Critical reflections – The Theory of Planned Behaviour: An interview with Icek Ajzen with implications for entrepreneurship research

Abstract

Research on the formation of entrepreneurial intention has attracted substantial attention and interest from entrepreneurship scholars. In this quest, one theory that has been very popular is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) by Icek Ajzen. Professor Ajzen was one of the first to study intentions and behaviour, particularly with Fishbein, from the end of the 1960s. Since its inception, TPB has tested, advanced and challenged in many social science fields and, as a result, generated substantial interest among researchers: The seminal 1991 article by Ajzen has generated alone more than 60,000 citations to date. For a more in-depth investigation of his TPB model, we had the opportunity to interview Professor Icek Ajzen. This Research Note presents the transcript of the interview before we then synthesise some of the key ramifications of the interview for research on entrepreneurial intention.

Keywords

Ajzen critical reflection entrepreneurial intention intention–behaviour gap Theory of Planned Behaviour

Creating a new business is a complex process involving many actions. A great deal of research has focused on the entrepreneurial process itself; how it moves from entrepreneurial intentions to a set of actions needed before a business is set up and running. Entrepreneurship researchers have now been engaged in this stream of research over a number of decades (e.g. Bagozzi et al., 1989; Bird, 1988; Bird and Schjoedt, 2009; De Clercq et al., 2013; Kautonen et al., 2011, 2013, 2015; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger et al., 2000; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Liñán and Fayolle, 2015; Maalaoui et al., 2018; Van Gelderen et al., 2017). In doing so they have borrowed theories and concepts from scholarly works in the fields of psychology and cognitive psychology (Anderson, 1985; Bandura, 2007; Neisser, 1976, 2014; Raynal and Rieunier, 2018) and behavioural cognitive psychology (Bacq et al., 2017; Bargh and Ferguson, 2000; Fiske and Taylor, 2013; Moore, 1995; Schwartz, 1989). Furthermore, scholars have also investigated related phenomena, such as entrepreneurship education (Boissin et al., 2009; Fayolle and Gailly, 2015; Solesvik et al., 2014; Souitaris et al., 2007), the role of gender and entrepreneurial intentions (Joensuu et al., 2013; Shinnar et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2007), culture and intention (Mitchell et al., 2000), as well as entrepreneurship among specific populations such as seniors (Kautonen et al., 2010, 2011; Maalaoui et al., 2013; Tornikoski and Kautonen, 2009), ethnic minorities (Dana, 2007) and migrants (Jensen et al., 2014).

The research on the formation of entrepreneurial intention, that is, factors explaining the desire/motivation of some individuals to engage in entrepreneurial activities, has been particularly interesting for entrepreneurship scholars. In this quest, one theory that has been very popular is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) by Icek Ajzen (1991). Professor Ajzen was one of the first to study intentions and behaviour, particularly with Fishbein, from the end of the 1960s. Since its inception, TPB has tested, advanced and challenged in many social science fields (Armitage and Conner, 2001; Sheeran, 2002) and, as a result, generated substantial interest among researchers: The seminal 1991 article by Ajzen has generated alone more than 60,000 citations to date.

The TPB explains the formation of entrepreneurial intention via three antecedents (Figure 1), namely attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991).

Figure 1.

Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).

Attitude towards the behaviour refers to the degree to which an individual has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation or appraisal of the behaviour in question, for example, starting to take steps to create a new business. The more positive an individual’s perception is regarding the outcome of taking steps to create a new business, the more favourable their attitude towards this behaviour should be and, consequently, the stronger the intention to engage in such activities. Subjective norm refers to the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform a specific behaviour. This is based on beliefs concerning whether important referent individuals or groups approve or disapprove of an individual starting to take steps to create a new business, and to what extent this approval or disapproval matters to the individual (Ajzen, 1991). The more the opinion of a referent group matters to the individual, the stronger should be the individual’s intention to engage in such activities. Finally, perceived behavioural control refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing a given behaviour. It is based on control beliefs regarding the presence or absence of requisite resources and opportunities for performing the behaviour in question. The greater the perceived behavioural control over starting to take steps to create a new business, the stronger the individual’s intention to engage in such activities.

Professor Icek Ajzen started his career by obtaining an MA in 1967 and a PhD in 1969 from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign where he was directly appointed professor of psychology until 1971. Between 1971 and 2012, Ajzen worked at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he directed the personality and social psychology programme. In 2012, Professor Icek Ajzen was appointed Emeritus Professor for the whole of his career and his contribution to the community in all fields. He has received a number of prizes, most recently in 2018, receiving the Joyce Barnes Farmer Distinguished Guest Professorship from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. He is also a Fellow of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology and a Fellow of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology.

Ajzen has also worked for a variety of renowned international journals and has been on the Editorial Board of Contemporary Economics since 2011. In addition, he was Associate Editor for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology between 1994 and 1999, Consulting Editor for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology between 2000 and 2008, on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology between 1996 and 2011, and finally, on the Editorial Board of Basic and Applied Social Psychology between 1997 and 2010. For a more in-depth investigation of his TPB model, we had the opportunity to interview Professor Icek Ajzen. The interview is presented next before we synthesise some of the key issues brought up in the interview for intention research in entrepreneurship.

