m

   

!

u
h
h.
h.

m

!

 

“‘IV‘P‘Hflh

   

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Factors Affecting How Individuals Explain

Their Behavioral Intentions to Others

presented by

Hye Jeong Choi

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Advertising, PR & Retailing

 

 

W

Major Professor’s Signature
07/3 0/02008

Date

 

 

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K.IProj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDaIeDue indd

FACTORS AFFECTING HOW INDIVIDUALS EXPLAIN
THEIR BEHAVIORAL INTENTION TO OTHERS

By

Hye .Ieong Choi

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Advertising. Public Relations & Retailing

2008

ABSTRACT

FACTORS AFFECTING HOW INDIVIDUALS EXPLAIN
THEIR BEHAVIORAL INTENTION TO OTHERS

By
Hye Jeong Choi
Previous research mainly investigated which ofattitudinal and normative
determinants would be more prominent in terms of predicting behavioral intention. By
taking an approach drastically different from previous TRA research, this thesis focused
on how attitude toward a behavior and perceived norms would influence individuals’
intentions to use various reasons when explaining their behavioral intention to others.
Also, this study examined how different cultures would influence people’s citation of the
same components which were related to behavioral intention. The study did not show that
one culture always use attitudinal components to explain individuals’ behavior intention
while the other always use normative components to explain individuals‘ behavior
intention. It provided the evidence that TRA components would influence differently
depending on the type of behavior. Furthermore, the relationships that attitudinal and
normative components had with behavioral intention to engage in behaviors were not the
same for the relationship that attitudinal and normative determinants had with intentions
to use attitude-related reasoning and norm-related reasoning. The behavioral type and the
norm types were important factors for the relationships among attitude, norms, and

various types of intentions.

Copyright by
Hye Jeong Choi
2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere and deepest appreciation to several wonderful
persons. First of all. I really thank my family. Without their love, support, and sacrifice, I
would not complete my study here at MSU. Especially. my parents" understanding and
supporting were critical for me to continue my study.

Next. I give my special appreciation to Dr. Hee Sun Park. my academic advisor,
for her precious time and effort guiding my thesis and study. If it were not her helping
advising and understanding. I would not finish my thesis and my degree. I owe her so
much.

I also appreciate Dr. Teresa Mastin and Dr. Mira Lee, for their invaluable helps as
committee members. While studying with them, I was impressed with their insights.
They also inspired and encouraged me to think broadly.

Finally, I can not help giving my best appreciation to God for showing me the
way I should go and guiding my life as the true mentor. I am leaving Michigan with

many wonderful memories. I loved the nature as much as the people in Michigan.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. viii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... I
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 3
Determinants of Behavioral Intentions ................................................... 3
Explaining Ones’ Behavioral Intentions ................................................... 4
Cultural Differences in Explaining One’s Behavioral Intentions ...................... 6
Hypotheses and Research Questions ...................................................... 7
CHAPTER II: METHODS ........................................................................ I0
Overview of Design ........................................................................ IO
Participants .................................................................................. 10
Procedure .................................................................................... I I
Measures .................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER III: RESULTS ......................................................................... I6
Summary ..................................................................................... I6
Research question I ........................................................................ I7
Research question 2 ........................................................................ I9
Research question 3 ........................................................................ 22
Hypothesis I &2 ............................................................................ 29
CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION .................................................................... 35
Summary .................................................................................... 35
Implications for socially desirable and undesirable behavior ......................... 37
Implications for behavior involving interpersonal relationships ..................... 39
Implications for cross-culture ............................................................ 40
Limitations .................................................................................. 42
Conclusion .................................................................................. 42
TABLES & FIGURES .............................................................................. 43
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 73
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................... 98

LIST OF TABLES

Reliabilities, Correlations, Means. and Standard Deviations for Purchasing Green

Products ............................................................................................. 43
Reliabilities, Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Telling the Truth.........45
Reliabilities, Correlations, Means. and Standard Deviations for Lying for a Friend ...... 47

Reliabilities, Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Downloading

Unauthorized Media Files Online ................................................................. 49
Regression Results for Intentions to Purchase Green Product and to Download

Unauthorized Media Files Online .................................................................. 5|
Regression Results for Intentions to Tell the Truth and to Lie ................................ 52

Regression Results for Intentions to Use Attitudinal Reasoning for Explaining Purchasing
Green Product and Downloading Unauthorized Media Files Online ......................... 53

Regression Results for Intentions to Use Attitudinal Reasoning for Explaining Truth-
TeIIing and Lying ..................................................................................... 54

Regression Results for Intentions to Use Subjective Norms-Reasoning for Explaining
Purchasing Green Product and Downloading Unauthorized Media Files Online .......... 55

Regression Results for Intentions to Use Subjective Norms-Reasoning for Truth-Telling
and Lying ............................................................................................. 56

Regression Results for Intentions to Use Descriptive Norms-Reasoning for Explaining
Purchasing Green Product and Downloading Unauthorized Media Files Online...........57

Regression Results for Intentions to Use Descriptive Norms-Reasoning for Explaining
Truth-Telling and Lying ............................................................................. 58

Regression Results for Intentions to Use Injunctive Norms-Reasoning for Explaining
Purchasing Green Product and Downloading Unauthorized Media Files Online .......... 59

Regression Results for Intentions to Use Injunctive Norms-Reasoning for Explaining
Truth-Telling and Lying ........................................................................... 60

Summary of Unstandardized Simple Slopes ..................................................... 6]

Means and Standard Deviations for Reasoning/ Behavioral Type/ Culture ANOVA for
Purchasing Green Products and Downloading Unauthorized Media Files Online ........ 62

vi

Means and Standard Deviations for Reasoning/ Behavioral type/ Culture ANOVA for

Telling the Truth and Lying for a Friend ......................................................... 63
4 (Reasoning) X 4 (type of behaviors) X 2 (cultures) ANOVA Results ..................... 64
Comparisons of Reasoning Types for Koreans and Americans for Purchasing Green
Product ............................................................................................... 65
Comparisons of Reasoning Types for Koreans and Americans for Truth-Telling..........66

Comparisons of Reasoning Types for Koreans and Americans for Lying for a Friend....67

Comparisons of Reasoning Types for Koreans and Americans for Downloading
Unauthorized Media Files Online ................................................................. 68

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Comparisons of Reasoning Types for Purchasing Green Products in Korea and in

US .................................................................................................................................. 69
Comparisons of Reasoning Types for Downloading unauthorized media file via online in
Korea and in US ................................................................................. 70
Comparisons of Reasoning Types for Truth-telling in Korea and in US .................. 7I
Comparisons of Reasoning Types for Lying for a Friend in Korea and in US ........... 72

viii

FACTORS AFFECTING HOW INDIVIDUALS EXPLAIN
THEIR BEHAVIORAL INTENTION TO OTHERS

Introduction

Individuals often face situations where they need to explain to others why they
have engaged or are about to engage in a certain behavior. Some individuals may express
to others what they have in mind as the main reasons for engaging in a behavior, whereas
other individuals may opt to cite reasons they would help to receive positive impressions
from other people. For example, when students are asked why they intend to study hard
for an exam, some students may tell others that they intend to study hard because they
personally think studying hard is good and useful even though the more central reason for
them to study hard is because their parents expect them to study hard.

One main aim ofthe current paper is to investigate whether or not individuals’
internal reasons for forming their behavioral intention will be consistent with the external
reasons they use for expressing their behavioral intentions to other people. That is, when
individuals’ attitudes are stronger reasons for forming behavioral intention, would they
also cite their attitudes externally as the reasons for their behavioral intentions when asked
to explain their behavioral intentions? In this paper, internal reasons and external reasons
are distinguished. Internal reasons for forming behavioral intentions focus on what
individuals may consider for engaging in a behavior. Attitudinal components and
normative components central to theories such as Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) are
the internal reasons. External reasons are the ones that individuals tell others when
explaining their behavioral intentions to others; individuals may use reasons pertaining to
their attitudes and/or their perceptions of norms.

Another main aim ofthe current paper is to examine cultural differences between

Koreans and Americans for the relationship between internal reasons and external reasons.

The culture of Korea has been characterized as more collectivistic and less individualistic
than that of America (Hofstede, I980; Kim, I994). Individualism has been defined as
emphasis on individuals’ own attributes and their self-concepts independent of other
people, whereas collectivism has been characterized as emphasis on interpersonal
harmony and fitting in with others and self-concepts construed in relation with others
(Triadis, I995). An individualistic culture stresses that individuals should have autonomy
in their relationships with others (Markus & Kitayama, I991) and their personal goal
should be more respected than a group’s goal (Triandis, Mccusker, & Hui, 1990). On the
other hand, individuals in collective cultures consider themselves as an element of a whole
group (Markus & Kitayama, I99]; Triandis, I989), so it is more important to achieve the
group goal and keep the group’s survival than each individual’s goal and survival.
Considering such cultural differences, it is expected that Koreans and Americans can
differ in the extent to which they are likely to use attitudes and norms as the reasons they
use when explaining their behaviors to others. The following sections provide a brief

rationale, hypotheses. and research questions.

Chapter I
Determinants of Behavioral Intentions

Among the various reasons for why individuals intend to engage in a behavior, two
major types of determinants have been examined: attitudinal and normative components.
The first type of components has to do with individuals’ own view about performing the
behavior. In other words, individuals themselves may consider engaging in the behavior as
good and beneficial, possibly because engaging in the behavior leads to useful outcomes
for them. The other component pertains to individuals’ perception about what other people
think about the individuals performing the behavior. That is, individuals often consider the
opinions of others who are important to them and want to comply with those important
others’ wishes (Ajen & Fishbein. 1973). One ofthe theories that specify these attitudinal
and normative components as determinants of behavioral intentions and behaviors is
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajen & Fishbein, I980). Attitudes toward behavior
and subjective norms as two components of TRA have been shown to be related to
intentions to engage in various behaviors such as donating blood (Warshaw, Calanton, &
Joyce, 1986) and purchasing (Warshaw, I980). Meta-analyses also showed that attitudinal
and normative components had strong correlations with behavior intentions (Sheppard,
Hartwick, & Warshaw, I988; Sheeran & Talyor, I999; Armitage & Conner, 2001).
Research showed that TRA had a good validity in Korea for purchasing intentions (Lee &
Green, I991) and intentions to study for a final exam (Park & Levine, I999).

Concerning normative components, individuals’ perceptions of descriptive and
injunctive norms have been shown to be related to behavioral intentions. Descriptive
norms are defined as what people commonly do and injunctive norms are defined as what
people approve and support (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, I990). Studies have shows that
descriptive norms explain additional variance in behavioral intentions beyond attitudes

3

and subjective norms (e.g., Rivis & Sheeran, 2003). Injunctive norms also are related to
the behavioral intention such as alcohol consumption (Real & Rimal, 2007), playing the
lottery (Walker, Coumeya, & Deng, 2006). Even though injunctive norm and subjective
norms are determined by expectations of other’s belief, they are different in terms of
social sanction (Bendor & Swistak, 2001). Park and Smith (2007) provided empirical
evidence that individuals' subjective norms, perceived descriptive norms, and perceived
injunctive norm are distinguished from one another and are differently interacted with
behavioral intentions and attitudes.
Explaining Ones’ Behavioral Intentions

When there is no need for individuals to explain their behaviors to others,
individuals may freely consider their own personal assessment of the behaviors. But for
explaining to others about their behavioral choices, individuals may need to consider what
others would think about the reasons explained to them. When there are multiple reasons
for engaging in a behavior, each reason can vary in the extent to which it generates
desirable impressions (Cooley, 1902). Even when there is only one good reason for
engaging in a behavior, individuals may not want to let others know the real reason and
rather may want to use other reasons when explaining to others why they intend to do the
behavior. For example, when running for a public office (e.g., a senator seat, the US.
President), an individual may have his or her own selfish reason deep down in his or her
heart (e.g., obsession with power), but may avoid revealing it to others and tell to many
others that he or she simply wants to serve the country and honor what others want and
expect him or her to do.

When juxtaposing internal reasons for forming behavioral intention with external
justification for forming behavioral intention, two possibilities exist. One is that
individuals are consistent in their internal thoughts and external justification concerning

4

their behaviors. For a behavior that individual internally weigh their attitudes, rather than
perceived norms, as a stronger factor for forming behavioral intention, individuals may
externally express their attitudes to others when asked to explain why they are about to
engage in the behavior. For a behavior that individuals internally weigh their norm
perceptions, rather than attitudes, as a stronger factor for forming behavioral intention,
individual may externally express their perceived norms to others when asked to explain
why they are about to engage in the behavior.

Another possibility for the relationship between internal reasons for forming
behavioral intention with external reasons for forming behavioral intention is that
individuals’ internal thoughts are inconsistent with their external justification concerning
their behaviors. Individuals may externally express their perceived norms to others when
asked to explain why they are about to engage in the behavior even for a behavior that
individuals internally weigh their attitudes as a stronger factor for forming behavioral
intention. Individuals may externally express their attitudes to others when asked to
explain why they are about to engage in the behavior even for a behavior that individuals
internally weigh their norms as a stronger factor for forming behavioral intention.

Individuals may invoke different reasons when explaining a certain action to
themselves versus to others. One reason could be impression management, which refers to
the attempt to control individuals’ image consciously or unconsciously in social
interaction (Schlenker, I980). In general, people have the need to belong to the society
and want to be accepted by others. When individuals need to explain their behavioral
intentions to others, individuals may need to consider what others would think about them
(Buss, I980). Expressing a certain type of reasons for one’s behavioral reason can garner
desirable or undesirable impressions (Leary & Kowalski. I990). For example, for a certain

behavior, individuals may think that expressing their attitudes as the reason for engaging

in a behavior makes them look confident about their attitudes. Alternatively, for a
behavior that may benefit others more so, individuals may think that expressing their
perceived norms (e.g., "others who are important to me wanted me to do it," as an
example of subjective norms, "many people do it" as an example of perceived descriptive
norms, and "many people approve of the behavior" as an example of perceived injunctive
norms) as the reason for engaging in a behavior makes them look caring and/or
considerate of others.
Cultural Differences in Explaining One 's Behavioral Intentions

Cultures can vary in the extent to which individuals consider other people in how
they think, behave. and communicate. For example, cultures can affect how individuals
think ofthemselves in relation to others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Compared to
Hindus, Americans more often refer to general dispositions and less frequently refer to
contextual factor when they have to explain the behavior of third party (Miller, 1984).
Masuda and Nisbett (2001) also demonstrated that East Asians relatively more focus on
the environment or context than do Americans. For instance, commercials in USA appeals
personal benefits more than do Korean advertising where Korean commercials more
frequently showed the scene of conversation together than American commercials (Cho et.
al., 1999). Morris and Peng’s (1994) study showed that that Chinese—language newspaper
described more situational factors than English-language newspaper did while English-
language newspaper described more personal dispositions than C hinese-Ianguage
newspaper did. Although it is universal that individuals perceived a communicative
behavior differently depending on the relationship they involved (e.g., parents vs.
strangers) (Knapp, Ellis, & Williams, 1980), cultural differences could exsit in such a way
that Koreans, compared to Americans, were more likely to tell personal things to the
members of their ingroup (Gudykunst, Yoon, & Nishida, 1987).

6

Meta-analyses and literature review articles have shown that attitudes toward
behavior, rather than subjective norms, have a stronger relationship with behavioral
intention (Sheeran & Taylor, 1999; Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, I988; Trafimow &
Finlay, 1996; Hausenblas, Carron, & Mack, 1997). That is, many studies using TRA have
shown that, in general, attitudes are stronger reasons for forming behavioral intentions
than subjective norms. Attitudes often being a stronger factor for behavioral intentions
may be more naturally expected for people in America whose culture is considered as
individualistic.

On the other hand, subjective norms have been often hypothesized to be a stronger
determinant of behavioral intentions among people in Asian cultures, many of which are
considered as collectivistic. Empirical findings, however, have shown that, even for
Asians such as Koreans and Chinese, attitudes are only the significant factor or the
stronger factor for behavioral intention than subjective norms (Park & Levine, 1999). One
of the reasons for such findings could be that, although the cultural characteristics of
collectivism may lead individuals to consider what their important others think about their
performing the behavior, attitudes might be still a stronger determinant of behavioral
intention as long as individuals do not have to consider whether others would know about
their behavioral intentions and reason for such behavioral intentions, at least at the time of
answering survey items. Thus, when individuals imagine a situation where they face
others and explain to them about their behaviors, it may become more salient in the
individuals' mind what others would think about their behaviors and also explanations for
the behaviors.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

One set of the main variables in the current study are the two components of TRA

(attitudes toward behavior and subjective norms) and individuals’ perceptions of

7

descriptive and injunctive norms as the internal reasons for behavioral intentions to
engage in a behavior. Another set of the main variables are intentions to use attitudes-
related reasons and intentions to use norms-related reasons when explaining behavioral
intentions to others. For the behavioral intentions to be examined in the current study, it
will be first examined whether or not attitudinal and normative components will be
significantly related to each behavioral intention. Then, it will be examined whether or not
the attitudinal components and normative components (subjective norms, descriptive
norms, and injunctive norms) as the internal reasons are significantly related to intentions
to use attitudes-related and norms-related reasons used for explaining behavioral
intentions to others The research questions are specified as follows:

Research Question 1: Among attitudinal and normative components, which one
will be more strongly related to behavioral intention to engage in a
behavior?

Research Question 2: Among attitudinal and normative components concerning
performing a behavior, which one will be more strongly related to intention
to use attitudes-related reasons when individuals are supposed to explain
their behavioral intentions to others?

Research Question 3: Among attitudinal and normative components concerning
performing a behavior, which one will be more strongly related to intention
to use nonns-related reasons when individuals are supposed to explain their
behavioral intentions to others?

Based on the aforementioned discussion of cultural differences, it is expected that

differences between Koreans and Americans may be more pronounced when they are
supposed to explain their behavioral intentions to other people. For example, Japanese

believe that they need to adjust their action in accordance with the situations (public vs.

8

private setting) whereas Americans believe that their behavior should be consistent with
both situations (Doi, 1986). Briley, Morris and Simonson (2000) found out that Chinese
and Japanese are more likely to change their decision on from two extreme options to
compromise alternatives when they have to explain their decision while Americans are
unlikely to change their decision. Although Koreans are not necessarily the same as
Japanese and Chinese in their orientations, considering the characteristics of Americans, it
is expected that Americans and Koreans also are likely to differ. The following hypotheses
are advanced:

Hypothesis 1: Koreans will indicate stronger intentions to use norms-related
reasons than attitudes-related reasons when they are supposed to explain
their behavioral intentions to others.

Hypothesis 2: Americans will indicate stronger intentions to use attitudes—related
reasons than norms-related reasons when they are supposed to explain their

behavioral intentions to others.

Chapter 2
Method
Overview of design

The current study recruited participants from Korea and the US which were
considered as collectivistic and individualistic, respectively. according to Hofstede (1980).
Four versions of questionnaire were prepared because each questionnaire contained
measurement items for one of four behaviors (purchasing green products, downloading
unauthorized media files via the Internet, lying for a friend or telling the truth).
Participants completed one of the four versions randomly. Participants were asked to
indicate their behavioral intentions to engage in one of four behaviors, attitude toward the
behavior, subjective norms, descriptive norms, and injunctive norms concerning one of
four behaviors. Participants also indicated the degree to which they would intend to
employ each of four different reasoning types (attitudinal reasoning, subjective,
descriptive, and injunctive norms reasoning) when they would have to explain to others
their behavioral intention to engage in one of the four behaviors.

Participants

A total of72| undergraduates were recruited in the US. and Korea. Three hundred
forty two students (135 males, 205 females, and 2 unclassifiable) enrolled in Michigan
State University and 379 students (260 males, 135 females. and 13 unclassifiable) in large
universities in Korea completed the survey.

American participants. Of the participants. 59.9% were Caucasian, 17.8% were
African American, 0.9% were Native American, 6.1% were Asian American, 5.0% were
Hispanic, 1.2% were Pacific Islander, 5.3% were mixed, and 3.8 % were un-identifiable.
Ages ofthe participants ranged from 18 to 48 years old (M: 21.35, SD = 3.16). Eighty
participants (60.0% females) completed questionnaire that contained measurement items

10

about purchasing green products, 85 participants (64.7% females) completed
questionnaire about truth-telling, 83 participants (60.2% females) completed questionnaire
about lying for a friend, and 94 participants (55.3% females) completed questionnaire
about downloading unauthorized media files via the Internet.

Korean participants. All participants in Korea had identical ethnicity. The average
age ofthe Korean participants was 22.56 with SD = 2.94, ranging from 18 to 42. Eighty
five participants (18.8% females) completed questionnaire about purchasing green product,
90 participants (30% females) completed questionnaire about truth-telling. 91 participants
(29.7% females) completed questionnaire about lying for a friend, and 1 13 participants
(31.9% females) completed questionnaire about downloading unauthorized media files
online.

