Research Korner: Sociology Essay Samples

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Belonging to a Nuclear Family

THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR FAMILY         The Nuclear or biological family is the smallest unit of society that we belong. They consist of father, mother and children who loved and lived together to form a home.  All over the world the nuclear family has been given value and importance that makes a family stand up from problem and opportunities that may come. It is in the family that we can adopt our personality, sense of pride, character formation, identity and social upbringing.  Most of the time family relation formation is dependent in our culture. In Asian countries who have a very close family ties to the highest extent that bonds until up to the point that parents would support their children after their marriage, while in American and European culture most likely they are dependent when reach a certain age. Although family bonding is also being exercise but basically they separate upon maturity of children.       Our family is the one who taught us to learn to walk when we are children and they are the one to help us stand up when we are down. No matter how much our situation they will always be there to support every family members, they are the ones who gave us our physical needs during our childhood and we can depend on them even when we grow old inherently we help them if they ask. They are also the one to encourage us to reach our dreams and they will be there to reach us if we fall, they are the sources of our strength and understanding. Sometimes we live our life and inspiration to dedicate them our achievements but we are ready to accept everyone even if they fail. No amount of hardship is ever enduring if there is a foundation of love and respect that unites the family even more. A family is not just a house that is constructed by marbles and steel but a home that consists of loving and nurturing mother, respectable father and obedient children that strengthens the family relationship. There will come a time that children are going to build the family of their own and children will soon be adults, whatever lessons they have learned from their nuclear family they will soon exercise it in the family of their own. We are the reflection of our nuclear family, a person who has a family that sticks together through thick and thin will basically succeed in life and they will always return in a place that they called “HOME”. A person who has found a home may be blessed with a stable personality while the person who grows without their own family may find it hard to love and be loved simply because they have not found love if they grow lonely but this doesn’t mean they cannot learn to love, it comes naturally inside the family. The nuclear family can express the freedom to live the best life more than the material possession but freedom to choose what is right.         There are times that our Nuclear family has become the one who can destroy our personality for there are parents who lived up to the highest expectation that degrade and belittle their children who have not done well especially in school if they lack the grades expected. Also the children’s competition and jealousy about their parents love.  If we belong to a very irresponsible parents chances are we are poor that we have not given the opportunity to get the basic needs to live, they may experience fighting and beating of parents and children. In some countries including European and African nations who have the most number of family struggles and crimes, there are numerous counts of family and domestic violence especially among children who suffered most from radical and sadistic parents.       There are also forms of degrading and sexual abuse from minors reportedly having traumatic experiences of smacking, and torture brought about by poverty or vices coming from the parents themselves. Some children are neglected to live alone without anything. Mostly they are weak and spirit, always alone even with others and longing to be loved, if children does not found love at home they will seek their companions in the outside world with their peers that may result in tragedy and exploited body and mind.  They tend to escape from the reality that they are force to take illegal activities such as smoking, drinking drugs and early marital relationship that may even worsen their longing for acceptance inside the family. They rebel against each other that destroyed the family even more. This has been the disadvantages of the nuclear unfortunate family that manifested through destructive pattern and negative character development among family members especially among children who may find it hard to understand their situation, but it is there.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Belonging to a Nuclear Family

THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR FAMILY The Nuclear or biological family is the smallest unit of society that we belo...

Legalizing Euthanasia: An Argument

The purpose of this paper is to argue about the subject of doctor assisted suicide. It will specifically argue with regards to the issue on the legalization of doctor assisted suicide for a terminally ill patient. This paper will also presents arguments and perspectives to defend the chosen position of the writer.             The legalization of doctor assisted suicide for the terminally ill are subjects of strong debates from all sectors of society in such countries as the United States, Canada and United Kingdom. It has become a hotly contested topic for special advocates groups and organizations that espouses a particular view or standpoint in life. This topic has touched and has been discussed and argued the fields of politics, sociology, medicine, medical ethics and moral creating factionalism and divisiveness inside a society on the legality or illegality of this practice. To better understand this practice and give further explanation to the people about this social and moral issue, it would upright to present both side of the fence, both sides of the argument. To facilitate ease of use and free flowing arguments, doctor assisted suicide in this paper will be equated to euthanasia.             Euthanasia can be defined as mercy killing or killing a person because of unbearable and incurable pain. To further expand, euthanasia can be committed indirectly or directly. Direct euthanasia refers to the act made by a person to finally ease and end his/her pain while indirect euthanasia is accomplished by a doctor who uses drugs, methods and operations that would kill the patient but would ease his/her pain (Wellie, 1992). A doctor who knowingly provides a patient with a drug or a prescription medicine in quantity that would induce death can be termed as  indirect euthanasia. Within the sphere of euthanasia, acts can be further classified as voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary would mean that euthanasia has been performed because of the instruction and consent of the patient who is able to competently distinguish the results of his actions (Steinbock, 1994). In the non-voluntary procedure, the patient cannot give his/her direct consent with regards to a medical procedure that would end her sufferings. The unconscious state or the incapacity to make decisions for the patients and his/her guardian can be clearly applied to the situation that would involve non-voluntary euthanasia. In layman’s term, this kind of euthanasia can be called “pulling the plug” (Zucker, 1999).             Involuntary euthanasia meanwhile refers to the procedure that is both objected by the patient and his guardian (Prado, 1998). Although the patient or the guardian of the patient refuses to undergo euthanasia, the method is done anyway.             Religious, political, lobby and ethics groups have been debating and arguing about the legality and illegality of euthanasia. To clearly illustrate this point, it would be better to state the arguments and standpoints of these two contesting groups. In the negative side or the issue of legalizing doctor assisted suicide, arguments that concerns ethics, religion and morality are used. To these groups, euthanasia must not be implemented because this act is against the will of God. Although these groups argue that God gave man the power of free will, they stated that suicide and euthanasia are one of the acts that are considered to be wrong in the eyes of the Lord (Palmer, 2000). They further equate that although God gave man a free will, it does not mean that man can do all things and all acts that is desired by human beings and even though man has free will, there are things and actions that  are against the law of God and man. For instance, if man has a free will, it does not translate that he can rob, rape and injure other persons and properties without repercussions. To them, free will given by the Lord has some clearly defined lines and boundaries that must be crossed and one of these is the purposely ending or aiding a person to end his life (Donnelly, 1998).             Euthanasia argued by these groups also degrades and destroys the perception of society and its people towards life and its importance. Euthanasia, they argued would make the human perception on the value of life worthless and useless because each and every person who suffers from pain would be easily eased from his agonies by asking for euthanasia, whether voluntary or non-voluntary (Donnelly, 1998). The society and the people in it would be able to see the value of human life using pain, suffering and agonies as a benchmark thereby modifying their outlook and value with regards to the importance of human life. Euthanasia also serves as a social jurisprudence that would release inhibitions regarding the human life. If today, euthanasia is legalized, what assurance does the society has when men would in turn kill and exterminate persons who are considered degenerates, imbeciles and handicapped? If euthanasia is legalized, what prevents a person from committing a murder and then claiming that that act is an act that would free and ease the suffering of a person? If the society permits laws and public policies that in the short term would give beneficial effects like euthanasia, in the future, it cannot prevent the inclusion of policies and actions that would  harm individuals. If a society goes astray by legalizing euthanasia, it would never be in the right path.              The third argument raised by individuals and organizations that is against the legalization of euthanasia is that suffering and pain experienced by a person has a purpose or value. In a religious point of view, suffering would make the person realize the suffering made by Jesus Christ and this realization would of course translate to greater understanding of godliness and holiness (Palmer, 2000). Suffering and death also reminds us that this life is not permanent and that this life can be claimed at anytime by the Lord and in order to give meaning to this life, we must strive to use our life effectively in helping and caring for other people. Suffering and death reminds us not to concentrate on the worldly things and ways of this Earth but to focus our attention and strength to objects and things that would please God (Prado, 1998). Suffering for other individuals helps us to reflect and gain wisdom and a renewed perspective in life. By removing suffering and pain, these lessons of life cannot be totally understood by all men.             Euthanasia also touches some ethical dilemmas and arguments with regards to the importance of life. Groups and individuals who rally against the legalization of euthanasia says that euthanasia presents a mentality to the people that it is better to be dead than being sick or disabled. This mentality therefore would advocate for the elimination of all persons and individuals who are suffering or have some physical/mental disability as lower kinds of human beings that must be erased with or without their consent (Steinbock, 1994). This mentality degrades their status in society making other people look down at them while treating them with contempt and scorn. Society thinks therefore that disabled individuals and suffering patients are burdens to the community. Another argument related to this point of view is who is going to decide and who is going to undergo the non-voluntary euthanasia if patients are unconscious or incompetent in making decisions. Since all men are creatures that have built in with feelings, outlooks and thoughts, bias and prejudice cannot be excluded in the selection process. Since men are creatures that are exposed to the workings of society, doctors and other medical authorities will be inherently subjected in making decisions (Mcmahan, 2003). The medical profession, in implementing euthanasia, is playing as a God since they have the capacity to levy death or life even if the individual asked for it or not.  