ERIC EJ889224: Prompting Safety Belt Use: Comparative Impact on the Target Behavior and Relevant Body Language

2010·0.18 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2010, 43, 321–325 NUMBER2 (SUMMER2010)
PROMPTING SAFETY BELT USE: COMPARATIVE IMPACT ON THE
TARGET BEHAVIOR AND RELEVANT BODY LANGUAGE
MATTHEW G. COX AND E. SCOTT GELLER
VIRGINIAPOLYTECHNICINSTITUTEANDSTATEUNIVERSITY
Researchers used two behavioral prompts to compare increases in safety belt use: a Click It or
TicketpromptoraFlash-for-Lifeprompt.Participantswere1,822unbuckleddriversexitingtwo
studentparkinglotsofalargeuniversity.Researchassistantsidentifiedunbuckleddrivers,flashed
oneofthetwoprompts,andrecordedwhetherdriversbuckledafterthepromptandthedrivers’
facialexpressions andhand gestures.Findings andimplications arediscussed.
Keywords: bodylanguage, prompts, rewards, safetybelt, threats
_______________________________________________________________________________
The National Highway Transportation Safe- safety belt use at campus parking lots from
ty Administration (NHTSA) estimates that in 19.6% (n 5 629) to 54.5% (n 5 635).
2006, 15,383 lives were saved by the use of Following withdrawal of prompting, safety belt
safety belts, and an additional 5,441 lives could use fell to 28.5% (n 5 634), but rose to 51.5%
have been saved had belt use been at 100% (n 5 625) after reinstating the intervention.
(NHTSA, 2006). Currently, estimated safety More recently, Farrell, Cox, and Geller (2007)
belt use in the U.S. remains stagnant at 82% used the same method at a large student
(NHTSA, 2007). commuter parking lot. Although baseline belt
An alternative approach is the Flash-for-Life use was already high (i.e., 79.5%), 30% of the
(FfL) technique pioneered byGeller, Bruff, and unbuckled drivers (n 5 427) fastened their
Nimmer (1985) in the early 1980s when safety safety belts immediately after looking at the
belt use ranged from 10% to 20% (Dinh-Zarr prompt.
et al., 2001). The intervention involved a In 1994, North Carolina started a belt-use
passenger in the front seat of a vehicle showing enforcement program known as Click It or
unbuckled drivers in adjacent vehicles stopped Ticket (CioT) and reportedly increased belt use
at intersections a flash card (27.9 cm by from 60% to 84% (Williams, Reinfurt, &
35.6 cm) that read, ‘‘Please buckle up—I care’’ Wells, 1996). However, this campaign failed to
on the front. When an unbuckled driver achieve higher levels of belt use in the 5 years
buckled up on the spot, the passenger flipped following initial implementation (Williams &
the prompt over to reveal, ‘‘Thank you for Wells, 2004). Currently, CioT is the only
buckling up.’’ Of the 1,087 unbuckled drivers federally funded U.S. program designed to
‘‘flashed,’’ 82% turned their heads and looked increase safety belt use.
at the prompt, and 22% of these buckled up. Skinner posited that the framing of words
Similarly, Thyer, Geller, Williams, and caninfluencewhetherlanguageisreinforcingor
Purcell (1987) used this approach to increase punishing (Skinner, 1957), and that positive
mands (e.g., ‘‘please’’) may be more effective at
We thank Chris Ninness for his editorial suggestions prompting a behavior than threats. To date,
andassistancewiththedataanalysisportionofthisarticle.
there is only one study on safety belt use that
Correspondence concerning this research should be
directed to Matthew Cox, Virginia Tech, 202 Williams has examined the efficacy of different prompt-
Hall,Blacksburg,Virginia24061(e-mail:[email protected]). ing techniques (Clayton & Helms, 2009).
E-mail images of the two prompts are available from the
During the baseline phase, researchers held a
authorsat [email protected]@vt.edu.
doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-321 sign that said ‘‘Have a nice day’’ and observed
321
322 MATTHEW G. COX and E. SCOTT GELLER
how many people exiting a university parking Procedure.Duringeachofthe1-hrshifts,one
lot buckled their safety belts in response to the or two research assistants implemented the
sign. During the intervention, research assis- procedures and collected data for 4 hr per
tants showed unbuckled drivers either a CioT day,4daysperweekfor2months.Theresearch
signortheFfLsign.Resultsshowedthatpeople assistant stood at the exit or entrance of the
buckled in response to the CioT sign signifi- parking lot near the stop prompt to ensure that
cantly more than the FfL sign, and both signs driverscouldeasilyseeboththepromptandthe
increased belt use above the neutral sign in the observer when stopped. When one research
baseline condition. The authors suggested that assistant was available, he or she held the
the difference in efficacy between the two signs prompt and collected data. When two research
was due to the fact that CioT has a punitive assistants were available, one held the prompt
monetary component and FfL does not. The
and collected data and the other collected data
purpose of the current investigation was to
for the purpose of assessing interobserver
replicate and extend the study by Clayton and
agreement. Whenever the research assistant
Helms by comparing the FfL and CioT
saw an unbuckled driver, he or she held up
promptsandexaminingwhetherresponsesfrom
the intervention prompt, alternating between
drivers are indicative of preference for one
thetwotypesofinterventionpromptsdailyand
prompt over the other.