Procedure

Some American students received the extra credits in exchange for their voluntary
participation, while Korean students and other American students voluntarily participated
without any compensation. Korean participants were contacted via the researcher’s
personal network and snowball sampling and also in classrooms in universities, whereas
U.S. participants were contacted in various places on campus including classrooms and
libraries.

Korean participants completed the questionnaire in Korea and American
participants completed the questionnaire in English. Since the questionnaire with different
language should be equivalent, it was necessary to ensure correct translations between
languages. To do this, a bilingual native Korean speaker first translated the questionnaire
from English to Korean. Next, a bilingual English speaker translated the Korean version
back to English. Ultimately the original English version and the back-translated English

version were compared for consistency.

ll

Measurements

For the purpose ofthe current study, four behaviors (purchasing green products,
downloading unauthorized media files via the Internet, lying for a friend in a situation, and
telling the truth in a situation) chosen because ofthe possibility that cultural differences in
the relationship between TRA components and intentions could vary with behavior types.
For a proper cross-cultural comparison. it was necessary to select behaviors that would be
commonly and prevalently performed in both countries. It was also desirable that chosen
behaviors could illustrate cultural differences in how people would form their behavioral
intentions and explain them to others. The four behaviors chosen for the current study
seemed to fit these criteria. Downloading unauthorized media files from the Internet and
purchasing green product were chosen because these two behaviors were gaining
attentions increasingly from Korea and the US for their popularity and potential costs and
benefits to both countries. While telling the truth and lying for a friend would be behaviors
familiar to both Koreans and Americans. these two behaviors could show cultural
differences in reasons to engage in the behaviors (Triandis et al., 2001). Unlike
downloading unauthorized media files from the Internet, for telling the truth and lying for
a friend, a scenario was provided to participants to increase participants’ involvement and
interest in the behaviors (see Appendices 3 and 4 for the scenario).

Based on a survey example provided by Ajzen and F ishbein (1980), the
questionnaire was designed to measure each participant’s behavioral intention to engage
in one of the behaviors, attitude toward the behavior, and subjective/descriptive/injunctive
norms concerning the behavior. After responding to the scale for typical TRA components,
each participant indicated the extent to which they would intend to use the altitudinal and
normative reasoning when explaining their behavioral intention to others. The reliabilities
(Cronbach’s a) ranged from .74 to .96 with most ofthe variables having reliabilities

l2

above.80. Tables I to 4 show the reliabilities on the diagonal of each table for each
behavior type. Tables I to 4 also show correlations among the variables and means and
standard deviations of each variable for each behavior.

Behavioral intentions. The measurement for behavioral intention included five
items for unauthorized downloading, five items for purchasing green products, six items
for lying for a friend, and six items for telling the truth with a 7-point response scale
format (e.g., 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) (See Appendix 1 for purchasing
green products, Appendix 2 for unauthorized downloading, Appendix 3 for lying for a
friend, and Appendix 4 for telling the truth). An example item was “I intend to download
unauthorized media files via the Internet.“ For measuring behavioral intention to tell the
truth, two items (“I will lie for my friend in this situation.” [a recoded item] and “I have an
intention to tell the truth in this situation") were deleted in order to improve reliability.
The reliabilities for the four retained items for behavioral intention to tell the truth for
each culture were included in Table 2.

Perceived norms. Subjective norms, descriptive norms, and injunctive norms were
separately measured with four items with a 7-point response scale format (I = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree). These items were modified ones from the scales used in a
previous study (Park & Smith, 2007). For example, “Many people have illegally
downloaded media files online” was used to measure individuals’ perceptions of
descriptive norms. Among the four items measuring injunctive norms, one item (“Telling
the truth in this situation is a socially approved behavior”) was removed to improve the
reliabilities for measuring injunctive norms concerning truth-telling and lying for a friend.
The reliabilities for the three retained items for measuring injunctive norms concerning
truth-telling and lying for a friend for each culture were included in Tables 2 and 3.

Attitudes toward behavior. Direct measure for attitude toward behavior included

13

nine 7-point semantic differential evaluative scales; Bad-Good. Unpleasant-Pleasant,
Considerate-Inconsiderate, Unfavorable-Favorable, Positive-Negative, Pointless-
Worthwhile, Enjoyable-Unenjoyable, Unsatisfying—Satisfying. and Useless-Useful. A
higher score indicated more positive attitude. ranging from 1 (e.g., extremely bad) to 7
(e.g., extremely good). An example item was “Downloading unauthorized media files via
the Internet is __.”

Intention to use anNudes-related reasons. The items to measure intention to use
attitudes-related reasons were similar to the items used to measure attitude toward
behavior. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each
attitude-related reasoning statement as a way to explain their behavior. Participants
responded on semantic differential evaluative scales (e.g., 1 = extremely useless, 7 =
extremely useful) to the statement, “When I have to explain why I will downloaded
unauthorized copyright-protected media files via the Internet. I intend to say to other

people that downloading unauthorized copyright protected media files via the Internet is

99

Intentions to use norms-related reasons. The items to measure intention to use
norms-related reasons were similar to the items used to measure individuals’ perceptions
of subjective norms, injunctive norms, and descriptive norms. Participants were asked to
indicate the extent to which they agreed with each norms-related reasoning statement as a
way to explain their behavior (e.g., When I have to explain why I will downloaded
unauthorized copyright-protected media files via the Internet, I intend to say to other
people that many people would endorse my downloading unauthorized media files
online.). All the measures used a 7-point response format (I = strongly disagree. 7 =
strongly agree). In order to improve the reliabilities of measurement items for injunctive
norms-related reasons for truth-telling and lying for a friend, one item was deleted. This

14

removed item was the same item that was removed from the measurement of injunctive
norms. The reliabilities for the three retained items for measuring intentions to use
injunctive norms-related reasons concerning truth-telling and lying for a friend for each

culture were included in Tables 2 and 3.

Chapter 3
Results
Summary

Before testing hypotheses and answering research questions, the data were
checked for linearity. Scatterplots did not show any considerably curvilinear relationships
between independent and dependent variables. Besides. t-test was used in order to check
the gender difference. Even though there were statistically significant differences between
men and women for some of the variables, gender did not substantially influence the
overall findings. Thus, gender difference will not be further discussed.

Hypotheses were tested with a 3-way mixed ANOVA. The within-subject factor
was 4 types of reasoning (intentions to use attitude-related reasonin g, subjective norms-
related reasoning, descriptive norms-related reasoning, and injunctive norms-related
reasoning). The between-subject factors were 4 types of behaviors (purchasing green
products. telling the truth, lying for a friend, downloading unauthorized media files via the
Internet) and 2 cultures (Korea and the US).

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses provided answers to the research
questions. One dummy variable labeled as culture was created with Korean participants as
the reference group coded with O and American participants as the comparison group
coded with 1. All continuous independent variables were mean-centered in order to
protect against unessential multicollinearity when testing interactions among the variables.
Attitudinal and normative components (i.e.. the first—order effect predictors) were entered
in the first block along with culture (i.e., the dummy variable representing the national
group). In addition, the interaction term between the attitudinal component and culture and
the interaction terms between each of the normative components and culture (i.e., the
second-order effect predictors) were entered in the second block.

16

Research Question 1

RQI asked which of the attitudinal and normative components would be more
strongly related to behavioral intentions. The findings showed that, in general, attitude
toward a behavior and subjective norms were statistically significant predictors of
intentions across the four behaviors. Attitude toward a behavior was the strongest
predictor of intentions to purchase green products and to download unauthorized media
files via the Internet. whereas subjective norms were the strongest predictor of intentions
to tell the truth and to lie for a friend. Hierarchical multiple regression results for each
behavior type are discussed below. For any significant interactions, simple regressions
were conducted to examine the patterns ofthe interactions. Table 15 summaries simple
regression results for significant interactions.
Purchasing Green Product

As shown in Table 5, the overall model including the first-order effect and second-

order effect predictors for behavioral intention to purchase green products was significant.

2
F(9, 154) = 16.73 p < .001. adjusted]? = .47. When the five first-order effect predictors

were entered to the first block, attitude (B [unstandardized coefficient] = 0.77, SE = 0.12,
[3: .52, p < .001) and subjective norms (B = 0.34, SE = 0.10. B = .29, p < .001) were
statistically significant. The results showed that individuals who had more positive attitude
toward the behavior and stronger subjective norms had higher intention to purchase green
products in the future. Culture and descriptive and injunctive norms were not statistically
significant. When the interaction terms were entered to the second block. they together
explained an additional 4.0% of the variance in behavioral intention. The significant
interaction involving culture as the moderator of the relationship between attitude toward

behavior and behavioral intention indicated that the relationship between attitude and

17

behavioral intention differed in Korea and the US. The simple regression showed that
attitude was more strongly related to behavioral intention for Americans (B = 1.06, SE =
0.17, B = .31,p < .001) than for Koreans (B = 0.41, SE = .17, [3 = .56.}? < .05).
Downloading Unauthorized Media Files via the Internet

The analysis showed that the overall model including all the predictors was

2
significant. F (9. 197) = 39.26. p < .001. adjusted R = .63 (see Table 5). When the five

predictors were entered to the first block, attitude (B = 0.66, SE: 0.07, ,b’ = .54, p<.001),
subjective norms (B = 0.29, SE = 0.07, B = .26, p<.01), descriptive norms (B = 0.15 SE =
0.06, B:- .14. p < .01), and culture (B: —0.38. SE = 0.16. B: —.13_. p < .05) were
statistically significant while injunctive norms (B = 0.02. SE = 0.07. B = .02, p = .73) were
not statistically significant. None of the interaction terms were statistically significant. The
results showed that Koreans had stronger intention to download medial files than
Americans did and that individuals who had more positive attitude toward the behavior
and stronger subjective and descriptive norms strongly intended to download unauthorized
media files online both in Korea and the US.

Truth- Telling

As shown in Table 6. the overall model including all the predictors was significant,

2
F(9, 164) = 14.15,p < .001, adjustedR = .41. Among the first-order predictors, attitude

(B = 0.41, SE = 0.1 I, B = .28, p<.001), subjective norms (B = 0.28, SE = 0.08, B = .28,p

< .01), injunctive norms (B = 0.25, SE = 0.10, [3 = .21,p < .05), and culture (B = 0.43, SE
= 0.19, B = .15, p < .05) were statistically significant for behavioral intention to tell the
truth, whereas descriptive norms (B = —0.7 1 , SE = 0.10. B = —.06. p = .40) was not
significant. There were no significant interactions, indicating no cultural differences in the

relationship between predictors and behavioral intention. The results showed that
18

Americans had stronger intention to tell the truth than Koreans did and that individuals
who had more positive attitude and stronger subjective and injunctive norms were more
likely to tell the truth.

Lyingfor a Friend

Table 6 shows the regression results. The overall model with all the predictors was

2
significant, F (9, 162) = 16.04, p < .001 adjustedR = .44. Among the five predictors in

the first block, attitude (B = 0.38. SE = 0.10. [3 = .30, p < .001) and subjective norms (B =
0.36, SE = 0.08, [3 = .37.p < .001) were statistically significant predictors of intention to
lie for a friend. The results showed that increases in attitudes and subjective norms were
associated with increases in behavioral intention to lie for a friend. Descriptive norms (B =
0.16, SE = 0.09, B = .14, p = .72) and injunctive norms (B = —0.03, SE = 0.09, B = —.03, p
= .63) and culture (B = —0.09, SE = 0.18, B = —.04,p = .72) were not statistically
significant. When the interaction terms were entered to the second block, they together
explained an additional 6.0% of the variance in behavioral intention. The significant
interaction involving culture as the moderator of the relationship between attitude toward
behavior and behavioral intention revealed that attitudes toward the behavior were more
strongly related to behavioral intention for Americans (B = 0.70, SE = 0.14, B = .47, p
<.001) than for Koreans (B = 0.10, SE = 0.13, [3 = .08,p = .45).
Research Question 2

RQ2 asked which of the two components of TRA (attitude and perceived norms)
would be more strongly related to intention to use attitude related-reasoning (the
dependent variable) when individuals needed to explain their behavioral intention to
others. Injunctive norms (for purchasing green products), and subjective norms (for lying

for a friend and downloading unauthorized media files) were significant predictors for

19

intention to use attitudinal reasoning. but attitude toward a behavior was the strongest
predictor for intention to use attitudinal reasoning for each of the four behaviors. In
addition, there were significant interactions between subjective norms and culture (for
purchasing green product) and between injunctive norms and culture (for downloading
unauthorized media files).
Intention to Use A ttitudinal Reasoning

Purchasing green product. Table 7 presents the regression results. The overall

model including first-order effect and second-order effect predictors was significant, F (9,

2
155) = 40.38, p < .001, adjusted R = .68. Among the five predictors in the first block,

attitude (B = 0.65, SE = 0.06. [3 = .66. p < .001) and injunctive norms (B = 0.27, SE = 0.06,
B = .30, p < .001) were statistically significant predictors of intention to use attitudinal
reasons, whereas descriptive and injunctive norms and culture were not statistically
significant. The results showed that individuals with more positive attitude toward the
behavior and stronger injunctive norms had higher intention to use attitudinal reasoning.
The significant interaction involving culture as the moderator ofthe relationship between
subjective norms and intention to use attitudinal reasoning indicated that the simple slope
was negative and significant for Americans (B = -0.14, SE = 0.06, [3 = -. I 9, p<.05), but the
simple slope was positive and not significant for Koreans (B = 0.12, SE = .10, B: .13, p
= .24).

Downloading. Table 7 presents the regression results. The overall model including

the first-order effect and second-order effect predictors was significant. F (9, 197) = 47.65

2
p < .001 adjusted R = .67. Among the five predictors in the first block, attitude (B = 0.69,

SE = 0.06, ,8 = .67,p < .001) and injunctive norms (B = 0.15. SE = 0.06. [3 = .15. p < .01)

were statistically significant predictor of intention to use attitudinal reasons. whereas
20

descriptive (B = 0.04, SE = 0.05, B = .05.p = .33) and injunctive norms (B = 0.03, SE =
0.06, B = .30. p = .55) and culture (B = 0.22, SE = 0.13, B = .09. p = .09) were not
statistically significant. The results showed that attitude toward the behavior and
injunctive norms were positively related to intention to say attitudinal reasoning when
explaining to others one’s behavioral intention to download. As shown in Table 7, the
interaction involving culture as the moderator ofthe relationship between injunctive
norms and intention to use attitudinal reasoning was significant. The finding indicated that
the simple slope was negative for Americans (B: —0.1 1. SE = 0.08. B = —.10. p = .18), but
the simple slope was positive for Koreans (B = 0.1 1, SE = 0.07, B = .12. p = .12).

Truth-telling. As shown in Table 8. the overall model was significant, F(9, 165) =

2
15.37,p < .001 adjustedR = .43. When the five predictors including in the first block,

attitude (B = 0.62, SE = 0.08, B = .58, p < .001) was a statistically significant predictor of
intention to use attitudinal reasons. whereas subjective norms (B = 0.03. SE = 0.06, B = .04.
p = .66), descriptive norms (B = 0.09, SE = 0.06, B = .10,p = .16) injunctive norms (B =
0.06, SE = 0.07, B = .07. p = .42), and culture (B = 0.08, SE = 0.14, B = .04, p = .55) were
not significant. Additionally, none of the interaction terms in the second block were
significant. The result showed that individuals with more positive attitude toward telling
the truth were more likely to say attitudinal reasons when they had to explain to others
their behavioral intention to tell the truth.

Lying for afriend. As shown in Table 8, the overall model with all the predictors

2
was significant, F (9, 162) = 28.62.p < .001, adjusted R = .59. Among the five

predictors in the first block, attitude (B = 0.61, SE = 0.06. B = .61.p < .001) and subjective
norms (B = 0.14, SE = 0.05. B =.18. p < .01) were statistically significant, yet descriptive

norms (B = —0.08, SE = 0.06. B = —.10, p = .20), injunctive norms (B = 0.03. SE = 0.06. B
21

= .03.}? = .65), and culture (B = —0. 16, SE = 0.12. B = —.08. p = .17) were not significant.
The results showed that the more positive individuals’ attitudes were and the attitudes
individuals’ subjective norms were, the more strongly they intended to say attitudinal
reasons in order to explain their behavioral intention to others. There were no significant
interaction terms.
Research Question 3

RQ3 asked which ofthe attitudinal and normative components would be more
strongly related to intention to use normative reasoning when explaining one’s behavioral
intentions to engage in behaviors. Although subjective norms were most strongly related
to subjective norms-related reasoning across the four behaviors, attitude toward a behavior
(for downloading unauthorized media files via the Internet and telling the truth) and
injunctive norms (for telling the truth) were also significantly related to intention to use
subjective norms-related reasoning. Besides, in two types of behaviors (purchasing green
product and downloading), the relationship between attitude and intention to say
subjective norms-related reasons differed depending on the culture. Descriptive norms
were most strongly related to intention to say descriptive norms-related reasons across the
four behaviors. Attitude toward a behavior was also significantly related to the norms-
related reasoning across the behaviors even though the magnitudes were relatively smaller
than descriptive norms. Besides, the direction of the relationship between attitude toward a
behavior and intention was different from the relationship between descriptive norms and
intention for lying for a friend. In addition, subjective norms were significantly related to
intention to say descriptive norms-related reasons only in the behavior of lying for a friend.
Although injunctive norms were most strongly related to intention to say injunctive
norms-related reasoning across the behaviors, attitude toward a behavior (for purchasing
green product and downloading) and subjective norms (for telling the truth and lying for a

22

friend) also significantly explained the variance of intention to say injunctive norms-
related reasons.
Intention to Use Subjective Norms-Related Reasoning

Purchasing green product. As shown in Table 9. the overall model including the

first-order effect and second-order effect predictors was significant. F (9. 155) = 37.89, p

2
< .001, adjusted R = .70. Among the five predictors in the first block, subjective norms

(B = 0.74. SE = 0.06. B = —.73. p < .001) and culture (B = —0.34. SE = 0.16. B = —. l 3, p

< .05) were statistically significant predictors of intention to say subjective norms-related
reasons. The results showed that Koreans had stronger intention to say subjective norms-
related reasons than Americans did and that subjective norms were positively related to
intention to say subjective norms-related reasons. On the other hand, Attitude (B = 0.1 1,
SE = 0.08, B = .09. p = .16). descriptive norms (B = 0.05. SE = 0.06, B = .05, p = .38), and
injunctive norms (B = —.07, SE = 0 .08, B = —.06, p = .38) were not statistically significant.
When the interaction terms were entered to the second block. the interaction involving
culture as the moderator ofthe relationship between attitude toward behavior and
subjective norms-related reasoning was significant. The finding showed that for Koreans
(B = 0.32, SE = 0.10, B = .28 p < .01), the simple slope was positive and significant,
whereas for Americans (B = —0.03, SE: 0.12. B = —.03,p = .77), the simple slope was
negative and not significant. Koreans who had more positive attitudes toward purchasing
green products indicated stronger intention to say subjective norms-related reasons than
Americans did.

Downloading unauthorized mediafiles. Table 9 presents the relevant regression

2
results. The overall model was significant. F (9, 196) = 33.48. p < .001. adjusted R = .59.

Among the five predictors in the first block, attitude (B = 0.20. SE = 0.07, B = .19, p < .01 ),
23

subjective norms (B = 0.55. SE = 0.07. B = .55.p < .001), and culture (B = —0.32, SE =
0.15, B = ~—. 12, p< .05) were statistically significant, while descriptive norms (B = -0.20,
SE = 0.05, B = —.02. p = .72) and injunctive norms (B = .10, SE = 0.06, ,6 = .10, p = .13)
were not statistically significant. The results revealed that Koreans had stronger intention
to say subjective norms-related reasons than Americans did and that individuals with more
positive attitude toward downloading indicated stronger intention to say subjective norms-
related reasoning. When the interaction terms were entered to the second block, they
together explained an additional 3.0% ofthe variance in intention to say subjective norm-
related reasons. The significant interaction involving culture as the moderator of the
relationship between attitude toward behavior and intention to say subjective norms-
related reasoning revealed that simple slope was negative and not significant for
Americans (B = —.04, SE = 0.10, B = —.04. p = .68), but simple slope was relatively large
and significant for Koreans (B = .42, SE = 0.09, B = .41, p < .001).

Truth-telling. As shown in Table 10. the overall model was significant, F (9. 165)

2
= 19.86. p < .001. adjusted R = .49. When the five predictors in the first block, attitude

(B = 0.33, SE = 0.09, B = .24. p < .001), subjective norms (B = 0.46, SE = 0.07, B = .49, p
< .001), and injunctive norms (B = 0.17. SE = 0.08. B = .16.p < .05) were statistically
significant, but descriptive norms (B: —0.08, SE = 0.07, B = —.07. p = .28) and culture (B =
—0.04, SE = 0.17, B = —.02, p = .82) were not significant. None of interaction terms were
statistically significant.