If checklists and standards will be used in classifying and determining who is going to undergo euthanasia and who is not, this condition would degrade the value of life into simple enumerations and checklists of present illnesses and symptoms experienced by a patient.             Euthanasia can also be contrary to the best interest of the patient asking for it. An argument against euthanasia with regards to this aspect clearly highlights the inability of a patient to critically make a decision and is a direct contradiction taken up in voluntary euthanasia. Anti-euthanasia groups advocate that critical and good judgment on the part of the patient cannot exist because he/she is in a state that can destabilize his/her decision making process. This inability to competently decide can be attributed to depression, medicinal side effects and psychological stability (Keown, 2002). The thought of ending one’s life through euthanasia is brought about by the perspective that the patient has been a burden to his/her relatives and that death will ease the burden that he/she is bringing to them (Keown, 2002).             To legalize euthanasia, opponents said that this move would entail the neglect on the research and development with regards to finding cures and treatment to illnesses such as AIDS and other prevalent diseases nowadays. In allowing euthanasia, the medical profession and the public in general will be forced to just kill and end the life of a person afflicted with an incurable disease (Mcmahan, 2003). Since euthanasia offers a comfortable way out, research and studies with regards to the specific incurable disease afflicted on a patient will not prosper. Euthanasia will be viewed as a risk free and financially stable option in treating patients who are gravely ill.             There are also arguments that support and defend the practice of euthanasia. Some nations and states government in the United States have legalized this practice but euthanasia is done with strict restrictions and conditions that must be complied upon (Dowbiggin, 2003). These conditions and restrictions regarding euthanasia are present in the governing laws and regulations on euthanasia practice in the Netherlands and in the state of Oregon in the United States. Advocates of euthanasia primarily advocate that euthanasia is beneficial because the patients are undergoing excruciating and painful feeling in his/her ordeal (Hillyard, 2001). This conception stem from the fact that people who have incurable and painful diseases suffer greatly and horribly when dying. They state therefore that in order to help and minimize the pain felt by the patient and the emotional trauma that is also felt by relatives and friends, euthanasia must be implemented. Other patient meanwhile state that they do not want to suffer and to experience a painful and humiliating death so they choose and order their doctors and guardians to facilitate euthanasia when they don’t have the capacity to decide anymore. This was the primary argument that was passed in the Terry Shiavo case.             In this legal and medical battle, a patient named Terry Shiavo has suffered from a brain damage and his husband wanted to remove the feeding tube that is inserted to his wife. This order as stated by the husband was specifically requested by Terry when she was still alive since she does not want to suffer and be a burden to the family. The parents of Terry meanwhile were strongly against the removal of the feeding tube countering that Terry was still alive since she was still responding to visual and auditory stimuli. A legal battle ensued between the husband and the parents of Terry dragging with the religious groups, conservative and liberal sectors of the American society. Different doctors and medical practitioners were summoned by the court but they all had conflicting and confused opinions regarding the case. In the end however, the arguments made by the husband won and the feeding tube was removed.             This argument that states that patients must be killed because they experience pain and suffering is a flimsy and weak standpoint. Since patients who request euthanasia have painful and incurable diseases, emotions and outlooks in life can have a great effect on the decision making process of an individual. Although they are asking for death, what they really want are compassion, care and love from their relatives and friends. There, a decision making process is also clouded by medication, pain and depression. In a study conducted by the state of New York in 1994 in a report entitled “When Death is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context”, it stated that patients with severe pain, disfigurement or disability do not wish to commit suicide and that patients who ask for euthanasia have major  symptoms of major depression (Zucker, 1999). The report further stated that patients who have experiences of pain and suffering felt hopelessness and depression and can wrongly see that death and the process of euthanasia is the only way that would end their ordeal (Zucker, 1999).             Another argument that is being pushed by pro-euthanasia groups is that each and every person has the moral and intrinsic right and autonomy to control and set the course of his/her destiny (Hillyard, 2001). This would mean that if a man or a woman decided to end his/her life, there are no legal and ethical hindrances that would prevent him/her for doing it so. Although this argument is accepted by some groups, they correctly said that euthanasia is not an individual action being undertaken by a patient. In order to commit euthanasia, there must be cooperation on the part of the attending doctor and hospital staff and when other persons and individuals are now involved, suicide and killing one’s self will now be in the realms of public interest and order since in most countries, the assistance and help offered by an individual in a suicide is classified as an offense in many states and countries (Donnelly, 1998).             For the sociologist, the issue on euthanasia can be a great opportunity to understand and to closely examine the mentality, outlook and consciousness of a particular society with regards to the subject of death. This study would not only elicit information regarding euthanasia practices in such societies but it would also answer prevailing questions like what are the factors that greatly hinders or advance the practices of euthanasia practices in an specific society?, does society exert pressure and influence when euthanasia is committed?. The field of sociology and sociologists therefore can clearly and adequately answer these questions by using research methods. Sociologists can provide an unbiased and unprejudiced opinion and examination to these emerging phenomena and hopefully, sociology can provide man and society with a way, a compromise in order to reconcile different opinions that are against and for euthanasia. Sociology can therefore be a bridge that will provide society with answers that would help us comprehend this particular issue.             I would say that euthanasia is a personal standpoint; it is a stand regarding a certain subject which is death. Euthanasia is a personal preference made by an individual but it will have negative and far reaching consequences to society. Although this thought can be relatively harmless when viewed at a glance, it can weaken and create confusion in the society because its effects are wide and encompass subjects such as religion, ethics, health care and psychology. This subject therefore creates tension and advocacy in terms of people and organizations who particularly advocates a certain topic or perspective. For me, I would agree and perfectly convinced on the arguments that support the move of not to legalize euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. Legalizing it would create societal conflict and discord because status quo and established mores, laws and customs with regards to death and the idea of death will completely be changed.

Legalizing Euthanasia: An Argument

The purpose of this paper is to argue about the subject of doctor assisted suicide. It will specifically argue with regards to ...

The study of social psychological theories to understand information and communication technology acceptance and usage

The study of social psychological theories to understand information and communication technology acceptance and usage are beginning to transform organizational structures and processes, as well as the ways in which people work. It is difficult to obtain information on the extent of usage as much information is held by the suppliers of the technologies, and this is commercially valuable. There argues that technological issues command most of the resources during process implementation first, the psychological matters addressed when systems are operational users of such advanced systems are perceived as sources of error that ideally should be designed out and community has appropriated IT for itself (Westin, Schweder, Baker and Lehman, 1987). Furthermore, the performance of new investments in IT is often disappointing, falling below expectation and aspiration and one of the explanations could be the lack of consideration of the psychological issues (Kearney, 1990). In practice, the IT sector is strongly market oriented along with attention paid to new products and increased functionality (Shneiderman, 1989; Thimbleby, 1992) relatively little attention is paid to psychological issues to the actual performance and effectiveness of the new reserves in IT. There are initiatives that have included a psychological dimension to their endeavors, though there has been a minority in what are regarded as technical programs.             Furthermore, it is too late to consider psychological issues in a 'corrective' sense once a system is operational (Broadbent, 1985; Hacker, 1985). Some have argued that this is the formative period of the 'information age' during which it is critical to incorporate the psychological aspects of new technologies before the engineering and user communities become set in particular ways of managing and coping with change (Cooley, 1987; Littler, 1983) as it is also a critical period for the discipline of psychology. The new information technologies provide the opportunity to address contemporary challenges of integrating social psychological levels of analysis as a critical time and the domain of IT provides a critical opportunity (Clegg, 1984). Furthermore, there has been substantial theoretical advance within the domains helpful in promoting understanding of some psychological aspects of IT but, there is less evidence that the investigation and ideas in the areas have influenced with the context within which information technologies are developed and used. Moreover, in terms of understanding which information systems are accepted and used within the process still continues to be an important issue. Information systems research has examined user acceptance and usage behavior from several different perspectives.             Henceforth, among the different models that have been proposed, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis 1989; Davis et al. 1989), adapted from the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) offers a powerful explanation for user acceptance and usage behavior. TAM posits that user acceptance is determined by two key beliefs, namely perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness (U) is defined as the extent to which a person believes that using a particular technology will enhance her/his job performance, while perceived ease of use (EOU) is defined as the degree to Which a person believes that using a technology will be free from effort (Davis 1989). Thus, the two important constructs that have little attention in the context of TAM research are social influence and gender (Gefen and Straub 1997) which is potentially critical to the understanding of user acceptance since they could both play an important role in determining how users make their decisions about adopting and using new technologies (Davis et al. 1989). Although subjective norm can be expected to be important in determining technology acceptance and usage based on TRA and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen 1985, 1991) empirical evidence supporting the role of the construct has been mixed (Adams et al. 1992; Szajna 1994, 1996).             Nonetheless, given that theoretical perspectives emphasize the importance of social aspects of technology use including critical mass (Markus 1990), social influence (Fulk et al. 1987), adaptive structuration (Poole and DeSanctis 1990), hermeneutic interpretation (Lee 1994) and critical social theory (Ngwenyama and Lee 1997) it is important to investigate whether social influence should be integrated into TAM. Since the development of TAM, within the context of rational perspectives, recent research has successfully operationalized subjective norm (Mathieson 1991; Taylor and Todd 1995). However, research has studied only gender-based perceptual differences and not gender-based differences in decision making processes about technology. Thus, psychology research that studied gender differences in decision making processes indicates that schematic processing by women and men is different (Bem and Allen 1974), from an information processing perspective, there are known differences in determinants between both sexes (Tashakkori 1993).             