Risk Attitudes and Behavior Among Norwegian Adolescents

Abstract

Abstract. The core aim of the present study is to compare the effects of a safety campaign and a behavior modification program on traffic safety. As is the case in community-based health promotion, the present study's approach of the attitude campaign was based on active participation of the group of recipients. One of the reasons why many attitude campaigns conducted previously have failed may be that they have been society-based public health programs. Both the interventions were carried out simultaneously among students aged 18-19 years in two Norwegian high schools (n = 342). At the first high school the intervention was behavior modification, at the second school a community-based attitude campaign was carried out. Baseline and posttest data on attitudes toward traffic safety and self-reported risk behavior were collected. The results showed that there was a significant total effect of the interventions although the effect depended on the type of intervention. There were significant differences in attitude and behavior only in the sample where the attitude campaign was carried out and no significant changes were found in the group of recipients of behavior modification.

Evaluating a novice driver and pre-driver road safety intervention

“…These researchers argued that campaigns aimed at influencing safety attitudes in general had been unsuccessful as they did not focus on the specific attitudes likely to influence risk-taking behavior. Research has demonstrated that general attitudes are poor predictors of specific behaviors (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1991), such as unsafe driving (Iversen, 2004;Iversen et al, 2005). More specific attitudes towards risktaking behavior in driving can predict unsafe driving behavior, such as attitudes towards rule violations, joyriding, and speeding (Iversen, 2004;Ulleberg and Rundmo, 2002;West and Hall, 1997).…”

“…More specific attitudes towards risktaking behavior in driving can predict unsafe driving behavior, such as attitudes towards rule violations, joyriding, and speeding (Iversen, 2004;Ulleberg and Rundmo, 2002;West and Hall, 1997). Research suggests that differences in attitudes towards traffic safety and selfreported driving behavior are only found when interventions target specific attitudes rather than general behavior modification (Iversen et al, 2005). This indicates that psychological interventions may be optimized when separated from skill and safety orientation programs (Lajunen and Summala, 1995).…”

“…The program aimed to address overall attitudes towards unsafe driving, but its delivery might not have been specific enough. Ulleberg and Rundmo (2002) argued that campaigns aimed at influencing safety attitudes in general have been unsuccessful because they do not focus on the specific attitudes likely to influence risk-taking behavior, agreeing with research demonstrating that general attitudes are poor predictors of specific behaviors (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1991), such as unsafe driving (Iversen, 2004;Iversen et al, 2005). Targeting more specific predictors of unsafe driving behavior, such as attitudes towards rule violations (Iversen, 2004;Ulleberg and Rundmo, 2002;West and Hall, 1997), joyriding, and speeding (Iversen, 2004;Ulleberg and Rundmo, 2002), might have improved the ability of the intervention to achieve its aims (Iversen et al, 2005).…”

“…Evaluations are vital in enhancing the benefits of interventions by investigating their impacts on traffic safety, identifying areas requiring focus, and encouraging resources to convert research into practice (Iversen et al, 2005). However, the continuing gap between road safety research and practical interventions impedes progress in preventing traffic-related injuries (Sleet and Baldwin, 2010).…”

“…To respond to this evaluation problem, strategies could aim to determine the effectiveness of campaigns by measuring important predictors of safe and unsafe driving behaviors, in the expectation that these potentially translate into corresponding driving behaviors (Ulleberg and Rundmo, 2003). Two such predictors are attitudes and perceived risk, which have been shown to reliably predict unsafe driving behavior and crash involvement (Hatfield and Fernandes, 2009;Iversen et al, 2005;Kraus, 1995;Weinstein et al, 1998). Rowe et al (2013) found that pre-driver attitudes became riskier as driver training and experience increased, opening the possibility that interventions seeking to influence pre-driver attitudes are worth investigating.…”