a0005
Intentional Behavior
Martin Fishbein
Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
1. Introduction
2. Defining Intentions
3. Intentions as Predictors of Behavior
4. Moderators of the Intention–Behavior Relation
5. An Integrated Theoretical Model
6. Determinants of Behavior
7. Determinants of Intention
8. Determinants of Attitudes, Norms, and Self-Efficacy
9. The Role of Distal Variables
10. Conclusion
Further Reading
GLOSSARY
attitude One’s overall feeling of favorableness or unfavor-
ableness with respect to a given object or action.
behavior A directly observable action performed with re-
spect to some target, in some context, at some point in
time.
behavioral categories Broad categories of behavior (e.g.,
prejudice, exercising, dieting) that are inferred from the
observation of one or more behaviors.
behavioral intention A readiness to engage in a particular
behavior.
behavioral norm One’s perception of whether important
others are (or are not) performing a given behavior.
correspondence The principle that measures of behavioral
determinants and behavior involve exactly the same ac-
tion, target, context, and time elements.
goals Desired conditions, occurrences, or states that may be
outcomes of performing one or more behaviors (e.g., los-
ing weight, staying healthy, getting an A on an exam).
Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology,
VOLUME 2
meta-analysis A statistical procedure to quantify and sum-
marize results from a number of different studies.
self-efficacy One’s perception that he or she can perform a
given behavior, even in the face of various obstacles.
subjective norm One’s perception of what important others
think he or she should (or should not) do.
Although it has been argued that many behaviors are
performed automatically, without reflection on or
awareness of intention, it would be hard to argue that
most behaviors of interest to an applied psychologist
are either automatic or habitual. In fact, most people
can quickly and easily report the likelihood that they
will or will not perform given behaviors, and when
these measures of intention (or self-prediction) are
assessed appropriately, they are highly related to
actual behavioral performance.
1. DEFINING BEHAVIOR s0005
Although behavior is often taken as a given, it is im-
portant to distinguish among behaviors, behavioral
categories, and goals. All too often, investigators fail
to distinguish between behaviors per se and occur-
rences that may be the outcome of those behaviors.
For example, weight loss and success (or failure) on an
exam have often been used as behavioral criteria.
Unfortunately, neither of these is a behavior. Success
on an exam is a possible outcome of specific actions
329 #2004 Elsevier Inc.
All rights reserved.
330 Intentional Behavior
such as attending lectures, reading books, memorizing
materials, and even copying answers from another
person’s test paper. Another problem is that investiga-
tors often treat inferences from behaviors as if they
themselves were behaviors. For example, aggression,
discrimination, dieting, and exercising have often been
viewed as behavioral criteria. Unfortunately, none of
these is a directly observable behavior. Instead, these
are broad behavioral categories that are inferred from
the observation of one or more behaviors. That is,
although it is possible to observe specific actions that
are assumed to be instances of a general class or cate-
gory of behavior, the category per se cannot be directly
observed. Thus, knowing that someone was ‘‘exercis-
ing,’’ for example, might reveal very little about the
specific ‘‘exercise’’ behaviors that the person did (or
did not) perform.
In contrast to goals (or outcomes) and behavioral
categories, behaviors are directly observable actions.
Note, however, that the direct observation of any be-
havior always occurs in a given context at a given
point in time. This implies that both context and
time should be included in the definition of a behav-
ior. Moreover, because most actions are directed at
some object or target, a behavioral definition should
involve four elements: the action (e.g., enlisting, buy-
ing, using), the target (e.g., the army, cigarettes, con-
doms), the context (e.g., after graduating high school,
at the supermarket, for vaginal sex with one’s spouse),
and the time (e.g., yesterday, during the past month).
Clearly, a change in any one of the elements changes
the behavior under consideration. For example, enlist-
ing in the army is a different behavior from enlisting in
the navy (a change in target), using a condom for
vaginal sex with one’s spouse is a different behavior
from using a condom for vaginal sex with a new part-
ner (a change in context), and asking someone
whether he or she purchased a car during the past
3 months is assessing a different behavior from asking
whether someone purchased a car during the past
2 years.
Although all four elements should be considered in
arriving at one’s behavioral criterion, the level of specif-
icity or generality used to define each element should
be determined by the substantive questions being
asked. Thus, a behavior may be assessed at a fairly
general level (e.g., people could be asked whether
they have ever [time] purchased [action] cigarettes
[targets] [context unspecified]) or at a more specific
level (e.g., people could be asked whether they had
purchased [action] Marlboro Light 100s [target] from
their local supermarket [context] during the past 2
weeks [time]).
2. DEFINING INTENTIONS s0010
Intentions can be conceptualized as a readiness to en-
gage in a particular behavior. This readiness to act can
be assessed by asking people to indicate the extent to
which they agree (or disagree) with statements such as
‘‘I will engage in the behavior,’’ ‘‘I intend to engage in
the behavior,’’ ‘‘I expect to engage in the behavior,’’
‘‘I am willing to engage in the behavior,’’ and ‘‘I will try
to engage in the behavior.’’ A number of investigators,
however, have proposed that some of these items assess
distinct constructs. For example, it has been suggested
that it is important to distinguish between intention
and behavioral expectation. More specifically, it was