Arriving at the intention model

Q1: Thank you for according us this interview. Could you start by giving a short description of your research in psychology and especially in cognition and behavioural cognition?

Generally speaking, my work over the years has focused on the relation between attitudes and behaviour or, more colloquially, on the relation between what people say and what they actually do. In the 1960s, social psychologists came to realise to their surprise that studies examining this relation had produced little evidence for the predictive validity of social attitudes. My work, in collaboration with Martin Fishbein, resolved this problem by showing that we have to distinguish between two kinds of attitude: general attitudes towards such broad targets as racial, ethnic or other social groups; towards countries; towards political candidates; towards such institutions as the church; and so on, and attitudes towards a behaviour, such as attitude towards smoking, towards taking public transportation, towards exercising, towards attending church services and so forth. In early research on the attitude–behaviour relation, investigators had usually measured general attitudes to predict relatively specific actions, resulting in low attitude–behaviour correlations. We formulated the principle of compatibility, which states that strong attitude–behaviour correlations are obtained only when our measures of attitude and behaviour are compatible in terms of their generality or specificity. Consistent with this principle, we showed that general attitudes are good predictors of broad aggregates of behaviour, that is, of behavioural criteria that consist of a composite of different behaviours relevant for the attitude. For example, attitude towards religion or the church is a good predictor of a broad pattern of church-related behaviours, aggregated over such actions as donating money to the church, attending church services, reading books about religion and so on, but such attitudes are poor predictors of specific behaviours. The principle of compatibility stipulates that to predict a specific behaviour, such as attending church services, we must consider people’s attitudes towards the behaviour itself, that is, the attitude towards attending church services.

Q2: Could you summarise shortly what the TPB is about, and its key ideas?

The TPB is a model designed to explain and predict human social behaviour. To the extent that it is successful, it can also be used as a conceptual framework for behaviour change interventions. In the TPB, it is assumed that most human behaviour of any importance to the individual is not capricious but rather involves a measure of reasoning and planning; hence we use the terms ‘reasoned action’ and ‘planned behaviour’. According to the TPB, the immediate antecedent or determinant of a behaviour is the intention to perform the behaviour in question, moderated by volitional control. That is, people are assumed to behave in accordance with their intentions to the extent that they are capable of doing so. The intention, in turn, is determined by three factors: attitude towards the behaviour (mentioned in response to Q1), which represents the individual’s personal preference; subjective norm, which is the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform the behaviour; and perceived control or self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), in relation to the behaviour, termed perceived behavioural control. Although the three determinants of intention are typically treated as independent factors in a linear prediction model, theoretically, perceived behavioural control moderates the effects of attitude and subjective norm on intention. That is, positive attitudes and subjective norms lead to the formation of an intention to engage in the behaviour to the extent that people believe that they are capable of performing the behaviour in question. Furthermore, the relative importance of attitudes and subjective norms as determinants of intentions is expected to vary across behaviours, populations and time periods.

Q3: To explain behaviour, your intention model includes behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs: can you tell us more about them and how they lead to realised behaviour through intentions?

Note first that, as explained in response to Q2, the TPB is a model for the prediction and explanation of behaviour, not merely an intention model. In the TPB, intentions and behaviour are based on a cognitive and affective foundation that consists of three sets of beliefs readily accessible in memory at the time of the behaviour. One set has to do with the perceived consequences of performing the behaviour, termed behavioural beliefs, which provide the basis for attitude towards the behaviour. To the extent that performing the behaviour is perceived as likely to produce mostly favourable outcomes, a positive attitude is formed; but if people believe that performing the behaviour will lead to mostly negative outcomes, they will form a negative attitude towards the behaviour. An expectancy-value model is used to describe the relation between behavioural beliefs and attitude towards the behaviour, such that the strength of each belief is weighted by the evaluation of the outcome, and the products are summed across all readily accessible beliefs.

In a parallel fashion, subjective norms are based on normative beliefs, that is, beliefs about the behavioural expectations of important individuals and groups in the person’s life, multiplied by motivation to comply with these social referents. And perceived behavioural control is a function of control beliefs, that is, beliefs about the presence of factors that can facilitate or interfere with performance of the behaviour, multiplied by the perceived power of these factors.

Ultimately, then, according to the TPB, human behaviour is guided by three kinds of considerations: beliefs about the likely consequences of the behaviour (behavioural beliefs), beliefs about the normative expectations of others (normative beliefs) and beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of the behaviour (control beliefs).

Q4: How did your research with Fishbein in 1969 lead you to the TPB? What were the new theoretical insights of the intention model at the time of its introduction?