Then Bem (1981) argues that women and men encode and process information using different socially-constructed cognitive structures that help determine and direct an individual's perceptions. As a result, individuals tend to make decisions which reflect biases inherent in the individual's perceptions and actions (Nisbett and Ross 1980). This means that gender schemas can be considered to be a normative guide (Kagan 1964; Kohlberg 1966) that causes unconscious or internalized action consistent with the schema. In studying acceptance and use of a technology, it is important to examine the phenomenon over duration of time since users will evolve from being novices to experienced users of the new system (Davis et al. 1989). This is of importance because the early stages of technology introduction, users are making an ‘’acceptance’’ decision, which has been shown to differ from "usage" decisions, as user experience increases (Davis et al. 1989). Therefore, to help gain a thorough understanding of the underlying phenomena, the role of gender involves the initial technology acceptance decisions and continued usage behavior decisions. The moderating role of gender is expected to continue with increasing user experience with one exception as subjective norm is not expected to be a significant determinant of intention with increasing experience for women and men. Perceived Usefulness             Perceived usefulness (U) is defined as the extent to which a person believes that using a particular technology will enhance his job performance (Davis 1989). Perceived usefulness, which reflects perceptions of the performance-use contingency, has been closely linked to outcome expectations, instrumentality, and extrinsic motivation (Davis 1989, 1993; Davis et al. 1989,1992). A significant body of TAM research has shown that perceived usefulness is a strong determinant of user acceptance and usage behavior (Davis 1989; Davis et al. 1989; Mathieson 1991; Taylor and Todd 1995; Venkatesh and Davis forthcoming). In understanding gender differences in the role of perceived usefulness as a determinant of technology acceptance, researchers draw from research on gender differences in the salience  outcomes as determinants of behavior. Prior research has indicated that men's work role is typically their most salient, while the family role is often only of secondary importance (Barnett and Marshall 1991). Hoffman (1972) points out that men are motivated by achievement needs to a greater extent than women as the arguments suggest that men, more than women, are directed toward individualistic tasks and goals (Carlson 1971; Gill et al. 1987; Stein and Bailey 1973). Perceived Ease of Use             Perceived ease of use (EOU) is defined as the degree to which a person believes that using the system will be free from effort (Davis 1989). Perceived ease of use has been shown to have an effect on intention via two causal pathways: (a) a direct effect on intention and (b) an indirect effect on intention via perceived usefulness (EOU-U-BI). The direct effect suggests that perceived ease of use could be a potential catalyst to increasing the likelihood of user acceptance. The indirect effect is explained as stemming from a situation where, other things being equal, the easier a technology is to use, the more useful it can be (Davis et al., 1989) with little no prior experience, such research has demonstrated that the direct causal pathway like EQU-BI is most relevant and the indirect effect via perceived usefulness can be less important (Davis et al. 1989; Szajna 1996). There is much evidence in psychology (Chan and Fishbein 1993; Sparks 1994; Fishbein and Stasson 1990) and information systems (Venkatesh forthcoming; Venkatesh and Davis 1996) supporting computer self-efficacy: one's judgment about one's ability to use a computer for a specific task as a determinant of perceptions of ease/ difficulty. In the context of technology acceptance and usage, evidence indicates that providing support is a very important response to help users overcome barriers and hurdles to technology use especially during the early stages of learning and use (Bergeron et al. 1990).             Furthermore, there is recent evidence from real world settings that women tend to be more anxious than men about computer use (Bozionelos 1996). A significant body of research in psychology (Hunt and Bohlin 1993) has shown an inverse relationship between computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy, a known determinant of perceived ease of use (Venkatesh and Davis 1996). Thus, given higher levels of computer anxiety among women can be expected to lead to lowering of self-efficacy, which in turn could lead to lowering of ease of use perceptions. Since perceived ease of use has been seen as a hurdle to user acceptance (Venkatesh and Davis 1996) low evaluations of ease of use can cause an increase in the salience of perceptions in determining user acceptance decisions. Thus, Davis et al. (1989) showed that perceived ease of use is a determinant of perceived usefulness. They interpret the relationship by stating that systems are easier to use may ultimately be more useful and systems will facilitate system use and task accomplishment more than systems that are seen as difficult to use. In other words, the system that is easier to use will generate the best benefit ratio for achievement-oriented individuals. For example, users of modern personal computers will consider graphical user interfaces to be productive than older text-based interfaces because they are easier to use although they may not be more useful than the older style interface. It seems that individuals for whom task achievement is most salient would be influenced more by perceived ease of use. Subjective Norm             Subjective norm (SN) is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that people who are important to him think he should perform the behavior in question (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). In the technology domain, both peer and superior influences have been shown to be strong determinants of subjective norm (Mathieson 1991; Taylor and Todd 1995). Therefore, in examining gender differences in subjective norm, it is useful to understand the degree to which women/men can be influenced and the extent to which they respond to information provided by other referents (Taylor and Hall 1982).  As Skitka and Maslach (1996) reported that women used constructs related with the harmonious functioning of groups, interrelationships and concern with the overall communion of the group in the process of describing others. Landau and Leventhal (1976) found that women were to retain less productive employees for social reasons compared to men (Miller 1986). For example, research shows that women tend to be compliant while men are likely to rebel against orders from others (Minton et al. 1971). Similarly, due to different socialization patterns of women in today's society, it is possible to argue that women being more susceptible to influence than men may be dated as recent evidence is consistent with a gender schema view that women tend to be much compliant (Crawford et al. 1995).               Few evidence suggests that women are more attentive to social cues in the environment while men attend to other stimuli such as objects and visual patterns (Garai and Scheinfeld 1968; Parsons and Bales 1955; Williams and Best 1982) as others suggested that women and men are equally attentive to social cues in the environment (Roberts 1991) but women are more responsive to those cues as they yield more to social pressures. This suggests that women may look at others opinions as opportunities to learn more about their own abilities and reasoning implies that women may weight the opinion of other people in considering new technology into the overall decision-making process about adopting that technology more than men. Although the context of investigation in research was not technology acceptance and use that the importance of social factors and increased deference to others' opinions will generalize to the context of decisions about technology and manifest itself in normative pressures being relevant for women.             Thus, it is clear that instrumental factors are not simply important initial determinants of intention: they remain important over the long term given that task-oriented factors are more important for men than for women (Minton and Schneider 1980) on an ongoing basis and expect that gender differences in the salience of instrumental factors that were present at the time of the initial acceptance decision will be sustained over time with increasing direct technology experience. Recent research has found that with increasing experience, both pathways remain significant (Venkatesh forthcoming; Venkatesh and Davis 1996). (Bergeron et al. 1990) indicates that providing support is a crucial element in alleviating constraints to technology usage with the short-term impact of perceived ease of use, in the long run it is expected that perceived ease of use, driven by availability of support to alleviate constraints to technology use, will be significant to women compared to men and corroborated the higher levels of computer anxiety (Bozionelos 1996; Morrow et al. 1986) and lower computer aptitude (Felter 1985) among women that may demand tapping into support during the early stages of experience and practice.             Research has shown the direct effects of perceived ease of use remain important, the indirect effect of perceived ease of use becomes stronger to understand gender differences in subjective norm over the long term, it is necessary to consider the role of experience and how that experience can influence the importance of others' opinions in determining intentions for any one individual. In the short term, we proposed that women will weight the opinions of others' more highly than men as other opinions can be expected to be critical when one has no prior experience with a specific technology in the stages of acceptance and usage (Warshaw 1980). As direct experience with technology increases, individuals have a better assessment of the benefits and costs associated with using that technology though their original decision was based on others' opinions, individuals begin to internalize others' opinions if they are consistent with the results of their own direct experience. Thus, the direct effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention is reduced (Oliver and Bearden 1985; Warshaw 1980) with increasing experience can be justified from an anchoring and adjustment perspective from behavioral decision theory. (Bettman and Sujan 1987; Mervis and Rosch 1980) that in the absence of direct behavioral experience with the target object, individuals anchor their perceptions to such criteria, which includes complying with the ideas of peers with increasing experience, user judgments reflect specific criteria that result from the interaction with the target object and from normative influences (Reinecke et al. 1996).             In the context of technology acceptance in voluntary usage settings suggests that the influence of peers will diminish to non-significance with increasing experience with the target system. The current important extensions to the Technology Acceptance Model using gender as a potential moderator will deal with gender differences in roles of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as determinants of technology acceptance and usage. In addition, the current work attempts to integrate subjective norm into TAM by taking a gender-oriented approach. In fact, perceived ease of use was not a salient factor to men at any point in time. Interestingly, men's assessment of ease of use of the system went up with experience and women's assessment went down because men perceive the system to be easier to use with increasing experience and being a non-significant factor in determining their intention to use the system. Subjective norm did not influence men's decisions at any point in time. In contrast, women did consider normative influences at the initial stage of technology introduction and after one month of experience. Women may still have been receiving and considering input from peers/superiors and had not fully internalized others' views. There are several important inferences can be made as one could argue that men are driven by instrumental factors while women are more motivated by process and social factors. However, perhaps a more qualitative interpretation would suggest that men are more focused in their decision making regarding new technologies while women are more balanced in their decision-making process.             