1) Subjective norms refer to the perceived social pressures that influence a person's intentions and behaviors. Previous research has found both significant and insignificant effects of subjective norms on intentions and behaviors related to organic food consumption. 2) Perceived behavioral control (PBC) refers to an individual's beliefs about their ability to perform a behavior and is determined by their perceptions of facilitating or hindering factors. PBC influences both intentions and behaviors, especially for behaviors not fully under volitional control. Price, availability, and knowledge are important perceived factors influencing fish consumption. 3) Research has examined the predictive strength of subjective norms and PBC within the theory of planned behavior (TPB) framework. Both constructs are found to directly and

1. Subjective Norms
Subjective norms are understood as the effects of external factors on customer
intention. Beliefs play important roles in forming the intention of customers (Miller, 2005).
In previous studies of buying intention and behavior toward organic food, the role of
subjective norms was not clear, especially with regard to their effect in forming the
behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Magnusson et al. (2001) did not use subjective norms in their
research whereas Sparks and Shepherd (1992) did, but the significance of this factor is
not strong. However, this does not mean subjective norms play a minor role, Shepherd
and O’Keefe (1984); Vallerand et al. (1992); Shimp and Kavas (1984) and Chang (1998)
found a significant causes and effect relation from subjective norms to attitudes (missed
in previous studies). Furthermore, the relation between subjective norms and attitudes
usually relate to the ethics, morality and human’s benefits. Chang (1998) concluded
that if there is a relationship between the subjective norms and other root factors, it
could not be ignored. Subjective norms research shows that it is a good predictor of
behavior, when another person’s well-being is affected by an individual’s actions
(Sheeran & Taylor, 1999; Kok & Godin, 1996). However, if it affects one individual in
making a choice, the effect of subjective norms is negligible (Rimal & Lapinski, 2005).
Subjective norm is the perceived social pressure for a person to engage or not to
engage in a behaviour. It is assumed that subjective norm is determined by the total set
of accessible normative beliefs concerning the expectations of important referents for
this person (e.g. family or friends) (Ajzen, 2006). The importance of social norms for
environmentally responsible behaviour is thoroughly documented in the literature (Biel
and Thøgersen, 2007, Thøgersen, 2007b). In the context of food choice, Vermeir and
Verbeke (2006) reported that the desire to comply with other people could explain
strong intentions to purchase sustainable dairy products despite weak personal
attitudes. Applied to organic food consumption, Chen (2007), Thøgersen (2007b) and
Dean et al. (2008) find a significant positive relation between consumers’ intention to
purchase organic food and their subjective norm. Gotschi et al. (2007) find that for
Austrian adolescents, primary socialization, i.e. the norms and values learnt at home;
have a significant influence on the development of a positive attitude towards organic

2. food, while secondary socialization, e.g. at the school environment, has less impact on
attitude formation. Tarkiainen and Sundqvist (2005) find no direct significant path
relation between subjective norm and intention to buy organic, but rather a significant
positive path relation between subjective norm and attitude towards organic food
consumption. The reviews on TPB applications from Ajzen (1991) and Armitage and
Conner (2001) indicate that subjective norm often exerts no direct effect on intention
after checking for the effects of attitude and PBC (Bamberg et al., 2007). Using meta-
analytical Structural Equation Modelling, Bamberg et al. (2007) find that subjective norm
has no direct association with intention, but rather an indirect effect by influencing
attitude, PBC, moral norm and feelings of guilt in a context of pro- environmental
behaviour.
When both subjective and personal norms are included in models in the analysis,
environmentally responsible behaviour is usually accounted for by the latter rather than
the former of these two norm constructs (Thøgersen, 2007b). It is assumed that people
frequently follow social norms not (only) because they fear social pressure, but because
they give information about what behaviour is most appropriate or beneficial (Jager,
2000, Bamberg et al., 2007).
Here, the subjective norm deals with individual’s perceptions of the norm and
conventions concerning the behavior. Additionally, the literature in examining the
applicability of the theory of planned behavior to green purchasing behavior highlights
that both subjective norm and behavioral control exert stronger influences on
consumers’ behavioral intention (Chan & Lau, 2001).
Bagozzi et al. (2000) argued that the impact of subjective norms is presumed to capture
the social pressure a decision maker feels whether to make a purchase or not. They
illustrated that among other results, subjective norms were found to influence
respondents’ decisions.
In the same nature, Chen (2007) has recently done a research study regarding
consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods. The study
adopted the Theory of Planned Behavior as the major model. Unlike other studies
adopting this theory, however, the researcher also investigated the existence of
potential moderating effects of food related personality traits of food neophobia and

