Present Study

The present study was a longitudinal, within- and- between subjects field study, evaluating the effectiveness of an educational intervention (Learn2Live) and implementation intentions on pre-drivers’ self-reported attitudes and behavioural intentions to behave safely as a passenger. The study was carried out in collaboration with Devon County Council, who organises and runs the L2L event. A questionnaire was constructed based on components of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991); and participants completed it at three time points: 2 weeks prior to the intervention (pre-intervention), 2 weeks after the intervention, where only some completed implementation intention plans (post-intervention), and then three months later (follow-up). At each time point attitudes towards risky driving, behavioural intentions, perceived behavioural control, behavioural beliefs, social norms of friends, social norms of family, and regret were measured.

It was hypothesized that participants who attended the intervention would report a significant decrease in risky responses on all measures from pre-intervention to follow-up. It was also hypothesised that participants who made implementation intention plans, in addition to attending the intervention, would report the biggest decrease in risky responses on all measures from pre-intervention to follow-up. Based on previous evidence that males are less likely than females to respond to fear appeal messages (Lewis, Watson & Tay, 2007a) it was also hypothesised that males attending the intervention would report less improvements to their risky responses at follow-up than females. For the control group i.e. those not attending an

89

intervention, it was hypothesised that they would not demonstrate any significant decrease in risky responses from pre-intervention to follow-up.

2.2 Method

2.2.1 Participants

Participants were aged 16 – 21 years old; recruited through local secondary schools and Babcock, HMS Drake. The experimental group was made up of students and apprentice engineers attending the Learn2Live event. 2,000 Year 12 students and 200 apprentice engineers attended the Learn2Live presentation evaluated in this study. Of those, 1,242 completed the pre-intervention questionnaire. Once respondents with incomplete data were removed, 780 valid responses were available pre-intervention. Of the 780 responses from pre-intervention, 154 participants (90 females, 64 males) provided complete data sets at follow-up: 90 females (Mean age = 16.39 years, SD = .49) and 64 males (Mean age = 17.28 years, SD = 1.34).

The waiting list control group was made up of students from secondary schools in the South West of England that did not attend the Learn2Live presentation or any other road safety intervention during the time period of the study. This was the only difference separating the schools in each group; and for these schools, driver education interventions were scheduled for later in the academic year. Questionnaires were distributed to a total of 924 students from 6 participating schools. Complete data sets were available for 272 participants Pre-Intervention.

Of these, 66 respondents provided complete data at follow-up: 45 females (Mean age = 16.56 years, SD = .59) and 21 males (Mean age = 16.62 years, SD = .67).

2.2.2 Design

A longitudinal, within- and- between subjects field study design was used. It was not possible to randomly assign participants to the intervention and control groups because the schools taking part in the intervention were already pre-determined before the study commenced. However participants attending the intervention were randomly assigned to one of two experimental

90

conditions: driver-education intervention alone (DE) or with added implementation intention planning (DE+II). A third, control, condition was made up of students from schools that did not attend the L2L event (CO). Participants in DE and DE+II conditions completed three questionnaires: one prior to the L2L event (Pre-intervention), one immediately after the event (post-intervention), and one three months later (follow-up). Participants in the CO condition completed two questionnaires separated by a three month interval period (pre-intervention and follow up). Please see Table 2.1 for the data collection schedule. There was one independent variable ‘intervention type’ with three levels: DE, DE+II, CO; and seven dependent variables based on components of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991): Behavioural Intentions, Perceived Behavioural Control, Behavioural Beliefs, Social Norms of Friends, Social Norms of Family, Regret and Attitudes.

Table 2.1. Data collection schedule for each of the three groups at each time point. / means data was collected, X means data was not collected.

Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Follow-Up

DE / / /

DE+II / / and made IIs /

CO / X /

2.2.3 Measures

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1985, 1991) suggests that our behaviour is driven largely by our intentions; and our intentions are influenced by several other factors, including our attitudes, subjective norms (the perceptions individuals or groups have about how they think they should behave) and the level of control over a situation we perceive ourselves to have. The elements of the TPB have frequently been applied when studying the determining factors of risky driving behaviour (e.g. Prat et al, 2015; Parker et al, 1998); and they have been shown to reliably predict future behaviour in a range of studies. For example, attitudes towards

91

road safety have been found to be associated with speeding and self-reported collision involvement (Parker & Manstead, 1996; Parker et al, 1998); and young drivers in particular are more likely to overestimate their own driving skills (Matthews & Moran, 1986) and underestimate the risk associated with specific traffic situations (Deery, 2000). Therefore interventions that effectively improve young peoples’ attitudes and intentions to drive safely may be crucial to reducing their risk on the road.

The measures used in this study were based on components of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) in order to assess the attitudes and behavioural intentions reported by attendees. Participants from all conditions completed the same set of measures. Normally, TPB studies on driving behaviour frame questions in terms of personal experience (Poulter &

McKenna, 2010). However the participants in this study were typically pre-drivers, so measures assessed passenger dimensions of behaviour instead. At each of the three time points attitudes towards risky driving behaviours were assessed using 12 statements, based on those used by Burgess et al. (2011). Participants had to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each of the statements on a 5-point likert scale where 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree. An example statement was, “I think distracting the driver in any way could result in a serious crash”

(see Appendix 2A for the full list of statements used in all three questionnaires).