Lyingfor afriend. As shown in Table 10. the overall model was significant, F (9,

2
162) = 20.32.p < .001, adjusted R = .50. Among the five predictors in the first block,

subjective norms (B = 0.53. SE = 0.07, B = .56. p < .001) and culture (B = —0.52. SE =

0.15, B = —.22. p< .01) were statistically significant, but attitude (B = 0.06, SE = 0.09. B
24

= .05, p = .46), descriptive norms (B = —0.02, SE = 0.08. B = —.02. p = .83), and injunctive
norms (B = 0.09, SE = 0.08, B = .09, p = .26) were not significant. The results showed that
Koreans indicated stronger intention to say subjective norms-related reasoning than
Americans did and that subjective norms were positively related to intention to say
subjective norms-related reasoning. When the interaction terms were added into equation,

interaction terms failed to explain the significant increase in the proportion of variance of

intention to say subjective norm-related reasons. Fchange (4.162) = 0.57. p = .39.

R change = .01. In other word, culture did not serve as a moderator.

Intention to Use Descriptive Norms-Related Reasoning

Purchasing green product. As shown in Table I l, the overall model was

2
significant, F (9. 155) = 19.56. p < .001, aajustedR = .51. Among the five predictors in

the first block, attitude (B = 0.29, SE = 0.10, B = .23. p < .01), descriptive norms (B = 0.60,
SE = 0.07, B = .57. p < .001) were statistically significant predictors of intention to say
descriptive norms-related reasons, but subjective norms (B = 0.15, SE = 0.08, B = .15,

p= .05), injunctive norms (B = —.09, SE = 0.10, B = —.08. p = .37). and culture (B = —0.06,
SE = 0.19, B = —.03. p = .74)were not statistically significant. When the interaction terms

were entered to the second block, however, interaction terms did not explain any

additional variance in intention to use descriptive norms-related reasons, Fchange (4.155)

2
= 1.6I,p = .18, R Change = .02. None ofthe interactions were significant.

Downloading. Table 1 1 presents the regression results. The overall model

including first-order effect and second-order effect predictors was significant. F (9, 196) =

25

2
17.62.p < .001. adjusted R = .42. Among the five predictors in the first block, attitude (B

= 0.30, SE = 0.08, B = .26. p < .001) and descriptive (B = 0.44, SE = 0.07, B = .44, p

< .001) were statistically significant. while subjective norms (B = 0.1 1. SE = 0.08, B =.10,
p = .19), injunctive norms (B = 0.01 . SE: 0.08. B = .01, p: .87), and culture (B = 0.25, SE
= 0.19, B = .09, p = .19) were not statistically significant. When the interaction terms were

entered to the second block. they failed to explain an additional variance of intention to

2
say descriptive norm-related reasoning. Fchange (4.196) = 0.78. p = .54. R change = .01.

None of the interactions were significant.

Truth-telling. As shown in Table 12. the overall model was significant. F(9, 165)

2
= 1 1.13, p < .001, adjusted R = .34. Among the five predictors in the first block, attitude

(B = 0.34, SE = 0.09, B = .28. p < .001) and descriptive norms (B = 0.37, SE = 0.07, B

= .38, p <.001) were statistically significant. but subjective norms (B = 0.05, SE = 0.07,
B= .06.p = .53). injunctive norms (B = 0.08. SE = 0.08. B = .08. p = .33) and culture (B =
—0.09, SE = 0.17,,8 = —.04. p = .58) were not significant. When the interaction terms were

entered to the second block, yet. the interaction terms failed to account for a significant

increase in the proportion of explained variance, Fehange (4,165) = I.50,p = .21,

2
R change 2 -02-
Lyingfor afriend. As shown in Table 12, the overall model was significant, F(9,

2
162) = 8.50,p < .001, adjustedR = .28. Among the five predictors in the first block,
attitude (B = —0.21, SE = 0.10, B = —.18.p < .05). subjective norms (B = 0.21, SE = 0.08. B

= .23. p < .05). and descriptive norms (B = 0.32, SE = 0.10, B = .32. p < .01) were

26

statistically significant. but injunctive norms (B = 0.15. SE = 0.09. B = .15. p = .I l) and
culture (B = —0.07, SE = 0.18. B = —.03. p = .69) were not statistically significant. When
the interaction terms were added into equation, interaction terms failed to explain the

significant increase in the proportion of variance of intention to say subjective norms-

2
related reasoning. Fchange (4.162) = 2.00, p = .10, R change = .03. None ofthe

interactions were significant, indicating that culture did not serve as a moderator.
Intention to Use Injunctive Norms-Related Reasoning

Purchasing green product. A shown in Table 13, the overall model was significant,

2
F(9, 155) = 13.30.p < .001. adjusted R = .40. Among the five predictors in the first

balock, attitude (B = 0.33, SE = 0.10. B = .27, p < .01) and injunctive norms (B = .43, SE =
0.10, B = .39. p < .001) were statistically significant. On the other hand, subjective norms
(B = 0.05, SE = 0.08. B = .05. p = .57), descriptive norms (B = —0.09, SE = 0.08, B = .10, p
= .22), and culture (B = —0.l6. SE = 0.20. B = —.07. p = .41) were not statistically
significant. When the interaction terms were included into the equation, the interaction

terms failed to account for a significant increase in the proportion of explained variance,

2
Fchange (4.155) = 0.85. p : .50, R change = .01. There were no significant interaction

terms.

Downloading. As shown in Table 13. the overall model was significant, F(9, 196)

2
= I9.55,p < .001, adjusted R = .45. Among the five predictors in the first block, attitude

(B = 0.28, SE = 0.08, B = .26.p < .001) and injunctive norms (B = .41. SE = 0.07, B = .40,
p < .001) were statistically significant, while subjective norms (B = 0.1 1. SE = 0.08, B

= .11. p = .16), descriptive norms (B = 0.02. SE = 0.06. B :02. p = .78). and culture (B

27

= .03. SE = 0.17. B = .01.p = .88) were not statistically significant. When the interaction
terms were entered to the second block, they together explained an additional 3.0% ofthe

variance in intention to say subjective norm-related reasoning, F (4, 196) = 2.39,p = .05,

R change = .03. The significant interaction involving culture as the moderator ofthe

relationship between attitude toward downloading and the intention to say injunctive
norms-related reasoning revealed that for Americans (B = .08, S = 0.1 1. B = .07, p = .50),
simple slope was positive and not significant, however, for Koreans (B = 0.45, SE = 0.10,
B = .43,p < .001), simple slope was relatively large and significant. That is. attitude
toward downloading was a positive predictor of intention to say injunctive norms-related
reason for Koreans when they had to explain to others they behavioral intention to
download.

Truth-telling. Table 14 presents the relevant results. The overall model was

2
significant, F (9. 165) = I I.13.p < .001. adjustedR = .34. Among the five predictors in

the first block, subjective norms (B = 0.27, SE = 0.07, B = .32. p < .001) and injunctive
norms (B = 0.27, SE = 0.08, B = .28. p < .01) were statistically significant predictors of
intention to say injunctive norms-related reasons, whereas attitude (B = 0.15. SE = 0.09, B
= .13. p = .09). descriptive norms (B = 0.1 1, SE = 0.07. B = .12. p = .17) and culture (B = —
0.05, SE = 0.16, B = —.02. p = .74) were not significant. The results showed that the
stronger subjective norms and injunctive norms individuals had. the more strongly they
intended to say injunctive norms-related reasoning when they would explain their
behavioral intention to others. When the interaction terms were included into the equation,

yet, the interaction terms failed to account for a significant increase in the proportion of

2
explained variance, Fehange (4,165) = 1.50, p= .21. R change = .02. None ofinteraction

28

terms were statistically significant.

Lyingfor afi'iend. As shown in Table 14, the overall model was significant, F (9,

2
162) = 8.50.p < .001. adjusted R = .28. Among the five predictors in the first block.

subjective norms (B = 0.23. SE = 0.09. ,b’ = .23. p < .01) and injunctive norms (B = 0.47,
SE=0.09, B=.44, p<.001) were statistically significant for intention to use injunctive
norms-related reasons, but attitude (B = 0.04, SE = 0.10. B = .03. p = .69). descriptive
norms (B = —0.05. SE = 0.10. B = —.04. p = .64). and culture (B—‘ —0.32. SE = 0.19, B = —
.12, p = .09) were not significant. The results showed that the stronger subjective norms
and injunctive norms individuals had, the more highly they intended to use injunctive
norms-related reasons when explaining to others their behavioral intention to lie. None of
the interactions were significant. indicating that culture did not serve as a moderator.
Hypotheses I & 2

Hypothesis I predicted that Koreans would intend to employ norms-related
reasoning more strongly than attitudinal reasoning when they would need to explain their
behavioral intention to others. Hypothesis 2 predicted that Americans would intend to use
attitudinal reasoning more strongly than norm-related reasoning. In order to test the
hypotheses, 4 (reasoning type: attitudinal reasoning vs. subjective norms-related reasoning
vs. descriptive norms-related reasoning vs. injunctive norms-related reasoning-repeated) x
4 (behavior type: purchasing green products vs. downloading unauthorized media files
online vs. telling the truth vs. lying for a friend) x 2 (culture: US. vs. Korea) mixed
ANOVA was performed. All cell means and standard deviations for this mixed ANOVA
are provided in Tables 16 and 17. Table 18 shows a summary of ANOVA results.

The analysis did not reveal a significant main effect for culture. F ( 1 . 71 I) = 0.49,

p = .48, n = .00. However, there was a significant main effect for type of behaviors, F(3.

29

2
711): 12.10. p < 001.11 = .03. Post hoc comparisons using Turkey’s procedure (p < .05)

showed that intention to say reasons was higher for purchasing green products (M= 4.49a,
SD = 1.19) than for telling a truth (M= 4.21b, SD = 1.15). lying for a friend (M= 3.80b,
SD = 1.15), and downloading unauthorized media files online (M = 3.91b. SD = 1.68). In

addition, The ANOVA yielded a significant main effect for the type of reasoning, F (2.89,

2
2056.55) = 65.92, p < .001. n = .03. To further examine the difference among reasoning

types, two complex comparisons (—3. 1, 1. I and 0, 1. —2._ I) and one pairwise comparison
(0.—1 , 0, 1) were conducted. This analysis yielded that intention to say attitude-related
reasoning (M= 4.12, SD = 1.24) were higher than intention to say norms-related reasoning
(M= 4.01), t (718) = —2.65.p = .008. Among intentions to say the norms-related reasons,
intention to say descriptive norms-related reasoning (M = 4.26, SD = 1.29) was higher
than intention to say subjective norms-related reasoning (M = 3.68, SD = 1.31) and
intention to say injunctive norms-related reasoning (M = 4.09. SD = 1.27), t (718) = 8.60,
p < .001. Finally, intention to say subjective norms-related reasoning was lower than
intention to say injunctive norms-related reasoning. I (718) = —9.29. p < .001. However,

these main effects were qualified by a significant 3-way interaction among culture,

2
reasoning. and behavioral type. F(8.68. 2056.55) = 16.60. p < .001. n = .02. A series of

paired t-test were conducted to discern which reasoning type was preferred over others for
each behavior and for each culture.
Korea

Tables 19 through 22 showed the results of paired t-tests. For purchasing green
products among Korean participants. intention to say attitude-related reasoning (M = 4.86,
SD = 0.98) received the highest score. compared to intentions to say subjective norms-

30

related reasoning (M= 4.20. SD = 1.07), descriptive norms-related reasoning (M = 4.25.
SD = 1.18), and injunctive norms-related reasoning (M = 4.36, SD = 1.10). There were
significant differences between attitudinal reasoning and subjective norms-related
reasoning, t (84) = 7.59. p < .001. between attitudinal reasoning and descriptive norms-
related reasoning. I (84) = 5.99.p < .001 and between attitudinal reasoning and injunctive
norms-related reasoning, I (84) = 5.25. p < .001. On the other hand, there were no
significant differences between subjective norms-related reasoning and descriptive norms-
related reasoning, I (84) = —0.88. p = .38. between descriptive norms-related reasoning and
injunctive norms-related reasoning. t(84) = —l .68. p = .10. When Koreans had to explain
their intention to download unauthorized media files via the Internet, however, descriptive
norms-related reasoning (M = 4.23, SD = 1.38) was more strongly preferred to attitudinal
reasoning (M= 3.88, SD = 1.26), subjective norms-related reasoning (M= 3.56, SD =
1.25), and injunctive norms-related reasoning (M= 3.78, SD = 0.94). Although there was
not a significant difference between attitudinal reasoning and injunctive norms-related
reasoning t (1 12) = 0.88, p = .38, there were significant differences between attitudinal
reasoning and subjective norms-related reasoning, I (1 12) = 4.25.p < .001, between
attitudinal reasoning and descriptive reasoning, I (1 12) = -3.1 1,p < .001. Besides, there
were significant differences between subjective norms-related reasoning and descriptive
norms-related reasoning, t (1 12) = —6.44. p < .001, and between descriptive norms-related
reasoning,t(112)= 3.40, p < .001.

For the behavior oftelling the truth, injunctive norms-related reasoning (M= 4.02,
SD = 0.94) was preferred over attitudinal reasoning (M= 3.88. SD = 0.97), subjective
norms-related reasoning (M = 3.92, SD = 1.06), and descriptive norms-related reasoning
(M = 3.89, SD = 0.95). Nonetheless, none of comparisons were statistically significant
(e.g., between injunctive norms-related reasoning and attitudinal reasoning. I (89) = —1.42.

q

31

p = .16). For lying for a friend. however, intention to say descriptive norms-related
reasoning (M = 4.28, SD = 0.84) was the strongest, compared to attitudinal reasoning (M =
3.83, SD = 0.84), subjective norms-related reasoning (M= 4.09, SD = 0.91), and
injunctive norms-related reasoning (M= 4.12. SD = 1.04). There were statistically
significant differences between attitudinal reasoning and descriptive norms-related
reasoning, I (90) = —4.22. p < .001 and between attitudinal reasoning and injunctive
norms-related reasoning. t (90) = —2.96, p = .004.

The findings indicated that Koreans would use different types of reasoning,
depending on the type of behaviors. Overall, intentions to use norms-related reasons were
higher than intention to use attitudinal reasoning for downloading, telling the truth, and
lying for a friend, whereas intention to use attitudinal reasons was higher than intention to
norms-related reasons for purchasing green products. However, the difference of
preference between norms-related reasoning and attitudinal reasoning was not always
statistically significant across the behaviors. Thus, inconsistent with hypothesis 1 or
partially consistent with hypothesis 1 to a certain extent, Koreans did not necessarily have
stronger intention to say norms-related reasons than attitudinal reasoning consistently
across various behaviors.

US.

Tables 19 through 22 showed the results of paired t-tests. American preferred
attitudinal reasoning (M = 5.54, SD = 0.87) over subjective norms-related reasoning (M=
3.12, SD = 1.23), descriptive norms-related reasoning (M = 4.21, SD = 1.40), and
injunctive norms-related reasoning (M= 4.63, SD = 1.29) when they had to explain their
intention to purchase green products. In addition to significant differences between
attitudinal reasoning and subjective norms-related reasoning. I (79) = 14.43, p < .001,
between attitudinal reasoning and descriptive norms-related reasoning. I (79) = 8.28. p

32

< .001, and between attitudinal reasoning and injunctive norms-related reasoning. t (79) =
7.27, p < .001. there were statistically significant differences between subjective norms-
related reasoning and descriptive norms-related reasoning, t (79) = -6.71.p < .001,
between subjective norms-related reasoning, I (79) = -8.40. p < .001, and between
descriptive norms-related reasoning and injunctive norms-related reasoning, I (79) = —2.95.
p = .004. On the other hand, for the behavior of downloading unauthorized media files
online, intention to say descriptive norms-related reasoning (M= 5.01 , SD = 1.37) was
higher than attitudinal reasoning (M= 4.25, SD = 1.29). injunctive norms—related
reasoning (M= 4.10, SD = 1.37), and subjective norms-related reasoning (M= 2.99, SD =
1.32). There were significant differences between attitudinal reasoning and subjective
norms, t (92) = 9.40, p < .001, and between attitudinal reasoning and descriptive reasoning,
t (92) = —5.79, p < .001 although the mean difference between attitudinal reasoning and
injunctive norm-related reasoning was not statistically significant, t (92) = 1.09, p = .28.
When Americans had to explain their behavioral intention to tell the truth, they
preferred subjective norms-related reasoning (M = 4.43. SD = 1.48) over attitude-related
reasoning (M= 3.88, SD = 1.05), t (84) = —3.75,p < .001. Even though there was no
significant difference between attitudinal reasoning and descriptive norms-related
reasoning (M= 3.81, SD = 1.30), t (84) = 0.41,p = .68. there was a significant difference
between attitudinal reasoning and injunctive norms-related reasoning (M= 4.41 , SD =
1.33), t (84) = —3.61 , p = .001. In addition, there were statistical differences between
subjective norms-related reasoning and descriptive norms-related reasoning, I (84) = 3.31,
p = .001. and between descriptive norms-related reasoning and injunctive norms-related
reasoning, I (84) = —4.22, p< .001. On the other hand, for the behavior of lying for a friend.
Americans indicated the strongest intention to say descriptive norms-related reasoning.
compared to injunctive norms-related reasoning (M= 3.45. SD = 1.43). attitudinal

33

reasoning (M= 3.04, SD = 0.95). and subjective norms-related reasoning (M= 3.10, SD =
1.32). There was a significant difference between attitudinal reasoning and descriptive
norms reasoning, I (82) = —7.77. p < .001, even though there was not significant difference
between attitudinal reasoning and subjective norms-related reasoning. t (82) = —-0.48. p

= .63.

Americans also intended to say different reasoning depending on the behavioral
type. When they had to explain their behavioral intention to purchase green products, they
were more likely to employ attitudinal reasoning over norms-related reasoning. On the
other hand, when they had to explain their behavioral intentions to lie for a friend or to
download unauthorized media files online, they were more likely to use descriptive norm-
related reasoning than attitudinal reasoning. Americans had stronger intentions to say
subjective norms-related and injunctive norms-related reasoning than attitudinal reasoning
when they needed to explain their behavioral intention to tell the truth. Thus, the data were
inconsistent with hypothesis 2 which predicted that Americans would prefer attitudinal
reasoning over norms-related reasoning when explaining their behavioral intention to

others.

34

Chapter 4
Discussion
Summary

The current study aimed to examine how attitude toward a behavior and norms
would differently related to behavioral intentions to engage in behaviors, intentions to say
attitudinal reasoning, and intentions to say norms-related reasoning. For cultural
differences, the current study compared Koreans and Americans regarding whether
attitude and norms relevant for behavioral intentions would be also relevant intentions to
say attitudinal reasoning and norms-related reasoning. In other word, it was expected that
the consistency between internal reasoning and external reasoning would be different for
individuals from different cultures.

The results ofthe present study provided support for previous claims (Hagger,
Chatzisarantis, & Biddle, 2002) that attitude toward a behavior was the significant
predictor of behavioral intention across behavioral type and culture. That is, the current
findings showed that attitude toward a behavior was the most highly reliable predictor of
behavioral intention whether the behaviors were a socially desirable behavior (e.g.,
purchasing green products), a socially undesirable behavior (e.g., downloading
unauthorized media files via the Internet), or decision-making in a dilemmatic situation
(e.g., telling the truth and lying for a friend). However, normative components such as
subjective norms, descriptive norms, and injunctive norms could be also the significant
predictors of behavioral intention depending on the type of behaviors. For downloading
unauthorized media files online, subjective norms as well as descriptive norms were
significant predictors of behavioral intention. Because many college students may
frequently engage in downloading unauthorized media files online, they might think it

would be approved by their friends to do it despite its socially undesirable aspects.

35

Individuals may believe that a greater proportion of people in the population engage in a
certain behavior that the actual proportion in the population do. For example, college
students commonly believed that their peers drank alcohol more than college student
themselves did (Neighbors, Dillard, Lewis, Bergstrom, & Neil, 2006). In addition, college
students believed their peers had more positive attitude toward heavily drinking than
college student themselves did (Prentice & Miller, 1993). This perceived norm was the
significant predictors of heavy drinking for college students (Borsari & Carey, 2003).
Thus, because the perceived descriptive norms of downloading unauthorized media files
were strong, they were more likely to intend to engage in downloading unauthorized
meida file on the Internet.

Norms affected attitudinal reasoning although attitude was most strongly related to
attitudinal reasoning across the different behaviors. By contrast. attitude toward a behavior
influenced norms-related reasoning, depending on the type of behaviors. In addition,
various perceived norms differently influenced intention to say norms-related reasoning
across the different type of behaviors.

