to experience an emotion or to
realize some type of utility. For example, a person
may drive to a shopping mall on a nice evening just
to enjoy him/herself by looking at store windows
while another may do the same thing to maintain
good 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 objective
attributes (e.g., fiouride) while another may do the
same thing for just the opposite reason.
It appears that purchase behavior can be
differentiated along customers' expectations from
consuming the product (e.g., freshness/healthy gums
from consuming toothpaste). Thus, purchase
behavior that stems primarily from the pursuit of
sensory pleasures, happiness, or any emotional
responses consummated coincident with
consumption of die product is different from
purchase behavior that stems primarilyfrx>mthe
pursuit of objectives that last beyond the time of
actual consumption. These two types of behavior
depend on the primary stimuli, and are called
consummatory behavior (primary stimuli are
immediate consummatory emotional responses) and
instrumental behavior (primary stimuli are enduring
objectives).
Figure 1 shows path diagrams of a singlecomponent and a two-component model of behavior.
A confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL VI
(Joreskog and Sorbom 1984) was used for testing
the fit of each model.
The single-component model achieves
convergent validity if (a) responses that differentiate
consummatory from instrumental behavior exhibit
high intercorrelations and (b) an insignificant chisquare is obtained. Discriminant and convergent
validi^ of the two-component model will be
achieved if (a) within-component correlations are
high, (b) across-component correlations are
logically consistent and significantly lower than
within- component correlations, (c) rho-statistic
(Bentler and Bonett 1980) is within an acceptable
range (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 both
models based on an inferential evaluation of nested
models (Long 1988) could be carried out to
determine which model fits the data better. Based on
this analysis, the following hypotheses were tested:

and Attttude-Behavtor

Conststency

HI: A two-component (consummatory and

instrumental) model of behavior
achieves discriminant and convergent
validity whereas a single-component
does iK>t
H2: A two-component (consummatory and
instrumental) model of behavior fits the
data better dian a single-component
model.
EFFECTS O F T H O U G H T O N
ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR RELATION
In recent years, research in attitude-behavior
relation has proliferated and has iimarily examined
the conditions under which attitude and behavior
would or would not correlate (Wilson, Dunn, Bybee,
Hymann, and Rotondo 1984). An area that has
captured much attention, and is also the focus of this
article, is the effect of affective and cognitive focus
on attitude-behavior consistency. In one study,
Fazio, Zanna, and Cooper (1978) stimulated their
subjects to think about the attitude objects (puzzles)
by instructing them to empathize with a similar
individual on a videotape who was playing with the
puzzles. Fazio et al. (1978) found that when
subjects were instructed to think about the attitude
objects (puzzles), the amount of salient information
about the attitude objects increased. Hie attitudes of
those subjects who were led to focus on the attitude
objects were also found to be better predictors of
behavior than subjects' attitudes in tiie control
condition (who did not think about the attitude
objects).
In contrast, Wilson et al. (1984), using a
similar paradigm, found results that were
contradictory to those reported by Fazio et al.
(1978). Wilson et al. (1978) predicted that
analyzing the reasons for one's own attitude
(thinking in terms of why a person feels the way
s/he does) would shift attitude in a direction away
from behavior, thus attitude-behavior correlation
would be low. In a series of experiments using
puzzles, vacation scenes, and dating mates as
attitude objecu, Wilson et al. (1978) found that
when subjects analyzed the reasons of why they
would or would not like the attitude object, their
self-reported attitudes accounted for only 1% of die
variance of behavior while subjects' attitudes in the
control condition were found to accoimt for
approximately 30%.
In an attempt to provide a resolution to the
apparent contradictory findings, Millar and Tesser
(1986) conducted an experiment in which they used
puzzles, similar to those used in Wilson et al.
(1978), as attitude objects. Millar and Tesser (1986)
reasoned that if attitude report and behavior
emanated from the same attitudinal component
(either affective or cognitive), attitude-behavior
conelation would be high. And, if behavior was
initiated by an attitudinal component that would be
different from that component dictating attitude
report, attitude-behavior correlation would be low.

Advances In Consumer Research (Volume 17) I 779

FIGURE 1
Path 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; Joyjoy; Qieer-cheerfulness; Refresh-refreshment; Health-gum health; Cavred-cavity reduction; Brightbrightness; Tarred-tartar buildup reduction.

