Introduction
The article under consideration is called “The theory of research action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for Modifications and future research” and is written by B. Sheppard, Jon Hartrick and Paul Warshaw. The research is dedicated to the analysis of Fishbein and Ajzen models of reasoned action and behavior. The main purpose of the article is to define the limits in which these models can be applied.
Main Body
The article starts with discussion of the restrictions of those models since the effectiveness of the model can be achieved in specific situations predetermined by the researchers. Thus, to define the application area of the models and their effectiveness in the three limiting conditions, two meta-analyses were conducted.
Further on, the author considers those three restricting conditions in detail and analyzes to what extent the Fishbein-Ajzen model can be subjected to the practical application. To start with, the authors emphasize that their model is mostly directed on the customer’s behavioral intention but on the effects of this behavior. Moreover, the model does not presuppose the goal settling. Secondly, Fishbein and Ajzen acknowledged that their model lacks the possibility of choice among different behaviors. That omission leads to the lessening of prediction that depends on the choice process itself. Finally, this model fails to differentiate between the customer’s intention and the customer’s evaluation. Instead, the researchers use these two terms interchangeably.
In the next paragraph, the researchers give the description of the meta-analyses to prove the previous presumptions and to make the following conclusion. The main points of the analysis consist in defining the difference between the goal and behavior, the influence of choice on the customer’s behavior and the definition of various types of intention measure. The authors present the outcome of the study in submitting the corresponding implications in terms of intention-performance relationship. They believe that the relationship study will prove some disadvantages of the reasoned action model and will justify the previous presumptions.
In the course of analysis, two methods have been applied: selection of studies and statistical analysis. The first one consists in involving several studies that are connected with the model research. The authors present us three selections of the study based on the number of criteria such intention-performance relationships, subjective norms, and intention behavior. However, certain number of studies did not succeed in explaining some phenomena. The second approach lies in the assessment of population correlation for three levels of variables of interest, such as activity type, choice, and measure.
To show the exact results of the research, the author of the research submits us two tables as the answers to the above-mentioned issues. The results show that the predictive utility of the Fishbein-Ajzen model is not significant. In addition, the possibility of overcoming the limiting conditions of the model was not justified in terms goal settling, individuals’ estimates, and choice activity. Consequently, the researchers underline the irrelevant usage of the reasoned action model. Therefore, the article proposes certain solutions to eliminate the shortcomings of this study.
Conclusion
After considering the core points of the article under analysis, the authors pay attention to a great value of the research in the marketing field. In addition, the research has given the opportunity to define the major disadvantages of the Fishbein and Ajzen models and has suggested the correspondent solution to the problems. Moreover, this research can serve as the basis for the future studies in the area.