Although there was correspondence between the type of individuals’ perceived
norms and the type of norms that individuals intended to say (e.g., individuals’ perceived
injunctive norms was mostly strongly related to individuals’ intention to say injunctive
norms-related reasoning), intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning was also
affected by attitude toward a behavior. Except for lying for a friend, the more positive
attitude people had, the more likely they intended to explain their behavioral intention
with descriptive norms-related reasoning. On the other hand. the less positive attitude
people had, the more likely they intended to explain their behavioral intention to lie for a
friend with descriptive norms-related reasons, whereas the more positive attitude toward a
behavior individuals had. the more likely individuals intended to lie for a friend. For lying

36

for a friend, the findings seemed to be reasonable because individuals were less likey to lie
for a friend ifthey believed lying was morally wrong or bad. Furthremore, individuals
were more likely to excuse their behavior of lying for a friend with descriptive norms-
related reasons, probably because they had a negative feeling for lie. In this case
individuals were more likely tojustify their behavior with norms which individuals
believed to be prevalent in the society maybe because accounts declining the social
conflict (either concrete or potential) could be utilized as a tool to decreas the gap between
expectation and action (Toby. 1952). Thus. people might have believed that saying their
unethical behavior with norms provided some room to justify their behavioral intention.
Implication for socially desirable and undesirable behaviors

According to mixed ANOVA. attitudinal reasoning for purchasing green products
was rated the highest than any other reasonigs while attitudinal reasoning for lying for a
friend was rated the lowest than any other reasonings. The current findings indicated that
individuals selected additional reasonings for socially desirable behaviors. That is, when
individuals needed to explain to others their behavioral intentions of socially desirable
behaviors, individuals’ perceived injunctive norms were a significant predictor of
intention to say attitudinal reasoning, although individuals’ perceived injunctive norms
were not a significant predictor of behavioral intention to engage in the behaviors. In other
word, individuals used attitude-related reasons due to social approval of their behavior,
even though injunctive norms were not the reason why they intended to buy green
products. Although individuals preferred employing attitudinal reasonings, they might
have thought about whether many people would approve the behavior, maybe because
desire for beingining to society is a fundanmental motivation for individuals (Baumeister
& Leary, I995). Leary et a1. (2003) demonstrated that social approval or disapporal

affected state self-esteem referring to how people believed they were evaluated by others

37

in the immediate social context. That is, they could use attitudinal reason more strongly
because they believed many people would approve their behavior. In turns, this choice
would increase their self-esteems.

However, subjective norms were a significant predictor of intention to say
attitudinal reasons for socially undesirable behaviors such as lying for a friend when
individuals had to explain their behavior intention. Individual might be still concerned
with how their important others would think about their behavioral intention, even though
they had the strongest intention to use attitudinal reasons. Furthermore, regression analysis
revealed that intention to lie for a friend with descriptive norms-related reasons is related
to not only descriptive norms but also subjective norms. In general, individuals would
consider how other people would think about their behavioral intention when they would
have to explain their behavioral intention. Explaining their own behavioral intention
should be consistent with popular ideas in a particular society. Otherwise, explanation
would not be accepted by others (Scott & Lyman, 1968).These ideas would be different in
terms of behavior. When people had to explain their socially undesirable behavioral
intention to others, they would consider how their significant others would think about
their behavioral intention. That is, individuals would select reasons between attitudinal
reasoning and normative reasoning in order to manage their impression to others when
others would pay attention to the individuals’ behaviors.

Furthermore, intention to say injunctive norms-related reasoning was related to
attitude toward a behavior for purchasing green products and downloading unauthorized
media files. Apparently, people would use norm-related reasoning in spite of their positive
attitude toward a behavior. That is, it is possible to employ norms-related reasoning over
attitudinal reasoning in order to hide their positive attitude toward behaviors because it is

not socially approved to show the positive attitude toward behavior or it is socially

38

desirable to be modest. For example, people might think that an individual is not ethical if
he or she says how much he or she loves to download unauthorized media files online.
Thus, people may use norms-related reasoning in order not to take a risk despite their
favorable attitude toward a behavior or in order to show their modesty.

Nonetheless. this pattern does not fit every significant relationship between four
different reasoning/behavioral intention and TRA components. For example, Injunctive
norm was a significant predictor of intention to tell the truth, but not of intention to lie for
a friend, probably because telling the truth is a morally right thing to do. However,
injunctive norms were not significantly related to intention to download unauthorized
media files via online. Besides, for telling a truth classified as one of socially desirable
behavior, the more positive attitude toward a behavior individuals had, the more strongly
they employ subjective norms-reasoning whereas for downloading unauthorized media
file via Internet, the more positive attitude individuals had, the more strongly they say
their behavioral intention with subjective norms.

Implicationfor behavior involving interpersonal relationships

Private behaviors (e.g., purchasing green products vs. downloading unauthorized
media files online) and the behavior involving interpersonal relationships (e.g., telling the
truth to a supervisor vs. lying for a friend) could have different patterns. Intention to lie for
a friend was most likely to be influenced by subjective norms over attitude toward a
behavior. Because individuals might have considered friendship as important, they were
more likely to lie for a friend even though lying may not be ethical. Besides, the intention
to tell the truth was predicted by subjective norms. attitude toward a behavior, and
injunctive norms. Specifically, subjective norms had an effect on behavioral intention to
tell the truth as much as attitude toward a behavior did. Interestingly, subjective norms
were also the significant predictor of behavioral intention to lie for a friend. It is possibly

39

considered that as an employee. his/her supervisor would be one of more important people
than his/her friend. Furthermore, the behavior involving interpersonal relationships was
more likely to be affected by subjective norms when individuals intended to use injunctive
norms-related reasoning whereas private behaviors were more likely to be influenced by
attitude toward a behavior.
Implication for cross—culture

There were differences between Koreans and Americans in the light of the
relationship between attitude/norms-related reasoning and attitudinal/normative
components. First, the relationship between subjective norms or injunctive norms and
attitudinal reasoning differed according to culture. When Koreans and Americans had to
explain their purchasing intention of green products. Koreans who had more subjective
norm were more likely to say attitudinal reasons while Americans who had less strong
subjective norm were more likely to employ attitude-related reasons. Also, Koreans with
less strong injunctive norms were more likely to say their intention to download
unauthorized media files online, while Americans with stronger injunctive norms strongly
had the intention to say about their behavioral intention. In other word, in purchasing
green product case, when Americans employed attitude-related reasons to explain their
behavioral intention to others, they were more concerned with how much they liked the
behavior, how much they believed many people would support the behavior, but they
were less concerned with how much their significant others would approve the behavior.
Besides, when Americans would intend to say attitudinal reasoning to explain their
behavioral intention of downloading unauthorized media files online, they were more
concerned with how they liked the behavior, how much they believed many people
including their important others would support the behavior. However, when Koreans
intended to use attitude-related reasons to justify their behavioral intention to purchase

40

green products. they were more concerned with how much they liked the behavior, how
much many people including important others would support the behavior, whereas in
order tojustify their behavioral intention of downloading unauthorized media flies via the
Internet with attitude-related reasons, Koreans were more concerned with how much they
liked the behavior, how much their important others would approve it, but less concerned
with how much many people would approve it. To sum up, Koreans and Americans
indicated different relationships between attitude-related reasoning and normative
components depending on the type of behaviors.

Second, norms-related reasoning was also significantly related to attitude toward a
behavior depending on the culture across the type of behaviors except for lying for a
friend. For example. Koreans who had more positive attitude toward purchasing green
products, downloading unauthorized media files. or telling the truth were more likely to
use norms-related reasoning. On the other hand, Americans with less positive attitude (or
even negative attitude) were more likely to have the intention to explain the behavioral
intention with norms-related reasoning. In general. despite positive attitude toward a
behavior, Koreans were more likely to use norms-related reasoning than Americans.

T-test analysis revealed that Koreans would intend to employ the subjective
norms-related reasoning more strongly than Americans would for explaining intentions to
purchase green products and to lie for a friend. In addition, Americans would intend to
employ the descriptive norms-related reasoning less strongly than Koreans would when
the behavior was about downloading. As shown in Figure 3, when they had to explain
their behavior intention to tell the truth, Americans were more likely to use subjective
norms-related and injunctive norms-related reasoning compared to attitude and descriptive
norms-related reasoning. However. Koreans did not show much differences among the

different types of reasoning.

41

Limitations

The study did not examine individuals’ preferred choice on a specific type of
reasoning with TRA components and injunctive and descriptive norms. Participants were
not asked to select one reason over the other, but to indicate their varying preferences for
all the TRA components and injunctive and descriptive norms. Thus, it cannot be
concluded that Koreans would prefer explaining their behavioral intention only with
norms-related reasons, while Americans would prefer explaining their behavioral intention
only with attitude-related reason in spite ofthe differences among behaviors. Nonetheless,
in reality. peOple may use most ofthe several types ofdifferent reasoning such as
attitudinal reasoning and norms-related reasoning at the same time when they explain their
behaviors. This study examined how each explanation was related with individual’s
attitude and perceived norms. But it did not investigate the reasons why there were
different relationships between each reasoning type and TRA components. Future research
can examine the reasons why the relationships between each reasoning type and TRA
components varied across different behaviors.
Conclusion

This study showed that there were significantly different relationships between
behavioral intentions and attitudinal/normative components and also between
attitude/norms-related reasoning and attitudinal/normative components. In other word, this
study examined how these relationships were different from the typical TRA relationships.
Besides, these relationships differed depending on the behavioral type. Even though there
was no main effect for culture. there were significant interactions between culture and

behavioral type.

42

Table I. Reliabilities, Correlations. Means. and Standard Deir'iationsjor Purchasing
Green Products.

 

IQ

 

Koreans
(tif= 83)

2

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Attitude

Subjective
norms
Descriptive
norms
Injunctive
norms
Behavioral
intention to
purchase
green products
Intention to
use attitudinal
reasoning
Intention to
use
subjective
norms-related
reasoning

. Intention to

use
descriptive
norms-related
reasoning

. Intention to

use
injunctive
norms-related
reasoning
M
SD

.94

.73***

.59***

.70***

6D***

.84***

.73***

.71***

77***

4.75
(0.96)

.71***

.79***

.63***

.71***

8°***

.76***

.74***

4.11
(1.07)

.94

‘78***

.57***

.59***

.59***

.74***

‘6l***

4.24
(1.18)

.59***

.70***

.70***

'68***

.74***

4.39
(1.08)

.97

.57***

.59***

.65***

.63***

4.17
(1.30)

.96

_70***

.64***

.66***

4.86
(0.98)

.94

.86***

.83***

4.20
(1.07)

.92

.87***

4.25
(1.18)

.92

4.36
(1.10)

 

Americans

(41’: 78)

1.
2.

3.

Attitude

Subjective
norms
Descriptive
norms

4. Injunctive

5.

norms
Behavioral
intention to
purchase
green

products

.91

31**

'39***

.66***

'00
UI

.26*

23*

.44***

.89

.40***

.12

.83

.30"

.96

 

43

Table 1 (cont’d).

 

IQ

DJ

UI

 

6.

7.

Intention to
use
attitudinal
reasoning

Intention to

use

subjective
norms-
related
reasoning

. Intention to

use
descriptive
norms-
related
reasoning

. Intention to

use

inj unctive
norms-
related
reasoning

AI
SD

.68***

24*

.34**

5u49
«192)

.05

.73***

24*

L105
(L21)

6D***

.30“

4.25
(1.30)

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Reliabilities (Cronbach’s a) are reported on the diagonal.

.48***

.09

24*

'46***

.L95
(L02)

4o***

28*

.09

zf26
(L67)

.94

.01

56*

.51***

554
«187)

.88

.40***

.91

5§***

4sn
(L40)

Due to missing data. d/‘was = 77 for correlations involving this variable.

44

.89

4.63
(1.29)

Table 2. Reliabilities. (I'tn‘relations. illeans. and Standard Deviations/or Telling a Ttruth

 

 

Koreans

(df= 88)
1. Attitude

2. Subjective
norms

3. Descriptive
norms

4. Injunctive
norms

5. Behavioral
intention to
tell the truth

6. Intention to
use
attitudinal
reasoning

7. Intention to
use
subjective
norms-
related
reasoning

8. Intention to
use
descriptive
norms-
related
reasoning

9. lntention to
use
injunctive
norms-
related
reasoning

A4
SD

.91

'60***

.40***

.47***

.55***

67***

.59m

.58***

.50***

:19:
«198)

.87

4§***

.55***

.51***

.37***

.59***

§D***

.57***

:189
(L04)

.90

'63***

.45***

.45***

.38***

.57***

:190
(L01)

.90

57***

.47***

.64***

67***

4.01
(1.04)

.74

99***

'fi
Ur
*
*
*

.48***

.54***

:195
(L09)

.50***

.55***

.43***

:188
«197)

.90

.69***

.71***

3.92

(1.06)

.83

.76***

3.89
(0.95)

.84

4103
«194)

 

Americans

((17: 83)
1. Attitude

2. Subjective
norms

3. Descriptive
norms

4. Injunctive

§

I'IOI’ITIS

.54***

.07

26*

.91

-.02

.39***

.89

.50***

.91

 

45

Table 2 (cont’d).

 

 

5. Behavioral
intention to
tell the

truth

6. Intention to
use
attitudinal
reasoning

7. Intention to
use
subjective
norms-
related
reasoning

8. Intention to
use
descriptive
nonns-
related
reasoning

9. Intention to
use
injunctive
norms-
related

9

reasoning

M
SD

.49***

.67***

.30**

.36**

3.70
«189)

47***

.69***

.18

.48***

4.98
(1.48)

-.01

-.01

45***

23*

3.86
(1.31)

.34“

.24*

.32**

.26*

4§***

4.68
(1.23)

.90

.44***

.44***

.07

.24*

4.77
(1.53)

.89

.47*** .92

.37*** .61***

3.88
(1.05)

4.43
(1.48)

.91

.51*** .91

3.81
(1.30)

4.41
(1.33)

 

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Reliabilities (Cronbach’s 0.) are reported on the diagonal.

Item 4 in injunctive norms and in injunctive norms-related reasoning was in order to
improve reliability.

Items 4 and 5 were deleted in order to improve reliability.

46

Table 3. Reliabilities. Correlations. Means, and Standard Deviationsfor Lyingfor a
Friend.

 

FJ

 

Koreans
W= 89)

I. Attitude

2. Subjective
norms

3. Descriptive
norms

4. Injunctive
norms

5. Behavioral
intention to
lie

6. Intention to
use
attitudinal
reasoning

7. Intention to
use
subjective
norms-
related
reasoning

8. Intention to
use
descriptive
nonns-
related
reasoning

9. Intention to
use
injunctive
norrns-
related
reasoning

M
SD

.89

.49***

23*

'38***

79**

77***

.44***

4|***

3.81
(0.88)

be
Ur

§7***

§8***

§l***

.35**

.66***

.49***

4;***

4.04
(1.11)

.77***

.53***

.06

.38***

.47***

.30**

1147
(L07)

.88

.48***

.26*

.41***

4|***

.47***

4.27
(1.07)

.37***

.22*

‘123
(L09)

.90

.41***

26*

.Sl***

3.83

«184)

.80

.59*** .77

.6]***

.58*** .84

4.12
(1.04)

4.09
(0.91)

4.28
(0.84)

 

Americans
(91/: 80)

1 . Attitude

2. Subjective
norms
3. Descriptive
norms
4. Injunctive
:8

”011113

.86

.39***

.46***

'60**#

.90

 

47

Table 3 (cont’d).

 

I\)

 

5. Behavioral
intention to
lie

6. Intention to
use
attitudinal

reasoning ‘

7. Intention to
use
subjective
norms-
related
reasoning

8. Intention to
use
descriptive
norms-
related
reasoning

.65***

.68***

.31**

-.02

.59***

.57***

‘63***

31**

.28*

.22*

Id
'JJ
*

.39***

.45***

.94

§D***

.30**

.08

.91

.49***

.80

.56***

.93

 

9. Intention to
use
injunctive
norms-
related

#

reasoning

M
SD

.13

3.01
(0.91)

.44***

3.37
(1.36)

4D***

4.25

(1.30)

.60***

4.95
(1.02)

79*

‘126
(L67)

79**

5.54
(0.87)

.68***

.76***

4.21
(1.40)

.90

4.63
(1.29)

 

*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001
Reliabilities (Cronbach’s 0.) are reported on the diagonal.

Due to missing data, df for correlations involving injunctive norms was 79.

\

Due to missing data, (If for correlation between attitudinal reasoning and

attitude/normative reasoning was 81.

Item 4 in injunctive norms and in injunctive norms-related reasoning was in order to

improve reliability.

48

Table 4. Reliabilities, (’(n‘relations. Means, and Standard Deviations/or Downloading
Unauthorized .Media Files Online.

 

i0

 

Koreans

(cif= l | l)
I. Attitude

2. Subjective
norms

3. Descriptive
norms

4. Injunctive
norms

5. Behavioral
intention to
download

6. Intention to
use
attitudinal
reasoning

7. Intention to
use
subjective
norms-
related
reasoning

8. Intention to
use
descriptive
norms-
related
reasoning

9. Intention to
use
injunctive
norms-
related
reasoning

M
SD

.95

.70***

.36***

.54***

.77***

.80***

71***

.51***

.64***

id
'4) I0
V

(L

.80

.48***

.66***

.74***

.67***

7|***

.54***

.57***

.89

.48***

.47***

}o**

.30**

'56***

.30***

4.78
(1.48)

.81

§4***

43***

.53***

.44***

.54***

:166
(L15)

.88

6|***

.57***

.52***

.58***

.96

_79***

.60***

.67***

.90

.65*** .90

.61***

.89

3.78
(1.28)

 

Americans

(4f: 93)
1. Attitude

2. Subjective
norms

3. Descriptive
norms

4. Injunctive
nonns

. J

.93

.59***

.21*

“***

.87

.07

.50***

.87

 

49

Table 4 (cont’d).

 

IJ

 

5.

6.

7.

Behavioral
intention to

download

Intention to
use
attitudinal
reasoning
Intention to
use
subjective
norms-
related
reasoning

. Intention to

use
descriptive
norms-
related
reasoning

. Intention to

use
injunctive
norms-
related
reasoning

M
SD

7§***

_80***

.46***

_4,...

.50**#

4.07
(1.24)

.58***

.57***

.74***

’58**

.45W

2 .99

(1.38)

'29**

.30**

.50W

.30**

5.96

(0.99)

.48***

.56***

.48***

.34M

'66:“-

4.30
(1.36)

.89

.69***

.40***

_40...

.42W

3.72

(L68)

.94

.51***

_50...

‘125
(L28)

.88

.34“

'41]

'fl
'I‘
f
*I’

:199
(L32)

.83

.57...

5.01
(1.36)

.88

410
(L37)

 

*p< .05, **p < .01, ***p< .001
Reliabilities (Cronbach’s or) are reported on the diagonal.

50

Table 5. Regression Resultsfor Intentions to Purchase Green Product and to Download
Unauthorized Media Files Online.

 

 

 

 

 

B SE B t sr

Purchasing Green Product

First Block
Intercept 4.29 0.14 29.78***
ATT 0.77 0.12 .52 6.45*** .3
SN 0.34 0.10 .29 3.57*** .21
DN —0.02 0.09 —.01 —0.1 8 —.01
[N 0.08 0.12 .05 0.64 .04
Culture] —0.19 0.24 —.06 —0.79 —.05

9
F(5. 158) = 26.28, p < .001, adj. R“ = .44

Second Block
ATT X Culture 0.65 0.24 .28 2.68** .15
SN X Culture 0.1 1 0.23 .06 0.48 .03
DN >< Culture —0.27 0.20 —.16 —I .36 —.08
IN >< Culture 0.06 0.26 .03 0.23 .01

Fchange (4, 154) = 3.08. p < .05, chhange = .04

The overall model: F(9, 154) = 16.73. p < .001, adj. R2 = .47

Downloading unauthorized files online

First Block
Intercept 4.01 0.96 41.83***
ATT 0.66 0.07 .54 9.30*** .40
SN 0.29 0.07 .26 4.11*** .18
DN 0.15 0.06 .14 2.67** .12
IN 0.02 0.07 .02 0.34 .02
Culture] —0.38 0.16 —.13 —2.42* —.10

2
F(5, 201 ) = 57.34. p < .001. aa’j.R = .62

Second Block
ATT X Culture 0.27 0.14 .15 1.88 .08
SN >< Culture —0.09 0.15 —.06 —0.60 —.03
DN X Culture 0.12 0.12 .06 1.00 .04
IN >< Culture 0.03 0.14 .02 0.24 .01

9

Fchange (4, 197) = 1.84, p = .12, Ruchange = .01
The overall model: F(9, 197) = 39.26, p < .001, adj. R2 = .63

 

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
sr: semipartial correlation

Regarding multicollinearity, the first-order and second-order predictors had variance inflation
factor (VIF) ranging from 1.48 to 8.80. Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) mentioned 10 as
the traditional rule of thumb threshold value, although there is “no good statistical rationale for the
choice of any of the traditional rule of thumb threshold values” (p. 424).