As mentioned in response to Q1, our initial research dealt with the nature of the attitude construct and with the attitude-behaviour relation. We quickly came to realise, however, that in order to predict behaviour, we had to go beyond personal preferences (attitudes) to account for the influence of perceived social norms. This led to the development of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) in which we assumed that most behaviours of interest to behavioural scientists are under volitional control, thus determined by behavioural intention, and that the intention is a joint function of attitude towards the behaviour and subjective norm. A few years later (Ajzen, 1985), I came to appreciate that even common everyday behaviours may not be under complete volitional control and I added the concepts of perceived and actual behavioural control to the model, resulting in what I termed the theory of planned behaviour.

Q5: In 2010 you joined forces again with Fishbein and published a new book about the Reasoned Action Approach (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010 ), which is an update of the TPB (Ajzen, 1985, 1991, 2012). How does the Reasoned Action Approach improve upon the TPB, and what was your motivation for this improvement? How should we call the intention model today: TPB, TRA or something else? Which model, the TRA or TPB, should be used in entrepreneurship research?

My latest book with Martin Fishbein, published in 2010, was meant to review and discuss recent theoretical and empirical developments. Although the book is focused primarily on the TPB, it also draws on work related to other behaviour models, notably Bandura’s (1989) social cognitive theory, the theory of subjective culture and interpersonal relations (Triandis, 1977), the health belief model (Rosenstock et al., 1994), the information–motivation–behavioural skills model (Fisher and Fisher, 1992) and the transtheoretical model (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1984). Because all of these models assume a measure of reasoning on the part of individuals contemplating a behaviour, we called the approach they represent the reasoned action approach. However, my own particular model should continue to be referred to as the TPB. New developments led us to broaden the subjective norm construct to reflect not only what we think others want us to do (injunctive norm) but also what we believe they themselves are doing (descriptive norm). In addition, we distinguished between instrumental and experiential dimensions of attitude and between capacity and autonomy dimensions of perceived behavioural control.

The TRA is a special case of the TPB. The difference between the two theories is that the TPB adds behavioural control as another determinant of intentions and behaviour. Specifically, perceived behavioural control is assumed to moderate the effects of attitude and subjective norm on intention, and actual behaviour control is assumed to moderate the effect of intention on behaviour. Under conditions of perfect perceived behavioural control and perfect actual behavioural control, degree of control becomes irrelevant and the TPB reduces to the TRA. However, people rarely have or perceive that they have perfect behavioural control, and that’s certainly the case in relation to entrepreneurship. It follows that the TPB is the preferred model to use in research on entrepreneurship (as indeed in any other behavioural domain).

Generic challenges to the model

Q6: About the potential impact of the time element in the intention model … Does the nature of intentions change between these two alternatives: (i) ‘I intend to create a new business in six months’ and (ii) ‘I intend to create a new business in the future’? Are the former more about ‘real’ intentions and the latter one closer to ‘liking’ new business creation, so not really a concrete intention?

In the TPB, four elements define a behaviour at varying levels of generality or specificity: the target at which the behaviour is directed, the action involved, the context in which the action occurs, and the time frame, denoted by the acronym TACT. Strictly speaking, a change in any one of these elements produces a different behaviour. However, whether the intention to perform a behaviour ‘in the future’ versus ‘in the next six months’ makes an appreciable difference is an empirical question that has no a priori answer.

Perhaps more interesting in terms of construal is a wider range of time perspective. According to construal level theory (Trope, 2012), when considering a behaviour that is to occur at a distant point in time (e.g. creating a business after graduating from college), readily accessible beliefs tend to be relatively broad and abstract (e.g. beliefs about self-fulfilment or general social approval). In contrast, beliefs readily accessible when considering behaviour that is to be performed in the near future (e.g. creating a business in the next six months) tend to be of a more practical nature (e.g. the kind of business, whether the needed funds can be obtained, whether my partner will cooperate, etc.).

Q7: Does intention also capture commitment? Some people set high, difficult goals. Does this contradict with the intention model as it posits that intentions correlate positively with feasibility?

1. There is no assumption in the TPB that control correlates positively with intention. Instead, control (actual control or, as a proxy, perceived control) moderates the effect of intention on behaviour.

Note also that perceived behaviour control is not necessarily expected to correlate positively with behaviour. In the case of a behaviour that most people are motivated to perform (e.g. eating a healthy diet), we would expect a positive correlation between perceived behavioural control such that successful performance of the behaviour increases with degree of control. However, when dealing with an objectionable behaviour (e.g. using illicit drugs), performance of the behaviour is expected to decline with control, resulting in a negative correlation between control and behaviour.

2. In the TPB, a goal can be the criterion to be predicted but it can also be considered a background factor whose effects on behaviour, if any, are mediated by behavioural, normative and/or control beliefs.

3. Commitment to the performance of a behaviour becomes relevant only in those cases where people have already decided to engage in the behaviour under consideration, that is, when they have formed a positive intention. An expression of commitment, especially if made in public, will tend to increase the likelihood that the intention is carried out (see Ajzen et al., 2009).

Q8: Intent is a dynamic process. Should the model be reflective (vs formative)? Neuroscience would say that it isn’t surprising that intent is the prior and presumably iterative. In fact, there’s evidence that we often anchor on intent and if key beliefs contradict, we’re likely to change the beliefs (voting, product choice, etc.). Does this matter to the intention model, theoretically and/or empirically?