3. food involvement on various relationships between food choice motives and the
consumers’ purchase intention. In his fourth hypothesis, the researcher argued that
when individuals have positive subjective norms in purchasing organic foods, they will
be more likely to have intention to do such purchase. The study results in the proposed
model indicated that in conjunction with other attributes (i.e., attitudes to organic foods
purchase, perceived behavioral control, and perceived difficulty), positive subjective
norm significantly enhances the consumers’ purchase intention.
Social norms are characterized as the perceived social pressure or expectation of the
society (subjective norms) or from specific groups or individual (normative beliefs)
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Olsen, 2004). Normative beliefs are the salient feature in forming
subjective norm (Ajzen, 1991). Researches found that that subjective norm is the
weakest predictor of intention and behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001, Tuu
et al., 2008). Due to inadequacy and rare predictability some researchers deliberately
remove or suggest removing from analysis (Armitage & Conner, 2001 for a review). In
order to mediate the weakness, distinction between normative (social, subjective or
injunctive) and informational (descriptive) social influences has been made by some of
the researchers (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Sheeran & Orbell, 1999, Tuu et al., 2008). In
order to enhance the predictability of this construct within the TPB model, it is suggested
to identify the dimensions of the subjective norms such as descriptive norms and moral
norms (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Donald & Cooper, 2001; Sheeran & Orbell, 1999, Tuu
et al., 2008 for a review). It is also proved by empirical researches that, descriptive
norms have contributed to the prediction of intention independently of subjective
norms (Tuu et al., 2008 for a review). Thus, the underlining concept of subjective norms
emphasize on the possibility of gaining approval or disapproval from significant others
for one’s intentions and actions, while descriptive norms refer to perceptions of other
people’s behavior in the domain (Sheeran & Orbell, 1999).
In case of food/seafood consumption family expectation, moral obligations, and health
involvements are determined as the main antecedents of social norms (Olsen, 2001,

4. Olsen, 2004, Verbeke & Vackier, 2005). It is found that social factors are more liable in
forming individual food preference than genetic factors (Rozin, 1995). Food items that
are rejected by most of the family members are not usually served in family dine. In
some countries it is observed that some particular species of fish consumption is treated
as part of culture or part of religion [e.g. Hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) consumption in
Bangladesh /India in the New Year or Hilsa used in Saraswati Puja (the worship of the
Goddess of Learning and Beauty)]. In this study, subjective norms are defined as social
pressures and family expectations that determine the behavioral intentions in
consuming fish. However, in this study the concept will be assessed by global measure;
will not focus on normative beliefs.
Behavioral Control
Ajzen (2005) reported a gap between “attitude towards a behaviour” and the
“behaviour” itself. Ajzen (1991) explained this by stating that (perceived) barriers and
(perceived) abilities may interfere and includes this interference in the Theory of
Planned Behaviour through the factor of(Perceived) Behavioural Control. PBC refers to
people's own perception about their ability to perform a given behaviour. It is
determined by beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede
performance of the behaviour (Ajzen, 2006). In this case, control beliefs are defined as
the presence of conditions that can either facilitate or obstruct someone in performing
behavior.
A meta-analysis in assessing the robustness of the Theory of Planned Behavior has
indicated that given theory performed well, with perceived behavioral control serving
as an antecedent to both intention and behavior (Notani, 1998). Specifically, the
author identified the conditions under which perceived behavioral control is more likely
to be a stronger versus a weaker predictor of behavioral intention and behavior. The
underlying reasons call for two factors that are believed having an impact on the
predictive strength of perceived behavioral control. First factor is the accuracy of the
measure of a person’s perceived behavioral control, while the second factor leads to
the stability of a person’s perceived behavioral control over time. The author argues
that whenever a measure of perceived behavioral control is more accurate, more
stable, or both, it should serve as a strong predictor of behavior, even the accuracy or