In MiUar and Tesser (1986), the time spent playing

with each puzzle, the proportion of each puzzle
chosen, and the order of choice in a free-play period
were recorded for each subject. The play time for
subjects in the cognitive and affective-focus
conditions was correlated with their attitude reports.
These correlations were higher when behavior and
attitude reports were driven by the same attitude
component (a match situation) than when each was
driven by a different component (a mismatch
situation).
However, one could argue that some
methodological issues in Wilson et al. (1984) and in
Millar and Tesser (1986) may have contaminated

their findings. In formulating a general evaluative

response about an attitude object, some of its salient
objective attributes or symbolic features would be
more important than others. Thus, it is possible
that subjects' attitudes toward the attitude objects
(puzzles were used in both studies, and vacation
scenes and dating mates were used in the first) might
have had more symbolic or hedonic than physical or
attribute origins. For example, the joy of triumph
or the agony of defeat probably infiuences one's
liking or dislike of a puzzle far more than the
puzzle's contribution to one's analytic ability.
Thus, since Wilson et al's (1984) subjects did not
have a large number of cognitions to begin with.

780 / The Coneeptual

Organization

of Behavior

they may have generated a biased set of reasons, just

to appear more analytical, that might not have
refiected their true attitudes.
Similarly, since Millar and Tesser's (1986)
subjects in the cognitive-focus condition did not
have many relevant attributes about the puzzles to
start with, they may also have generated a biased set
of reasons, but to a lesser extent than in Wilson et
al. (1984). In fact. Millar and Tesser (1986)
reported insignificant differences between affectiveand cognitive-focus condition conelations when
subjects' behavior was driven by cognitions, and the
proportion of puzzles chosen and order of choice
were used as behavioral measures.
Second, since Millar and Tesser (1986) did
not include a control cell to compare with, it is
difficult to conclude whether analyzing reasons in
the cognitive-driven behavior condition increased
attitude-behavior correlations or just did not decrease
them. For the same reason, it is also difficult to
conclude whether focusing on the affective
conqx>nent of attitude in the affective-driven
behavior condition increased attitude-behavior
correlations or simply did not decrease them. Third,
considering the time span over which Millar and
Tesser's (1986) study was completed (a few minutes),
it could be argued that salient-attitude reports in the
cognitive focus condition might have habituated
subjects' behavioral responses when behavior was
driven by the same cognitions. Thus, the observed
consistency between attitudes based on cognitions
and behaviors driven by these cognitions might
have been infiated.
While taking these issues into consideration,
the conceptual parallel between affective (cognitive)
attitude that is based on feelings (cognitions) and
consummatory (instrumental) behavior that is
stimulated by symbolic (objective) attributes of the
product was maintained in the present research. In
the course of doing so, a research paradigm that is
similar to those used by Wilson et al. (1984) and
Millar and Tesser (1986) was utilized. Second, the
attitude objects employed in this research were
products (toothpaste brands) that would have
different symbolic origins (e.g. packaging, color)
for the hedonic component of attitude and several
physical origins (e.g. fiuoride, abrasive) for the
cognitive component. Third, a control group was
included and attitude-behavior correlations for all
experimental cells were compared with those of the
control group. Finally, subjects' actual behavior
was observed one week after obtaining self-reported
attitudes. The following hypotheses were tested:
H3: If attitude report and behavior are
infiuenced by the same attitude
component (affective/cognitive),
attitude-behavior correlation would be
high; whereas if they are infiuenced by
different attitude components, attitudebehavior correlation would be low.
H4: Focusing on the attitude component that
drives behavior would result in a high