BI: Behavioral intention ATT: Attitude toward behavior SN: Subjective norms
DN: Descriptive norms IN: Inj unctive norms AR: Attitudinal reasoning

SNR: Subjective norms-related reasoning DNR: Descriptive norms-related reasoning

INR: Injunctive norms-related reasoning

dummy—coded with Americans = 1 and Koreans = 0

51

Table 6. Regression Resultsfor Intentions to Tell the Truth and to Lie.

 

 

B SE B t sr
Truth-Telling
First Block
Intercept 4.14 0.12 33.40*** .23
ATT 0.41 0.11 .28 3.89*** .20
SN 0.28 0.08 .28 3.43M —.05
DN —0.71 0.09 —.06 —0.84 .15
IN 0.25 0.10 .21 2.61* .13
Culturel 0.43 0.19 .15 221*
2

F(5, 168) = 24.57,p < .001. adj.R = .41

 

Second Block

ATT X Culture 0.15 0.22 .07 0.70 .04
SN X Culture 0.15 0.18 .11 0.82 .05
DN X Culture —0.28 0.18 —.18 —1.54 —.09
IN X Culture 0.03 0.20 .02 0.17 .01

2
Fchange (4. 164) = 1.08. p = .37, R change = .02

The overall model: F(9. 164) = 14.15. p < .001. adj. R = .41

 

Lying for a Friend

First Block
Intercept 4.01 0.11 35.87***
ATT 0.38 0.10 .30 3.92*** .23
SN 0.36 0.08 .37 4.46*** .27
DN 0.16 0.09 .14 1.67 .10
IN —0.03 0.09 —.03 —0.36 —-.02
Culture] —().09 0.18 ~.04 ——0.49 -—.03

9
F(5, 166) = 22.75.p <. .001. adj.R = .39

 

Second Block

ATT X Culture 0.60 0.19 .32 3.17“ .18
SN X Culture 0.12 0.16 .09 0.76 .04
DN X Culture —0.33 0.19 —.21 —1.73 -.10
IN X Culture —0.10 0.19 —.07 ~0.49 —.03
2
Fchange (4. 162): l.84.p = .001. R change = .06
2

The overall model: F(9, 162) = 16.04.p < .001, adj. R = .44

 

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

sr: semipartial correlation

Regarding multicollinearity, the first-order and second-order predictors had variance inflation
factor (VIF) ranging from 1.48 to 8.80. Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) mentioned 10 as
the traditional rule of thumb threshold value, although there is “no good statistical rationale for the
choice of any of the traditional rule of thumb threshold values” (p. 424).

Bl: Behavioral intention ATT: Attitude toward behavior SN: Subjective norms

DN: Descriptive norms 1N: Injunctive norms AR: Attitudinal reasoning

SNR: Subjective norms—related reasoning DNR: Descriptive norms-related reasoning

INR: Injunctive norms-related reasoning

dummy-coded with Americans = l and Koreans = 0

52

Table 7. Regression Resultsfor Intentions to Use Attitudinal Reasoningfor Explaining
Purchasing Green Product and Downloading Unauthorized Media Files Online.

 

 

 

 

 

8 SE B t sr

Purchasing Green Product

First Block
Intercept 5.20 0.73 71 .19***
ATT 0.65 0.06 .66 10.78*** .48
SN —0.70 0.05 —.09 —0.60 —.06
DN -0.03 0.05 -.03 —0.18 —.03
IN 0.27 0.06 .30 4.56*** .21
Culturel ——0.02 0.12 —*.01 —0.14 —.01

F(5, 159) = 68.51,p < .001. adj.R2 = .67

Second Block
ATT X Culture —0.05 0.12 — .04 — 0.43 —.02
SN X Culture —0.25 0.12 —.23 — 2.16* —.10
DN X Culture —0.07 0.10 —.07 —0.73 —.03
IN X Culture 0.14 0.13 .10 1.06 .05

Fchange (4. 155) = 2.34. p =.058. R2change = .02

The overall model: F(9. 155.): 40.38. p <1 .001, adj. R2 = .68

Downloading unauthorized files online

First Block
Intercept 3.95 0.78 51.06***
ATT 0.69 0.06 .67 12.16*** .49
SN 0.15 0.06 .15 2.64“ .11
DN 0.04 0.05 .05 0.99 .04
IN 0.03 0.06 .30 0.59 .02
Culture 0.22 0.13 .09 1.71 .07

F(5, 201) = 82.02. p < .001. adj.R2 = .66

Second Block
ATT X Culture —0.03 0.1 l —.02 —0.28 —.01
SN X Culture —0.15 0.12 —.11 —1.30 —.05
DN X Culture 0.15 0.10 .08 1.45 .06
IN X Culture 0.23 0.11 .17 2.05* .08

2
Fchange (4, 197) = 2.21.1) = .12. R change : .01

2
The overall model: F(9. 197) = 47.65. p < .001. adj. R = .67

 

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

sr: semipartial correlation

Regarding multicollinearity. the first-order and second-order predictors had variance inflation
factor (VIF) ranging from 1.48 to 8.80. Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) mentioned 10 as
the traditional rule ofthumb threshold value, although there is “no good statistical rationale for the
choice of any ofthe traditional rule ofthumb threshold values" (p. 424).

BI: Behavioral intention ATT: Attitude toward behavior SN: Subjective norms

DN: Descriptive norms IN: Injunctive norms AR: Attitudinal reasoning

SNR: Subjective norms-related reasoning DNR: Descriptive norms-related reasoning

INR: Injunctive norms-related reasoning

dummy-coded with Americans = 1 and Koreans : 0

53

Table 8. Regression Results/or Intentions to Use Attitudinal Reasoningfl1r Explaining
Truth- Telling and Lying.

 

 

2
F(5, 169) = 26.68, p < .001. adj.R = .42

B SE B t sr
Truth-telling
First Block
Intercept 3.84 0.09 43.16*** .47
ATT 0.62 0.08 .58 814*“ .03
SN 0.03 0.06 .04 0.44 .08
DN 0.09 0.06 .10 1.48 .05
IN 0.06 0.07 .07 0.81 .03
Culturel 0.08 0.14 04 0.55

 

Second Block

 

 

ATT X Culture 0.15 0.15 .10 1.09 .06
SN X Culture 0.15 0.13 .21 1.56 .09
DN X Culture —0.28 0.13 —-.07 —0.61 —.04
IN X Culture —0.03 0.14 —.16 —1.32 —.08
Fchange (4. 165) = 1.84, p = .12, chhange = .02
7
The overall model: F(9. 165) = 15.37. p < .001. adj. R“ = .43

Lying for a friend

First Block
Intercept 3.53 0.07 4864*"
ATT 0.61 0.06 .61 9.65*** .48
SN 0.14 0.05 .18 2.67M .13
DN —0.08 0.06 —. | 0 —1.23 —.06
IN 0.03 0.06 .03 0.45 .02
Culture —0. 1 6 0.12 —.08 —1.39 —.07

F(5, 166) = 48.76, p < .001. adj.R2 = .58

Second Block
ATT X Culture —0.10 0.13 —.07 0.81 —.04
SN X Culture 0.15 0.11 .14 1.39 .07
DN X Culture 0.24 0.13 .19 1.87 .09
IN X Culture -0.15 0.13 —.14 —l.19 —.06

2
Fchange (4, 162) = 1.84, p = .098, R change = .02

2
The overall model: F(9, 162) = 28.62. p < .001, adj. R = .59

 

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

sr: semipartial correlation

Regarding multicollinearity. the first—order and second-order predictors had variance inflation
factor (VIF) ranging from 1.48 to 8.80. Cohen, Cohen, West. and Aiken (2003) mentioned 10 as
the traditional rule ofthumb threshold value, although there is “no good statistical rationale for the
choice of any of the traditional rule of thumb threshold values” (p. 424).

BI: Behavioral intention ATT: Attitude toward behavior SN: Subjective norms

DN: Descriptive norms IN: Injunctive norms AR: Attitudinal reasoning

SNR: Subjective norms-related reasoning DNR: Descriptive norms-related reasoning

INR: Injunctive norms-related reasoning

I . .
dummy-coded w1th Amer1cans = l and Koreans = 0

54

Table 9. Regression Resultsfor Intentions to Use Subjective .I'V(n-'ni.s-Reasoning/or
Explaining Purchasing Green Product and Downloadng Unauthorized Media

 

 

Files Online.
8 SE B t SI
Purchasing Green Product
First Block
Intercept 3.84 0.10 40.21 ***
ATT 0.1 l 0.08 .09 1.41 .06
SN 0.74 0.06 .73 11.50*** .52
DN 0.05 0.06 .05 0.88 .04
IN —0.07 0.08 —.06 —0.87 —.04
Culture —0.34 0.16 —.13 —2.16* —.10
7

A.—

F(5, 159) = 64.65. p < .001. adj.R = .66

 

Second Block

ATT X Culture —0.35 0.16 —.18 —2.18* -.10
SN X Culture 0.15 0.16 .10 —0.96 .04
DN X Culture 0.13 0.13 .10 1.00 .05
IN X Culture ~0.20 0.17 —.11 —1.15 —.05

2
Fchange (4, 155) = 2.14.17 =.079, R change = .02

2
The overall model: F(9. 155) = 37.89. p < .001. adj. R = .70

 

Downloading unauthorized files online

 

First Block
Intercept 3.45 0.09 3830*“
ATT 0.20 0.07 .19 2.99** .14
SN 0.55 0.07 .55 8.34*** .38
DN —0.20 0.05 —.02 ~0.36 —.02
IN 0.10 0.06 .10 1.53 .07
Culture —0.32 0.15 —. 1 2 —2.17 —.10

F(5, 200) = -4.5-.p < .001, adj. R2 = .57

Second Block
ATT X Culture ——0.46 0.13 —.29 —3.52** —.16
SN X Culture 0.24 0.13 .17 1.79 .08
DN X Culture 0.19 0.12 .11 1.62 .07
IN X Culture 0.03 0.13 .02 0.24 .01

2
Fchange (4, 196) = 3.60. p = .007, R change = .03

2
The overall model: F(9, 196) = 33.48, p < .001, adj. R = .59

 

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

sr: semipartial correlation

Regarding multicollinearity. the first-order and second-order predictors had variance inflation
factor (VIF) ranging from 1.48 to 8.80. Cohen, Cohen, West. and Aiken (2003) mentioned 10 as
the traditional rule of thumb threshold value, although there is “no good statistical rationale for the
choice of any ofthe traditional rule ofthumb threshold values” (p. 424).

Bl: Behavioral intention ATT: Attitude toward behavior SN: Subjective norms DN: Descriptive
norms IN: Injunctive norms AR: Attitudinal reasoning SNR: Subjective norms-related reasoning
DNR: Descriptive norms-related reasoning INR: Injunctive norms-related reasoning

dummy-coded with Americans = 1 and Koreans = 0

55

Table 10. Regression Results/or Intentions to Use Subjective Norms-Reasoning/or Truth-

 

 

 

 

 

Telling and Lying.
8 SE t sr

Truth-telling

First Block
Intercept 4.18 0.1 I 38.98*** .20
ATT 0.33 0.09 .24 362*” .35
SN 0.46 0.07 .49 6.49*** —.06
DN —0.08 0.07 —.07 -1.09 .1 1
IN 0.17 0.08 .16 204* —.01
Culture ——0.04 0.17 7-03 —0.23

F(5. 169) = 34.64, p < .001. adj. R2 = .42

Second Block
ATT X Culture —0.00 0.19 —.00 —0.02 —.00
SN X Culture 0.30 0.16 .24 1.90 .10
DN X Culture —0.01 0.16 —.00 —0.04 —.00
IN X Culture —0.21 0.17 —-.14 —l.22 ~—.07

Fchange (4, 165) = 1.19. p = .32. R2c11ai1ge = .01
The overall model: F(9, 165) = 19.86. [K .001. adj. R2 = .49

Lying for a friend

First Block
Intercept 3.88 0.10 39.76***
ATT 0.06 0.09 .05 0.74 .04
SN 0.53 0.07 .56 7.58*** .41
DN —0.02 0.08 —.02 ~02 —.01
IN 0.09 0.08 .09 1.13 .06
Culture —0.52 0.15 — 22 —3.39** —.18

F(5. 166) = 36.50,p < .001. adj. R2 = .51

Second Block
ATT X Culture —0.1 7 0.17 —.09 —0.98 —.05
SN X Culture 0.13 0.15 .10 0.87 .05
DN X Culture 0.00 0.18 .00 0.02 .00
IN X Culture 0.08 0.17 .06 0.48 .03

'1
Fchange (4. 162) = 0.57. p = .389. Rbchange = .01
The overall model: F(9, 162) = 20.32. p < .001, adj. R2 = .50

 

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

sr: semipartial correlation

Regarding multicollinearity, the first-order and second-order predictors had variance inflation
factor (VIF) ranging from 1.48 to 8.80. Cohen, Cohen. West, and Aiken (2003) mentioned 10 as
the traditional rule ofthumb threshold value, although there is “no good statistical rationale for the
choice of any ofthe traditional rule ofthumb threshold values" (p. 424).

BI: Behavioral intention ATT: Attitude toward behavior SN: Subjective norms

DN: Descriptive norms IN: Injunctive norms AR: Attitudinal reasoning

SNR: Subjective norms-related reasoning DNR: Descriptive norms-related reasoning

INR: Injunctive norms-related reasoning

dummy-coded with Americans = 1 and Koreans = 0

56

Table l 1. Regression Results/or Intentions to Use Descriptive Norms-Reasoningfor
Explaining Purchasing Green Product and Downloading Unauthorized Media

 

 

Files Online.
8 SE B t W
Purchasing Green Product
First Block
Intercept 4.26 0.12 3612*“
ATT 0.29 0.10 .23 3.00** .17
SN 0.14 0.08 .14 1.83 .10
DN 0.60 0.10 .57 8.10*** .45
IN —0.09 0.19 «.07 —0.90 —.05
Culture] —0.06 0.17 —.03 -0.33 —.02

2
F(5. 159) = 33.42.); < .001. alt/1R = .50

 

Second Block

ATT X Culture -—-0.18 0.20 —.09 —0.90 —.05
SN X Culture —0.32 0.19 -.22 —1.67 —.09
DN X Culture 0.24 0.16 .17 1.46 .08
IN X Culture 0.05 0.22 .03 0.21 .01

2
Fchange (4, 155) = 1.6I,p =.l75, R change = .02
7

A.

The overall Model: F(9.155) = 19.56 p<.001. adj. R = .51

 

Downloading unauthorized files online

First Block
Intercept 4.47 0.1 1 3968*"
ATT 0.30 0.08 .26 3.65*** .19
SN 0.11 0.08 .10 1.32 .07
DN 0.44 0.07 .44 6.74*** .36
IN 0.01 0.08 .01 0.18 .01
Culture] 0.25 0.19 .09 1.33 .07

2
F(5, 200) = 31.23. p < .001. adj.R = .42

 

Second Block

ATT X Culture 0.02 0.17 .01 —0.11 .01
SN X Culture —0.13 0.17 —.08 —0.74 —.04
DN X Culture 0.23 0.15 .12 1.59 .08
IN X Culture 0.00 0.16 .00 0.03 .00

2
Fchange (4, 196) = 0.78, p = .538, R change = .01

2
The overall model: F(9. 196) = 17.62, p < .001. adj. R = .42

 

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

sr: semipartial correlation

Regarding multicollinearity. the first-order and second-order predictors had variance inflation
factor (VIF) ranging from 1.48 to 8.80. Cohen. Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) mentioned 10 as
the traditional rule of thumb threshold value, although there is “no good statistical rationale for the
choice of any of the traditional rule of thumb threshold values” (p. 424).

BI: Behavioral intention ATT: Attitude toward behavior SN: Subjective norms DN: Descriptive
norms IN: Injunctive norms AR: Attitudinal reasoning SNR: Subjective norms-related reasoning
DNR: Descriptive norms-related reasoning [N R: Injunctive norms-related reasoning

dummy-coded with Americans = 1 and Koreans = 0

57

Table 12. Regression Results for Intentions to Use Descriptive Norms-Reasoning/or
Explaining Truth- Telling and Lying.

 

 

8 SE B t sr
Truth-telling
First Block
Intercept 3.90 0.1 1 36.54*** .23
ATT 0.34 0.09 38 3.67*** .04
SN 0.05 0.07 .06 0.64 .31
DN 0.37 0.07 .38 5.08*** .06
IN 0.08 0.08 .08 0.97 —.03
Culture] ~0.09 0.17 —-04 0.55

2
F(5, 169) = 18.62. p < 001.6417? = .34

 

Second Block

 

 

ATT X Culture 0.05 0.19 03 0.29 .02
SN X Culture 0.03 0.15 .03 1.17 .01
DN X Culture 0.28 0.16 .22 1.76 .11
IN X Culture —0.39 0.17 —.30 —2.30* —.14
Fchange (4. 165) = 1.50, p = .205. chhange = .02
The overall model: F(9. 165.): 1 1.13, p <' .001, adj. R2 = .34

Lying for a friend

First Block
Intercept 4.35 0.1 1 38.19***
ATT “0.21 0.10 —.18 ~2.08* ~.14
SN 0.21 0.08 .23 2.57* .17
DN 0.32 0.10 .32 3.37** .22
IN 0.15 0.09 .15 1.61 .11
Culture] —0.07 0.18 —.03 —0.40 —.03

F(5, 166) = 13.38. p < .001, adj.R2 = .27

Second Block
ATT X Culture —0.25 0.20 —.14 —1.24 —.08
SN X Culture —.0.08 0.17 —.07 —0.48 —.03
DN X Culture 0.24 0.20 .17 1.21 .08
IN X Culture 0.19 0.20 —.15 0.95 .06

2
Fchange (4, 162) = 2.00. p = .097. R change = .03

2
The overall model: F(9, 162) = 8.50.p < .001, adj. R = .28

 

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

sr: semipartial correlation

Regarding multicollinearity, the first-order and second-order predictors had variance inflation
factor (VIF) ranging from 1.48 to 8.80. Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) mentioned 10 as
the traditional rule of thumb threshold value, although there is “no good statistical rationale for the
choice of any of the traditional rule of thumb threshold values” (p. 424).

B1: Behavioral intention ATT: Attitude toward behavior SN: Subjective norms

DN: Descriptive norms IN: Injunctive norms AR: Attitudinal reasoning

SNR: Subjective norms-related reasoning DNR: Descriptive norms-related reasoning

INR: Injunctive norms-related reasoning

dummy-coded with Americans = l and Koreans = 0

58

Table 13. Regression Results-for Intentions to Use Injunctive Norms-Reasoningfor
Explaining Purchasing Green Product and Downloading Unauthorized Media

 

 

 

 

 

Files Online.
3 SE t sr

Green Product

First Block
Intercept 4.57 0.12 3821*”
ATT 0.33 0.10 .27 3.32" .20
SN 0.05 0.08 .05 0.58 .04
DN 0.09 0.08 .10 1.24 .08
IN 0.43 0.10 .39 4.40*** .27
Culture —0.16 0.20 —.07 —0.84 —.05

F(5. 159) = 23.34.p < .001, adj.R2 = .41

Second Block
ATT X Culture —0.09 0.21 —.05 —0.42 —.03
SN X Culture —0.29 0.20 — 22 —1.48 —.09
DN X Culture 0.14 .17 .10 0.83 .05
IN X Culture 0.09 0.22 .05 0.40 .02

Fchange (4, 155) = 0.85, p =.496. R2c112111ge = .01
The overall model: F(9. 155) = 13.30. p < .001, adj. R2 = .40

Downloading unauthorized files online

First Block
Intercept 3.91 0.10 3755*”
ATT 0.28 0.08 .26 367*“ .19
SN 0.11 0.08 .1 1 1.43 .08
DN 0.02 0.06 .02 0.28 .02
IN 0.41 0.07 .40 563*“ .30
Culture 0.03 0.17 .01 0.15 .01

F(5. 200) = 32.39, p < .001, adj.R2 = .43

Second Block
ATT X Culture ~0.37 0.15 — 23 —2.41* —.13
SN X Culture 0.02 0.16 .01 0.11 .01
DN X Culture 0.17 0.13 .09 1.26 .07
IN X Culture 0.24 0.15 .17 1.59 .08

Fchange (4, 196) = 2.39, p = .053. Rfichange = .03

2
The overall model: F(9, 196) = 19.55. p < .001, adj. R

= .45

 

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
sr: semipartial correlation

Regarding multicollinearity. the first-order and second-order predictors had variance inflation

factor (VIF) ranging from 1.48 to 8.80. Cohen, Cohen, West. and Aiken (2003) mentioned 10 as
the traditional rule ofthumb threshold value, although there is “no good statistical rationale for the
choice of any of the traditional rule of thumb threshold values” (p. 424).

