spss assignment
Introduction[E1][E2]
The Theory of Planned Behavior was first explained by Ajzen (1985) [E3]which
implemented a pragmatic model explains human action and behavior. The theory
assumes how certain behavior occurs. The theory is interested in certain features
which explain people’s genuine behavioural selections. As reported by Ajzen (1985)
on his statement of planned behavior, that behaviour objectives are mainly directed by
three factors: a constructive or unconstructive attitudes towards certain behavior,
secondly subjective norm and lastly the perceived behavioral control. The theory is
illustrated in Figure (1). An attitude toward a behavior is recognized as an individual’s
positive or negative assessment of an appropriate behavior and is composed of an
individual’s salient beliefs regarding the perceived results of performing a behavior.
Subjective norm refers to an individual’s perception of whether significant referents
agree or disagree of a certain behavior. To identify the non-volitional feature of
behavior, the theory of planned behavior included an additional variable the perceived
behavioral control, which is not typically associated with traditional attitude
behavioral models (e.g., Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). The perceived behavioural control
describes the perceived difficulty level of performing the behavior referring both
previous experience and predictable difficulties. As a common rule, the more positive
the attitude toward performing a behavior, the superior the perceived social approval;
and the easier the performance of the behavior is perceived, the stronger the
behavioral intention.
Figure (1): The theory of planned behavior.[E4]
Analysis[l5]
As required in the coursework assignment details an analysis of the data is required to
show the sample profile, differences between the countries and the application of the
TPB. An analysis of the data was undertaken via SPSS and is included in the
appendix. [E6]
The sample profile.
The dataset provided data from two countries. A total sample of 248 participated.
150[E7] where from Greece. Of those who participated approximately [E8]37% were
female. Just over halve of the sample were 31 or under, therefore the sample
represents young people in each country.[E9] There was a substantial amount of
missing data for the question on income.[E10] Over 50% the sample were in full time
employment.[E11][E12]
Differences across the two countries: Greece and Spain
T-tests were conducted to establish if any differences in the means of intention,
attitude, SN and PBC were apparent across the two countries. The results in the
appendix show that there are differences with differences found for intention and
attitude but not for SN and PBC. Thus Greeks have lower intentions to quit smoking
and a more positive attitude towards smoking than respondents from Spain. [E13]
Regression analysis
A regression analysis was undertaken to identify what factors explain intention to quit
smoking. Data were pooled and analysed together. Results in the appendix show that
the TPB explained 34% of the variation in intention to quit smoking. However the
only significant TPB antecedent that significantly explained intention to quit was
PBC. [E14]
Discussion
The research was based on the TPB model which is pertinent to understanding the
smoking habits and behaviours of participants in the questionnaire. The model was
utilized to analyse the effects of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behaviour
on individuals’ intentions to give up smoking. Our results recommend that the Theory
of Planned behavior significantly assists in the clarification of behavioral intention.
[E15] There is a significant amount of variation explained by perceived behavioral
control. Studies examining the TPB in similar context found that TPB components
accounted for a comparable amount of variance; Moan & Rise (2005) reported that
36% of variance was accounted for by the TPB constructs and Rise, Kovac, Kraft, &
Moan (2008) showed that 30% of variance was accounted for by the TPB constructs.
To summarise, the TPB is a good indicator of intention, but provides an incomplete
picture when applied in this context. Whilst it is obvious that intention cannot be
predicted completely accurately, there are a number of factors which, when included,
are likely to increase the success of the model. Attitude and subjective norm do not
present any effect in the regression model[E16]. The questions were about the
confident of stopping smoking and the probability of doing so within the next three
months[E17]. The results point out that there are other variables not been explained in
the theory which might influence the behavioral intention towards stopping
[E18]smoking. Suggestions for future research would be to incorporate some of these
other factors and [E19]investigate how much they affect an individual’s intention to
give up smoking. A good place to start would be to test gender and age as these have
been proven to have influences when applied to other TPB models.
The questionnaire was only accessible online, distributed through a government
smoking information website. The information gathered may be imbalanced because
it would generally attract participants who have internet access, computer knowledge
and time to search for the questionnaire. It is also filters potential participants,
because it would only be for individuals willing to give up smoking and show
initiative to search for the survey. This could give a false representation of the sample
profile of individuals willing to give up smoking[E20].