Generally, TAM has been replicated and applied in a wide variety of settings but the extensions to the model are limited since, research has not yet investigated the ‘’conditions and mechanisms governing the impact of social influences on usage behavior" by Davis et al. (1989, p. 999) the proposed extensions to TAM, the integration of subjective norm, examination of gender differences in the role of the original TAM constructs and the related role of experience represent important theoretical advances in technology acceptance and usage of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use helps refine, sharpen and better apply TAM to the study of user acceptance and usage as the pattern which is consistent with psychology research (Tashakkori and Thompson 1991). The importance of subjective norm in determining technology adoption decisions among women merits attention by researchers and practitioners as the future research should focus on clarifying the underlying cognitive mechanisms for the greater importance placed by women on normative influences. It is important to understand the circumstances in which different mechanisms are operational in order to facilitate the design of appropriate organizational interventions for technologies being introduced. Generally, it is important to understand the cognitive mechanisms underlying the formation and change of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in general (Davis et al. 1992; Venkatesh and Davis 1996) and among women and men.             Thus, research should measure the awareness of others' feelings and motivation to examine the underlying psychological dimensions captured via gender that would be useful for several reasons. First, men and women are not at bipolar extremes on these dimensions. Thus, they might vary based on degrees of femininity and masculinity (Bem 1981). Furthermore, TAM is a psychological model as the consideration of gender as a biological construct is consistent with previous conceptualizations of the construct, it adds a layer of abstraction to TAM that might be alleviated by a psychological examination of gender or its underlying dimensions by investigating gender as a potential key to understanding the role of social influence in initial technology adoption decisions and sustained usage of new technologies. Therefore, technology acceptance theories and models that overlook gender as an important factor can possibly misjudge the influence of productive oriented factors while miscalculating the importance of ease of use perceptions and social influences.   Theory of Planned Behavior             Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Azjen, 1985, 1991) is an extension of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Azjen and Fishbein, 1980), made necessary by the latter model's inability to deal with behaviors over which individuals have incomplete volitional control. For TPB, attitude toward the target behavior and subjective norms about engaging in the behavior are thought to influence intention, and TPB includes perceived behavioral control over engaging in the behavior as a factor influencing intention. TPB has been used in many different studies in the information systems literature (Mathieson, 1991; Taylor and Todd, 1995a, b; Harrison et al., 1997). According to TPB, an individual's performance of a certain behavior is determined by his or her intent to perform that behavior. Intent is itself informed by attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms about engaging in the behavior, and perceptions about whether the individual will be able to successfully engage in the target behavior. According to Azjen (1985), an attitude toward a behavior is a positive or negative evaluation of performing that behavior. Attitudes are informed by beliefs, norms are informed by normative beliefs and motivation to comply, and perceived behavioral control is informed by beliefs about the individual's possession of the opportunities and resources needed to engage in the behavior (Azjen, 1991).             Azjen compares perceived behavioral control to Bandura's concept of perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). TPB also includes a direct link between perceived behavioral control and behavioral achievement. Given two individuals with the same level of intention to engage in a behavior, the one with more confidence in his or her abilities is more likely to succeed than the one who has doubts (Azjen, 1991). As a general theory, TPB does not specify the particular beliefs that are associated with any particular behavior, so determining those beliefs is left up to the researcher. An underlying premise of the current study is that beliefs about privacy and trustworthiness of the Internet inform attitudes toward Internet purchasing. TPB provides a robust theoretical basis for testing such a premise, along with a framework for testing whether attitudes are indeed related to intent to engage in a particular behavior, which itself should be related to the actual behavior. Based on the theory, beliefs about how important referent others feel about Internet purchasing, and motivation to comply with the views of important others, should also influence intent to make Internet purchases. Finally, beliefs about having the necessary opportunities and resources to engage in Internet purchasing should influence intent to purchase as well as directly influence purchasing behavior itself.             In the current study, TPB served as a useful foundation for helping explain Internet purchasing, even though the model used here departed from TPB traditions by not including intentions. The relationship between attitudes towards online purchasing and the actual behavior was strong and positive, even though it was not mediated by intention. The direct relationship in TPB between perceived behavioral control and behavior was supported here, and the relationship between self-efficacy and PBC was strong. Typically in TPB models, the effects of subjective norms on behavior would also be mediated by intention instead of the direct relationship posited here. That hypothesized direct relationship was not supported, even though the expected relationship between normative structure and subjective norms was. In this particular case, it may be that parents, friends, professors and classmates are not the important others that students listen to for determining their Internet behavior. Battacherjee (2000) found a strong relationship between subjective norms and intention, with the strongest antecedent to subjective norms being such external influences as news reports, the popular press, and mass media. It may also be the case here that external influences such as mass media would have been more persuasive than the referent others. As more and more studies of Internet purchasing behavior and its antecedents are done within the TPB framework, people are more able to discover and confirm which antecedents are most important, helping them build a robust theory of purchasing behavior.             Theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a theory introduced by Icek Ajzen in 1988, which helps to understand how people can change the behavior of people. TPB predicts deliberate behavior because behavior can be deliberative and planned. According to TPB, human action is guided by three kinds of considerations: 1) Behavioral Beliefs, 2) Normative Beliefs and 3) Control Beliefs. Theory of Planned Behavior is similar of Theory of Reasoned Action of Ajzen and Fishbein in 1975. Theory of planned behavior incorporates a construct of perceived behavioral control and thus enabling predictions to be made of actions that are under incomplete volitional control. In the theory, perceived behavioral control is a function of one's beliefs about how likely it is that one has the resources and opportunities required to perform the behavior. The theory was formulated by the Polish-born US psychologist Icek Ajzen (born 1942) and expounded Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior (1988) and in an article in the journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1991). Ajzen's (1988) theory of planned behavior has been used to investigate numerous health behaviors including exercise (Courneya & McAuley, 1995; Michels & Kugler, 1998; Nguyen, Potvin, & Otis, 1997) and condom use (Sutton, McVey, & Glanz, 1999). Nurse researchers have used the theory of planned behavior in areas of study including breast self-examination (Young, Lierman, Powell-Cope, & Benoliel, 1991) infant feeding methods (Duckett et al., 1998; Janke, 1994; Wambach, 1997) intention to obtain a pap smear (Jennings-Dozier, 1999) and adolescents' smoking intentions (Hanson, 1999).             Social psychology theorists assert that beliefs and attitudes mediate intention, and intention motivates behavior. Ajzen's (1988) theory of planned behavior was designed to identify the causal antecedents of behavior, and thereby to enable professionals to design appropriate interventions to modify behavior based on the data received from quantitative instruments. The theory of planned behavior is an extension of the theory of reasoned action developed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) which "views a person's intention to perform (or to not perform) a behavior as the immediate determinant of the action" (p. 41). Intentions are indicators of how hard people are willing to try to achieve behavioral goals. The theory of reasoned action includes two determinants to intention, one personal (attitude) and one social (subjective norm). An attitude is described as a negative or positive evaluation of performing or not performing a behavior. Subjective norm indicates a person's perceptions of the social pressures exerted by others who think that a given behavior should or should not be performed. Complete control over one's behavior is an assumption in the theory of reasoned action. Frequently people do not have complete control over their behavior. Adoption of a given behavior is located on a continuum that extends from total control to complete lack of control.             The theory of planned behavior includes the continuum, with the added construct of perceived behavioral control. Perceived behavioral control has been described as a measure of self-control (Hanson, 1997), and it is closely related to Bandura's (1977) concept of self-efficacy. Attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control can exert independent influences on the intention to perform the behavior in question as depicted in Figure 1 (Ajzen, 1991). People will tend to perform a behavior when they view it as having positive value for themselves, believe that others important to them think they should perform the behavior and perceive that they have some measure of control over the behavior (Courneya & McAuley, 1995). Ajzen asserted that all behaviors can be traced to a person's conscious, "accessible" beliefs about a behavior (Ajzen, 1988). Attitude originates from behavioral beliefs about the advantages and disadvantages of performing a given behavior such as evaluations of the consequences of performing or not performing the behavior. Subjective norm is a function of normative beliefs that are based on the likelihood that identified people or groups would approve or disapprove of performing the behavior, and one's motivation to comply with these others' opinions. Perceived behavioral control indicates beliefs about resources, opportunities, obstacles and impediments to performing a behavior and how much influence beliefs have on performing the behavior (Ajzen, 1988; Hanson, 1999). Integral to the theory of planned behavior is instrument development.             The theory of planned behavior requires that the construction of the belief-based scales of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control be accomplished by sampling respondents representative of the study population. This phase of instrument development is termed the "elicitation study" (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Specific questions addressing the belief-based construct of attitude in an elicitation study of postpartum smoking relapse would include, "What are the advantages and disadvantages of smoking after having a baby?" Subjective norm would be determined by asking women, "Who approves and disapproves of your smoking after having a baby?" and "How much does it matter to you what this person thinks?" Perceived behavioral control issues would be measured by the question: "What might keep you or stop you from smoking after having a baby?" Lastly, asking an open-ended question about the unique features of having a new baby and the effects of smoking should be included. The inclusion of the elicitation study is a major strength of the theory of planned behavior.             