Ictct Valencia Receptivity To Fear Appeal Katteler

Road users’ receptivity to fear appeal

Herman Katteler

ITS, Radboud University

Nijmegen - NL

ICTCT Workshop Valencia, October 2007

Focus Fully unexpected finding Context:

Pupils’ bad attitudes and behaviour Road safety education Fear appeal campaign

Interpretation, implications


Accident risk

Empirical evidence: A: Ulleberg & Rundmo (2002); B: Parker et al. (1995); Iversen (2004) C: Katteler (2004)

Bad attitudes

Riskybehaviour

AccidentInvolvement

A B

c


Road safety education

Bad attitudes

Riskybehaviour

(Near-)accidentinvolvement

Road safetyeducation


What type of program?Positively oriented Stimulating Rational Soft Informative/education

Examples: Bob-campaign I love ….. Carpool TV spots

Negatively oriented Fear-appeal Emotional Hard Persuasive

Examples: Home violence Fireworks Road victims


Fear appeal programmes

Verkeersgetuigen (Belgium) Traffic Informers (Limburg-NL) Guest lecture by road victims

(Zeeland-NL)


Aim of the study Study the impact of fear-appeal

hoping for better attitudes

Find answer: most effective type of program across multiple initiatives


Research process

Test group:

secondary schools in province of

Zeeland

Pre-testGuest lecture

in school class

Post-test

Control group:secondary schools

in province of Zeeland

Pre-testPost-test


Technical result

t0 t1

Test group n=307 n=258

Controls n=353 n=338


Guest lecture To 14-17 years old pupils In 15 classes, 3 schools

Mother of killed road user Husband of killed wife

Pattern: statistics – the story – photographs -

discussion



Pupils impressed by this fear arousal?

24

36

32

8

very impressed impresseda bit impressedhardly/not


Self-experienced change Self-declared change in behaviour:

14% (more polite, precautious, less risks)

But: 6% more anxious, uncertain


Main results: attitudes As far as pupils held bad attitudes:

Tendency to obey traffic rules Risk acceptance Acceptance to ride with alcohol/drugs Self-protection / responsible towards

others

evidence for change is missing


Main results: behaviour As far as pupils showed bad

behaviour: Mistakes Violations Riding after use of alcohol/drugs Riding style (careless, uncertain)

evidence for change is missing


By-product: alternative variable

If anything works: road victim in own social circle (peer groups) much closer more emotional permanent rather than incidental


Road victim in peer group

Peer groups: own family circle of friends acquaintances,

neighbours classmates,

schoolmates

Type of victim: no victims at most lightly

injured severely injured killed


Steps

A) Measurement of experience with road victims in peer groups

B) Most serious experience of each person

C) Crossing with attitudes and behaviour


A: Road victim peer experience

7

12

6

9

34 4

2

0

4

8

12

16

20

in ow n family friend acquaintance schoolmate

severely injured

fatal case


B: Most serious experience

3927

2228

29

3437

34

2329

2426

9 1017 12

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

14 y 15 y 16, 17 y total

killed peer victim

seriously injured

slightly injured

no peer victims


C: Crossings Expected result:

the more severe the peer accident experience, the better the current attitudes and behaviour

(= parallel to the intended impact of fear arousal programmes)

A set of strong correlations between road victim (peers) and attitudes/behaviour

However, in fully unexpected direction!


Striking tendency Observed result:

the more severe the peer accident experience, the worse the specific attitudes and behaviour

particularly:• Low self-responsibility• Actually riding with alcohol• Making (intended) mistakes• Intentionally violate traffic rules


Riding with alcohol by peer victims (a)

1932 32

12

23 28

69

45 40

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

no victims lightly injured severely/fatal

no, never

once last 3 weeks

more frequent


Riding with alcohol by peer victims (b)

31

58

69

42

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

no peer victims having peer victims

riding without alcohol

riding with alcohol


Intentionally violate rules

34

4853

63

0

20

40

60

80

no peer victims slightly injured seriously injured killed peer

% intentionally violaterules


Interpretation (a) Socio-cultural environment in which tough

behaviour is appreciated Being faced with road victims part of

culture ‘Bad’ attitudes and risky behaviour reflect

essence of their way of life Being part of ‘tough’ sub-culture implies

also higher chance of own accidents


Validation Somebody’s own involvement in

(near-)accidents Injured Material damage Near-misses


Accident involvement and road victim peer experience

55

7376

0

20

40

60

80

100

peers: not peers: slightly seriously/killed

self involved


Interpretation (b) Accident risk is part of set of general

norms and values rather than a consequence of bad attitudes

Peer/own accident experience not a drive to change attitudes/behaviour


Prevention programmesBad road safetyattitudes

Riskybehaviour

Acceptance of accidentinvolvement

Road safetyeducation

Tough way of life with set of other exponentsof sub-culture


Interpretation (b) Accident risk is part of set of general

norms and values rather than a consequence of bad attitudes

Peer/own accident experience not a drive to change attitudes/behaviour

Any road safety programme for this group too limited: will not meet consideration


Conclusion The major part of people with tough

attitudes will not be receptive to road safety campaigns that aim reducing their ‘bad’ attitudes See also: youth juvenile delinquency They even derive authority from being deviant

Neither fear arousal nor soft campaigns Broad strategy required rather than to

focus on road safety



Colofon

Herman Katteler ITS - Radbout University [email protected]

Ictct Valencia Receptivity To Fear Appeal Katteler

Technology

road victim peer experience

peer accident experience

bad behaviour

tough attitudes

pupils bad attitudes

tough behaviour

peer victims b

culture bad attitudes