References
Make sure that you include a reference section using the Harvard style
Appendix[E21][E22]
Statistics[E23]
Country Gender Age Social position
Household
income
N Valid 248 246 243 247 177
Missing 0 2 5 1 71
Country[E24]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Greece 150 60.5 60.5 60.5
Spain 98 39.5 39.5 100.0
Total 248 100.0 100.0
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 155 62.5 63.0 63.0
Female 91 36.7 37.0 100.0
Total 246 99.2 100.0
Missing System 2 .8
Total 248 100.0
Age[l25]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 17 2 .8 .8 .8
18 3 1.2 1.2 2.1
19 6 2.4 2.5 4.5
20 6 2.4 2.5 7.0
21 2 .8 .8 7.8
22 6 2.4 2.5 10.3
23 6 2.4 2.5 12.8
24 9 3.6 3.7 16.5
25 14 5.6 5.8 22.2
26 4 1.6 1.6 23.9
27 9 3.6 3.7 27.6
28 7 2.8 2.9 30.5
29 8 3.2 3.3 33.7
30 13 5.2 5.3 39.1
31 12 4.8 4.9 44.0
32 10 4.0 4.1 48.1
33 7 2.8 2.9 51.0
34 7 2.8 2.9 53.9
35 5 2.0 2.1 56.0
36 7 2.8 2.9 58.8
37 3 1.2 1.2 60.1
38 4 1.6 1.6 61.7
39 10 4.0 4.1 65.8
40 7 2.8 2.9 68.7
41 5 2.0 2.1 70.8
42 5 2.0 2.1 72.8
43 6 2.4 2.5 75.3
44 3 1.2 1.2 76.5
45 11 4.4 4.5 81.1
46 7 2.8 2.9 84.0
47 3 1.2 1.2 85.2
48 3 1.2 1.2 86.4
49 2 .8 .8 87.2
50 6 2.4 2.5 89.7
51 1 .4 .4 90.1
52 2 .8 .8 90.9
53 1 .4 .4 91.4
54 2 .8 .8 92.2
55 3 1.2 1.2 93.4
56 2 .8 .8 94.2
57 1 .4 .4 94.7
58 1 .4 .4 95.1
59 3 1.2 1.2 96.3
60 1 .4 .4 96.7
61 1 .4 .4 97.1
62 1 .4 .4 97.5
63 1 .4 .4 97.9
64 1 .4 .4 98.4
65 2 .8 .8 99.2
68 1 .4 .4 99.6
69 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 243 98.0 100.0
Missing System 5 2.0
Total 248 100.0
Social position
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid in full time employment 128 51.6 51.8 51.8
in part time employment 15 6.0 6.1 57.9
unemployed 13 5.2 5.3 63.2
retired 7 2.8 2.8 66.0
a full time student 31 12.5 12.6 78.5
other 53 21.4 21.5 100.0
Total 247 99.6 100.0
Missing System 1 .4
Total 248 100.0
Household income
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 7 2.8 4.0 4.0
14 1 .4 .6 4.5
15 2 .8 1.1 5.6
16 1 .4 .6 6.2
17 1 .4 .6 6.8
20 1 .4 .6 7.3
30 2 .8 1.1 8.5
40 1 .4 .6 9.0
45 1 .4 .6 9.6
55 1 .4 .6 10.2
70 1 .4 .6 10.7
100 1 .4 .6 11.3
120 1 .4 .6 11.9
329 1 .4 .6 12.4
400 1 .4 .6 13.0
450 2 .8 1.1 14.1
500 1 .4 .6 14.7
600 1 .4 .6 15.3
650 1 .4 .6 15.8
700 8 3.2 4.5 20.3
800 4 1.6 2.3 22.6
900 2 .8 1.1 23.7
1000 5 2.0 2.8 26.6
1200 4 1.6 2.3 28.8
1350 1 .4 .6 29.4
1450 1 .4 .6 29.9
1500 4 1.6 2.3 32.2
1600 4 1.6 2.3 34.5
2000 8 3.2 4.5 39.0
2500 1 .4 .6 39.5
2700 1 .4 .6 40.1
2900 1 .4 .6 40.7
3000 2 .8 1.1 41.8
3600 1 .4 .6 42.4
4000 3 1.2 1.7 44.1
4500 1 .4 .6 44.6
5000 3 1.2 1.7 46.3
6000 1 .4 .6 46.9
7000 2 .8 1.1 48.0
7200 1 .4 .6 48.6
7500 1 .4 .6 49.2
8000 1 .4 .6 49.7
8400 1 .4 .6 50.3
9000 1 .4 .6 50.8
9500 1 .4 .6 51.4
10000 4 1.6 2.3 53.7