The term "variable" is used to indicate any independent variable not included in the theory of planned behavior. External variables are incorporated into studies using the theory of planned behavior to test the predictability and adequacy of the theory for a given population. The belief-based scale items derived from the accessible beliefs were originally purported to incorporate the influence of external factors such as age or education in the final determination of intention to perform a given behavior. However, Ajzen (1991) has since stated that the theory of planned behavior is open to the inclusion of predictors outside the stated theory, "if it can be shown that they capture a significant proportion of the variance in intention or behavior after the theory's current variables have been taken into account" (p. 199). In addition to demographic variables such as level of education, "context-specific" external variables, such as degree of nicotine addiction and smoking history, have been included in studies using the theory of planned behavior (Hu & Lanese, 1998; Norman, Bell, & Conner, 1999). Having a partner who smokes has also been a variable associated with smoking relapse in numerous descriptive studies (McBride et al., 1998; Mullen et al., 1997; Ratner, Johnson, Bottorff, Dahinten, & Hall, 2000; Severson, Andrews, Lichtenstein, Wall, & Zoref, 1995).             The separate consideration of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors is well established (Petty and Cacioppo, 1981). Fishbein and Ajzen has advanced a theory of reasoned action asserting that individuals’ beliefs and attitudes largely explain most human behaviors (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Although this theory is similar in some respects to other theories that explain human motivation and behavior, such as the expectancy theory developed by Vroom (1964) and the theory of behavior in organizations developed by Naylor et al. (1980), the theory is particularly useful because of its explicit attention to beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. This theory also gives explicit attention to one’s beliefs about the opinions of relevant other persons and one’s motivation to comply with those opinions, which may be useful in understanding the effect of the other members of the work unit on the polychronic behavior of the individual. A major determinant of the behavioral intention is the attitude toward that behavior, which follows from beliefs that the behavior leads to outcomes that the individual evaluated. The theory also specifies that the behavioral intention is affected by the subjective norm, which is determined by: (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1969; Davidson and Jaccard, 1975; DeVries and Ajzen, 1971; McArdle, 1972; Petty and Cacioppo, 1981). Ø      beliefs that specific other persons advocate performing or not performing the behavior Ø      the motivation to comply with their needs      Employing cognitive theories of behavior, which consider behavioral antecedents, is consistent with these suggestions. In this study, we examine the compliance behavior of taxpayers using Ajzen's (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (hereafter, TPB) which offers a comprehensive theory of the ant ecedents to behavior and a structure for extending prior research. Ajzen's (1991) theory of planned behavior (TPB) models behavioral intention as depending on three factors: (1) attitude toward the behavior (2) subjective norms and (3) perceived behavioral control. Each of the determinants of behavioral intention is itself a function of an individual's salient beliefs. Several social psychology studies have validated the TPB in a variety of contexts. (1) Two studies are particularly relevant to the investigation of noncompliance with tax laws. Beck and Ajzen (1991) studied the TPB's ability to predict dishonest actions by college students.             In another study, Parker et al. (1995) studied British drivers' intentions to engage in driving violations. In both of these studies, not only did the TPB constructs influence behavior, but a personal norm constructs added explanatory power to the model. Ajzen (1991) describes subjective norms as the influence of referent others. Subjective norms refer to a person's beliefs about whether specific individuals or groups approve or disapprove of the individual performing a specific behavior, and to what extent the individual is motivated to conform with these other individuals or groups. Subjective norms can be assessed directly or by considering the fundamental beliefs that underlie an individual's judgment of subjective norms. Prior research has found some evidence that taxpayers' beliefs about the expectations of important others is related to compliance intentions. In the TPB, perceived behavioral control (PBC) refers to the degree of control an individual perceives he has to engage in a particular behavior. More specifically, control beliefs, the fundamental determinants of perceived behavioral control, refer to an individual's beliefs regarding the presence or absence of resources and opportunities, as well as the obstacles and impediments to perform the specific behavior In question (Robben et al. 1990; Antonides and Robben 1995; Carnes and Englebrecht 1995).             Concern about the behavior has not been previously identified as a belief influencing compliance attitudes or intentions. A surprising result is that this concern appears to influence taxpayers' attitude more than their concern about incurring a penalty. Thus there appears to be a separate, negative "psychic" cost to engaging In a behavior that influences individuals' attitudes toward cheating. These belief measures were combined into an overall attitude score and included with subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and moral obligation as a test of the TPB. The fit of the models suggests that the TPB is an appropriate context to consider variables that influence technology and communication processes within the acquisition of the planned behavior (Bluedorn et al., 1999). Briefly, according to TPB human action is guided by three kinds of considerations: Ø      Behavioral Beliefs Ø      Normative Beliefs Ø      Control Beliefs             Ajzen's three considerations are crucial in circumstance when changing behavior of people. In their respective aggregates, behavioral beliefs produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the behavior, normative beliefs result in perceived social pressure or subjective norm, and control beliefs give rise to perceived behavioral control. In combination, attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perception of behavioral control lead to the formation of a behavioral intention. As a general rule, the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm and the greater the perceived control, the stronger should be the person’s intention to perform the behavior in question. A review of existing evidence suggests that the residual impact of past behavior is attenuated when measures of intention and behavior are compatible and vanishes when intentions are strong and well formed, expectations are realistic and specific plans for intention implementation have been developed. The Theory of Planned Behavior of Ajzen can help to explain why advertising campaigns merely providing information do not work. Increasing knowledge alone does not help to change behavior very much. Campaigns that aim at attitudes, perceived norms and control in making the change or buying certain goods have better results.             According to the theory of planned behavior, human action is guided by three kinds of considerations: beliefs about the likely outcomes of the behavior and the evaluations of these outcomes (behavioral beliefs), beliefs about the normative expectations of others and motivation to comply with these expectations (normative beliefs), and beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of the behavior and the perceived power of these factors (control beliefs). In their respective aggregates, behavioral beliefs produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the behavior; normative beliefs result in perceived social pressure or subjective norm; and control beliefs give rise to perceived behavioral control. In combination, attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perception of behavioral control lead to the formation of a behavioral intention. As a general rule, the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the perceived control, the stronger should be the person’s intention to perform the behavior in question. Finally, given a sufficient degree of actual control over the behavior, people are expected to carry out their intentions when the opportunity arises. Intention is thus assumed to be the immediate antecedent of behavior. However, because many behaviors pose difficulties of execution that may limit volitional control, it is useful to consider perceived behavioral control in addition to intention. To the extent that perceived behavioral control is veridical, it can serve as a proxy for actual control and contribute to the prediction of the behavior in question. The following figure is a schematic representation of the theory. Behavior             The behavior of interest is defined in terms of its Target, Action, Context, and Time (TACT) elements. Consider the case of walking on a treadmill in a physical fitness center for at least 30 minutes each day in the forthcoming month. Defining the TACT elements is somewhat arbitrary. Walking is clearly part of the action element, but we should probably also include 30 minutes a day in this element. The treadmill could be considered the target and the physical fitness center the context, or we may prefer to view the fitness center as the target and the treadmill as the context. The time element refers to when the behavior is performed. Compatibility. No matter how the TACT elements of the behavior are defined, it is important to observe the principle of compatibility which requires that all other constructs (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention) be defined in terms of exactly the same elements. Thus, the attitude compatible with this behavior is the attitude toward walking on a treadmill in a physical fitness center for at least 30 minutes each day, the subjective norm is the perceived social pressure to do so, perceived behavior control refers to control over performing the defined behavior, and we must assess the intention to perform this very behavior. The TACT elements in the above example are quite specific, but it is possible to increase the generality of one or more element by means of aggregation.               Ajzen and Fishbein formulated in 1980 the theory of reasoned action (TRA). This resulted from attitude research from the Expectancy Value Models. Ajzen and Fishbein formulated the TRA after trying to estimate the discrepancy between attitude and behavior. This TRA was related to voluntary behavior. Later on behavior appeared not to be 100% voluntary and under control, this resulted in the addition of perceived behavioral control. With this addition the theory was called the theory of planned behavior (TpB). The theory of planned behavior is a theory which predicts deliberate behavior, because behavior can be deliberative and planned.               Ajzen provides fairly clear instructions for designing theory of planned behavior questionnaires on his website. Ajzen uses a questionnaire to define the elements of behavior and uses direct observation or self-reports later on. Provide useful information for the development of communication strategies. This theory is also used in evaluation studies. Other usages of the model include: voting behavior, disease prevention behavior, birth control behavior (Jaccard & Davidson, 1972), consumption prediction. Recently (2002), Ajzen investigated residual effects of past on later behavior. He came to the conclusion that this factor indeed exists, but cannot be described to habituation, such as many people are thinking. A review of existing evidence suggests that the residual impact of past behavior is attenuated, when measures of intention and behavior are compatible. And the impact vanishes when intentions are strong and well formed, expectations are realistic, and specific plans for intention implementation have been developed. The Theory of Planned Behavior of Ajzen can help to explain why advertising campaigns merely providing information do not work. To only increase the knowledge does not help to change the behavior very much. Campaigns that aim at attitudes, perceived norms, and control in making the change or buying certain goods, have better results. Similarly in management, programs that focus only on explanation of the importance of something (knowledge transfer) will likely not succeed. Rather one should convince people to change their intention to change, by giving a lot of attention to attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavior control.             