and Attitude-Behavior

Consistency

attitude-behavior correlation; whereas

die lack of focus on a specific attitude
component would result in a low
attitude-behavior correlation.
METHOD
Fifty six male and fifty two female
undergraduate students from a marketing course at a
major mid-westem university completed a short
questionnaire that was designed to measure initial
attitudes and initial behavioral intentions. After
collecting this instrument, subjects were randomly
assigned to one of 2 (affective/cognitive attitude
focus) / 2 (consummatory^nstrumental behavior)
cells and a control condition. Subjects completed
another questionnaire (ostensibly for a different
experiment), were thanked, and promised a gift (was
intended to measure actual choice) in the coming
days.
Procedure
On the first questiormaire, subjects provided
some demographical data, recalled as many brands as
they could from four different product classes
including toothpaste, ranked the recalled brands, and
indicated their preferences. The purpose of this
instrument was to facilitate the contrast of subjects'
initial to post-experimental attitude-behavior
correlations. The second questioimaire contained the
following regarding each of five toothpaste brands:
(a) a black-and-white picture of the brand, (b) a 9point bipolar scale for measuring the attitude toward
brand, (c) eight 9-point bipolar scales for measuring
behavioral responses that, based on a pretest, were
found to differentiate consummatory from
instrumental behavior, (d) a thought-listing question
for measuring the degree of affective and cognitive
focus, and (d) a purchase intention question. This
instrument was designed to measure the differential
effects of experimental manipulations.
Subjects were approached by an experimenter
who, as a cover story, claimed that the purpose of
the first questionnaire was to measure market share
for the brands that subjects could recall. They were
given two minutes for each product category and
were instructed not to tum pages unless they were
told. After collecting the first instrument,
participants were ^>proached by another
experimenter who distributed the second instrument
and asked them to read and follow all instructions
carefully. They were given all the time they needed
for examining the picture of any brand and for
answering the questions.
Subjects were asked to keep a little numberedpost-it note from the first questionnaire, attach the
note to the second questionnaire, write tiie number
of the note on a little card attached to the second
questionnaire, and keep the card to claim the gift.
When gifts were claimed a week later, each subject
deposited his/her claim card in the same box from
which the toothpaste tube was chosen. Finally, the
researcher mached the questionndres and the card to
isolate the responses of each individual.

Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 17) I 781

Experimental Manipulations
An important issue in this research was
whether to use fictitious (novel) or familiar and
popular brands as attitudinal objects. The selection
of well- known over fictitious brands was governed
by a number of {nractical and theoretical
considerations. These were: (a) an attempt to
resemble a marketing situation as close as possible,
(b) an attempt to measure overt behavior under the
volitional control of subjects and correlate this
index of observed behavior with attitude so as to
properly illustrate attitude-behavior consistency, (c)
an attempt to equate all recall cues across brands and
subjects (the brand picture was the only cue), (d) an
attempt to stimulate subjects to report real
sentiments from their past experiential consumption
episodes, and (e) an attempt to eliminate the
likelihood of generating artificial (biased) inferential
information, thoughts, and sentiments that would be
otherwise increased if written attributes, needed with
novel brands, were provided.
Subjects in the affective focus condition were
instructed to focus on how they felt about each brand
while they were viewing its picture, whereas those
in the cognitive focus condition were instructed to
think about the reasons that made them feel the way
they did. The purpose of the brand picture was
either to remind subjects of the sentiments and
feelings they experienced whenever they used the
product in the past or to aid in recalling the stored
attributes of, and beliefs about the product. Subjects
in the consummatory behavior condition were led to
believe that they would receive a social sensitivity
test (how well they would fit with others) at the end
of the experiment, whereas those in the instrumental
behavior condition would receive a brand and
attribute-recall test (how much information they
could recall). Neither group was actually tested. To
get maximum help on the anticipated tests, subjects
in the consummatory behavior condition should
have heightened their stored feelings and emotions
upon viewing the pictures. While those in the
instrumental behavior condition should have
axxessed their stored belief and brand-attdbute
information. Subjects in the control condition were
not given attitude focus and behavior manipulation
instructions.
Attitude and Behavior Measures
Each 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 9
indicated like very much. Behavior was observed
one week after completing the questionnaires; each
subject chose and received one tube of toothpaste
from the five brands used.
Affective and Cognitive Focus Measures
Subjects listed all the thoughts that occurred
to them whUe they were examining the picture of
each brand. These thoughts were later coded by two
judges into feelings and reasons. The two coding
sets were highly correlated (r=0.93). The feelings

represented the affective focus and the reasons

represented the cognitive focus.
Responses Differentiating
Consummatory
From Instrumental Behavior
Each subject indicated on 9-point bipolar
scales how much s/he agreed or disagreed with four
consummatory and four instrumental behavior
statements regarding each brand. The
representativeness of these statements to
consummatory and instrumental behavior was
established by a pretest of twenty subjects from the
same population. Consummatory behavior
statements tapped the degree of happiness (happy),
joy (joy), cheerfulness (cheer), and refreshment
(refresh) felt by each subject if the brand of
toothpaste under consideration was used.
Instrumental behavior statements measured the
extent of belief that the brand of toothpaste might
contribute to gum health (health), cavity reduction
(cavred), teeth brightness (bright), and tartarbuildup reduction (tarred). On all scales, 1 indicated
completely disagree and 9 indicated completely
agree.
ANALYSIS