5. stability of perceived behavioral control is not important in predicting behavioral
intention. Thus, behavioral intention is determined by perceptions whether a person’s
perceived behavioral control is accurate or inaccurate, and stable or unstable. The
results demonstrated that perceived behavioral control is a stronger predictor of
behavior when it is operationalized as a global vs. belief-based measure, is
conceptualized to reflect control over factors primarily internal versus external to an
individual, and is used for student vs. non-student samples and familiar vs. unfamiliar
behaviors.
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) refers the person’s beliefs about the easiness or
difficulty in performing the behavior (Ajzen, 1991, Olsen, 2004, Pawlak & Malinauskas,
2008). If the individual is supposed to have more resources and opportunities, it is
assumed that s/he has greater control over the behavior (Olsen, 2004). The control
beliefs are the third group of salient beliefs that result perceived behavioral control
(Ajzen, 1991, 2001, Pawlak & Malinauskas, 2008). Control beliefs refer the extent of
hardness perceived by an individual to perform a desired behavior (Pawlak &
Malinauskas, 2008).
Ajzen, 1991 refers that the PBC construct is synonymous to self –efficacy concept
(Conner & Abraham, 2001). According to Ajzen, 1991, PBC together with behavioral
intention can be used directly in predicting behavioral achievement; thus the PBC
affect both intention and behavior (Ajzen, 1991). PBC is more important in influencing
person’s behavior, when the behavior is not wholly under volitional control (Ajzen, 1991,
2001, Chiou, 1998). Two main components of PBC have been identified: the first
component says about the availability of resources required to engage in the behavior
(e.g. money, time, and other resources); while the second component refers the
person’s self-confidence in performing the certain behavior (Ajzen, 1991, 2001). As the
TPB conceptualize that the predictability of the TPB constructs varies across situations
and behaviors; so as the magnitude of PBC-intention relationship could be varied as
per the situation and behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2001). As per Ajzen, the control
factors can be internal or external to the person. Internal to the person can be skills,

6. knowledge, lack of abilities, willpower, compulsion; while the external to the person can
be time, opportunity, situation, dependence on others (Ajzen, 1991).
Olsen (2004) found the most important control factors that influence consumers’
seafood purchasing include price/cost, convenience/availability and knowledge.
Being a high valued product in many parts of the world the intention of buying food/fish
is affected by the price issue (Olsen, 2004, Verbeke & Vackier, 2005, Pertovici et al.,
2004). However, empirical researches in Finland, Norway and UK found that price and
value is not a significant factor in consuming seafood (Honkanen et al., 1998, Leek et
al., 2000, Olsen, 2004). Gofton, 1995 reported that inconvenience and scarcity are
significant barriers to consuming fish. However, it is found that because of their
experience, comparing with younger consumers the elder consumers consider seafood
more convenient (Olsen, 2003, 2004). Knowledge, an important factor in seafood
choice and consumption; is a vast area of discussion. Knowledge is linked from
evaluation the quality of the fish in the market place to cooking/preparing procedure
to final meal serving (Olsen, 2004).
In this thesis the PBC construct is defined as an integrated component of internal,
external control and contextual factors that consumers may perceive its easiness or
hardships in performing their intention to consume and engage in fish consumption. In
more detailed investigation, price/cost, availability, and convenience are assumed as
the main determinants of personal control over eating fish in Dhaka city. It should be
worthy to mention that some of these beliefs also affect attitude, thus they affect both
the attitude and PBC. However, here price/cost refers the actual cost, while price/cost
in the attitude refers the individual’s perceptions about consuming fish.
Moreover, another study by Sparks et al. (1997) holds that perceived behavior control
actually has to be segregated into two different dimensions, which are perceived
control and perceived difficulty. Using the Principal Components Analysis, this study
showed that items reflecting perceived difficulty and items reflecting perceived control
loaded onto different components. If perceived control covers the effects of external
factors, such as time, money, availability, and recognition; while perceived difficulty

7. includes consumers’ skills and abilities to influence the degree of personal control over
the behavior in question (Bredahl et al., 1998; Chen, 2007, p. 1009). Furthermore, Sparks
et al. (1997) findings indicated that measures of perceived difficulty and not measures
of perceived control have contributed independent predictive effects on consumers’
behavioral intentions. In addition, study results of Chen (2007) indicate that positive
attitude, subjective norm, and more behavioral control perception all significantly
enhance the consumers’ intention to purchase.
Dean et al. (2008) find a significant positive effect from PBC on the intention to buy
organic apples, however this relation was not significant for organic pizza. Also findings
from Thøgersen (2007a) confirm TPB and herein the role of PBC in a model explaining
purchases of organic fresh tomatoes and organic tomato sauce. Below we discuss
some “perceived barriers” that may impede and “perceived abilities” that may
facilitate behavioural intention and behaviour of consuming organic food.
Furthermore, Ajzen (1991) also mentioned the importance of perceived behavioral
control operationalization, which has to be distinguished into either as a global or as a
belief-based measure. He described that if a global measure consists of a 2- to 4-item
scale designed to directly assess a person’s overall perception of control, while a belief-
based measure includes a list of individual control beliefs that she or he considers
salient. He believes that by inquiring a belief-based perceived behavioral control
measure, the measurement can be expected to be more accurate as the
measurement is based on more information, and on the other side, with a global
measure, a person is expected to consider all possible factors of her or his perceived
behavioral control. Eventually, he argues a general rule that if one perceives that she or
he has more favorable attitude and subjective norms, and the greater perceived
control over performing the behavior, the person is more likely to form strong intentions
to perform the behavior.