hypothesized that behavioral expectations are better
predictors of behavior than are behavioral intentions
because the former are more likely to take into account
possible impediments to performance of the behavior.
Thus, items such as ‘‘I intend to . . .,’’ ‘‘I will try to . . .,’’
and ‘‘I plan to . . .’’ have been used to assess intentions
and items such as ‘‘I expect to . . .’’ and ‘‘I will . . .’’ to
assess behavioral expectations. Available evidence to
date suggests that there is little to be gained by this
proposed distinction. For example, a meta-analysis of a
broad set of behaviors found no difference in the
predictive validity of expectations and intentions.
Thus, this article uses the term ‘‘behavioral intention’’
to refer to measures that assess one’s readiness to en-
gage in a specific behavior. In addition, it should
be noted that people may also form intentions to en-
gage in a behavioral category (e.g., to exercise) or to
pursue some goal (e.g., to lose weight).
3. INTENTIONS AS PREDICTORS s0015
OF BEHAVIOR
Empirical research over the past three decades or so
has led to the recognition that behaviors can be pre-
dicted with considerable accuracy by appropriately
assessing intentions to engage in the behaviors under
consideration. For a measure of intention to correlate
closely with behavior, the intention measure must in-
volve exactly the same elements as does the behavior
itself.
 Intentional Behavior
s0020
3.1. The Principle
of Correspondence
The requirement that measures of intention and behav-
ior involve exactly the same action, target, context, and
time elements is known as the principle of correspon-
dence or compatibility. The principle of correspon-
dence is sometimes misunderstood to mean that
intentions and behaviors should always be defined
and measured at a very specific level. In reality, the
principle simply suggests that the two variables—
intention and behavior—should be measured at equiv-
alent levels of generality or specificity. If, for whatever
reason, investigators are interested in a very specific
behavior performed in a particular context and at a
given point in time, the intention should be assessed
at that same level of specificity. However, investigators
might not be interested in a particular context or time,
and they can generalize across these elements in their
measures of behavior and in their measures of inten-
tion. To the extent that the assessments of intention
and behavior comply with the principle of correspon-
dence, they should correlate highly with each other.
Many studies have substantiated the predictive
validity of behavioral intentions. When measured
appropriately, behavioral intentions account for an ap-
preciable proportion of variance in actual behavior.
Meta-analyses covering diverse behavioral domains
have reported mean intention–behavior correlations
ranging from .45 to .62. Studies in specific behavioral
domains, such as condom use and exercise, have pro-
duced similar results, with intention–behavior correla-
tions ranging from .44 to .56. A meta-analysis of these
and other meta-analyses reported an overall correla-
tion of .53 between intention and behavior.
Thus, there is considerable evidence that the perfor-
mance or nonperformance of a given behavior is deter-
mined primarily by the strength of a person’s intention
to perform (or to not perform) that behavior, where
intention is defined as the subjective likelihood that
one will perform (or try to perform) the behavior in
question. In contrast to the strong relationship be-
tween behavioral intention and behavior, however,
intentions to reach goals and intentions to engage in
behavioral categories might not provide very good
prediction of goal attainment or the performance of a
specific behavior within the behavioral category. In the
latter case, the problem is largely methodological and
in many ways is nothing more than a case of failure to
obtain correspondence. That is, people are asked their
intentions to engage in a class of behaviors (e.g., to diet
331
or exercise), but the behavioral criterion is a measure
of whether they have or have not performed one or
more specific behaviors that are assumed to be a good
indicant of the category. With respect to goal attain-
ment, it should be clear that achieving a goal often
requires more than a behavioral performance on the
part of an individual. Achieving a goal often depends
on the decisions or actions of other people or on the
occurrence of certain events. To put this somewhat
differently, goal (or outcome) attainment is often not
completely under an individual’s control, and the less
control one has over attaining some goal, the lower the
intention–goal attainment relation. In the same sense,
one could argue that the less a given behavior is under
one’s control, the lower the intention–behavior rela-
tionship. Fortunately, as pointed out earlier, most
human behaviors (and certainly most that are of inter-
est to an applied psychologist) are under volitional
control. Nevertheless, people do not always act in
accordance with their intentions.
4. MODERATORS OF THE s0025
INTENTION–BEHAVIOR RELATION
Perhaps the two major factors that prevent one from
acting on his or her intentions are (a) a lack of neces-
sary skills and abilities and (b) the presence of envi-
ronmental constraints (or the absence of environmental
facilitators). Other factors may also account for
observed low intention–behavior relations. As dis-
cussed previously, low correlations may be due to a
lack of correspondence between the measures of inten-
tion and behavior. In addition, intentions may change
over time; the longer the time interval between the
assessment of intention and the assessment of behav-
ior, the greater the likelihood that the intention will
change. This implies that the longer the interval be-
tween the assessment of intention and the observa-
tion of behavior, the lower the intention–behavior
correlation.
5. AN INTEGRATED THEORETICAL s0030
MODEL
Although there are many theories of behavioral predic-
tion and behavior change in the literature (e.g., the
theory of planned behavior, the theory of subjective
culture and interpersonal relations, the transtheoretical
 332 Intentional Behavior