by week (e.g., the FfL prompt was used on
Wednesday and Friday of the 1st week and on
METHOD Tuesday and Thursday of the 2nd week). The
research assistant held the relevant prompt in
Participantsandsetting.Theparticipantswere
both hands, with his or her arms extended and
1,822 unbuckled drivers (574 women and
showing a neutral facial expression. In the FfL
1,248 men) exiting a student parking lot at a
condition, the research assistant flipped the
large university in southwest Virginia. Obser-
prompt over to show thethank-you message on
vations occurred at two locations of a large
the back if the driver buckled after viewing the
commuter parking lot, during three noncon-
secutive 1-hr shifts, 4 days per week for prompt. After the vehicle left, the research
2 months. Trained undergraduate research assistant independently recorded the driver’s
assistants observed only students with a com- gender, pre- and postflash belt use, facial
muter parking permit (which was clearly visible expression (positive, negative, or neutral), and
hanging from the rearview mirror) indicating handgestures(positive,negative,orneutral),by
that they were undergraduate students rather circling with a pencil one of the list responses
than graduate students or faculty or staff on a premade data-collection sheet.
members. Positive facial expressions included smiles,
Materials and apparatus. The interven- negative facial expressions included grimaces or
tion involved the display of either an FfL frowns, and neutral facial expressions were any
or CioT prompt. Both prompts were approx- expression that did not meet the positive or
imately 28 cm by 36 cm. The CioT prompt negative criterion. Positive hand gestures in-
read, ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ and contained an cluded thumbs up, ‘‘shoulder belt salute’’
image of a person wearing a shoulder harness (extendingone’sfastenedsafetybelt),orawave.
behind bold blue and red lettering. The Negative hand gestures included a thumbs
FfL prompt read, ‘‘Please Buckle Up, I down or the middle finger. Neutral hand
Care’’ on the front and ‘‘Thank You For gestures were those that did not meet either
Buckling Up’’ on the back in bold black and the positive or negative criterion. Two research
yellow letters. assistants recorded data independently on 50%
PROMPTING SAFETY BELT USE 323
Table 1
PercentageofDriversBucklingupandGivingPositiveorNegativeHandGesturesandFacialExpressionsasaFunction
ofEach Prompt
Buckledupafter Positivehand Negativehand Positivefacial Negativefacial
Interventionprompt prompt gestures gestures expressions expressions
FlashforLifen5895 33.6 13.2 0.9 25.0 3.9
ClickItorTicketn5927 25.6 7.8 2.6 18.9 9.2
of observations. Interobserver agreement was The prompts evidenced temporal differences
calculated for each dependent variable by as well(see Figure 1).Compliance with theFfL
dividing the number of agreements (both intervention gradually increased from 33% at
observers recorded the same gender, the same the beginning of the study to 41% after
statusofthedriver’sseatbelt,thesameresponse 2 months. Compliance with CioT was roughly
to the prompt, the same type of hand gesture, constant throughout the intervention (27% to
and the same facial expression) by the total 23% from beginning to end).
number of observations. Interobserver agree-
ment was 93% for driver gender, 93% for
DISCUSSION
identifying unbuckled drivers, 91% for buck-
ling in response to the prompt, 94% for hand Both prompting strategies were effective at
gestures, and 85% for facial expressions. increasing safety belt use, supporting the con-
clusions of Farrell et al.(2007) that belt use can
be increased with a simple reminder, despite
RESULTS
alreadyhighusagerates.Moreover,basedonthe
Ofthe895unbuckleddriverspromptedwith chi-square analyses and the differential percent-
the FfL prompt, 34% buckled up following the ages of compliance, the FfL prompt was more
prompt; and of the 927 drivers prompted with effective than the CioT prompt in the current
the CioT prompt, 26% buckled up following study in promoting belt use among unbuckled
theprompt.Giventhatourstudyentailedthree drivers 18 to 24 years old.
separate chi-square tests that addressed three Inaddition,itcanbeinferredfromvariations
different dependent measures (compliance, in hand gestures and facial expressions that
hand gestures, and facial expressions), Bonfer- some drivers preferred the FfL method over the
roni corrections were conducted to adjust for CioT prompt. One explanation for these
potential inflation of the familywise Type 1 differences, as mentioned previously, is that
error rate. Following the Bonferroni correction, the ‘‘thank you’’ aspect of the FfL prompt may
the first chi-square test revealed that the FfL act as positive reinforcement, whereas positive
condition differed significantly from the CioT reinforcement is absent in the CioT prompt
conditionintermsthefrequencyofcompliance, (although there is the threat of punishment).
