Application of Behavior Change Theory to the Development

4
BEHAVIOR CHANGE THEORY
through research, the authors simply had to design the study in a way that
permitted the subjects to tell them which elements of the theory contributed to
their decisions to drink and drive. That information, in turn, provided the key to
designing an intervention. The researchers’ concluded that reducing the
“perceived behavioral control” of young drivers to a more realistic level could be
a promising new approach to intervention.
“Greater eventual progress in driver improvement might be realized if there
were greater application of theoretical models in the planning and
implementation of rehabilitation programs” (Kaestner, 1968).
• Intensity:
Levels of threat and intimacy in the treatment were manipulated by Kaestner
and Warmoth (1968) and McBride and Peck (1970).
• Duration:
Marsh and Healey (1995) noted that short, written treatments result in short-term
effects. Level 1 warning letter treatment effects did not extend beyond 6 months
while Level 3 probation-hearing effects lasted as long as 9-10 months.
Many of the NOTES reports between 1985 and 1994 reported the same
phenomenon.
• Driver/DMV Interaction:
An early critic of advisory letter content, Campbell (1958) felt that the
bureaucratic tenor conveyed via warning and advisory letters demonstrated a
philosophic bias toward punition and retribution rather than an interest in
changing drivers’ behaviors, ensuring that official contacts with negligent
operators would be at least punishing, if not effective.
McBride and Peck (1970) reported that their message based upon
communications theory was largely constrained by administrative policy.
Warren (1981) examined the differences between traffic safety laws and the
majority of other laws. While most laws punish willful acts that cause damage,
traffic safety laws punish behaviors that may or may not result in unintended
damage. In fact, in absolute terms (per driving infraction), it is clear to the driver
that the punishment is for engaging in a behavior that is extremely unlikely to
result in damage of any kind. Warren stressed the point that virtually no driver
violates traffic laws with the intention of killing or maiming someone. Yet, the
Department treats them as though that were their intention. He concluded that
as the State persists in punishing persons for non-existent motives, behaviors
would develop that could be highly resistant to change. In addition, as few of
the punishments have been shown to reduce collisions, it could be assumed that
the target driving groups have concluded that the motivation of the State is one
of punishment rather than collision reduction. “The damage done to individuals
by society (fines, jail sentences, restricted privileges) must at some point be offset
by the damage prevention (injuries, deaths) to ensure continued public support.”
Warren’s comments are reminders that the effectiveness of any treatment letter
will be affected by the driver’s perceptions of the Department’s motivations.