model of behavior change, the information/motivation/
behavioral skills model, the health belief model, social
cognitive theory, the theory of reasoned action), a care-
ful consideration of these theories suggests that there are
only a limited number of variables that need to be
considered in predicting and understanding any given
behavior.
efficacy or personal agency that involves the individ-
ual’s perception that he or she can perform the behav-
ior in question under a variety of difficult or
challenging circumstances. These and other consid-
erations suggest the following integrative model of
behavioral prediction (Fig. 1).

s0035
5.1. Attitudes, Perceived Norms, 6. DETERMINANTS OF BEHAVIOR s0040

and Self-Efficacy
In general, one can identify three factors that may
directly influence an individual’s intentions and behav-
iors: (a) the individual’s attitude toward performing
the behavior (i.e., the person’s overall positive or
negative feelings of favorableness or unfavorableness
with respect to performing the behavior) that is based
on the person’s beliefs that performing the behavior
will lead to various positive or negative consequences
(or outcomes), (b) perceived normative pressure that
includes the perception that the individual’s impor-
tant others think that one should (or should not)
perform the behavior in question as well as the per-
ception that these important others are (or are not)
themselves performing the behavior, and (c) self-
In Fig. 1, it can be seen that any given behavior is most
likely to occur if one has a strong intention to perform
the behavior, if one has the necessary skills and abil-
ities required to perform the behavior, and if there are
no environmental constraints preventing behavioral
performance. Indeed, if one has made a strong commit-
ment (or has formed a strong intention) to perform a
given behavior, if one has the necessary skills and
abilities to perform the behavior, and if there are no
environmental constraints to prevent the performance
of that behavior, the probability is very high that the
behavior will be performed.
In some populations or cultures, the behavior might
not be performed because people have not yet formed
intentions to perform the behavior. In other populations,

Distal
Variables
Past behavior
Demographics Behavioral
& culture beliefs & Environmental
outcome Attitudes constraints
Attitudes evaluations
toward
targets
(stereotypes &
stigma)
Normative
Personality, beliefs &
Norms Intention
moods, & motivation to Behavior
emotions comply

Other
individual Control
difference beliefs & Skills &
Self-efficacy
variables perceived abilities
(perceived risk) power

Intervention
exposure
Media
exposure

f0005 FIGURE 1 An integrative model of behavioral prediction.