x2 (1, N 5 1,822) 5 14.2, p 5 .000486; hand Geller (1991) posited that a portion of the
gestures, x2 (2, N 5 1,822) 5 53.45, p , populationwillactivelyresistpunishment-based
.0000001; and facial expressions, x2 (2, N 5 approaches to increase their safety belt use,
1,822) 5 27.03, p 5 .000003. A summary of especially because the probability of getting
the percentage of positive versus negative hand caughtunbuckledislow.Thegreaternumberof
gestures and facial expressions as a function of negative facial expressions and hand gestures
the intervention approach is presented in following the CioT prompt may provide
Table 1. support for this hypothesis.
324 MATTHEW G. COX and E. SCOTT GELLER
Figure 1. Percentage of drivers who buckled up after viewing either the Flash-for-Life (FfL) or Click It or Ticket
(CioT)prompt.
Interestingly, the results of the current study the prompt. Moreover, the study did not
differfromthoseofClaytonandHelms(2009), examine the within-subject effects of the
who found that CioT was more effective than intervention on drivers, such as repeated
FfL. The authors noted there was an active exposure to the intervention for ‘‘repeat offend-
CioT campaign in their state while data ers’’ or whether the facial expression and hand
collection occurred, which may have increased gestures came from a select few individuals.
awareness of the possible consequence and the Future studies could record license-plate num-
subsequent compliance with the prompt. This bers to examine the impact of multiple
was not the case of the current study. intervention exposures on individual drivers
Although the results of the current study are (cf. Geller, 1983).
encouraging, there are some fundamental We did not record whether an unbuckled
limitations. First, the intervention targeted only driver looked at the FfL or CioT prompt.
university students who were most likely However, given the positioning of the research
between 18 and 24 years old, which detracts assistants at stop signs (along the driver’s side),
from the study’s external validity. Second, the the likelihood that any driver did not see the
observers were obtrusive, making it impossible promptswaslow.Also,somedriversmighthave
to distinguish the impact of the prompts from buckled after driving away. Future studies
drivers’ awareness of being observed. In addi- might benefit from conducting behavioral
tion, the two prompting procedures were not observations downstream from the intervention
equivalent, in that the FfL involved adminis- site to ascertain any delayed effects of the
teringa‘‘thankyou’’afterdriverscompliedwith prompting intervention.
PROMPTING SAFETY BELT USE 325
REFERENCES National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
(2006). Traffic safety facts 2006. Washington, DC:
Clayton,M.C.,&Helms,B.(2009).Increasingseatbelt U.S. Department of Transportation.
use on a college campus: An evaluation of two National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
prompting procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior (2007). Seat belt use in 2007: Overall results. Wash-
Analysis, 42, 161–164. ington, DC:U.S.Department ofTransportation.
Dinh-Zarr, T. B., Sleet, D. A., Shults, R. A., Zaza, S., Skinner,B.F.(1957).Verbalbehavior.EastNorwalk,CT:
Elder,R.W.,Nichols,J.L.,etal.(2001).Reviewsof Appleton-Century-Crofts.
evidenceregardinginterventionstoincreasetheuseof Thyer, B. A., Geller, E. S., Williams, M., & Purcell, E.
safety belts. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (1987). Community-based ‘‘flashing’’ to increase
21,48–65. safety-belt use. Journal of Experimental Education,
Farrell, L. V., Cox, M. G., & Geller, E. S. (2007). 55,155–159.
Promptingsafety-beltuseinthecontextofabelt-use Williams, A. F., Reinfurt, D. F., & Wells, J. K. (1996).
law: The flash-for-life revisited. Journal of Safety IncreasingseatbeltuseinNorthCarolina.Journalof
Research,38,407–411. Safety Research,27, 33–41.
Geller, E. S. (1983). Rewarding safety belt usage at an Williams, A. F., & Wells, J. K. (2004). The role of
industrial setting: Test of treatment generality and enforcement programs in increasing seat belt use.
response maintenance. Journal of Applied Behavior Journal ofSafety Research,35(2),175–180.
Analysis, 16,43–56.
Geller, E. S. (1991, February). Preventing trauma from
vehicle crashes with behavioral community psychol-
ogy.The BehaviorTherapist,33–35.
Geller,E.S.,Bruff,C.D.,&Nimmer,J.G.(1985).The
‘‘flash-for-life’’: Community-based prompting for Received September 26,2008
safety-belt promotion. Journal of Applied Behavior Final acceptanceMarch 17, 2009
Analysis, 18,309–314. Action Editor,Chris Ninness