Participants were then presented with 10 road traffic scenarios, as used in Burgess et al. (2011), each detailing a specific risky driving situation (drink driving, speeding, seat belt use, overtaking, distraction and night-time driving). An example overtaking scenario was: “You are in a car with your friends driving down a country road. The speed limit is 60mph but the car in front is doing about 50mph. You are about to approach a bend in the road and the driver cannot see traffic coming in the opposite direction. Your friend decides to overtake the car in front”.

For each scenario participants were presented with a list of 6 statements based on the TPB (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980); measuring behavioural intentions, perceived behavioural control, behavioural beliefs, social norms of friends, social norms of family and regret. An example

92

statement for the overtaking scenario was “I would try to discourage my friend from overtaking the car in front on a bend”. Participants had to rate on a likert scale where 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree, the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the statements (see Appendix 2B for the full list of statements used in each of the three questionnaires).

Post-Intervention, DE+II condition

Participants randomized to the DE+II condition were asked to specify an implementation intention at the post-intervention data collection point. First they specified a behaviour and how many times they currently do this behaviour each week and each month. They were then asked to indicate on a 5-point likert scale (where 1 = not at all and 5 = very much) how much they wanted to make their chosen behaviour safer. Participants then had to indicate how they were going to make this behaviour safer and what might stop them from doing this. Finally they wrote down ways to overcome this problem, and a reminder to ensure they would remember to do this every time they got in the car (see Appendix 2C for full script).

Post Intervention, DE condition

At the post-intervention data collection point participants randomized to the DE condition were asked to specify a risky driving behaviour they wanted to make safer but were not asked to make an implementation intention plan (see Appendix 2D for full script).

Follow-Up

At the end of the questionnaire distributed at the follow-up data collection point participants from the DE and DE+II conditions were asked to recall what their risky behaviour was and how many times they now do this behaviour. The following text was added to the end of the follow-up questionnaire given to all participants in the DE and DE+II conditions:

We previously asked you to choose a risky passenger behaviour that you wanted to make safer.

Please write down in the space provided what that behaviour was.

………

93

How many times do you think you do this behaviour now: Each week?.... Each month?....

2.2.4 Procedure

Local education providers that had already consented to participate in the L2L intervention were contacted by telephone and email, informed of the research and invited to participate. Each school’s Head of Year 12 was given detailed information regarding the time-frame of the study, what would be required of them, and the voluntary nature of the research. Due to the poor response rate obtained in Burgess et al.’s (2011) evaluation, the present study sought to improve upon this with additional resources to encourage participation. In order to maximise response rates each school was given the opportunity to receive paper based copies of the questionnaire and/ or access to the web link containing an online version.

For the experimental groups, two weeks prior to the L2L intervention the researcher provided each education provider with either paper-based copies of the pre-intervention questionnaire or an email to distribute to students (as pre-arranged). The email was accompanied by instructions directing the recipient to a URL which contained the online version of the pre-intervention questionnaire. Heads of Year 12 at each school invited their students to complete the questionnaire (either online or on the paper versions provided) regarding their current driving/

passenger attitudes and behaviour. The questionnaires were administered in class in the presence of a teacher. At the beginning of the questionnaire participants were asked to set a self-generated anonymity code in order to ensure their responses were anonymous and so that their data could be linked with any subsequent questionnaires they completed. The codes were constructed by using the first two letters of the student’s Mother’s first name, followed by the student’s birthday date, and ending with the last two letters of the student’s first name.

Participants were also informed that upon completion of the questionnaire, both at this point and again in the future, they would be entered into a prize draw to win an iPad. This was used as an incentive to encourage continued participation at all three data collection points. Three winning

94

entries were selected at random after the conclusion of the study (one for each time point), and each student was presented with their prize at school.

Attendance at the L2L event was organised and coordinated by members of Devon County Council. The day after the event Heads of Year 12 invited students to complete the questionnaire again (via the same medium used at the first time point). At this point participants were randomly allocated to either the DE condition (whereby they simply completed the original pre-intervention questionnaire again and specified a risky passenger behaviour they wished to reduce) or the DE+II condition (whereby they completed the original questionnaire and a further if-then planning task). Due to the fact that teachers from each school were responsible for administering the questionnaires to participants it was not possible to control who was assigned to the DE versus DE+II conditions. Equal numbers of questionnaires for each condition were supplied to all schools, and it was left up to the schools themselves to administer the different versions equally.

Three months after the L2L event the final questionnaire was distributed to participants, and they were asked questions about whether they had successfully reduced their chosen risky behaviour. Participants in the II condition were also asked how many times they now carried out the risky behaviour each week and each month. At each time point a reminder of the chance to win an iPad was stressed to the students in efforts to maximize continued participation.

For the control group, schools not attending the Learn2Live intervention were contacted and invited to participate in research on young driver safety. They were provided with details about the time-frame and voluntary nature of the study, and were asked to confirm if students would be attending any other road safety event during the course of the study’s time-frame.

Questionnaires were distributed to students via the Head of Year 12 at each school, in a format consistent with the experimental groups. Participants completed two questionnaires separated by

95

a time-frame of three months, with no road safety intervention occurring between the two data collection points.

2.3 Results