This question addresses several separate issues. I respond to each in turn.

1. The TPB recognises the dynamic character of intentions and behaviour by stipulating that the behavioural, normative and control beliefs that determine a given intention are those beliefs that are readily accessible in the moment. Environmental factors as well as internal cues can determine which beliefs are activated (i.e. come readily to mind) and thus influence the intention. For example, the beliefs that come to mind in the context of completing a questionnaire can differ from the beliefs that are readily accessible in the actual behavioural context. This can produce a gap between measured intention and actual behaviour (Ajzen and Sexton, 1999).

2. Measures of the TPB constructs contain both formative and reflective indicators. Attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control and behaviour are assessed directly by means of reflective indicators whereas measures of behavioural, normative and control beliefs constitute formative indicators of attitude, subjective norm and perceived control, respectively.

3. In the TPB, attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of control have a causal effect on intentions and, via intentions, on behaviour. This assumption is validated by behaviour change interventions, which have shown that changes in the theory’s predictors also produce changes in intentions and behaviour (see Sheeran et al., 2016; Steinmetz et al., 2016). We do, however, recognise the existence of other processes that implicate the reverse causal effects: Once a decision has been made (for whatever reason), this decision can be rationalised by bringing beliefs in line with the decision (in an attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance). However, processes of this kind are not part of the TPB.

Q9: Some social behaviour involves collective actions, so what about collective intent? The cognitive processing involved goes up exponentially – What does that mean for the intention model?

The TPB models the behaviour of individuals. It has nothing to say directly about collective actions. I presume it would be possible to use the theory to account for decisions made by individual actors who are part of a collective and use insights obtained in this fashion to explain the collective decision. However, there is nothing in the TPB to suggest how this can be done.

Q10: In Anscombe’s philosophical treatment, an intention is a person’s answer to the question, ‘What am I doing’? But is there a preceding internal question related to ‘Why am I doing’ that in some way generates the ‘What’? And if so, how can they be distinguished?

In the TPB, what a person does is called ‘action’, a manifest response in a given situation. The reasons for the action can be found in the behavioural, normative and control beliefs. Thus, for example, a man who goes on a low-fat diet (the ‘what’) may do so because he expects that it will help him to lose weight, lower blood pressure, and reduce serum cholesterol levels; and perhaps also to be in compliance with the expectations of his wife and doctor (the ‘why’). In fact, one or more of these considerations may have been the initial impetus for contemplating the behaviour in the first place (the individual’s goals).

From intention to action

Q11: How do you increase intentionality to the point that action is taken?

I assume that this question refers to a situation in which people have formed an intention to engage in a particular behaviour but fail to act on their intentions. The reasons for inconsistencies of this kind are many and so, accordingly, are the means that may be effective in closing the gap.

1. As stipulated in the TPB, the ability to act on an intention depends on the degree of control over performance of the behaviour. Behavioural control can be increased by providing people with the required resources and by removing barriers.

2. New information may become available after intentions have been assessed, leading people to change their minds about performing the behaviour. As a result, they act in accordance with their newly formed intentions, not with the intentions originally assessed. For example, after forming the intention to perform breast self-examinations, a woman may read on the Internet that doing so produces many false positives and unnecessary anxieties, and as a result she no longer intends to perform this behaviour. To prevent this, it is necessary to counteract the effects of novel information.

An interesting case of new information occurs when beliefs are unrealistic. As indicated in my response to Q8, the behavioural, normative and/or control beliefs activated and thus readily accessible in memory when forming an intention may differ from the beliefs activated in the actual behavioural context. For example, when thinking about the possibility of starting a new business, mainly positive beliefs may come to mind, leading to the formation of a favourable intention. However, when confronted with formulating and executing a concrete business plan, negative beliefs may come to the fore, leading people to abandon their intention to start a business. This situation requires continuous follow-up and support to show people how they can overcome anticipated difficulties.

3. Procrastination or forgetting can lead to a failure to carry out a time-bound intention. Timely reminders can help to alleviate this problem. Also effective is asking people to form an implementation intention, that is, asking them to indicate where, when and how they will carry out their intentions. This tends to activate the intention under the specified conditions.

Q12: What is the difference between intention and implementation intention? Is implementation intention a necessary step towards realised behaviour, and why?

We distinguish between goal intention, part of the TPB, and implementation intention, which has to do with concrete plans as to how the goal intention is to be carried out. After forming the (goal) intention to start a new business, for example, people may consider possible ways of acting on this intention, that is, of achieving their goal. Making a concrete plan of this kind increases the likelihood that the process of starting a new business will be initiated. As mentioned in response to Q11, instead of relying on people to form an implementation intention by themselves, we can ask them to do so as a way to encourage them to act on their intentions. Parenthetically, people may also consider issues related to implementation before they have formed a goal intention. Thus, prior to deciding whether to start a new business, people may well contemplate when and how they could accomplish such a goal. This is a hypothetical process where people ask themselves what they would have to do if they decided to start a new business. The result of such contemplation may well be the formation of a negative goal intention.