TPB posits that individual behavior is driven by behavioral intentions where behavioural intentions are a function of an individual's attitude toward the behaviour, the subjective norms surrounding the performance of the behavior, and the individual's perception of the ease with which the behavior can be performed (behavioral control). Attitude toward the behavior is defined as the individual's positive or negative feelings about performing a behaviour. It is determined through an assessment of one's beliefs regarding the consequences arising from a behavior and an evaluation of the desirability of these consequences. Formally, overall attitude can be assessed as the sum of the individual consequence x desirability assessments for all expected consequences of the behavior. Subjective norm is defined as an individual's perception of whether people important to the individual think the behavior should be performed. The contribution of the opinion of any given referent is weighted by the motivation that an individual has to comply with the wishes of that referent. Hence, overall subjective norm can be expressed as the sum of the individual perception x motivation assessments for all relevant referents. Behavioral control is defined as one's perception of the difficulty of performing a behavior. TPB views the control that people have over their behavior as lying on a continuum from behaviors that are easily performed to those requiring considerable effort, resources.             Although Ajzen has suggested that the link between behavior and behavioral control outlined in the model should be between behavior and actual behavioral control rather than perceived behavioral control, the difficulty of assessing actual control has led to the use of perceived control as a proxy. The theory of planned behavior holds that human action is guided by three kinds of considerations: Ø      Beliefs about the likely outcomes of the behavior and the evaluations of these outcomes (behavioral beliefs) Ø      Beliefs about the normative expectations of others and motivation to comply with these expectations (normative beliefs) Ø      Beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of the behavior and the perceived power of these factors (control beliefs).             In the respective aggregates, behavioral beliefs produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the behavior; normative beliefs result in perceived social pressure or subjective norm; and control beliefs give rise to perceived behavioral control. In combination, attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perception of behavioral control lead to the formation of a behavioral intention. As a general rule, the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the perceived control, the stronger should be the person’s intention to perform the behavior in question. Finally, given a sufficient degree of actual control over the behavior, people are expected to carry out their intentions when the opportunity arises. Intention is assumed to be the immediate antecedent of behavior. However, because many behaviors pose difficulties of execution that may limit volitional control, perceived behavioral control is thought to have an additional direct effect on behavior. Theory of Planned Behavior addresses the issue of behaviors that occur without a person's volitional control. This theory is the same as the Theory of Reasoned Action except for the addition of the Perceived Behavioral Control component. The Perceived Behavioral Control component consists of Control Beliefs and Perceived Power. These factors state that motivation, or intention, is influenced by how difficult the task is perceived to be and whether the person expects to successfully complete the behavior.             Ajzen's (1988) theory of planned behavior has been used to investigate numerous health behaviors including exercise (Courneya & McAuley, 1995; Michels & Kugler, 1998; Nguyen, Potvin, & Otis, 1997) and condom use (Sutton, McVey, & Glanz, 1999). Nurse researchers have used the theory of planned behavior in areas of study including breast self-examination (Young, Lierman, Powell-Cope, & Benoliel, 1991), infant feeding methods (Duckett et al., 1998; Janke, 1994; Wambach, 1997), intention to obtain a pap smear (Jennings-Dozier, 1999) and adolescents' smoking intentions (Hanson, 1999). Ajzen's (1988) theory of planned behavior was designed to identify the causal antecedents of behavior and thereby to enable professionals to design appropriate interventions to modify behavior based on the data received from quantitative instruments. Adoption of a given behavior is located on a continuum that extends from total control to complete lack of control. The theory of planned behavior includes this continuum, with the added construct of perceived behavioral control (Hanson, 1997).             Integral to the theory of planned behavior is instrument development. A semantic differential or Likert-type questionnaire is developed that consists of scales to measure intention, and the direct and belief-based measures of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. Measures of intention, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control are developed according to standard procedures for designing and testing such instruments. An example of a question measuring intention might be, "I intend to smoke cigarettes in the next month." A measure of attitude would include a question such as, "For me, smoking in the next month is harmful." The measure of subjective norm is usually one question, "Most people I care about think I should not smoke." "How much control do you think you have over whether you smoke cigarettes?" is an example of a measure of perceived behavioral control. The theory of planned behavior requires that the construction of the belief-based scales of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control be accomplished by sampling respondents representative of the study population. This phase of instrument development is termed the "elicitation study" (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).             The theory of planned behavior has been successfully applied in studies of smoking behaviors. Hanson (1997) used the theory of planned behavior to predict cigarette smoking intentions in three cultural groups of adolescent females. In the United Kingdom, Norman, Bell, and Conner (1999) assessed the main constructs of the theory of planned behavior in smokers who attended a health promotion clinic. Regression analyses indicated that intention to quit smoking was primarily predicted by perceived behavioral control and perceived susceptibility. Intention was found to be predictive of making an attempt to quit smoking in the next 6 months. The length of the longest quit attempt predicted smoking cessation in the last 5 years. In this study, the theory of planned behavior did not predict the success of quitting.   Theory of Reasoned Action               TRA posits that individual behavior is driven by behavioral intentions where behavioral intentions are a function of an individual's attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms surrounding the performance of the behavior. Attitude toward the behavior is defined as the individual's positive or negative feelings about performing a behavior. It is determined through an assessment of one's beliefs regarding the consequences arising from a behavior and an evaluation of the desirability of these consequences. Formally, overall attitude can be assessed as the sum of the individual consequence x desirability assessments for all expected consequences of the behavior. Subjective norm is defined as an individual's perception of whether people important to the individual think the behavior should be performed. The contribution of the opinion of any given referent is weighted by the motivation that an individual has to comply with the wishes of that referent. Hence, overall subjective norm can be expressed as the sum of the individual perception x motivation assessments for all relevant referents.               The model has some limitations including a significant risk of confounding between attitudes and norms since attitudes can often be reframed as norms and vice versa. A second limitation is the assumption that when someone forms an intention to act, they will be free to act without limitation. In practice, constraints such as limited ability, time, environmental or organizational limits, and unconscious habits will limit the freedom to act. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) attempts to resolve this limitation.             The Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that a person's behavior is determined by his/her intention to perform the behavior and that this intention is a function of his/her attitude toward the behavior and his/her subjective norm (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). According to Ajzen and Fishbein, in order to gain deeper understanding of the factors influencing behavior, it is required to look for the determinants of the attitudinal and normative components. As they explained, those determinants are beliefs individuals hold about themselves and their environment, in other words, information individuals have about themselves and the world in which they live. Therefore, beliefs are viewed as underlying a person's attitudes and subjective norms, and they ultimately determine intentions and behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Determinants of Attitude toward a Behavior             As Ajzen and Fishbein defined, an attitude is an index of the degree to which a person likes or dislikes an object, where "object" is used in the generic sense to refer to any aspect of the individual's world. They stated that a person's attitude toward a behavior is determined by the set of salient beliefs he holds about performing the behavior. Salient beliefs, according to Ajzen and Fishbein, are a small number of beliefs perhaps five to nine that a person can attend to at any given moment. To predict attitude from beliefs, Ajzen and Fishbein suggested four steps. The first step is the elicitation of a subject's salient beliefs.             However, in the context of actual studies, they suggested researchers to identify the set of beliefs that are salient in a given population. These model salient beliefs can be ascertained by eliciting beliefs from a representative sample of the population. The beliefs that are most frequently elicited by this sample constitute the model set of salient beliefs for the population in question. Determinants of Subjective Norms             According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), subjective norm is a function of normative beliefs. Subjective norm is defined as a person's "perception that most people who are important to him think he should or should not perform the behavior in question" (Chang, 1998). As they implied, in forming a subjective norm, an individual takes into account the normative expectations of other sources that are important to him/her. In determining subjective norms, salient referents need to be identified. According to the Theory of Reasoned Action, an individual's behavioral intention is the most immediate factor influencing his/her behavior. This intention is a function of the individual's attitude and subjective norm. The individual's attitude and subjective norm are both considered a function of the weighted sum of the appropriate beliefs (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Severin and Tankard, 2001).             The roots of the Reasoned Action Theory come from the field of Social Psychology. Social Psychologists attempt, among other things, to explain how and why attitude impacts behavior. That is, how and why peoples beliefs change the way they act. The study of attitude's influence on behavior began in 1872 with Charles Darwin. Darwin defined attitude as the physical expression of an emotion. In the 1930's psychologists defined attitude as an emotions or thought with a behavioral component. This behavior could be non-verbal (such as body language) or vocally expressed. Psychologists of the time argued about what should make up the term attitude. Social Psychologists theorized that attitude included behavior and cognition and that attitude and behavior were positively correlated. Gordon Allport proposed in1935 that the attitude-behavior concept was multi dimensional rather than unit dimensional, as had previously been thought. Theory of Reasoned Action says that a person’s behavior is determined by their attitude towards the outcome of that behavior and by the opinions of the person's social environment. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980, p62) proposed that a person's behavior is determined by his intention to perform the behavior and that this intention is, in turn, a function of his attitude toward the behavior and his subjective norm.               