Application of Behavior Change Theory to the Development

BEHAVIOR CHANGE THEORY
meeting a set of criteria, which included approaching or reaching the prima facie
definition of negligent operator. The alpha level was set at .20.
This study met four of the six quality criteria; the participation rate exceeded 70 percent,
there was a no-treatment control group, random assignment procedures were
implemented, and treatment definitely preceded outcome. There is some question
about the level to which the authors were blinded to the randomization schedule since
that procedure had to be adjusted to equalize the cells. Finally, significant differences
were found in subject characteristics among the groups.
The study began with the development of the experimental warning letters
(Appendices B-5 to B-9). McBride (1967) conducted a review of the mass
communication, marketing, advertising and behavior modification literatures to
identify two dimensions for manipulation: intensity of threat, and intimacy in the style
of the written message. The levels of threat were developed from Semantic Differential
Scales identified through a review of independent studies. Intensity of the intimacy
dimension varied according to the use of personal pronouns.
Although the letters were developed to represent three levels of each dimension for a
total of nine possible combinations, practical considerations reduced the final number of
letters used in the research to four: high threat/high intimacy; high threat/low
intimacy; low threat/high intimacy; and, low threat/low intimacy. Including the
standard letter used at the time of the research, five letters were evaluated. The criteria
for the evaluation of treatment effects were total accidents and countable traffic
violations.
Standard letter. “In this study, the low threat and standard letters, both very formal,
were the best overall treatments” (McBride & Peck, 1970). The standard letter
(Appendix B-5) when combined with the questionnaire was effective for both accident
(t = -1.88, p < 0.05) and violation (t = -2.47, p < 0.01) reductions for a period of seven
months after treatment. The authors reported that the t-test results are at least
“suggestive of a treatment effect” (McBride and Peck, 1970).
Concerning the TTM (Table 4), the standard warning letter used one of the six general
strategies at a minimal level. Systematic feedback consisted of a short sentence advising
the driver that the department has found several entries of unsafe driving. Meanwhile,
personal responsibility was not mentioned, no direct advice was given, no choice of
strategies was provided, empathy was not expressed, nor was there any attempt to
strengthen self-efficacy.
Only one of the five early stage strategies, consciousness raising, was incorporated into
the letter. Unfortunately, that strategy was wasted when it was written in the form of a
threat that was not linked to a statement of personal responsibility. Again, the other
four strategies were ignored. There was no effort to reduce the negative effect of the
threat by turning it into dramatic relief, no environmental reevaluation efforts were
attempted, social liberation was ignored, and self-reevaluation was not promoted.
23