Q13: Another dynamism issue: Bratman suggests that intent towards some end entails other intents, both parallel and sequential. For example, I intend to go to IPAG cognitive seminar in September, but there are planning and subplans and often fast-changing plans that we may not be remotely mindful of. In line with the philosophers, intent is choice + commitment. So, how might we best deal with duelling intents?

This question addresses two different issues.

1. Even relatively simple behaviours usually involve more than one action. For example, to enact the behaviour ‘going to the movies’ on a given night involves finding out which movies are playing, deciding on the movie to see, driving to the movie theatre, buying a ticket and being seated while watching the movie. Usually, this sequence of actions can be carried out without much difficulty once the intention has been formed. Sometimes, however, the sequence is interrupted by unforeseen circumstances. Thus, if my car breaks down on the way to the movie theatre or the show is sold out, I will be unable to carry out my intention to go to the movies. In the TPB, this is captured by the control construct, such that the intention will be carried out only to the extent that the person has sufficient control.

2. A different problem arises when behaviour designed to achieve one goal interferes with the pursuit of a competing goal. In the TPB, we assume that people form intentions with respect to each of the behavioural options (based on attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of control with respect to each) and that the strongest (i.e. most favourable) intention will be carried out.

Q14: Between choice and action, there is often either a barrier (perceived or real) that requires either a facilitator appearing, or an impediment (perceived or real) removed (what we call in Entrepreneurship as Shapero’s precipitating factor). How does the intention model recognise these two possibilities?

In the TPB, behavioural control, perceived as well as actual, reflects facilitating as well as impeding factors. Assuming positive attitudes and subjective norms, when perceived and actual control are both high, people will form a favourable intention and they will also be able to carry it out. When either perceived or actual behavioural control is low, we have to create suitable facilitating conditions (and make sure that people are aware of them) and remove existing barriers, whether real or perceived.

The model in entrepreneurship field

Q15: Starting a new venture comprises a variety of behaviours, such as finding a business idea, analysing and validating an idea, identifying potential co-founders, acquiring required resources and means, preparing a business plan, interacting with various stakeholders, prototyping and testing the new offer (product or service), promotion and marketing, and so on before a new business is created. Is the intention model applicable to starting a new venture given that it comprises a variety of behaviours?

Yes, the TPB can be and has been applied to entrepreneurship. In my response to Q13, I mentioned that even relatively simple behaviours, like ‘going to see a movie’, involve a series of actions. The same is true of entrepreneurship behaviour. It is up to the investigators or practitioners to decide on the level at which they want to address this behaviour. It is possible to assess the TPB constructs at a general level, for instance, in relation to ‘starting a new business’ or ‘opening a restaurant in the next six months’. Alternatively, we can focus on one or two particular aspects of entrepreneurship behaviour, such as ‘preparing a business plan’ or ‘acquiring needed resources’. More specific behaviours of this kind would be relevant foci of research with respect to individuals who have already formed the general intention to start a new business. Thus, in a series of studies, beginning with the general intention to start a new business via successive steps in the process, we can gain an in-depth understanding of entrepreneurship behaviour.

Q16: Related to the previous question, in complex and multifaceted actions like starting up a new business, intention can be considered as more a ‘goal’ than a ‘plan’. What is needed to transform such goal into action?

In the TPB, the distinction between performing a behaviour and attaining a certain goal is related to degree of control. As noted, virtually every behaviour involves a series of steps and its execution can be thwarted at any stage by lack of qualifications, failure to obtain needed cooperation from other individuals, lack of finances, or other impeding factors. Successful performance of the behaviour thus depends on the individual’s degree of behavioural control. Similarly, goal attainment depends on a series of prior actions leading up to the goal, and here too, various control factors can prevent success. The difference lies in the fact that in the case of a behaviour, the ultimate step in the sequence is itself a manifest action, whereas in the case of a goal, the ultimate step is an outcome that is only partly a function of the person’s behaviour. For example, ‘studying’ is a behaviour that may be implemented by borrowing a book from the library, reading the book and memorising materials encountered. The behaviour has been performed successfully at the end of the third step. The goal of attaining an ‘A’ in the course, however, depends not only on studying behaviour but also on the kinds of questions that appear on exams and the instructor’s grading scheme, factors that are not under the student’s control. As a general rule, therefore, individuals tend to have greater volitional control over performance of behaviours than over attainment of goals.

Q17: Building on the previous point, could ‘intent’ be more like ‘interest’ (e.g. the Lent model), whereas the truly intending are so-called nascent entrepreneurs, that is, individuals in the process of creating a new business? That is, since the creation of a new business requires a variety of behaviours, should we consider entrepreneurial intention to be related to ‘I intend to take steps towards starting a new business’, rather than ‘I intend to create a new business’?

When we ask people whether they intend to ‘take steps toward starting a new business’, we focus their attention on the prerequisites for this behaviour, but when we ask them whether they intend to ‘start a new business’, we focus their attention on the final outcome. In a sense then, we are dealing with two different behaviours. The behavioural, normative and control beliefs that are activated can differ in response to these alternative formulations. It is up to investigators to decide which of the two alternatives is to be the focus of their research.