BI: Behavioral intention ATT: Attitude toward behavior SN: Subjective norms DN: Descriptive
norms IN: Injunctive norms AR: Attitudinal reasoning SNR: Subjective norms-related reasoning
DNR: Descriptive norms-related reasoning INR: Injunctive norms-related reasoning

dummy-coded with Americans = 1 and Koreans = 0

59

Table 14. Regression Results/or Intentions to Use Injumrtive Norms-Reasoningfor
Explaining Truth- Telling and Lying.

 

 

B SE B t sr
Truth-telling
First Block
Intercept 4.24 0.1 1 4035*M .10
ATT 0.15 0.09 .13 1.70 .23
SN 0.27 0.07 .32 3.83*** .09
ON 0.11 0.07 .12 1.58 .20
IN 0.27 0.08 .28 3.33“ —.02
Culture' —0.05 0.16 —-03 —0.33

2
F(5, 169) = 18.62.p < .001. adj.R = .34

 

Second Block

ATT X Culture 0.03 0.19 .02 0.16 .01
SN X Culture 0.08 0.15 .08 0.53 .03
DN X Culture ~0.03 0.16 —.03 —0.22 —.01
IN X Culture —0.03 0.17 —.03 —0.20 —.01

2
Fchange (4. 165) = 1.50, p = .21, R change = .02

 

 

The overall model: F(9. 165) = 11.13. p < .001, adj. R2 = .34

Lying

First Block
Intercept 3.96 0.12 3393*”
ATT 0.04 0.10 .03 0.40 .02
SN 0.23 0.09 .23 2.70** .17
DN —0.05 0.10 -.04 —0.48 —.03
IN — .32 0.09 .44 5.00*** .31
Culturel —0.07 0.19 —.12 —1.71 —.10

F(5. 166) 2' I3.38.p < .001, adj.R2 = .27

Second Block
ATT X Culture ~0.37 0.20 —.19 —1.80 —.11
SN X Culture 0.06 0.17 .04 0.35 .02
DN X Culture 0.31 0.21 .19 1.49 .09
IN X Culture 0.07 0.20 .05 0.35 .02

2
Fchange (4. 162) = 2.00, p = .10. R change = .03
7

4.1

The overall model: F(9, 162) = 8.50.p < .001, adj. R = .28

 

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

sr: semipartial correlation

Regarding multicollinearity, the first-order and second-order predictors had variance inflation
factor (VIF) ranging from 1.48 to 8.80. Cohen, Cohen. West, and Aiken (2003) mentioned 10 as
the traditional rule ofthumb threshold value, although there is “no good statistical rationale for the
choice of any ofthe traditional rule ofthumb threshold values” (p. 424).

BI: Behavioral intention ATT: Attitude toward behavior SN: Subjective norms

DN: Descriptive norms IN: Injunctive norms AR: Attitudinal reasoning

SNR: Subjective norms-related reasoning DNR: Descriptive norms-related reasoning

INR: Injunctive norms-related reasoning

dummy—coded with Americans = 1 and Koreans = 0

60

Table 15. Summary of Unstandardized Simple Slopes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Criterion 5:33:31? Simple Slopes for Groups
behav10rs Variables Reference Group Comparison Group
Purchasing Bl ATT Koreans Americans
Green Products b = 0.41, p = .01 b = I.06,p < .001
AR SN Koreans Americans
b=0.12,p=.24 =—0.I4,p=.02
SNR ATT Koreans Americans
b = 0.32, p = .003 b = —0.03, p = .77
Downloading AR IN Koreans Americans
Medial Files b=—0.Il,p=.18 b=0.11,p=.12
SNR ATT Koreans Americans
b = 0.42.p <00] 11 = —0.04,p = .68
INR ATT Koreans Americans
b = 045,17 <.001 b = 0.08,p = .50
Truth-Telling DNR IN Koreans Americans
b = 0.32.p = .001 = —0.07, p =.58
Lying Bl ATT Koreans Americans
b:0.10,p=.45 b=0.70,p<.001
Note.

BI: Behavioral intention
AR: Attitudinal reasoning

SNR: Subjective norms-related reasoning
DNR: Descriptive norms-related reasoning

INR: Injunctive norms-related reasoning

ATT: Attitude toward
SN: Subjective norms

behavior

DN: Descriptive norms

IN: Injunctive norms

61

Table 16. Means and Standard Deviations for Reasoning/ Behavioral T ype/ Culture
ANO VA for Purchasing Green Products and Downloading Unauthorized Media
Files Online.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M SD

Purchasing green Korea Intention to use attitude reasoning 4.86 0.98
products Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 4.20 1.07
Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 4.26 1.18

Intention to use injunctive norms-related reasoning 4.36 1.10

US. Intention to use attitude reasoning 5.54 0.87

Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 3.12 1.23

Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 4.20 1.40

Intention to use inj unctive norms-related reasoning 4.63 1.29

Total Intention to use attitude reasoning 4.09 1.1 I

Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 3.68 1.27

Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 4.23 1.29

Intention to use injunctive norms-related reasoning 4.63 1.29

Downloading Korea Intention to use attitude reasoning 3.88 1.26
unauthorized files Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 4.25 1.29
Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 4.23 1.38

Intention to use injunctive norms-related reasoning 3.78 1.28

US. Intention to use attitude reasoning 4.25 1.29

Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 3.01 1.32

Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 4.57 1.42

Intention to use inj unctive norms-related reasoning 4.08 1.37

Total Intention to use attitude reasoning 4.05 1.28

Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 3.31 1.31

Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 4.58 1.42

Intention to use injunctive norms—related reasoning 3.78 1.28

 

Table 17. Means and Standard Deviationsfor Reasoning/ Behavioral type/ Culture
ANO VA for Telling the Truth and Lyingfor a Friend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M SD

Telling the truth Korea Intention to use attitude reasoning 3.88 0.97
Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 3.92 1.06

Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 3.89 0.95

Intention to use injunctive norms-related reasoning 4.03 0.94

US. Intention to use attitude reasoning 3.88 1.05
Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 4.43 1.48

Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 3.81 1.30

Intention to use injunctive norms-related reasoning 4.41 1.33

Total Intention to use attitude reasoning 3.87 1.01
Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 4.16 1.30

Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 3.85 1.13

Intention to use injunctive norms-related reasoning 4.21 1.16

Lying for a friend Korea Intention to use attitude reasoning 3.83 0.84
Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 4.09 0.91

Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 4.28 0.84

Intention to use injunctive norms-related reasoning 4.12 1.04

US. Intention to use attitude reasoning 3.04 0.95
Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 3.10 1 32

Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 4.36 1.43

Intention to use injunctive norms-related reasoning 3.45 1.43

Total Intention to use attitude reasoning 3.45 0.98
Intention to use subjective norms-related reasoning 3.62 1.22

Intention to use descriptive norms-related reasoning 4.32 1.16

Intention to use injunctive norms-related reasoning 4.09 1.27

 

Table 18. 4 (Reasoning) X 4 (type ofbehaviors) X 2 (cultures) ANO VA Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F 112 df§ Sig.
Reasoning 68.92 .03 2.89, 2056.55 p < .01
Behavioral type 12.10 .03 3. 71 1 p < .001
Culture 0.49 .00 I. 711 p = .484
Behavioral type x Culture 7.02 .02 3, 71 1 p < .001
Reasoning x Culture 27.38 .01 2.89, 2056.55 p < .001
Reasoning x Behavioral type 55.87 .07 2.89. 2056.55 p < .001
Reasoning x Behavioral type x 1 18.07 .02 2.89. 2056.55 p < .001
Culture
Note.

‘ Greenhouse-Geisser Correction was used because the assumption of homogeneity was violated.

64

Table I9. Comparisons ofReasoning Typesfor Koreans and Americans for Purchasing

Green Product.

 

 

 

t-test p
4f: 84
Korea Attitudinal reasoning versus Subjective norms-related reasoning 7.59 < .001

Attitudinal reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related reasoning 5.99 < .001
Attitudinal reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related reasoning 5.25 <.001
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related

-0.88 .384
reasoning
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

-2.43 .017
reasoning
Descriptive norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

-1.68 .096
reasoning

df= 93
US. Attitudinal reasoning versus Subjective norms-related reasoning 14.43 < .001

Attitudinal reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related reasoning 8.28 < .001
Attitudinal reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related reasoning 7.27 < .001
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related

-6.71 < .001
reasoning
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

-8.40 < .001
reasoning
Descriptive norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

-2.95 .004

reasoning

 

65

Table 20. Comparisons of Reasoning Types for Koreans and Americansfor T ruth— Telling.

 

 

 

t-test p
(If: 89
Korea Attitudinal reasoning versus Subjective norms-related reasoning -0.36 .718

Attitudinal reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related reasoning -0.16 .875
Attitudinal reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related reasoning -I .42 .161
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related

0.28 .778
reasoning
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

-I .40 .166
reasoning
Descriptive norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

-1.97 .052
reasoning

df= 93
US. Attitudinal reasoning versus Subjective norms-related reasoning -3.75 < .001

Attitudinal reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related reasoning 0.41 .684
Attitudinal reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related reasoning -3.61 .001
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related

3.31 001
reasoning
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

0.14 .891
reasoning
Descriptive norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

-4.22 <.001

reasoning

 

66

Table 21. Comparisons of Reasoning Ttpesfor Koreans and Americans/or Lyingfor a

Friend.

 

 

 

t-test p
df= 84
Korea Attitudinal reasoning versus Subjective norms-related reasoning -2.60 .01 l

Attitudinal reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related reasoning -4.22 <.001
Attitudinal reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related reasoning -2.96 .004
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related

-233 .022
reasoning
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

4139 .697
reamnfing
Descriptive norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

1.71 .091
reasoning

dj'= 82
US. Attitudinal reasoning versus Subjective norms-related reasoning -0.48 .684

Attitudinal reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related reasoning -7.77 <.001
Attitudinal reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related reasoning -2.55 .013
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related

-8.87 <.001
reasoning
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

-2.88 .005
reasoning
Descriptive norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related

8137 <A001

reasoning

 

 

 

67

Table 22. Comparisons of Reasoning Typesfor Koreans and Americans for Downloading
Unauthorized Media Files Online.

 

 

 

t-test j)
(if:
112
Korea Attitudinal reasoning versus Subjective norms-related reasoning 4.25 <.001
Attitudinal reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related reasoning -3.1 1 .002
Attitudinal reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related reasoning 0.88 .383
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related
-6.44 <.001
reasoning
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related
-2Q31 .023
reasoning
Descriptive norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related
3x40 <;001
reammfing
(If: 92
US. Attitudinal reasoning versus Subjective norms-related reasoning 9.40 <.001
Attitudinal reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related reasoning -5.79 <.001
Attitudinal reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related reasoning 1.09 .278
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Descriptive norms-related
-12 43 < 001
reasoning
Subjective norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related
-8.03 <.001
reasoning
Descriptive norms-related reasoning versus Injunctive norms-related
6.93 <1.001

reasoning

 

68

Figure 1. Comparisons of Reasoning Typesfor Purchasing Green Products in Korea and

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

in US.
7.00
6.00 5.54I’
5.00 ”6“ 4.63.
4.20.. 4.25:: 4.21. 4.36%—
4.00 E
3.121.
3.00 3
2.00
1.00 --W W WW’ -—
attitude-related subjective descriptive injunctive
nasoning norms-related nornls-rela ted norms-related
reasoning reasoning reasoning
I Korea I] [IS

 

Means with different subscripts differ at p < .05.

69

 

Figure 2. Comparisons of Reasoning T ypefor Downloading Unauthorized Media Files

Online in Korea and in US.

 

7.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

 

5.0“»

 

4.2.“: 4.10“

3.888 3.788

3.50:!

2.991)

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

attitude-related subjective descriptive injunctive
reasoning norms-related norms-related nouns-related
reasgnnaoil'iga E] US reasoning reasoning

 

Means with different subscripts differ at p < .05.

70

 

Figure 3. Comparisons of Reasoning Typesfor Truth-Telling in Korea and in US.

 

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

 

 

4.43b

 

3.88a 3.88 a 3-92& 3.89a 3.31;.

 

 

 

   

 

 

4.4lb

4.03a

 

 

 

 

attitude-related subjective descriptive
reasoning norms-related nouns-related
reasoning reasoning

' Korea 0 US

Means with different subscripts differ at p < .05.

7|

 

injunctive
norms-related
reasoning

 

Figure 4. Comparisons of Reasoning Typesfor Lying/or a Friend in Korea and in US.

 

7 .00

6.00

5.00

4 .00

3.00

2.00

l .00

 

Means with different subscripts differ at p < .05.

 

L—__. __._.__._________._._ —

3.83::

3.04')

 

i
|
i

attitude-melt. led subjective
reasoning nornns-rela ted
reasoning

4 .093:

 

I ICoren C71 US

3.10!)

 

 

 

4.28.. 43““

 

4.I28

8.45b

 

 

 

 

descriptive

nouns-related

reasoning

 

72

 

inj-Ind ive
aortas-related
manning

 

 

APPENDICES

73

Appendix]
Participants will respond using the following scale:
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

Behavioral intention on purchasing green products

I. I intend to purchase green products even though they are expensive.

2. I plan to buy green products although they are expensive.

3. I will try to purchase green products although the price is high.

4. I will purchase green products even though they are costly.

5. l have it in my mind to buy green products even though the price is high.

Attiturde towgd pprchasing greejn products

Even though they are expensive, purchasing green products is

 

. Bad- Good

. Unpleasant-Pleasant

. lnconsiderate-Considerate
. Unfavorable-Favorable

. Negative-Positive

. Pointless- Worthwhile

. Unenjoyable-Enjoyable

. Unsatisfying -Satisfying

. Useless- Useful

OOOVQMAWN—

Subjective norms

I. Most people who are important to me think that I should purchase green products even though

they are expensive.

2. Most people whose opinion I value consider that I should buy green products although they are
expensive.

3. It is expected of me that I purchase green products even though they are expensive.

4. Most people who are significant to me consider that I buy green products even though they are
costly.

Descriptive norms

1. Many people have purchased green products even when they are expensive.

2. Many people buy green products even when they are costly.

3. Although green products can be pricey, they are popularly sold.

4. Buying green products even when the price is high is a common behavior that many people do.

lniunctive norms

1 Many people would approve of my purchasing green products even though they are costly.

2. Many people would endorse my buying green products even though they are expensive.

3. Many people would support that he purchases green products even though they are expensive.
4. Buying green products even though the price is high is a socially approved behavior.

Attitude-related reasons

74

When I have to explain why I will purchase green products despite the fact that they are
costly, I intend to say to other people “Even though they are expensive. purchasing green products
is ,9

. Bad- Good

. Unpleasant-Pleasant

. lnconsiderate-Considerate
. Unfavorable-Favorable

. Negative-Positive

. Pointless- Worthwhile

. Unenjoyable-Enjoyable

. Unsatisfying -Satisfying

. Useless- Useful

\OOONONUl-b-WN—

Subjective firm relfiated reasons

When I have to explain why I will purchase green products despite the fact that they are
costly. I intend to say to other people “Even though they are expensive, purchasing green products
is ”

1. Most peOple who are important to me think that I should purchase green products even though

they are expensive.

2. Most people whose opinion I value consider that I should buy green products although they are
expensive.

3. It is expected of me that I purchase green products even though they are expensive.

4. Most people who are significant to me consider that I buy green products even though they are
costly.

Descriptive norm related reasons

When I have to explain why I will purchase green products despite the fact that they are
costly. I intend to s_a_y to other people “Even though they are expensive, purchasing green products
is ”

1. Many people have purchased green products even when they are expensive.

2. Many people buy green products even when they are costly.

3. Although green products can be pricey. they are popularly sold.

4. Buying green products even when the price is high is a common behavior that many people do.

Injunctive norm related reasons

When I have to explain why I have illegally downloaded copyright protected media files
via the Internet, I intend to say to other people that

1 Many people would approve of my purchasing green products even though they are costly.

2. Many people would endorse my buying green products even though they are expensive.

3. Many people would support that he purchases green products even though they are expensive.
4. Buying green products even though the price is high is a socially approved behavior.

Demographic information
I. Age
2. Gender Male Female

75

3. Your Ethnicity (check one):

__ Caucasian __ Hispanic

__ African American __ Pacific Islander

__ Native American _____ Mixed (please specify)
__ Asian American _ Other (please specify)

 

 

76

Appendix2
Participants will respond using the following scale:
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

Behavioral intention on dowploading unauthorized piediarfiles via the Intern—et

l. I intend to download unauthorized copyright-protected media files via the Internet.

2. I plan to do download unauthorized copyright-protected music or movie clips online.

3. I will try to illegally download copyright protected media files through the Internet.

4. I will purchase pirated music or movie products via the Internet.

5. I have it in my mind to download unauthorized copyright-protected media files via the Internet.

Attitpde toward downloading unauthorized medigfiles via the Ipternet

Downloading unauthorized copyright-protected media files via the Internet is

 

. Bad- Good

. Unpleasant-Pleasant

. Inconsiderate-Considerate
. Unfavorable-Favorable

. Negative-Positive

. Pointless- Worthwhile

. UnenjoyabIe-Enjoyable

. Unsatisfying -Satisfying

. Useless- Useful

OOONQMAWN—

flbjective porms

1. Most people who are important to me think that I should download unauthorized copyright-
protected media files via the Internet.

2. Most people whose opinion I value consider that I should download unauthorized copyright-
protected media files via the Internet.

3. It is expected of me that I purchase pirated music or movie products online.

4. Most people who are significant to me consider that I download unauthorized copyright-
protected media files online.

Descriptive norms

I. Many people have downloaded unauthorized copyright-protected media files online.

2. Many people have purchased pirated music or movie products via the Internet.

3. Copyright—protected movie or music clips are popularly downloaded online even without
authorization.

4. Downloading unauthorized copyright-protected media files via the Internet is a common
behavior that many people do.

Iniunctive norms

1. Many people would approve of my purchasing pirated music or movie products through online.
2. Many people would endorse my downloading unauthorized copyright-protected media files
online.

3. Many people would support that I download unauthorized copyright-protected media files via
the Internet.

77

4. Downloading unauthorized copyright-protected media files via the Internet is a socially
approved behavior.

Attitude-related reasoy_s

When I have to explain why I will download unauthorized copyright-protected media files
via the Internet, I intend to say to other people “Downloading unauthorized copyright-protected
media files via the Internet is ”

. Bad- Good

. Unpleasant-Pleasant

. Inconsiderate-Considerate
. Unfavorable—Favorable

. Negative-Positive

. Pointless- Worthwhile

. UnenjoyabIe—Enjoyable

. Unsatisfying -Satisfying

. Useless- Useful

\OOONO'JIAUJN—

.S_ubjective norm related reasorg

When I have to explain why I will download unauthorized copyright-protected media files
via the Internet, I intend to w to other people “Downloading unauthorized copyright-protected
media files via the Internet is

l. Most people who are important to me think that I should download unauthorized copyright-
protected media files via the Internet.

2. Most people whose opinion I value consider that I should download unauthorized copyright-
protected media files via the Internet.

3. It is expected of me that I purchase pirated music or movie products online.

4. Most people who are significant to me consider that I download unauthorized copyright-
protected media files online.

Descriptive norm related reasons

When I have to explain why I will download unauthorized copyright-protected media files
via the Internet. I intend to say to other people "Downloading unauthorized copyright—protected
media files via the Internet is "

I. Many people have downloaded unauthorized copyright-protected media files online.

2. Many people have purchased pirated music or movie products via the Internet.

3. Copyright-protected movie or music clips are popularly downloaded online even without
authorization.

4. Downloading unauthorized copyright-protected media files via the Internet is a common
behavior that many people do.

lniunctive norm related reasons

When I have to explain why I will download unauthorized copyright-protected media files
via the Internet, I intend to av to other people “Downloading unauthorized copyright-protected
media files via the Internet is ”

I. Many people would approve of my purchasing pirated music or movie products through online.

78

2. Many people would endorse my downloading unauthorized copyright—protected media files
online.

3. Many people would support that I download unauthorized copyright-protected media files via
the Internet.

4. Downloading unauthorized copyright-protected media files via the Internet is a socially
approved behavior.

Demographic informatiop

 

I. Age

2. Gender Male __ Female __

3. Your Ethnicity (check one):

__ Caucasian __ Hispanic

__ African American __ Pacific Islander

__ Native American __ Mixed (please specify)
__ Asian American _ Other (please specify)

 

79

Appendix3
Participants will respond using the following scale:
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

As you read the following story, please try to imagine as vividly as possible that the
following story is happening to you

 

 

You and your friend are currently working for a computer store on campus. Your friend is
always IO to 20 minutes late. One day, a manager warned your friend to be on time.
Otherwise, he would be fired. A day later, your friend did not show up to work. He sent
you a text message, indicating that he is at his house and will be IS minutes late. In
addition, he asks you to cover for him. The manager comes up to you and asks where your
friend is and whether he came to work on time.