Attitudes are made up of the beliefs that a person accumulates over his lifetime. Some beliefs are formed from direct experience, some are from outside information and others are inferred or self generated. However, only a few of these beliefs actually work to influence attitude. These beliefs are called salient beliefs and they are said to be the "immediate determinants of a person's attitude" (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980, p63).             An attitude, then, is a person's salient belief about whether the outcome of his action will be positive or negative. If the person has positive salient beliefs about the outcome of his behavior then he is said to have a positive attitude about the behavior. And, vice-versa, if the person has a negative salient beliefs about the outcome of his behavior he is said to have a negative attitude. The beliefs are rated for the probability that engaging in the behavior will produce the believed outcome. This is called the belief strength. Next the perception of whether this outcome is positive or negative is evaluated using a Likert. These two factors, belief strength and evaluation, are then multiplied to give the attitude. Subjective Norms are beliefs about what others will think about the behavior. They are perceptions about how family and friends will perceive the outcome of the behavior and the degree to which this influences whether the behavior is carried out to comply. These two factors are multiplied to give the subjective norm. It is important to note that subjective norms are formed only in relation to the opinions of persons considered to be significant or important.  The theory is represented symbolically as follows: B ~ I = (Aact) w1 + (SN) w2 Where B=Behavior, I = Intention, Aact = the person's attitude towards the behavior SN = the influence of the person's Subjective Norms  An example: Attitude: “I think drinking is bad for my health" Subjective Norm: “I bet my girlfriend wants me to stop drinking" Intention “I want to stop drinking" Behavior “I’m going to AA and I haven't had a drink in 6 weeks"             TRA theory comes from the nature of the self reporting used to determine subjects’ attitudes. No direct observation is used in the application of this theory, only self reported information is used. Self reported data is very subjective and is not necessarily always accurate.  Ajzen and Fishbein noted that the theory was limited by what they call correspondence. In order for the theory to predict behavior, attitude and intention must agree on action, target, context and time. The greatest limitation of the theory stems from the assumption that behavior is under volitional control. That is, the theory only applies to behavior that is consciously thought out before hand. Irrational decisions, habitual actions or any behavior that is not consciously considered cannot be explained by this theory. For example, Ajzen, Timko and White (82) found that people who are prone to vary their behavior depending on what situation they are in (high self monitors) are not explained by the TRA. A high self monitor does not always act on the intentions he has.             Communication theories can help us to develop our outreach programs by giving us a clear picture or understanding of human communication and human behavior.  Ajzen and Fishbein developed a versatile behavioral theory and model in 1980 called the Theory of Reasoned Action. This theory details the factors and inputs that result in any particular behavior.  In this theory, a person’s attitude toward a behavior consists of 1) a belief that that particular behavior leads to a certain outcome and 2) an evaluation of the outcome of that behavior.  If the outcome seems beneficial to the individual, he or she may then intend to or actually participate in a particular behavior.  Also included in one’s attitude toward a behavior is their concept of the subjective norm. Subjective norm is a person’s perception of what others around them believe that the individual should do.  In its purest essence, subjective norm is a type of peer pressure.  Whether or not a person participates or intends to participate in any behavior is influenced strongly by the people around them.  These people may include friends or a peer group, family, co-workers, church congregation members, community leaders and even celebrities.  A belief that Ted Nugent is a good rocker and an advocate of responsible hunting can influence one’s attitude toward hunting and may lead them to participate in responsible hunting behaviors.              People may also be inclined to participate in a behavior based upon their desire to comply with others.  Laws or rules prohibiting a behavior may have an impact on one’s attitude toward participating in a behavior.  Strict drunk-driving rules in the State of Michigan along with a desire to comply with laws can lead a person to believe that they will be punished should they participate in that behavior.  They may also develop a negative attitude toward drunk driving and a strong intention not to act in that manner. Ultimately, one’s attitude toward a behavior can lead to an intention to act. This intention may or may not lead to a particular behavior.  An attitude to behavior is one's evaluation of the goodness or badness of performing the action in question, and a subjective norm is the perceived social pressure arising from one's perception of the extent to which significant others would like one to perform the action. Algebraically, B(f)BI = w 1 A B + w 2 SN , where B denotes behavior, f indicates a function, BI behavioral intention, A B attitude towards the behavior, and SN subjective norm; w 1 and w 2 are empirically determined weights representing the relative importance of the attitudinal and normative components. Attitude towards the behavior (A B) is determined by one's beliefs about the consequences of the behavior multiplied by the evaluation of each consequence. Social norm (SN) is a function of one's perception of the preferences of significant others as to whether one should engage in the behavior.               The weights w 1 and w 2 reflect the relative influence on behavioral intention of attitude towards the behavior and subjective norm. The theory was formulated by the US psychologist Martin Fishbein (born 1936) and the Polish-born US psychologist Icek Ajzen (born 1942) The theory is well supported by research findings, but a limitation of it is that it applies only to behavior that is predominantly voluntary and this limitation was addressed in the later theory of planned behavior. The Theory of Reasoned Action (TORA) suggests that intentions to argue will be a direct function of attitudes about arguing and beliefs about what important others think about arguing. This study applied TORA to the prediction of persons' intentions to argue on the topic of free condom distribution. Trait argumentativeness was found to mediate normative influences on intentions. The subjective norm as a predictor of intentions differed across levels of argumentativeness. Ego-involvement was found to be the overall most important determinant of argumentative intentions across argumentative levels. The present study tested the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) as an alternative and perhaps more comprehensive approach to account for argumentative intentions. Argument is an intentional, purposeful activity involving reason and judgment.               The Theory of Reasoned Action (TORA) maintains that a person's decision to engage in purposeful activity is a function of several factors, some of which are highly situationally bound and all of which may be mediated by personal dispositions or traits. In this study, people's intentions to argue on a controversial issue were treated as a function of the full set of TORA variables, plus trait argumentativeness, ego-involvement, and religious orientation. Results were expected to reveal a set of dispositional and situational variables that would account for a large portion of variance in argumentative intentions, further clarifying the role of the trait in such predictions relative to that of other factors. It was also expected that the results would provide implications for the study of argumentativeness and argumentative behavior as applied to context-specific issues. The approach-avoidance perspective on trait argumentativeness treats the construct as a personality disposition. Recognizing that personality is seldom the sole predictor of behavior in any given situation, argumentative research eventually began to consider the role of situational factors along with the trait in determining argumentative choices and outcomes. Infante (1987) used argumentativeness as the case construct in his study of how responses to communication situations can be better predicted from communication traits coupled with situational perceptions than by either traits or situation factors alone.               This "Interactionist" perspective maintains that one's relative motivation to argue in any given situation is determined by the interaction of the person's trait argumentativeness and his/her perceptions of the probability and importance of success and failure in the situation. Combining indexes of such situational evaluations with trait argumentativeness, Infante (1987) was able to account for significantly greater variance (r = .64) in argumentative motivations than he was with the trait alone (r = .24). As a result, many studies of argumentativeness since then have followed the interactionist approach in predicting argumentative intentions and outcomes, and differentiating high and low argumentative' responses to argument situations (Infante, 1987; Infante & Rancer, 1993; Stewart & Roach, 1993). These studies routinely utilize measures of outcome value, that is, probability and importance of success and failure, as the index of situational perceptions.             Clearly the interactionist approach provides for greater power in predicting and explaining reactions to argument situations than does the dispositional approach alone. Yet there is more to a situation that is likely to determine argumentative intentions than just the person's assessment of outcome values. People's beliefs about arguing (Rancer et. al., 1985), the importance they place on the argument issue (Infante & Rancer, 1993; Onyekwere, Rubin and Infante, 1991), the effects of other dispositional factors (e.g., Stewart & Roach, 1993), and the influence of other people on the arguer may all combine to ultimately determine a person's intention to argue on any given occasion. The contention here is that the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein,1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) provides a framework whereby these various elements can be combined to predict argumentative intentions, perhaps to an extent greater than that achieved so far by the interactionist approach. In fact, Infante and Rancer (1982) cited Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) notion of the attitude-behavior relationship in their original conceptualization of trait argumentativeness, but the full contingent of TORA constructs has not been applied to predictions of argumentative intentions.             The Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein &Ajzen, 1975) stipulates that any behavior, such as argument behavior, is primarily determined by intentions to perform the behavior (BI). Behavioral intentions, in turn, arise from two conceptually independent determinants: Attitudes toward performing the behavior (ATT), consisting of the individual's positive and negative perceptions of outcomes associated with engaging in the behavior; and subjective norm (NORM), the individual's perception that other people who are important to him/her think that s/he should or should not engage in the behavior. The two determinants of BI are themselves functions of salient belief sets associated with the behavior. Following TORA then, arguing an issue in any given situation may be seen as a function of the arguer's expressed intention to argue (BI) which itself is a function of the individual's overall attitude about arguing the issue (ATT) and the individual's felt pressure to argue resulting from beliefs that significant others would encourage or discourage him/her to argue the issue (NORM). The element of the ATT factor is akin to the assessments of outcome values as measured in previous studies of argumentativeness that take the interactionist approach (e.g., Infante, 1987).             Later development of TORA has brought two other factors into the study of the relationships among norms, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. One is perceived behavioral control (PBC). Ajzen (1985) argued that sometimes social behaviors are not completely under volitional control, making control a variable in a person's reasoning about performing a behavior. Specifically, PBC concerns the relative ease or difficulty with which a person believes s/he can perform a given behavior. These perceptions can impact performance of the behavior either directly or through BI. Thus, he recommended the inclusion of a measure of perceived control in models attempting to predict behavioral intentions. The other recent factor is emotional reaction (ER). Fishbein, Bandura, Triandis, Kanfer, Becker and Middlestadt (1992) contend that certain emotions can be triggered as a conditioned response to the simple thought of engaging in a particular behavior. As such, ER is distinct from ATT in that it is less cognitive and more affective than the latter construct.             