10800 1 .4 .6 54.2
10980 1 .4 .6 54.8
11000 2 .8 1.1 55.9
12000 8 3.2 4.5 60.5
13000 1 .4 .6 61.0
14000 4 1.6 2.3 63.3
15000 8 3.2 4.5 67.8
15500 1 .4 .6 68.4
17000 1 .4 .6 68.9
18000 6 2.4 3.4 72.3
20000 13 5.2 7.3 79.7
21000 1 .4 .6 80.2
22000 2 .8 1.1 81.4
25000 6 2.4 3.4 84.7
25500 1 .4 .6 85.3
27000 1 .4 .6 85.9
28000 1 .4 .6 86.4
30000 8 3.2 4.5 91.0
35000 3 1.2 1.7 92.7
38000 1 .4 .6 93.2
40000 2 .8 1.1 94.4
45000 2 .8 1.1 95.5
50000 2 .8 1.1 96.6
55000 1 .4 .6 97.2
60000 2 .8 1.1 98.3
90000 1 .4 .6 98.9
100000 1 .4 .6 99.4
450000 1 .4 .6 100.0
Total 177 71.4 100.0
Missing System 71 28.6
Total 248 100.0
Group Statistics
Country N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
int_avg Greece 150 1.8713 1.32580 .10825
Spain 98 2.3944 .79431 .08024
att_avg Greece 150 -.1483 1.41615 .11563
Spain 98 -1.0612 1.51115 .15265
subjective norm - one item only Greece 150 1.46 1.535 .125
Spain 98 1.41 1.838 .186
se_avg Greece 150 3.3600 1.93703 .15816
Group Statistics
Country N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
int_avg Greece 150 1.8713 1.32580 .10825
Spain 98 2.3944 .79431 .08024
att_avg Greece 150 -.1483 1.41615 .11563
Spain 98 -1.0612 1.51115 .15265
subjective norm - one item only Greece 150 1.46 1.535 .125
Spain 98 1.41 1.838 .186
se_avg Greece 150 3.3600 1.93703 .15816
Spain 98 3.6429 1.71410 .17315
Independent Samples Test[E26]
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
int_avg Equal variances assumed 27.166 .000 -3.514 246 .001 -.52312 .14886 -.81632 -.22992
Equal variances not
assumed
-3.882 244.385 .000 -.52312 .13475 -.78853 -.25771
att_avg Equal variances assumed 2.364 .125 4.833 246 .000 .91290 .18890 .54083 1.28498
Equal variances not
assumed
4.767 197.843 .000 .91290 .19150 .53526 1.29054
subjective norm - one item
only
Equal variances assumed 1.963 .162 .240 246 .810 .052 .216 -.373 .477
Equal variances not
assumed
.231 181.107 .817 .052 .224 -.390 .494
se_avg Equal variances assumed 3.137 .078 -1.176 246 .241 -.28286 .24059 -.75675 .19103
Equal variances not
assumed
-1.206 224.600 .229 -.28286 .23451 -.74498 .17926
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .588 a .345 .337 .95424
a. Predictors: (Constant), se_avg, subjective norm - one item only,
att_avg
ANOVA b
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 117.142 3 39.047 42.882 .000 a
Residual 222.182 244 .911
Total 339.324 247
a. Predictors: (Constant), se_avg, subjective norm - one item only, att_avg
b. Dependent Variable: int_avg
Coefficients a
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .770 .142 5.426 .000
att_avg -.069 .041 -.090 -1.709 .089
subjective norm - one item
only
.017 .037 .024 .470 .638
se_avg .359 .033 .568 10.835 .000
a. Dependent Variable: int_avg