 

Beliavioral iptention on lying for friepd in the situation

I. I intend to lie for my friend in this situation.

2. I plan to lie for my friend in this situation.

3. I will try to tell the truth in this situation. (Recoded)

4. I will lie for my friend in this situation.

5. I have an intention to tell the truth in this situation. (Recoded)
6. I have it in my mind to tell the truth in this situation. (Recoded)

Amde towyd Iyipg for a friend in the situation

Lying for my friend in this situation is

 

. Bad- Good

. Unpleasant-Pleasant

. Inconsiderate-Considerate
. Unfavorable-Favorable

. Negative-Positive

. Pointless- Worthwhile

. UnenjoyabIe-Enjoyable

. Unsatisfying -Satisfying

. Useless- Useful

\OOONONUIAUJN—

Subjective norms

I. Most people who are important to me think that I should lie for my friend in this situation.

2. Most people whose opinion I value consider that I should lie for my friend in this situation.

3. It is expected of me that I lie for my friend in this situation.

4. Most people who are significant to me consider that I should lie for my friend in this situation.

Descriptive norms

1. Many people have lied for their friend in this situation.

2. Many people had deceived others to help their friend in this situation.

3. Many people would be deceitful in this situation.

4. Lying for a friend in this situation is a common behavior that many people do.

80

 

Injunctive norms

1. Many people would approve of my lying for my friend in this situation.
2. Many people would endorse my lying for my friend in this situation.

3. Many people would support that my lying for my friend in this situation.
4. Lying for a friend in this situation is a socially approved behavior. *

Attitpde-reLated reasons

When I have to explain why I will lie for my friend in this situation, I intend to gy to
other co-workers “Lying for my friend in this situation is "

. Bad- Good

. Unpleasant-Pleasant

. Inconsiderate-Considerate
. Unfavorable-Favorable

. Negative-Positive

. Pointless- Worthwhile

. Unenjoyable-Enjoyable

. Unsatisfying -Satisfying

. Useless- Useful

KOOO\IO\&II-£>UJN—-

Subjective norm related reasons

When I have to explain why I will lie for my friend in this situation. I intend to fly to
other co-workers “Lying for my friend in this situation is ‘

I. Most people who are important to me think that I should lie for my friend in this situation.

2. Most people whose opinion I value consider that I should lie for my friend in this situation.

3. It is expected of me that I lie for my friend in this situation.

4. Most people who are significant to me consider that I should lie for my friend in this situation.

Descriptive norm related reasons

When I have to explain why I will lie for my friend in this situation, I intend to s_a_y to
other co-workers “Lying for my friend in this situation is ”

I. Many people have lied for their friend in this situation.

2. Many people had deceived others to help their friend in this situation.

3. Many people would be deceitful in this situation.

4. Lying for a friend in this situation is a common behavior that many people do.

Injunctive norm related reasorg

When I have to explain why I will lie for my friend in this situation. I intend to s_ay to
other co-workers “Lying for my friend in this situation is ”

I. Many people would approve of my lying for my friend in this situation.
2. Many people would endorse my lying for my friend in this situation.

3. Many people would support that my lying for my friend in this situation.
4. Lying for a friend in this situation is a socially approved behavior.*

Note. * Item was deleted when we compute the construct in order to improve reliability.

8]

Demographic informtifl

 

 

I. Age

2. Gender Male __ Female __

3. Your Ethnicity (check one):

__ Caucasian __ Hispanic

__ African American __ Pacific Islander

_ Native American __ Mixed (please specify)
_ Asian American _ Other (please specify)

 

Note. * Item was deleted when we compute the construct in order to improve reliability.

82

Appendix4
Participants will respond using the following scale:
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

As you read the following story, please try to imagine as vividly as possible that the
following story is happening to you

 

 

You and your friend are currently working for a computer store on campus. Your friend is
always IO to 20 minutes late. One day, a manager warned your friend to be on time.
Otherwise, he would be fired. A day later, your friend did not show up to work. He sent
you a text message, indicating that he is at his house and will be l5 minutes late. In
addition, he asks you to cover for him. The manager comes up to you and asks where your
friend is and whether he came to work on time.

 

Behavioral intention on telling a truth in the situation

I. I will try to tell the truth in this situation.

2. I have it in my mind to tell the truth in this situation.

3. I intend to lie for my friend in this situation. (Recorded)
4. I will lie for my friend in this situation. (Recorded)*

5. l have an intention to tell the truth in this situation.*

6. I plan to lie for my friend in this situation. (Recorded)

Attitude toward tellipg a truth in the situation

Telling the truth in this situation is

 

. Bad- Good

. Unpleasant-Pleasant

. Inconsiderate-Considerate
. Unfavorable-Favorable

. Negative-Positive

. Pointless- Worthwhile

. UnenjoyabIe-Enjoyable

. Unsatisfying Satisfying

. Useless- Useful

\OOOQONLII-DDJN—

Subjective norms

I. Most people who are important to me think that I should tell the truth in this situation.

2. Most people whose opinion I value consider that I should tell the truth in this situation.

3. It is expected of me that I tell the truth in this situation.

4. Most people who are significant to me consider that I should tell the truth in this situation.

Descriptive porms

1. Many people have told the truth in this situation.

2. Many people had spoken the truth in this situation.

3. Many people would be completely truthful in this situation.

4. Telling the truth in this situation is a common behavior that many people do.

Note. * Items were deleted when we compute the construct in order to improve reliability.

83

 

Injunctive norms

1. Many people would approve of my telling the truth in this situation.
2. Many people would endorse my telling the truth in this situation.

3. Many people would support that I tell the truth in this situation.

4. Telling the truth in this situation is a socially approved behavior.*

Attitude-related [‘83ng

When I have to explain why I will tell the truth in this situation, I intend to say to other co-
workers “Telling the truth in this situation is "
. Bad- Good
. Unpleasant-Pleasant
. Inconsiderate-Considerate
. Unfavorable-Favorable
. Negative-Positive
. Pointless- Worthwhile
. Unenjoyable—Enjoyable
. Unsatisfying -Satisfying
. Useless- Useful

\OOONQUIQ-WN—

Subjective norm related reasons

When I have to explain why I will tell the truth in this situation. I intend to say to other co-
workers “Telling the truth in this situation is ”
I. Most people who are important to me think that I should tell the truth in this situation.
2. Most people whose opinion I value consider that I should tell the truth in this situation.
3. It is expected of me that I tell the truth in this situation.
4. Most people who are significant to me consider that I should tell the truth in this situation.

Descriptive norm related reasons

When I have to explain why I will tell the truth in this situation. I intend to say to other co-
workers “Telling the truth in this situation is ”
I. Many people have told the truth in this situation.
2. Many people had spoken the truth in this situation.
3. Many people would be completely truthful in this situation.
4. Telling the truth in this situation is a common behavior that many people do.

 

Injunctive norm related reasons

When I have to explain why I will tell the truth in this situation. I intend to say to other co-
workers “Telling the truth in this situation is ”

 

I I. Many people would approve of my telling the truth in this situation.
2. Many people would endorse my telling the truth in this situation.

3. Many people would support that I tell the truth in this situation.

4. Telling the truth in this situation is a socially approved behavior.*

Note. * Items were deleted when we compute the construct in order to improve reliability.

84

Demographic information

 

 

 

 

1. Age

2. Gender Male Female _

3. Your Ethnicity (check one):

_ Caucasian _ Hispanic

__ African American __ Pacific Islander

__ Native American _ Mixed (please specify)
_ Asian American __ Other (please specify)

 

Note. * Items were deleted when we compute the construct in order to improve reliability.

85

ETIEA

XIEE‘JOI EiElE DICIOI Higgi-

‘lU
FD
IO
HU
f9
[D
g
IUIO
OH“
3;
Q
HO
HIJ
IF]

1-

III

2.4. [UK
I: HI]
0 [[0
0'0 llO
3i?
UIO
E
E
l0
Olfl
l_9
09.!
fl
2

[ID \J
00.“ 02+.
M

H7

ll

:23:

-IO

OHI

l9

OII

Em
ma
mm

a
m
m
m
a

f.
llf
I9
[D

f—

1”; §5HAI II’SIEJOI EEEl-‘E UlClOl Egg ETD—92% CIEEEE’

J?!“
or

52
Q

”0'

F
0
Mr E Hr

EIEOII/H IIEIEJOI EEEl-E EZIOILI gil 33% 992$ ClE—EEE’

E

L:

§5HAI IIEi‘JOI EEEIE [3|

1:
_2>

Ilf llf
f9

mmwm
Efi
remmmfluo
m
g
a

I:

>

awegwxw
9.4
L]
r2 "’9” r9

m0
mlo
\J
E
E]

2
H7

5Hkl IIEEJOI BEBE DICIOll—ngg $EL.§ Cl i

mm
a
m
m
m
m
9i
m

HQ

LIED-EU
3| Ell E’s’Cl-Dl Elli
% éfilfll-M 81 %2 El

mEAEXIaoaaEAao

ear—a 21 o—e 22+ o—
gaaomeggamu
flmatkmflfltl
§D|ELIEIII ego—g

aaam13cvaa

"ELI 8i Cl
CI

LOCDVO'DUT-DQON‘

an

rlH
IE
IE
f9
:iJ
DEE

 

I. LIOIIDII §9§l CHE-35194 Algtgg LHDI PJElBi'ié- §6HM XIEEJOI EEEl—E
DlClOl fll%% 992% ClE—EE ‘é’OlOl QUE gl‘éflll.

2. LHDI EEEIE 945% DIE [H3153 AIEIEE- LHDI PJEILJJE géH/H XI’EIEJOI
EEEIE DICIOI Egg“ EP—EIEE CIEEE t£OIOI éllllfl éfil’éllll.

3. LHDI EBIQJQJOII/d EHEEI EQIOILI gil HIE—lgg ME 31% LOIIJ-ll

‘7'"

DICHEIOIIIE ‘éOIC.
l

4. LHDI EAIOU E Algggl CH'wZJ-‘E-E— LHDl EEIQ’C‘JOIIM LID—32$ DICIOI 1‘1ng;
ClE—EE EECII’. gl‘élfll

86

DICIOIEICéI—E> EEIQE

L.—

L.—

—EI

E

IEéJOIIAI XI’EIEIOI E

a. E

ELI.

OILI gil XIIEEE $1le

0a
05

E
E
W
H
mm
as
0::
E

E
9

o:

as

AEA

o:

E

:5
ma
2:

I1"

L
an
we

E
Q
E
E

a
a

mwwM

ICE

3.

I

U.

DICIOI

L—

;

"El

E

HM IIE‘EIOI E

5

2%
20

A

E til

I

P_

4.

H
_o

E
am

0_
E,
m:

E
as

o:
m.“

 

E
mm

0::

DIEIOIHI‘EE EEIQE
DICIOI THEE EEISBE

L;.
I.—
h.

— El
EIE

E

E

EHAI XIEEJOI E
E EEHAI XI’SIEOI E

A

E til

0
E

I

ELIE EE XIII? EOICI.

o:
E

E

u:

E
o:

DIEIOI THEE EEIQE C

EEIE

'HA-I II ZSIEH OI E

5

EIU'E E

J—E”§§OICI.

I

H

DICIOI

L—

.L_—._

El

E

HM XI 751*“E’JOI E
C

o
*OICI

2E
14;:
_,

I

C
l—
O

'H
lag 3?—
CI

Ill-AI BI 22 CI

OIIZI
ISIAEI-DIiI‘RACI

7:

23
II ‘Ba-ICI-DI ECI

CI-

4

A
a

H

UU

XI
DICIOI

LHDI 9H PJEIEiI-E- E
LI

 

I .

nlrl.

C

am

9 G
we a
5.2 mfi
Di ow
m.“ MD
.TM ow
mm N
9 am
I m_.

_J
52 ow

2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

O

mom mag $92: EIEEE
Sizer—.1

EIEE

.L_—
_

El
CH
2E
87

I

B

I

L—

E

8
C.

I,OI_C_>_ C1
are “r—

“LIOIIJII ER
11

ESHAI XI’EIEJOI E
DICIOI

L.

l_.

’EI

CIE—AIPEIEOIIJII
2

g

t—

LI
II’SI-ZJOI E

 

$2 Z“I’ééOIIZI.

I.

 

2. LIE LIE/K EEOIIJII 'LHDI EEEIE -IEE DIE CHE—E 9| AIEEE LHDI
QJEIBi'E E 5H/d IIEIEJOI EEEIE DICIOI HIO 'E EEIEE CIEEE tI’:IOIOI ELIE
EEIELI." EIII. EE J—‘I"é§.OlCI.

3. LIE CIEAIEEOIIJII “LHDI EEI‘BJQOII/H SHERRI EQIOILI EEI IIIXIEE AIE
BdE LIOIIJII DICHEIOIXIE EOILI " ELI—I. 93E JSIESIOICI.

4. LIE CIE AIEIEOIIJII ‘LHDI EAIOCIDIE AIEEBI LHEEE LHDI EEIE’C‘DIOIIAI
EEIEE DILIOI HIEE IEEE tEELID. XQIIQIELI BID. DEE JSIEOILI

 

LHDI 9H @EIBIJE EoH/H XIXI IEJOI EEEIE DILIOI HIEE 5?— EIEE LIEEE
EEXI EESHOI E [1H,

I. LIE LIE/\IEEOIDII "ELIE AIaI
DICIOIEIEE EEIEE LIE I
2. LIE CIEAIEEOIIJII "E’s!
IIIX-IEE EDHELI. " EEI Egg X-IEOILI.
3. LIE EA AIEEOIIDII ‘IIXIEJ I flan:
OIUI EEIEEE D—IOI LIEEEEIE $3,111." BID. E-aIEI XIEOI

 

OZ
' E
E.
2:4.
fl

. . Ii}.
.9.
III
IOII
E
III

 

4. LIE LIE AIEIEOIIJII OIEIl'E ESHH XIXIE’JOI EEEIE DILIOI EIEE
EEIEE LIE-EEO IE 33E E’.:IE AIEEOI ELAEE BIE EEOILI' BID EE

 

X-IEOICI.

EE’EIPJ HEQJ Ola?—

 

LHDI 9H OEIEILJIE EEH/d XI’EIEJOI EEEIE EIILIOI HIEE EEIEE CIEEE
t(IzIEXI EE6HOI E IDI.

 

 

 

 

I. LIE UgEO/KIEEOIDII El—SIE AIEEE LHDI EBIQJE ESHAI SHEEI EQIOILI
EEI XIV-‘1 EEDHOIE 31E EIEE EOICI.’ BID. EE EIEOICI

2. LIE DEE/HE EOIIJII "EL—IE AIEEE LHDI EBIQJE ESH/d IIXIEJOI EEEIE
EIILIOIILIEE EEIEE CIEEE EE ERIE EOICI." BID. EE JfiI’c‘JOILI.

3. LIE CIEAIEIEOIDII E’sIE AIEEE LHDI QJEIIi'E ESHM XIX IaOI EE’JEIE
DICIOI HIEE EEIEE LIES—IE EE IIIIE EOICI." all). EI'I JEI’ééOICI

4. LIE CIEAIEIEOIIHI 'EflElbi'E EGHAI XIXIEJOI EEEIE UICIOI HIEE
EEIEE CIEEE ‘E—JE EE AIEIEEE EQJOI EIE EEOILI" all 9%! I JSIEOIIZI
Ell—TIEJIIEE EE

GI 93% (Pl) __ All

G2 13%: LIA-I __ 04g

88

‘111
11111
CD

@5323 HIE EUH

EE- EE’Xf—E—E— 7 E EE (1) = 0H9?- E2|51II EE (5) 0H5"? E9183 SHO“
I1d91 0 EE- ESE

EEBI 9.1%}

1. L1:- 311‘01 HUME EEEMIE EEUH‘E EEOICL

2. ME 31201 HUME E1 ERIE-E- ’E 311E011}.

3. L15 313401 EO1E ZE'EEMIE EOEUHEBM—l E 310111.

4. 1.1-:- HIEOI EC1E1E EEEMIE EEUHE 1101111.

5. L15 312101 EO1E "'EEMIEE E *o”?—.*O| 91121.

SE

313101 HINE EEEXHEE EUH81E 33E”-

 

1. USES-E111

2. DIEII EEG-3199C}

3. EEE1C1-Al 1%2'111

4. EEC-£21K! $C1-E1Efi‘EC1

5. E35 8* afl-EEEU

6. EE’EOIU-EEEOIU

7 9.10181121-DRIS’AC1

8. EDIEBRI 9§C1-EE‘951C1

9. EQJEMI 3111-7291510

35—43519 RE

1 1.10113“ E52121 CHE—EB! NEE-E LH31 319101 H|M1C1€1EE§JE§MIEE EUHB‘HOt
5.31112 81345313

2 LH31 EEC—3'15 915E 31E CHE—E94 NEE—E— LHD1 HUME EEE MIEE 101
EU]. AOHD—fEU.

3 HUME EEEMIEE LHD1A1E 31E— L101|31| DICHEIWIIE O'OIC1.

4. LH31 EMOUIE MEEPJ [HES—E LH31 HUME EEEMIEE— A101 @5131
E21530

3133319 RE

1. B—JE MEEE HUME EEEMIEE EUHECL

2. El—JE NEE-E HIEOI EC1E1E E'EEMIEE £111.

3. NEOI HUME EEEMIEEE 9:!01 EEG.

4. 31210| EO1E EEEMIEE 1E EE Psi-E— NEE-OI ELEEE 51E EEOIU

89

09
012
J?!
12
1L1
DEE

 

1. 9.1: 11%;:- 11131 31201 :01: 'l‘1EX1IEE ME a; 1:12:21 210m.
2. 131: 11:15::- LHD1H|M1E$JEEMIEE ME 21—;— Egg £019,

3 131: MEE—E 1.1131 111111: 1.112111%; 21111151: 31:3- x1x161 $0151

4. 912101 :01; SEEMIEE ME 31E 11122-1222; $9521:- EEOIU

EHEE‘E 01%

 

HIEOI EOHE E31013). 911 LH31 E'EEMIEE’E ‘ E91310“ EH
L1E UEMEEOHJH "ME MIEOI HIM1C1€1E EEEMIEE
” 813’. E E 51253101111.

 

 

1. MEG-E111

2. DIEII (EU-DIES

3. EE51E1-AIE1EC1

4. EELEEXI EU-EEEEU
5. EE 9.1 EU-EEEU

6. EEEOlU-EEEOIU

7 QUIEU-DH’EIQAU

8. EDIEERI EC1-EEE181E1
9. EESRI 93111-994811]
3153175181 771121.91 01%

HIEOl EOHE EEE1D 52H LHD1’SEEMIEE E 31.931011 HHS:1 EEE 6HO1E [[H.

L15- GEMEEOHNI 1.1011311 E1953

E94 M‘EEE LH31 31EO| HUMHE1E
311% 1EX1|EE EUHOHO151C1D E *-

1.11.
191
El

 

 

 

2 L1: HEMP-£01131 11131 E 3151 mag-:91 MEEE 1.1131 1111115
agamgg A101 9:11:13). c121é1c1. a1 :1'1512210151.

3. L1:- C1cA1EE‘011311‘EHUM 831EX1IEE 1191;11:212L1o1131191t1151o111:
@0151." 31:1. gig 2112210111.

4 L-:—1 :A wagon)“ 11191 E110191: 11:1:21 112:: 11131 111111;
32:1m11g1o1 1:11:12 111218.151." 2.12 :1; 311510151.

Ea 1211.391 0111

111§01 gong E?811 5211 11131 "EEMIEE 2111131011 [112:1 1:19;: 51101211111,

1. L1E UEMEEOHJH "EEE MEEE HUME JSEEMIEE EUHEU." €1.71 DEE
5122101121.

2. L1E UEMEEOHJH E’s’E MEEE HlEOl EC1E1E "EEMIEE £1111" E11
EE EEOIU.

3. L15- UEMEEOHJH 31EO| HUME jSEEMIEEE 95101 EEG" 31?. EE
511E011}.

 

 

 

9O

 

 

4 L1: L1EA1EE011311 912101 EO1E EEEMIEE 11: 31E 91E A1EE01
ELEQE 51-:— EEOIH 31:1 EE EEOIG.

EEEE 2112121 0111

111E101 EOHE E21512 211 11131 '1E1E111EE E E91310“ 012:1 EEE 01101E1011

1. L1E EA1E’E011311 EE— A1E‘EE LHD1 31EOI E0112 EEEMIEE ME EE-
EEE E01121. 312 EE E 1

2. L1E GEME‘EOIIHI EE 1E1EE LH91 HUME EEEMIEE ME EE EEE
E01111." 31—1 E_E 3517301
3. ME GENE E0113“ EE NEE—E LHD1 HUME EEEMIEE :rIDH81E EE
X1IIE E011}. " B12 EE Zc-Pc‘s‘OlD.