AND

RESULTS

Confirmatory Factor Anaiysis

For the single-component model to achieve
convergent validity and provide a good fit, the
variables differentiating consummatory from
instrumental behavior should exhibit high
intercorrelations and an insignificant chi-square
should be obtained. The test of this model using
USREL VI gave zero correlations and a significant
chi-square (%28=3629, p=0.0). Thus, the single
component model did not achieve convergent
validity and it could not be accepted without testing
a two-component model.
In the two-component model, the first set of
fliese variables (happy, joy, cheer, and refresh) was
hypothesized 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 have
high loadings {X^2'^S2) " instrumenul behavior
and zero loadings (Xj2 -^42 ) on consummatory
behavior. The conelation >2i) between the two
components of behavior should not be high.
The conelation matrix used in the analysis
(not included) showed that variables loading on
consummatory behavior were highly conelated
(r=0.70 to r=0.94) and variables loading on
instrumental behavior were highly conelated (r=0.61
to r=0.83) while across-component conelations were
low. nSREL estimates showed high loadings from
the first set of variables on consummatory behavior
(happy=0.962, joy=0.972, cheer=0.956, and
refresh=0.735), high loadings from the second set of
variables on instrumental behavior (health=0.918,
cavred=0.877, bright=0.731, and taned=0.800), low
conelation between consimunatory and instrumental

I The Coneeptual

Organization

of Behavior

and Attitude-Behavior

Consistency

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

1.2

a M

0.8

1a

0.6

1.15

75

If 0.4
2 .S

Control
Affective focus
Cognitive focus

0.2
0.0
feelings

reasons

statistic (p=0.90). and a low root mean square

residual (RMSR=0.1). These results indicate that the
two-component model (consummatory and
instrumental) achieved discriminant and convergent
validity.
The last goodness-of-fit test conducted here
was an inferential evaluation of nested models.
Since the free parameters in the single-component
constitute a subset of the free parameters in the twocomponent model, it was possible to test a null
hypothesis that the single-component fits the data
better than the two-component model. If the null
hypothesis could not be rejected (by obtaining an
insignificant chi-square). then the single-component
would be more desirable than the two-component
model because the first would be more parsimonious
than the second. The test resulted in a significant
chi- square (X9=3472. p=0.0). thus the null
hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that the
two-component model of behavior (consummatory
and instrumental) fits the data better than the singlecomponent.

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

figure 2).
Two measures of behavior were constructed
and correlated with subjects' self-reported measures
of liking and dislike of the five Is-ands of
toothpaste, actual choice of toothpaste and the tube
size. Correlations were transformed to z-scores and
analyzed in two separate 2 (constunmatory vs.
instrumental) / 2 (affective vs. cognitive) / 2 (male
vs. female) ANOVAs. The two ANOVAs gave
identical results. The only significant interacting
effect was type of behavior / type of focus,
F(l,86)=16.9, P=0.0001. Subjects in the
instrumental behavior condition had higher attitudebehavior correlations when they focused on their
cognitions (M=0.66) than when they focused on
their feelings (M=0.38), F(l,40)=2.77, P=0.05.
Similarity, subjects in the consummatory behavior
condition had higher attitude-behavior correlations
when they focused on their feelings(M=0.63) than
when they focused on their cognitions (M=0.31),
F(l,44)=5.03, P=0.004. It is interesting to note
that subjects in the control condition had attitudebehavior mean correlations of M=0.40 (see figure
3).

Attitude-Behavior Relation
The 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 variation
was thought focus. F(l,86)=9.45. P=0.0028.
Subjects in the cognitive focus condition produced
more reasons (M=0.75) than did subjects in the
affective focus condition (M=0.39). F(1.86)=4.58.
P=0.0051. The number of feelings produced by
subjects was also analyzed in a similar ANOVA and
thought focus was the only significant source of
variation. F(l,86)=17.77, P=0.0001. Subjects in
the affective focus condition generated more feelings
(M=1.15) than did subjects in the cognitive focus

This article has demonstrated that consumers'

behavior can be differentiated according to
consumers' expectations from consuming the
product A two- component model of behavior
achieved discriminant and convergent validity
whereas a single-component model did not.
Focusing on the attitude component
(affective/cognitive) that drives behavior
(consummatory^instrumental) increased attitudebehavior correlation above that in the control
condition (when subjects were not instructed to
focus). Altematively, focusing on the attitude
component that does not drive behavior decreased

