‘Searching for a “generalized social agent” to predict Namibians’ intentions to prevent sexual transmission of HIV

Abstract

Debate surrounds the definition, measurement and utility of subjective norms (theory of reasoned action, Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Scholars propose alternative concepts including descriptive norms and injunctive norms (Cialdini et al., 1990), enabling factors and social embeddedness (e.g. Barrera, 1986), and betweenness to others in a network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994) to explain social influences on willingness to perform a behaviour. This study explores the relative utility and comparability of different social concepts in understanding Namibians’ intentions (n=1200) to abstain from sex or to be faithful to one sexual partner. Neither subjective norms nor the five other concepts consistently predict either intentions, although they account for 21% of variance in intentions to abstain and 24% of intentions to have one sexual partner in one region. Conflicting relationships between injunctive and subjective norms exist; stigma surrounding HIV prevention provides some explanation. Campaigns designed to alter norms may benefit from altering stigma simultaneously.

Acknowledgements

Our thanks to Kim Witte, Erna Keulder, Research Facilitation Services (Windhoek, Namibia), Nahum Gorelick, Rajiv Rimal, and JHUCCP/Namibia. This study was found with primary support from the United States Agency for International Development under the Health Communication Partnership project (GPH-A-02-00008-00) based at Johns Hopkins/Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs. Most importantly, we are grateful to the leaders and citizens of Rehoboth, Oshikuku, and Oniipa for sharing themselves with us.

Notes

1. Another meta-analysis (Shepard et al., 1988) was conducted, however, they reported the combined effect of subjective norms and attitudes in their analysis. The independent contribution of social norms across studies could not be collected from this study.

2. Although some descriptive statistics varied by region, they did not vary strongly by gender. When performing the analysis, the patterns for men and women were similar; therefore, gender has not been presented in the rest of the analysis.