Role of time in self-prediction of behavior

This paper examines three specific manifestations of time—anticipation (proximal vs. distal), prior experience with the behavior, and frequency (episodic vs. repeat)—as key contingencies affecting the predictive validity of behavioral intention, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral expectation in predicting behavior. These three temporal contingencies are examined in two longitudinal field studies: (1) study 1—a 6-month study of personal computer (PC) purchase behavior among 861 households and (2) study 2—a 12-month study among 321 employees in the context of a new technology implementation in an organization. In study 1, where the episodic behavior of PC purchase was examined, we found that increasing anticipation (i.e., more distal) weakened the relationship between behavioral intention and behavior and strengthened the relationship between behavioral expectation and behavior. In contrast, increasing experience strengthened the relationship between behavioral intention and behavior and weakened the relationship between behavioral expectation and behavior. In study 2, where the repeat behavior of technology use was examined, we found two significant 3-way interactions: (1) the relationship between behavioral intention and behavior was strongest when anticipation was low (i.e., proximal) and experience was high and (2) the relationship between behavioral expectation and behavior was strongest when anticipation was high (i.e., distal) and experience was low. 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. For decades, the behavioral intention construct has been employed in organization behavior, marketing, psychology, and other fields of research to predict behavior. Behavioral intention has been used to predict many behaviors in organizations, including whistleblowing (Somers & Casal, 1994), being absent (Johns, 1994), transferring (Brett & Reilly, 1988), mentoring (Ragins & Scandura, 1994), seeking feedback (Levy, Albright, Cawley, & Williams, 1995), and voluntary turnover (for meta analyses, see Hom et al., 1992; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Similarly, in household contexts, behavioral intention has been used to predict purchase and consumption behavior (Armstrong & Overton, 1970; Kalawani & Silk, 1982; Kaynama & Smith, 1994; Morrison, 1979; Venkatesh & Brown, 2001). Behavioral intention is often studied in conjunction 0749-5978/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.02.003 * Corresponding author. Fax: +1 479 575 3689. E-mail address: vvenkatesh@vvenkatesh.us (V. Venkatesh). with perceived behavioral control (see Ajzen, 1991; Albarracin, Johnson, Fishbein, & Muellerleile, 2001). Behavioral intention has known limitations, such as the inability to account for the influence of non-volitional factors on behavior, that are remedied by perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). However, perceived behavioral control also has some known limitations, such as inaccuracy in the face of uncertainty regarding behavior (Sheeran, Trafimow, & Armitage, 2003). Therefore, finding constructs and contingencies that would help further our ability to predict individual behavior can have far-reaching scientific and practical implications. Drawing on prior research (e.g., Davis & Warshaw, 1992; Warshaw & Davis, 1985a), we present behavioral expectation as a predictor of behavior that can remedy limitations of behavioral intention and perceived behavioral control. Little research has examined when and why behavioral expectation will be better than behavioral V. Venkatesh et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 100 (2006) 160–176 161 intention and perceived behavioral control in predicting behavior. To address this issue, we examine time as an important element that influences the predictive validity of these constructs. There have been several calls for the integration of time into theory and theory building (e.g., Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; George & Jones, 2000). The few studies that have explicitly incorporated time into the theorizing provide support for the critical role of temporality in understanding organizational phenomena (e.g., Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001; Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Labianca, Moon, & Watt, 2005; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). In particular, temporal considerations can significantly add to our understanding of behaviors distributed over time. Thus, in this research, we adopt a temporal lens to better understand the underlying differences between behavioral intention and perceived behavioral control, and behavioral expectation in their ability to predict behavior. In addition, adopting a temporal lens will give us a better understanding of the behavioral expectation construct which, compared to behavioral intention and perceived behavioral control, has received much less attention in the literature. Through a review of the extant literature, we explain why and under what temporal conditions behavioral expectation will be better than behavioral intention and perceived behavioral control in predicting behavior. The specific temporal conditions expected to influence the relative predictive validity of these constructs are: (a) the anticipation, or distal vs. proximal nature, of the target behavior; (b) the amount of experience with the target behavior; (c) the frequency with which the behavior is performed.