4. 1.1-E C1E—A1E‘E01131131E01 EO1E E1 1EM|EE ME EE MEIEQE
EEEIE EEOIC1EIQ1 EE EEOID.

 

EEEMEE EE—
G1 SE (9.1) _ MI
02 EE 1:121; 011/11

91

am am

a
Ao

Ir

Ac

._0
H
.A

Mo

a8
:0

0“?“ $0“)

é
Co

l.

91 OIODIDF

[3%

 

"410“?“ ’éi/KIO“

UH Ll X1 3} Ed 01! 3“ 2M4

II EELIC}.

}

L'J

ME.
“+81

E‘fiié—LIC}.
o

”ELIE.

'6

a

E

: EX}
.EMOH 5%!

DE 850“?“ :13}

318%}. g2

%
LIE}.
8H g3}

 

 

EQUEO

 

9| Oil

I-

__0D
0 ,

E0
2.

U

05

mg

am
fl
:5

E (1) = GHQ

73-!
_,

77%

o:

:2: 0::
H E
am Q

05

a:
HE

E

B

FU-AIBHI'C}
3 0| Cl'_g§ EOI C}

”EL—J-
A:
$0

L'LlLl-Irlllllr

g
[JON 31!

L}
2. DlflXl (Baffl-DIEC}

 

3.
1.

1.

.2

ma

*diléj-Cé EOIDI $I6H dilE Jill/bi)“. 532'“; M

Note:

92

E

a:

81E fig L101|31|3|CHE|O1XIE $0111.

4. LH71 EAIOUI

|r

E
§
%
a
2

IE

H.
W
go
Mo
0:
2:
m

o: o: o:
Ea Ea Ea

ma
M
0:
ma

1

151.

L—

5

Oil/cl 51a";- OIOFDI
128 ”SEMI/H 91E JCHEQJ Mag Da‘SJCL

O

H
__o

E
am

2
E
and

Ea
as
0:
ma

0:

a

$12

801

a
a

1

A

 

aa

OE

ao

Ea Ea
NA )1

E
Ho.

A12 01-
aaa 2
A19.
a

OI é‘JEWHM LH31

XIXISa EDIE}.

a

X
I—

O1| kl

1r

*

Ir

.L

m
as
._Hoo
E
9
ma
go
a:
o_
5
._|oE

Ir

IA

0:
mi
E
am
ma
0a
a
a

 

:12:

E

LH31 52H 01

OIU.

 

0:
mi

5
fl

0a

a
g

5
M

LI

:5
Ac

Eat-[Z1
2. DIEII EEG-DIED
o1

EDIE-3533401111

oHJ-Al 81 21' C1
8111101119151

_C1-

3 no N N
:2 E, 3 Ea on

4.5.6.7.8.9.

UU

u
aa

 

3.

1 .

a...

W
%
g

.2
ma

2

LHD1 9H OI

101W

LHD1 0| *

ELLE
(DE

1

A

El

OICL

rm;

8
L...

B
93

x
5

“ L10“ 31!

1C1."

'5
I—

011311
Dfil-

I:

EDI]! $|5H dilE 3115M.

C13. ’34

I.

l—

5

$2

"HOII

5

L1E GE— Eiggfi
O
alga DaF
*dag

Note:

1.

 

2. LIE GE’— E’é’EEEOHJH “LHD1 EEEE 915-:- DHSJ $519.1 Mggg LH31
OI Qé’Oil/x-l agg— Da’EHOII 811112 @42153111. 313. gig ZSPéiOIl—J.

3. UE DE al’é‘gEE-OHHI "LH31 782% Da’EIE 338— 1,1011)“ DICHElO-1XIE
$0151 ' 312 g; J3’30“}

4 LIE GE EEEEEOHDH "LH31 ENG-DIE Mes-E91 CHE—E? LH31 OI
QEWHH Egg géHOF 5102 2'4345JE1 813 9:32 75153011}.

DIEEE Hggl 0'791‘

LHDI 9H OI QEJOHH a/g‘a E?=_*3*I| £93101? IIH.

1. u-ts G—E— aggaaom “Ea-:8 WEE-8 0| ggmw Egg Gaga." am
01-. 351330151. I
2. ME 51% EQ§§EWHI “egg MLE‘E—E—Z— mag gamma 29g;

Olomém." am 323 wow.

3. 1.1-:— DE aggfigmlm “egg mega OPE‘E gamma ea:- 20129
Avg; gar-3:1" am 9:32 £53010.

4. us a; fl’géfigéflfll “0121 28 gamma was; gas as- Egg
M‘E’EOI 2551519.; 51: @gom." an 21% 22030151.

 

ggag 3:391 01%

 

LHD1SBH OI QEJOHM agg— Dagll ggwm ‘2 EH.

 

 

 

 

 

1. LIE [11% aggagmml “£8 M‘E‘EE OPE-LC:D QEWHM LHDI E’a‘g 05-51:
31% (3’32 fiOICI. 312 ”a”? J—5.”<E§O|1L1.

2. LIE [CI-ca: El’é‘EEEOHHI "93-3 MQEE OI (SEW/x1 LH31 512% %’51E fig
38'; EOICM 3131 Bag E5310”).

3. E 0% EQEEEOHHI "938 M‘E‘EE LHD1 OI ’c‘JgOH/H filial-“é- 92181:— fig
IIIIE EOICI." 812 gig J—‘1”é§0|[:1.

4. ME 0% EQEEEWHI "OIEZ1 9518 QQOHH Egg gar—:— fig AWN—(122
EQEIE @EOIU." 813 £2.42 EEOICIJ

E—T’EJJII’EE’J @5-

G1 84% (DJ) __ HI

G2 ”Sta” ”*1 __ O1M _

Note *dil’c‘ég EOIDI QISH C'EIE 3115M. 53?}; 51111"

94

III
JHIJ
O

131

OII

EQE $|8H 317223

«-

CI-g-QJ OIOIDIDI ngIDII “£011.12 9.1113 DIE'ESJ ggéflil ggBI‘E/H 2101
$4; IE.

 

 

.15,—J
£1

|009£0

@EEI’SOIIM 0a! 51.71 52,131,111}. EDI/dill
I. OI‘-E*, UHLlXDI 23159-1 51-7101l3117éjkl01l

I]

II

III

E

g!

1—1 EJ

3
[\l)
O r
HE
H11
{[1}
C

FIG [IF

 

ELI d
a: 13;

2m EI SIDE DIED. Elia-gum. LIE EI, EIEIEI EQE EaIaI
LIEILIXI g‘fii—é—LICI. :IE EI IOIIDII JDI E0132 ISE’éiE EEJIEIII. :1
$81 XHLIE EH/dOH cEIaIE E IE ELIELILI DHLIXIDI EL IOIIJII $1M
EILIBI "$310100“ 52.12, EAIOIIO E0 8181 EIEX XI EELILI.

EE EEIXIEE 7 73 EE (1) = OH? E38110 EIE (5) OIIse— EQIEI $|01|
mm 0 EE- EEIEI.

EIEsDI 91%;

1. LIE OI EEIOIIAI LII EQE $|8H3175JE1§ E EEOIEI.

2. LIE OI EEOIIAI LH ‘WE— TIOH DIZ‘L'E‘E E IEIOILI.

3. LIE OI EEIOII/d BEE E61812 E22 aOILIII

4. LIE OI EEOIIAI LH 23 E'- $|OH 91754052 31011}.

5. LIE OI EEOIIAI {WEE EaIaIE OIEE BJEEI. #

6. LIE OI EEOIIAI aEE EéIaIE SIEIE Est—CHI

EHE

OI EIEIOII/‘d LH El?-§— 9m JIaiIEE sIE 31—8

1. LIED-‘21:}

2. DIPEII E’gCI-Dlfifl

3. EEaI LI— NEH-£51

4. [Ami-£21K! “CI-Piéfiaéfl

5. EDI; 9! BJEI-EDEIECI

6. EF—EEIOICI-Q’SEOICI

7. QOIaLI—JIiIaIICI

8. EpIeIaIx a; I—EEIOIc-‘IILI

9. 722m ech—ECA-SILI

 

. LION?“ EB? CHE—E91 AI‘E’EE LHDI OI EQOHM L191 73?; $|5HM DIZ‘JC’EIE
_ A

95

 

2. LHDI EESIE 945% DIE EH—E—EPJ AIE‘EE LHDI OI QEIOIIH LH E39; $15H
DI’EL'EEIE 8HOI EICIE *o”;*§_IEI.

3. LHDI OI QEIOIIAI LH 73;“:- $|8H 315105—23 SIE i8 LIOIIJII DIEHEIOIXIE
ca'OICI.

4. LHDI EAIOIIDIE AIPEIEE’J $515-$2— LHDI OI éJEIOII/H LH EQE $15H DI§JC£§
OHOI OICIII. "ouIéICI

 

 

 

1. 9.98 AI‘E‘EE— 013a? ”EIEIOIl/H 21-391 73?; $|5H DIE‘PEISJCI.

2. “BE-8 MEI-E3 013a? ”EIEIOII/x-I 3%9—1 "-71% SFISH MEE- SBHESH/H DEIEIEI

3. ELIE- AIE‘EE— OPE—E— ’E‘JEIOIIA‘I 32-3 73—71% S13-16H EIE 2‘31}.

4. Ol’a’g ézIéIOII/d EQJQI 3:15 SRIOH 3139055- SIE .31—8 938 AIE‘EOI
EZEQE SIE @EOICI.

geéEQJ RE?

1. Psi—S AI‘E‘E—E— OI QEIOIIH LIEI EQE $18H LHDI DIZ‘J‘PEISIE fig “’82

1101 I.

2. PEI—E- AI‘EIEE— OI EI-EIOIIAI LH EITHE- $I6H LHDI DIQC’EIBIE 5% ERIE—5* BiOIEI.
3. 93‘3— AIEE’EE LHDI OI ”EIEIOIIM LH 51?; $I8H DIZ‘JCEIE'SIE fig IIXIé‘SaF iOICI.
4. DIE Q’EIOIIM 8?; SRIOH 317.9% EIE 33% AIEEEE EEEIE EEOICI *
EHE’SiE’J OI?-

LHDI 9H OI EIEIOIIH LH E—Tlé $16H DI’EJ‘PE’EIXI QEEOHOI 2* [[H, LIE CIE
JSIESIEEEOIIJII “OI QEIOIIM EQS SIZISH DIZ‘JCa’E SIE £8 BID
‘a‘ 3E! j51’253'OICI

1. LIEU-ELI

2. DIEII (BEG-DIES

3. g-g-BICI-AIEHI'CI

4. EI-iC-EEII O‘CI-EIgi-EECI

5. 5?; OJ ZICI-EDEDJCI

6. $§§OICP3§§OICI

7. QJUISiCI-DIJ'EIS’AEI

8. EDIEISIII gCI-EQC’JSICI

9. IQIQIEIII gCI-g‘lléIEI

LHDI 9H OI EIEIOIIAI LH {El—71% $|6H DI§J%*§’II {EESHOI 3a II“.

I E52? CHE—E94 MEI—EE— LHDI OI EIEIOIIH
III. AOH%IEJCI.." ELI—l E‘Sa’ E’éfiOICI.

1. LIE LIE EI’C‘IEEEOIIJII "LIOIIDI
LI2I E—TIE -‘r’-|6'H}c| DIEE’E- 5HOI§IC

Note: *dil’ég EDI?! ‘(TD'IEH {‘JEIE )IICIAI. 56231-3 MXIIEL’D’.

 

 

 

 

2. LIE CI—E— EléI§§=OIIJII LHD I ?EESIE 915% DI);I CHE—E3 AIEIE—E LHDI
OI EIEIOIIAI LH EI—TI-a- °|OH DID/(LICEIE 5HOI 5.132 A“21I5JIZI.'BI_—J_ PEI? Z-‘I’C‘JOICI.
3. LIE CI—EAIQEOIIJII LHDI OI EIEZ-IOIIA‘I LH 831a TIOH DIZ‘LICEIE 8IE $5-
LIOIIJII DIEHEIOIXIE Oa'OICI." BIB CaI—I 35.I’E‘IOICI.

4. LIE LIE JSI’épIEE-C-OIDII " LHDI EAIOIDIE IF’EIEEI LH—IIZI—EE LHDI OI
EIEIOIIAI LH &?a SID—IOH DIZ‘JaIa OHOI CEILID AOHZIIQILI." BIB PaI5aI j51I’é3OIILI.
DIE—7519 79%91 01%?

LHDI 52H 01 EIEIOIIA‘I LH 9341-:— 9—15H DIi‘J‘DaIg’a'III §%5HOI 2 IIH.

1. LIE CI-E— JE’EEIEEEOIIJII "Pa-IE AIEIEE OIDEI—E— OIIEOIIAI 3a 91 EELS- $IOH
DIZ‘LICEIEEICI." BID. C.—l_»I_5_I J‘I’éIOICI.

2. LIE CI?- El’éIgfi— OIIJII "EH8 MEI-$3 OIDEIE oIEIOIIAI Ila "$23 $I‘OH
AI’a‘Sa" EOHA DaI5EILI" BID CaIZI JSIEOICI.

3. LIE CIE ”—‘I’CSIEEEOIIJII "SEIS- MEI—28 OIDEIE EIEIOIIAI EEO “IQ-E $|6H

EI—Z- $2.113" BID.” I§a_I J—‘1I’.§:IOICI.
4. LIE LIE J—‘I’c%I%§-=-OIIJII "OIDIE

A
E 0
i8 E28 AIéI—C-OI EWEEE oIE 2% ICI" BID OE”;

 

LHDI 52H 01 ”EIEIOIIAI LH {ERIE Sf—IBH DI§JDaIc5EIXI QQEHOI 2* EH.

 

 

 

 

1 LIE E- Egg 53E 0H3“ “BI-£8 MEI—EE- OI EIEIOIIA-I LIEI 5' a c’IOH LHDI
DI’ELIEEISIE fig Egg—SI BLIOILI." EIIl ESE JéI’chICI.

2 LIE LIE E’éIgEa- 0H3” ELIE— AIIéI-E-Eé OI EIEIOIIAI LH E? IOH LHDI
DIZ‘LIIPEISIE fig EEEIBSOICI."EI31 E; EIZ‘JOICI

3. LIE LIE- EIOIEE aOII3II "ELIE AIPEIIEE LHDI OI ’EI-EIOIIA-l LH 25.? IOH
DI’EJCEISIE i-‘aa IIX|5aI fiOICI." EID. PaI5aI ZSI’E‘JOICI.

4. LIE CIE Eggs? aOI|}II "OIEd eIéIOIlA-I ETH-a oIOH DIJEL'CaI BIE fig-
AI§J§12§ EQEIE 2%OICI"BII1 Ca”; IZ‘JOIEI

QQEJII’SIOJ QE-

G1 @334 (DJ) __ AII

G2 ’éita‘ EIéj 0:1M

Note wail/3% EOIDI 'T'IOH NEE JIIAIAI E50“; AIXH‘ELII

97

Bibilography

98

Ajzen, l., & Fishbein, M (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of
specific behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 41-57.

Ajzen, 1., & Fishbein, M. (I980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy ofthe theory of planned behavior: A
meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology. 40, 47 I -499

Baumeister, R. F ., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-
529.

Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking:
A meta-analytic integreation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 331-34]

Buss, A. H. (I980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: Freeman.

Bendor, J. & Swistak, P (2001). The evolution of norms. American Journal of Sociology,
106, 1493-1545.

Briley, D. A., Morris, M, W., & Simonson, l. (2000). Reasons as carriers of culture:
Dynamic versus dispositional models of cultural influence on decision making.
Journal of Consumer Research. 27, 157-178.

Cialdini, R. 8., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (I990). A focus theory of normative
conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-l026.

Cho, 8., Kwon, U., Gentry, J. W., Jun, 8., & Kropp, F. (1999). Cultural values reflected in
theme and execution: A comparative study of US and Korean television
commercials. Journal of Advertising, 28, 59-73.

Cooley, C. H. (I902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribners.

Doi, T (I986). The anatomy of conformity: The individual versus society. Tokyo:
Kodansha.

Gudykunst, W. 8., Yoon, Y., & Nishida, T. (I987). The influence of individualism-
collectivism on perceptions of communication in ingroup and outgroup
relationships. Communication Monographs. 54, 295-306

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantsi, N. L.D., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). A meta-analytic review
of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity:
Predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 24, 3-32

99

Hausenblas, H. A., Carron, A. V., & Mack, D. E. (I997). Application ofthe theories of
reasoned action and planned behavior to exercise behavior: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychologv, 19, 36-5 I.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture 's consequence. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.

Kim, U. (1994). Significance of paternalism and communalism in the occupational
welfare system of Korean firms: A national survey in U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C.
Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.).lndividualism and collectivism: Theory,
method and applications (pp. 250-261). Newbury Park, CA:Sage

Knapp, M., Ellis, D., & Williams, B. (I980). Perceptions of communication behavior
associated with relationship terms. Communication Monographs, 47. 262-278.

Leary, M. R., Gallagher, 8., Fors, E., Buttermore, N., Baldwin, E., Kennedy, K., & Aaron,
M. (2003). The invalidity of disclaimser about the effects of social feedback on
self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 623-636

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (I990). Impression management: A literature review and
two component model. Psychological Bulletin. 107, 34-47.

Lee. C., & Green, R. T. (I99l). Cross-cultural examination ofthe Fishbein behavioral

intrentions model. Journal of International Business Studies, second quarter, 289-
309.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (I99l). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Masuda T., & Nisbett, R. E. (200] ). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing
the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of personality and
Social Psychologv. 81, 922-934.

Miller. J. G. (I984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal
ofPersonality and social psychology, 46, 96 I -978.

Morris. M. W., & Peng. K. (I994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions

for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
949-97]

Neighbors, C., Dillard, A. J., Lewis, M. A., Bergstrom, R. L.. & Neil, T. A. (2006).
Normative isperceptions and temporal precedence of perceived norms and
drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 290-299.

Park, H. S., & Levine, T. R. (I 999). The theory of reasoned action and seIf-construal:
Evidence from three cultures. Communication Monographs, 66, I99-2 l 8.

Park, H. S., & Smith S. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms,
personal descriptive and injunctive norms and societal descriptive and injunctive
norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation.
Human Communication Research, 33, l94-2 I 8.

I00

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (I993). Pluralstic ignorance and alcohol use on campus:
Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of personality and
Social Psvchologv, 64, 243-256.

Real, K., & Rimal, R. N. (2007). Friends talk to friends about drinking: Exploring the role
of peer communication in the theory of normative social behavior. Health
C ommunication, 22, l69-I 80.

Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P (2003). Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory
of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Current Psychologv: Developmental.
Learning, Personality, Social, 22, 2I8-233.

Schlenker, B. R. (I980). Impression management.“ The self-com'ept. social identity. and
Interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Scott, M. B., & Layman, S. M. (I 968). Accounts. American Sociological review. 33, 46-
62.

Sheeran, P. & Taylor, S. (I999). Predicting intentions to use condoms: A meta-analysis
and comparison ofthe theories of reasoned action and planed behavior. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology. 28, I624-I675.

Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (I988). The theory of reasoned action: A
meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.

Toby. J. (I952). Some variables in role conflict analysis. Social Forces, 30. 323-327

Triandis, H. C. (I989). The self and social behavior in differeing cultural contexts.
Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.

Triandis, H. C. (I995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Triandis, H. C., Carnevale, P., Gelfand, M., Robert. C., Wasti, A., Probst, T.. et al. (200]).
Culture and deception in business negotiations: A multilevel analysis.
International Journal of C ross-C ultural Management. I, 73-90.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., Hui, C. H. (I990). Multimethod probes ofindividualism
and collectivism. Journal QfPersonality and Social Psychologv. 59, 1006-1020.
Trafimow, D., & Finlay, K. A. (I996). The importance of subjective norms for a minority

of people: Between-subjects and within-subjects analyses. Personality and Social
Psychologv Bulletin, 22, 820-828.

Walker, G. J., Coumeya, K. S., & Deng, J. (2006). Ethnicity, gender, and the theory of
planned behavior: The case of playing the lottery. Journal of Leisure Research, 38,

224-248.

Warshaw, P. R. (I980). A new model for predicting behavioral intentions: An alternative
to Fishbein, Journal of Marketing Research, I 7, I 53- l 72.

IO]

Warshaw, P. R., Calantone, R., & Joyce, M. (I986). A field application ofthe Fishbein
and Azjen Intention Model. Journal ofSocial Psychologv, I26. I35-l36.

I02

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

lllllllllllllllllllllll|||llllllllllllllllllllllll