Way forward

Q18: It seems that you have produced a lot about the intention model, and especially in the domain of marketing and health. What have you learnt so far? What are other potential domains of behaviour in which your theory bears relevance? What about entrepreneurship and small businesses: have you made efforts to apply your intention model there personally (and why/why not)?

The TPB has been used to study literally dozens of different behaviours, from family planning to technology adoption, from dieting and exercising to recycling and energy conservation, from leisure activities to blood donation, and, yes, it has also been applied to entrepreneurship behaviour. Well over 2000 empirical studies have been published that have applied the TPB in these varied behavioural domains. The model has been used not only to explain and predict behaviour but also to guide behaviour change interventions. However, I am not a practitioner and although I have been involved in various applied research efforts, my work has been and continues to be primarily of a theoretical nature. It is beyond the scope of this interview to enumerate everything I have learned over the years (see Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010, for an overview of what we have learned). Generally speaking, I conclude that over a period of more than 30 years, the TPB has withstood well the test of time and it continues to provide a useful platform for understanding, predicting and changing human behaviour.

Concluding thoughts

Is entrepreneurship about performing certain behaviours or attaining certain goals? In entrepreneurship, we generally focus on intentions towards achieving important entrepreneurial goals (e.g. intention to create a new business, intention to grow) and sometimes about specific actions and behaviours (e.g. intention to start taking steps towards starting a new business, intention to prepare a business plan). As Ajzen points out (Q17), these are two different behaviours. Moreover, and as Ajzen illustrates (Q16), investigating the achievement of specific goals not only depends on the actions an entrepreneur takes but also on factors outside the entrepreneur’s control. Should we focus our scholarly efforts on specific entrepreneurial behaviour and actions because these specific behaviours are more under the control of enterprising individuals?

Furthermore, should we focus our efforts to understand what makes some individuals take actions towards entrepreneurship using the intention model, and then theorise any factor related to goals an individual might have as a distal antecedent of an intention model? Indeed, echoing Ajzen’s arguments (Q7), creating a new business can be considered a general goal an individual has. This general goal of creating a new business can have effects on behavioural, control and normative beliefs about a specific entrepreneurial behaviour. In other words, a generic entrepreneurship goal could be modelled as an antecedent, whose effect on specific entrepreneurial behaviour, if any, is mediated by the three antecedents of intention. As an example, the intention to write a business plan is formed when behavioural, normative and/or control beliefs about writing a business plan are positive. These three beliefs are, in turn, impacted by a more generic goal to create a new business.

Is intention–behaviour gap partly the product of our methods of inquiry? In our studies, the intention–behaviour gap may be observed because entrepreneurial intentions were activated by general positive beliefs with regard to entrepreneurship at the time of surveying the respondents, as Ajzen points out (Q8). Whereas, at the time of observing realised behaviour, more concrete and negative beliefs are present that may make people abandon their plan to start a new business. As such, it is important for scholars to acknowledge that there can be a gap between measured intention and actual behaviour due to the design of our studies. The challenge we face, then, is to ‘force’ respondents of our questionnaires to think about the specific context of starting a new business, rather than making them to think about entrepreneurship in general.

How would we make the measurement of original intentions as concrete as possible so that respondents would not rely on generic beliefs about entrepreneurship but assess the behaviour using much more concrete and practical beliefs? One potential answer is to ask respondents to elaborate implementation intentions at the same time as they respond about the intentions to create new businesses. As Ajzen proposes (Q11), asking about implementation intentions could activate the intention under specified conditions.

Ajzen bring outs issues that contribute to the intention–behaviour gap (Q11), such as the degree of control over performance of the behaviour. If individuals start to take steps towards the creation of a new business, they may come to realise that their actual control over the performance of business creation is lower than what they perceived earlier. As such, experiencing control (e.g. Skinner, 1996) can contribute to the gap between entrepreneurial intention and behaviour. As a consequence for researchers, we should be able to design studies where experiencing control can be taken into account.

In real life, what can potentially decrease the intention–behaviour gap is the absence of a presence of implementation intention. Implement intention, that is, a concrete plan as to how an intention to start a new business is to be carried out, increases the likelihood that the process of starting a new business will be initiated (Q12). Thus, asking aspiring entrepreneurs where, when and how they will carry out their entrepreneurial intention, will help them act on their intention (Q11).

Why time perspective matters in intention studies. When deciding on the type of intentions one wants to study, it is important to keep in mind the time perspective. Intention to start a business ‘in a few years’ versus ‘in two months’ involves two different behaviours because the readily accessible beliefs related to each behaviour are different, as Ajzen points out (Q6). In the former case (starting in a few years), the accessible beliefs are relatively broad and abstract, whereas in the latter case (starting in two months), more practical in nature. As a consequence, comparing two intention studies in entrepreneurship where scholars use different operationalisations of entrepreneurial intentions (e.g. create a new business one day vs in two months) does not make much sense. Entrepreneurship scholars should perhaps be stricter when defining what is the time perspective in our intention studies or at minimum be explicit about the time perspective in their studies.