Argumentativeness and argumentative intentions have to date been studied with at least an implied assumption operating that arguing is completely volitional. Intuitively, however, people might sometimes feel compelled to argue, such that they have no expressed intention to do so, but do so anyway because of the other person or the issue or the situation. Their intentions in such cases would be better predicted and explained having considered their degree of perceived control over performing the behavior. As for ER, the very thought of having an argument or of arguing about a particular issue may elicit emotional reactions that more immediately determine the person's affective response to the situation compared to his/her more enduring attitude about arguing. Dispositional or trait-like variables have been found to differentiate the relative influence of the attitudinal and normative factors in TORA on intentions to perform a behavior. A case in point is a study by DeBono and Omoto (1994). They compared high- and low-self-monitoring persons' intentions to write a letter about drinking-age legislation and the relative influence of attitudes and subjective norms on those intentions. The intentions of high self-monitors were predicted by both ATT and NORM, whereas the intentions of low self-monitors were predicted only by ATT (Rancer, Baukus, & Infante, 1985).             DeBono and Omoto (1994) make the point that a fuller understanding of the parameters of TORA can be achieved by identifying conditions in which attitude and subjective norm are differentially related to behavioral intentions. Personality-type or dispositional variables represent such conditions (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The case can be made, then, that trait argumentativeness should be included in an application of TORA to the prediction of intentions to argue. Extrinsic religiousness represents a conventional, socially driven approach to religion (Allport & Ross, 1967) and is thereby dependent on subjective norms, at least conceptually. Therefore, it is possible that extrinsically religious low ARGs were equally motivated to argue as were high ARGs because of normative pressure, the idea that "I'm expected to do this so I will." Interestingly, research has applied TORA to the prediction of religious behavior (Gorsuch & Wakeman, 1991). It is worth examining the extent to which differences exist across types of religious orientation in BI, NORM, and ATT relative to argumentative intentions in order to more clearly delineate why low argumentative persons who are extrinsically religious might be so strongly inclined to argue.             First, it represents a controversial issue overlapping social, political, and personal realms, the three most frequently indicated realms of argument topics in the Infante and Rancer (1993) study. Second, condom distribution was one of the two topics used in the Stewart and Roach (1993) study of religious orientation and argumentativeness, so that the present study provides an extension of their study on the topic factor. Third, the TORA model has often been applied to studies of sexual behavior, including condom use (Chan & Fishbein, 1993; Boyd & Wandersman, 1991). The TORA model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein &Ajzen, 1975) was thought to be more extensive in its inclusion of multiple situational perception factors and appropriate dispositional factors than the "interactionist" approach often taken in studies of argumentativeness (Infante, 1987). Generally, results of this study showed the TORA model to be no stronger at predicting argumentative intentions than the interactionist model, but several findings do highlight important differences among levels of argumentativeness and the potential role of other variables in the prediction of intentions to argue and perhaps actual argument behavior. Within the framework of TORA, attitudes toward arguing in a particular situation (ATT) and beliefs about what important other people or groups think about arguing the case (NORM) are the primary determinants of intentions to argue (BI).             Simple correlations showed both NORM and ATT to be directly related to argumentative intentions and at a magnitude greater than that of trait argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982), the direct effect of those attitudes on intentions to argue is not a function of trait argumentativeness. It need not necessarily be a "controversial" issue as specified in Infante and Rancer's (1982) definition of trait argumentativeness (Stewart & Roach, 1993), at least in a social or political sense, but it must be personally relevant. In fact, the controversial nature of the topic "condom distribution on campus" may actually have been a limitation in this study. It stands to reason, then, that studies of argumentativeness and argumentative intentions should include ego-involvement as a predictor or covariate. Especially important would be studies to examine more directly what it is about ego-involving topics or situations that motivate individuals to argue, and to determine if there are categories of topics or types of situations that are more ego-involving than others (Infante & Rancer,1993). Recent studies adhering to the TORA framework (Ajzen, 1985; Fishbein et. al., 1992) have enhanced prediction of behavior and behavioral intentions by including in the model measures of perceived behavioral control and emotional response (ER). In the current study, we reasoned that these factors might also be important to the prediction of argumentative intentions. Both factors did correlate significantly and positively with BI, but neither was found to be a direct indicator of BI in regression analyses across levels of argumentativeness.             Finally, it is important to compare the general findings of this study to those of previous studies that followed the interactionist perspective. In particular, the TORA model as applied here accounted for overall less variance in argumentative intentions than the interactionist model did in predicting argumentative motivations (Infante, 1987). As such, the interactionist model warrants further use as a framework for the study of trait versus situational determinants of argumentative intentions. The present findings, however, do not discount the utility of TORA. Indeed, whereas trait argumentativeness did mediate the influence of NORM and EGO factors in the prediction of argumentative intentions, the correlation of the trait with intentions was considerably smaller than that of intentions with any of the TORA variables.  In effect, the two perspectives--TORA and interactionist--should be directly compared in the same study, using as criterion variables both motivational measures and behavioral intentions. Ultimately, behavioral criteria will be the best test of model effects. Furthermore, argument issue is clearly a factor in differentiating intentions, attitudes, and norms pertinent to a given argument situation (Infante & Rancer, 1993; Rancer et. al., 1985).             The theory of reasoned action provides a useful framework for analyzing questions about an individual’s polychronicity. In this section we will address some examples intended to illustrate the application of the theory, including the effects of available time, formal education, fatigue, and time of day on an individual’s polychronicity. We will address Hall’s observation that the Japanese operate more monochronically when dealing with foreigners than with other Japanese. We will also address the relative importance of relationships and tasks to be accomplished. According to the theory of reasoned action, some other variables would have to be held constant if the answer were to be meaningful. For example, the subjective norm may differ for different tasks in different settings. A supervisor may believe that a particular task – preparing client invoices, for example – deserves the subordinate’s undivided attention and insist that no other tasks should be performed until the target task has been completed. The same supervisor, however, may prefer the subordinate’s simultaneous involvement in a set of three or four other tasks – for example, answering the telephone, greeting visitors, and typing routine correspondence – because there is less concern about accuracy. Different supervisors, with different opinions about the tasks that are appropriate for simultaneous completion may supervise the same subordinate on different days of the week. Perhaps supervisor number two feels strongly that the person preparing client invoices should also be responsible for answering the phone.             The theory of reasoned action suggests that the different opinions of these supervisors may affect the behavioral intentions and the polychronic behavior of the subordinate. The theory also allows that the subordinate may simply enjoy the additional stimulation of polychronic behavior and feel so strongly about it that the supervisor’s preference is ignored. Similarly, the behavioral norms of other members of the individual’s work unit may or may not influence the individual’s behavior. The theory of reasoned action leads to questions that should be answered in order to understand an individual’s polychronicity: what advantages does the individual perceive in a monochronic approach to a set of tasks? What will be the consequences of a monochronic or a polychronic approach for the efficiency and effectiveness of task performance? How much does the individual care about the quality of the work? The theory of reasoned action may also be useful for considering questions such as whether fatigue is likely to affect an individual’s polychronicity and whether an individual is more polychronic in the morning than in the afternoon or evening. The theory suggests at least three variables are relevant: Ø      individual’s energy level Ø      norms in the work unit Ø      priorities assigned to the tasks to be accomplished.             The theory of reasoned action suggests a number of possible reasons for this behavior: perhaps they believe that the technical quality of their performance with foreigners will be better if they operate monochronically. Perhaps they are more comfortable focusing on a single task with foreigners, because the mere presence of the foreigners makes the work sufficiently stimulating. Perhaps they are aware that foreigners, at least foreigners from the USA, often operate monochronically, and they prefer to reduce the likelihood of a misunderstanding by operating monochronically themselves. As its name implies, the theory of reasoned action provides a rational explanation for human behavior, an explanation that some people may find excessively rational. As Skinner (1974) pointed out, other explanations include genetic factors and operant conditioning. Nevertheless, the theory of reasoned action provides a well established theoretical foundation on which the polychronicity issues raised and discussed in this article can be investigated. Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that a person's behavior is determined by his/her intention to perform the behavior and that this intention is, in turn, a function of his/her attitude toward the behavior and his/her subjective norm. The best predictor of behavior is intention. Intention is the cognitive representation of a person's readiness to perform a given behavior, and it is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behavior. This intention is determined by three things: their attitude toward the specific behavior, their subjective norms and their perceived behavioral control. The theory of planned behavior holds that only specific attitudes toward the behavior in question can be expected to predict that behavior. In addition to measuring attitudes toward the behavior, we also need to measure people’s subjective norms – their beliefs about how people they care about will view the behavior in question. To predict someone’s intentions, knowing these beliefs can be as important as knowing the person’s attitudes. Finally, perceived behavioral control influences intentions. Perceived behavioral control refers to people's perceptions of their ability to perform a given behavior. These predictors lead to intention. A general rule, the more favorable the attitude and the subjective norm, and the greater the perceived control the stronger should the person’s intention to perform the behavior in question.

The study of social psychological theories to understand information and communication technology acceptance and usage

The study of social psychological theories to understand information and communication technology acceptance and usage are be...