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

DISCUSSION

Advances In Consumer Research (Volume 17) I 783

FIGURE 3
Mean cotielations of attitude and behavior

.38
Control
Affective focus
Cognitive focus

0.0
Instrumental

attitude-behavior correlation below that in the

control condition.
It is possible that subjects' age and purchase
experience may have contributed to the observed
differences in attitude-behavior correlations. This
possibility was investigated ini a number of
additional analyses. First, a 2 (type of behavior) / 2
(type of focus) / 2 (sex) / 4 (piirchase frequency) / 5
(age group) ANOVA indicated |that significant
differences between mean correlations at 0.08
significance level still existed tod the only two-way
interaction to reach significance was type of focus /
type of behavior, F(l,86)=5.36, P=0.02. Second, a
5 (age group) / 4 (purchase frequency) / 2 (sex)
ANOVA indicated that no significant main or
interacting effect was produced by any of these
variables, F(25,62)=1.41, P=O.H. Third, mean
correlations of attitude and behavior, attitude and
behavioral intention, and initial attitude and initial
behavioral intention for experimental conditions,
were compared to those for the control condition.
This analysis showed that there were no significant
differences between mean correlations of the five
groups (F^l.87, P^.15) except between attitudebehavior mean correlations. These findings clearly
indicate that factors other than the type of focus and
the type of behavior do not explain the observed
differences in attitude- behavior correlations.

CONCLUSION
Though the attribute processing perspective
has yielded valuable insights into consumer attitudebehavior relation, it falls far short of completely
explaining the consumption phenomena. The
findings of this research provide partial support to
the notion that purchase behavior is largely
dependent on the expectations ^f the consumer in
consuming the product. Cunent findings are also
consistent with findings in social psychology, and
are apparent in some of the cunent advertising
practices. For example, AT&T appeals to both

Consummatory

behavioral components by airing two different

advertisements, "reach out and touch some one" and
the "price of the call" ads. Toothpaste commercials
are usually diversified to appeal to the majority of
consumers by emphasizing the benefits (e.g. fewer
cavities) and/or stressing the consumption
experience (e.g. fresh breath) consumers can expect
from using the brand. Even beef is advertised as a
red, tasty, and delicious meat and as a good source of
necessary nutrition.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977), "AttitudeBehavior Relations: A 'Theoretical Analysis and
Review of Empirical Research," Psychological
Bulliten, 84,888-918.
Bagozzi, R. and Bumkrant, R. (1979), "Attitude
Organization and the Attitude-Behavior
Relationship," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. VoL37, No.6, 913-29.
Batra, R. (1986), "Affective Advertising: Role,
Processes, and Measurement," in The Role of
Affect in Consumer Behavior: Emerging
Theories and Applications, R. Peterson, W.
Hoyer, and W. Wilson (eds.), Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath and Company.
Bem, D. J. (1970), Belies, Attitudes, and Human
Affairs, Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Inc.
Bentier, P. and Bonett, D. (1980), "Significance
Tests and Goodness-of-Fit in the Analysis of
Covariance Stmcture," Psychological Bulliten,
88, 588-606.
Day, O. (1973), "Theories of Attitude Structure and
Change," in Consumer Behavior: Theoretical
Sources, Ward and Robertson (eds.), Engle Wood
Qiffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

784 / The Conceptual

Organization

of Behavior

Fazio, R., Zanna, M., and Cooper, J. (1978), "Direct

Experience 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), "The
Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer
Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun," Jourrud of
Consumer Research, Vol.9, 132-40.
Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1984), USREL VI:
User's Guide, Mooresvill, Lidiana: Scientific
Software, Inc.
Kothandapani, V. (1971), "Validation of Feeling,
Belief, and Intention to Act as Three
Components of Attitude and Their Contribution
to Prediction of Contraceptive Behavior," Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.19,
No.3, 321-33.
Long, J. (1988), Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences 07-033,
Beverly Hills and London: Sage Pubns.
McGuire, W. J. (1969), "The Nature of Attitudes and
Attitude Change," in Handbook tf Social
Psychology, Vol. HI (2nd ed.), G. Lindzey and E.
Aronson (eds.), Reading, Mass.: Adison-Wisely
Publishing Company, Inc.
MiUar, M. and Tesser, A. (1986), "Effects of
Affective and Cognitive Focus on the AttitudeBehavior Relation," Jourrud of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 270-76.
Wilson, T., Dunn, D., Bybee, J., Hyman, D., and
Rotondo, J. (1984), "Effects of Analyzing
Reasons on Attitude-Behavior Consistency,"
Journal cf Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol.47, No.l, 5-16.

and Attitude-Behavior

Consistency