 Intentional Behavior
the problem might be a lack of skills and/or the presence
of environmental constraints. In still other populations,
more than one of these factors may be relevant. Clearly,
if people have formed intentions but are not acting on
them, behavioral performance will depend on enhancing
their skills and abilities or on removing (or learning to
overcome) environmental constraints.
s0045
7. DETERMINANTS OF INTENTION
On the other hand, if strong intentions to perform the
behavior in question have not been formed, the model
suggests that there are three primary determinants of
intention: the attitude toward performing the behavior,
perceived norms concerning performance of the behav-
ior, and one’s self-efficacy with respect to performing the
behavior. It is important to recognize that the relative
importance of these three psychosocial variables as deter-
minants of intention will also depend on both the behav-
ior and the population being considered. For example,
one behavior may be determined primarily by attitudinal
considerations, whereas another behavior may be influ-
enced primarily by feelings of self-efficacy. Similarly, a
behavior that is attitudinally driven in one population or
culture may be normatively driven in another population
or culture. Thus, to understand intentional behavior, it is
important to first determine the degree to which that
intention is under attitudinal, normative, or self-efficacy
control in the population in question.
s0050
8. DETERMINANTS OF ATTITUDES,
NORMS, AND SELF-EFFICACY
The model in Fig. 1 also recognizes that attitudes,
perceived norms, and self-efficacy are themselves func-
tions of underlying beliefs—about the outcomes of
performing the behavior in question, about the norma-
tive proscriptions and/or behaviors of specific refer-
ents, and about specific barriers to behavioral
performance.Thus, the more one believes that per-
forming the behavior in question will lead to ‘‘good’’
outcomes and prevent ‘‘bad’’ outcomes, the more favor-
able one’s attitude toward performing the behavior
should be. Similarly, the more one believes that spe-
cific others are performing the behavior and/or the
more these others think that one should (or should
not) perform the behavior in question, the more social
pressure one will feel with respect to performing (or not
333
performing) the behavior. Finally, the more one per-
ceives that he or she can (i.e., has the necessary skills
and abilities to) perform the behavior even in the face of
specific barriers or obstacles, the stronger one’s self-
efficacy will be with respect to performing the behavior.
It is at this level of underlying beliefs that the sub-
stantive uniqueness of each behavior comes into play.
Clearly, a change in any one element in the behavioral
definition will usually lead to very different beliefs about
the consequences of performing that behavior, about the
expectations of relevant others, and about the barriers
that may impede behavioral performance and, thus,
will usually lead to very different attitudes, subjective
norms, and perceptions of self-efficacy and intentions.
For example, the barriers to, and the outcomes (or
consequences) of, always using a condom for vaginal
sex with an occasional partner may be very different
from those associated with always using a condom for
vaginal sex with one’s spouse. Yet it is these specific
beliefs that must be considered if one wishes to fully
understand intentions and behavior. Although an inves-
tigator can sit in her or his office and develop measures
of attitudes, perceived norms, and self-efficacy, the
investigator cannot know what a given population (or
a given person) believes about performing a given
behavior. Thus, one must go to members of that pop-
ulation to identify salient outcome, normative, and eff-
icacy beliefs. To put this somewhat differently, one must
understand the behavior from the perspective of the
population that one is considering.
9. THE ROLE OF DISTAL VARIABLES s0055
Finally, Fig. 1 also shows the role played by more
traditional demographic, economic, personality, attitu-
dinal, and other individual difference variables (e.g.,
perceived risk, sensation seeking). Although it is clear
that these types of variables may often be important
determinants of a given behavior, the model suggests
that these types of variables play primarily an indirect
role in influencing behavior. That is, these ‘‘back-
ground’’ factors may or may not influence the behav-
ioral, normative, or self-efficacy beliefs underlying
attitudes, norms, or self-efficacy. For example, al-
though men and women may hold different beliefs
about performing some behaviors, they may hold very
similar beliefs with respect to performing other behav-
iors. Similarly, rich and poor, old and young, those
from developing countries and those from developed
countries, those who plan to go to college and those
 334 Intentional Behavior
who do not, those with favorable attitudes toward law
enforcement and those with unfavorable attitudes
toward law enforcement, those who are happy and
those who are sad or angry, those who have used drugs
and those who have not—all may hold different attitu-
dinal, normative, or self-efficacy beliefs with respect to
one behavior but may hold similar beliefs with respect to
another behavior. In other words, there is no necessary
relation between these ‘‘distal’’ or ‘‘background’’ variables
and any given behavior. Nevertheless, distal variables,
such as cultural and personality differences, moods and
emotions, and differences in a wide range of values,
should be reflected in the underlying belief structure.
s0060
10. CONCLUSION
In general, most human behavior is intentional; that is,
people typically perform behaviors that they intend (or
plan) to perform, and they do not perform behaviors
they do not intend to perform. In addition, they usually
intend to perform (or not perform) a behavior for one
or more of three reasons: they think that performing
the behavior is a ‘‘good’’ thing to do, they feel strong
social pressure to perform the behavior, or they believe
that they have the necessary skills and abilities to per-
form the behavior. These attitudes, perceived norms
(or social pressure), and feelings of efficacy are them-
selves determined by underlying beliefs—about the
expected outcomes of performing the behavior, about
the expectations and behaviors of others, and about
their ability to overcome specific barriers that could
impede behavioral performance. The full understand-
ing of the performance or nonperformance of a given
behavior ultimately rests on understanding which of
these underlying beliefs is (are) responsible for the
performance or nonperformance of that behavior.
See Also the Following Articles
Self-Control
Further Reading
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude–behavior rela-
tions: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical
research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York: Freeman.
Becker, M. H. (1974). The health belief model and per-
sonal health behavior. Health Education Monographs,
2, 324–508.
Fishbein, M. (2000). The role of theory in HIV prevention.
AIDS Care, 12, 273–278.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention,
and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.
Fishbein, M., Triandis, H. C., Kanfer, F. H., Becker, M.,
Middlestadt, S. E., & Eichler, A. (2001). Factors influen-
cing behavior and behavior change. In A. Baum, & T. A.
Revenson (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (1992). Changing AIDS-risk
behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 455–474.
Petraitis, J., Flay, B. R., & Miller, T. Q. (1995). Reviewing
theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces in
the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 67–86.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1992). Stages of
change in the modification of problem behaviors.
Progress in Behavior Modification, 28, 184–218.
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention–behavior relations: A concep-
tual and empirical review. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 12,
pp. 1–36). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture.
New York: John Wiley.