Incentive Programs

There is a large amount of literature relating to area of human psychology which indicates that positive reinforcement is a far more effective means of modifying behaviour than negative reinforcement (Bandurra, as cited in Dussault, 1990). The use of incentives to promote seat belt usage is based upon this principle of positive reinforcement and assumes that behaviour which has favourable consequences is more likely to be repeated and at higher rates than behaviour that does not lead to favourable effects (Makinen et al., 1991). Incentive programs, which reward road users either collectively or individually, have been shown to be an effective means of increasing seat belt wearing rates (Cope et al., 1986; Hunter et al., 1986; Geller et al., 1989; Hagenzieker, 1991). Although these studies differed in terms of the type and frequency of the incentives used to promote seat belt usage, they all reported significant increases in seat belt usage rates. The magnitude of the increase ranged from 10 to 25 percentage points with the size of the increase partially dependent upon the initial baseline seat belt usage rate.

Hunter et al. (1986) reported on the use of a community-wide incentive program in the American city of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Incentives, generally ranging in value from $3 to $5 (donated by local businesses), were issued to a high proportion of randomly

selected belted occupants over a six month period. Recipients of these smaller incentives were also entered into a lottery and given the opportunity to win larger cash prizes ($500 or $1000). The results from the study indicated that seat belt usage rates increased from a base level of 24% to a peak value of 41 %.

Hagenzieker (1991) reported on the use of various incentive and enforcement programs conducted at 12 different military bases in the Netherlands during 1988. Incentives were either group-dependent cash prizes ($2,500 U.S.) or individual prizes (money coupons, cameras, cassette or compact disc players) which were drawn from a lottery at certain stages during the study. The results from the study indicated that both enforcement and incentive programs had the same overall effect on seat belt usage rates. Usage rates increased from a baseline level of 67% to 75% for the enforcement programs and from a baseline rate of 62% to 69% for the incentive programs.

A series of follow-up surveys, two months after the programs were completed, indicated that usage rates had not only been maintained but had actually increased even further to levels of 78% (enforcement programs) and 76% (incentive programs). The overall results indicated that the enforcement treatment had resulted in an 11 percentage point increase in seat belt usage rates and the incentive treatment had increased usage rates by approximately 14 percentage points. Hagenzieker (1991) concluded that seat belt incentive programs appeared to have the potential to be equally as effective as enforcement activities. However, the results from the study specifically related to seat belt usage behaviour on military establishments and whether similar results would be obtained among the general driving population may still require further investigation.

Sleet and Geller (1986) provided a range of recommendations and general conclusions regarding the use of incentives or rewarding strategies in seat belt promotion programs. These include:

• rewards are more effective than punishments;

• low-cost incentives result in cost effective increases in seat belt usage; • intermittent rewards have longer-lasting effects;

• incentives are more effective in combination with education; • delayed rewards can be as effective as immediate rewards; • family involvement leads to higher seat belt usage; and

• a combination of individual and group rewards yields the best results. The combined use of incentives and enforcement

The combined use of incentive programs with enforcement activities has been shown to be a particularly effective means of increasing seat belt usage rates. Dussualt (1990) reported on the use of such an approach during a STEP program undertaken in the Canadian Province of Quebec in 1987. This approach involved the issuing of a ticket to seat belt offenders and the provision of a promotional voucher to all occupants who were using seat belts (total value of about $1 and the chance to win one of eight $3000 prizes). He reported

that the combined enforcement and incentive STEP program increased seat belt usage rates from 67.7% to 85.8% which was the highest usage rate ever achieved in North America. Dussualt (1990) indicated that there were a number of ways in which the inclusion of incentives had enhanced the STEP program. Firstly, the promotional vouchers allowed police officers to make direct contact with seven times the number of road users (226 830 vouchers versus 32274 tickets). Secondly, voucher distribution was an innovative element of the STEP program and, as a result, received extensive media coverage. Finally, this promotion put the STEP program in a favourable light with the public and the media. The message conveyed was that the program objective was indeed to increase the seat belt usage rate and not to fill government coffers by dealing severely with offenders.

Mortimer et al. (1985) also reported on the combined use of enforcement and incentives. He described the results from a study in the American State of Illinois which compared the effect of three approaches, including incentives alone, enforcement alone and the combined use of incentives and enforcement. They reported that all three conditions were effective in increasing seat belt wearing rates during the course of the study. The sole use of incentives resulted in an increase in seat belt usage rates of between 18% and 26%. The sole use of enforcement resulted in an increase in usage rates of approximately 45%. However, the greatest increase in usage rates (52%) was realised when both incentives and enforcement were combined. One additional finding was that the effect of enforcement alone on usage rates had largely decayed in about six weeks, whereas incentives retained their effect on usage rates for at least three months.