How to elicit behaviour change interventions in education? The intention model of Ajzen is not only designed to explain and predict human social behaviour. It is also used as conceptual framework for behaviour change interventions (Q2). The latter has been less evident in published articles in entrepreneurship. At the same time, behaviour change interventions are very relevant for entrepreneurship education where we try to foster student entrepreneurship. As Ajzen points out (Q2), of the three direct antecedents of intention, perceived behavioural control moderates the effects of attitudes and subjective norm on intention. As such, educational initiatives to foster entrepreneurship could focus especially on improving the perceived behavioural control of participants over the act of creating a new business, which in turn would then raise the positive effects of attitudes and subjective norm on entrepreneurial intentions. In addition, Ajzen brings up several actions we as educators can take to initiate behavioural changes, such as focus on specific behaviours rather than generic goals (Q1), encourage participants to make (public) expressions of commitments (Q7), increase behavioural control of participants over performance of entrepreneurial behaviour (Q11, Q14), be vigilant in regard to information participants are given and hear from the media (Q11), provide continuous follow-up and support for participants to overcome difficulties (Q11) and ask participants to work on implementation intentions (Q11) even before they have formed any intentions towards entrepreneurship (Q12).

Which one to use: TPB or TRA? Recent theoretical and empirical developments in different behaviour models have led Ajzen to broaden the three key constructs of the original TPB model, as specified with his book with Fishbein (i.e. Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010). Ajzen points out (Q5), however, that the TPB is preferable over TRA in entrepreneurship research because TPB includes the notion of control. Only if people have or perceive having perfect behavioural control, then the notion of control becomes irrelevant and TPB reduces to the TRA.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our very great appreciation to Professor Ajzen for accepting to be interviewed and the insights he provided about the TPB model and its use. We also want to thank professors Marco Van Gelderen, Norris Krueger, Alan Carsrud, Francesco Linan and Kelly Sheaver for their help in preparing the interview themes. Finally, we would like to offer our special thanks to Professor Robert Blackburn, the Editor-of-Chief of International Small Business Journal, for his feedback during the preparation of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Erno Tornikoski

Author biographies

Erno Tornikoski is a Professor of Entrepreneurship in the University of Exeter Business School, UK and Adjunct Professor in Grenoble Ecole de Management, France. Erno’s academic research interests are related to new venture creation (decision-making logics, legitimacy, personal networks, initial conditions), the development of entrepreneurial intentions (among young adults, seniors), and technology-based venturing. He is Consulting Editor in International Small Business Journal, Associate Editor in Journal of Small Business Management, and part of Review Boards of Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice.

Adnane Maalaoui is the Head of the Chair Entrepreneurship and Disadvantage at IPAG Business School. His research mainly focuses on issues of entrepreneurship and in particular disadvantaged entrepreneurs (elderly, refugees, disabled entrepreneurs, etc.) He works on topics such as entrepreneurial intention and the cognitive approach to entrepreneurship. He mainly applies those questions to cases of diversity and social entrepreneurship. Adnane Maalaoui is the author of 20+ articles published in academic journals. He also authored articles published in professional journals and in edited books. Adnane is also the author of a series of French speaking MOOCs on entrepreneurship.

References

Ajzen

(1985) From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl

Beckman

(eds) Action-control: From cognition to behavior. Heidelberg: Springer, pp.11–39.

Ajzen

(1991) Theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179–211.

Ajzen

(2012) The theory of planned behavior. In: Lange

PAM

Kruglanski

Higgins

(eds) Handbook of theories of social psychology, vol. 1. London: SAGE, pp.438–459.

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ajzen

Sexton

(1999) Depth of processing, belief congruence, and attitude-behavior correspondence. In: Chaiken

Trope

(eds.) Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford, pp.117–138.

Ajzen

Czasch

Flood

(2009) From intentions to behavior: Implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39: 1356–1372.

Anderson

(1985) Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

Armitage

Conner

(2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology 40(4): 471–499.

Bacq

Ofstein

Kickul

et al . (2017) Perceived entrepreneurial munificence and entrepreneurial intentions: A social cognitive perspective. International Small Business Journal 35(5): 639–659.

10.

Bagozzi

Baumgartner

(1989) An investigation into the role of intentions as mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology 10: 35–62.

11.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

12.

Bandura

(1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist 44: 1175–1184.

13.

Bandura

(2007) Auto-efficacité: Le sentiment d’efficacité personnelle. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck.

14.

Bargh

Ferguson

(2000) Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin 126(6): 925.

15.

Bird

(1988) Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review 13(3): 442–453.

16.

Bird

Schjoedt

(2009) Entrepreneurial behavior: Its nature, scope, recent research, and agenda for future research. In: Understanding the entrepreneurial mind. New York: Springer, pp.327–358.

17.

Boissin

Branchet

Emin

et al . (2009) Students and entrepreneurship: A comparative study of France and the United States. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 22(2): 101–122.

18.

