The Importance of Subjective Norms for a Minority of People: between Subjects and within-Subjects Analyses
Abstract
Intentions to perform most behaviors are more controlled by attitudes than by subjective norms. Yet subjective norms typically account for a significant, albeit small, proportion of unique variance in intentions. To explore the hypothesis that this effect can be explained largely by individual differences in the degree to which some people are apt to be more under normative control, subjects were asked to indicate their intentions, attitudes, and subjective norms toward performing 30 behaviors. Between-subjects and within-subjects analyses were performed. The within-subjects analyses revealed important differences in whether subjects are under attitudinal or normative control across the behaviors. Further, when "normatively controlled" subjects were excluded from the sample, the significant effects of subjective norms on intentions that were obtained in previous between-subjects analyses were eliminated, and the attitudinal effects were augmented. Finally, this individual difference was associated with the strength of the collective self;
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Trafimow and Finlay found that most respondents (79% in the 1996 study and 66% in the 2001 study) were under attitudinal control.
“In research examining attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions for 30 unrelated behaviors, Trafimow andFinlay (1996, 2001) found that most of the respondents (79% in the 1996 study and 66% in the 2001 study) were under attitudinal control.”
From Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms (2009) · cites this paper as Trafimow & Finlay, 1996
When normatively controlled respondents were excluded from the sample, subjective norms failed to account for a significant amount of variance in intentions.
“Moreover, when normatively controlled respondents were excluded from the sample, subjective norms failed to account for a significant amount of variance in intentions.”
From Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms (2009) · cites this paper as Trafimow & Finlay, 1996
The strength of an individual's collective self was associated with being under normative control.
“Trafimow and Finlay (1996) found that the strength of an individual's collective self was associated with being under normative control -scores on a collective self scale (Singelis, 1994) correlated with a tendency for people to be under NC.”
From Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms (2009) · cites this paper as Trafimow & Finlay, 1996
The null moderation result for collective self is contrary to Trafimow and Finlay's (1996) contention that collective self should moderate the effect of norms within the TPB.
“Although this result is contrary to Trafimow and Finlay's (1996) contention that collective self should moderate the effect of norms within the TPB”
From Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms (2009) · cites this paper as Trafimow and Finlay's (1996)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 30 · Cited by 441
- Authors
- Trafimow, D., & Finlay, K. A.
- Affiliations
- New Mexico State University (US)
- ORCID
- Trafimow, David
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996-08
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 820-828
- ISSN
- 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7433
- OpenAlex
- W2064110613
- Cited by
- 441
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 11.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
- Keywords
- subjective norms, attitudes, behavioral intention, normative control, individual differences, collective self
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