Dana

(ed) (2007) Handbook of research on ethnic minority entrepreneurship: A co-evolutionary view on resource management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

19.

De Clercq

Honig

Martin

(2013) The roles of learning orientation and passion for work in the formation of entrepreneurial intention. International Small Business Journal 31(6): 652–676.

20.

Fayolle

Gailly

(2015) The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management 53(1): 75–93.

21.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(2010) Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.

22.

Fisher

(1992) Changing AIDS-risk behavior. Psychological Bulletin 111: 455–474.

23.

Fiske

Taylor

(2013) Social cognition: From brains to culture. London: Sage.

24.

Jensen

Rezaei

Wherry

(2014) Cognitive effects on entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison of Chinese émigrés and their descendants with non-émigré Chinese. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 23(1–2): 252–277.

25.

Joensuu

Viljamaa

Varamäki

et al . (2013) Development of entrepreneurial intention in higher education and the effect of gender – Latent growth analysis. Education + Training 55(8–9): 781–803.

26.

Kautonen

Luoto

Tornikoski

(2010) Influence of work history on entrepreneurial intentions in ‘prime age’ and ‘third age’: A preliminary study. International Small Business Journal 28(6): 583–601.

27.

Kautonen

Tornikoski

Kibler

(2011) Entrepreneurial intentions in the third age – The impact of perceived age norms. Small Business Economics 37(2): 219–234.

28.

Kautonen

Van Gelderen

Fink

(2015) Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(3): 655–674.

29.

Kautonen

Van Gelderen

Tornikoski

(2013) Predicting entrepreneurial behaviour: A test of the theory of planned behaviour. Applied Economics 45(6): 697–707.

30.

Kolvereid

(1996) Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 21(1): 47–58.

31.

Krueger

Carsrud

(1993.) Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 5: 315–330.

32.

Krueger

Jr Reilly

Carsrud

(2000) Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing 15(5): 411–432.

33.

Liñán

Fayolle

(2015) A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 11(4): 907–933.

34.

Maalaoui

Castellano

Safraou

et al . (2013) An exploratory study of seniorpreneurs: A new model of entrepreneurial intentions in the French context. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 20(2): 148–164.

35.

Maalaoui

Perez

Bertrand

et al . (2018) ‘Cruel Intention’ or ‘Entrepreneurial Intention’: What did you expect? An overview of research on Entrepreneurial Intention – An interactive perspective. In: Brännback

Carsrd

(eds) A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurial Cognition and Intention. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

36.

Mitchell

Smith

Seawright

et al . (2000) Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation decision. Academy of Management Journal 43(5): 974–993.

37.

Moore

(1995) Some historical and conceptual relations among logical positivism, behaviorism, and cognitive psychology. In: Todd

Morris

(eds) Contributions in psychology, No. 28. Modern perspectives on B. F. Skinner and contemporary behaviorism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp.51–74.

38.

Neisser

(1976) Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

39.

Neisser

(2014) Cognitive psychology: Classic edition. New York: Psychology Press.

40.

Prochaska

DiClemente

(1984) The transtheoretical approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of therapy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

41.

Raynal

Rieunier

(2018) Pédagogie, dictionnaire des concepts clés: Apprentissages, formation, psychologie cognitive. Paris: ESF Sciences Humaines.

42.

Rosenstock

Strecher

Becker

(1994) The health belief model and HIV risk behavior change. In: DiClemente

Peterson

(eds) Preventing AIDS: Theories and methods of behavioral interventions. AIDS prevention and mental health. New York: Plenum Press, pp.5–24.

43.

Schwartz

(1989) Psychology of learning and behavior. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

44.

Sheeran

(2002) Intention–behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology 12(1): 1–36.

45.

Sheeran

Maki

Montanaro

et al . (2016) The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology 35(11): 1178–1188.

46.

Shinnar

Hsu

Powell

et al . (2018) Entrepreneurial intentions and start-ups: Are women or men more likely to enact their intentions? International Small Business Journal 36(1): 60–80.

47.

Skinner

(1996) A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(3): 549.

48.

Solesvik

Westhead

Matlay

(2014) Cultural factors and entrepreneurial intention: The role of entrepreneurship education. Education + Training 56(8–9): 680–696.

49.

Souitaris

Zerbinati

Al-Laham

(2007) Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing 22(4): 566–591.

50.

Steinmetz

Knappstein

Ajzen

et al . (2016) How effective are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior? A three-level meta-analysis. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie 224(3): 216–233.

51.

Tornikoski

Kautonen

(2009) Enterprise in sunset career? Entrepreneurial intentions in the ageing population. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 8(2): 278–291.

52.

Triandis

(1977) Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

53.

Trope

(2012) Construal level theory. In: Van Lange

(ed) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Washington, DC: Sage, pp.118–134.

54.

Van Gelderen

Kautonen

Wincent

et al . (2017) Implementation intentions in the entrepreneurial process: Concept, empirical findings, and research agenda. Small Business Economics 51: 923–941.

55.

Wilson

Kickul

Marlino

(2007) Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31(3): 387–406.