Application of Behavior Change Theory to the Development

Table 8
McBride & Peck, 1970: Low Threat/Low Intimacy Letter
28
BEHAVIOR CHANGE THEORY
Design Characteristics Score General stage Score Early stage Score Late stage Score
Participation rate 70% 4 Systematic feedback 3 Consciousness raising 2 Stimulus control 0
No-treatment control 4 Personal
responsibility
Random assignment 4 Direct advice 3 Environmental
reevaluation
Similar subject
characteristics
Blinded to random
schedule
Temporality 4 Strengthen selfefficacy
3 Dramatic relief 2 Helping relationships 0
2 Counter conditioning 0
0 Choice of strategy 3 Social liberation 0 Contingency
management
0 Express empathy 3 Self reevaluation 0 Self liberation 0
3
Total 16 18 6 0
The low threat/low intimacy letter made good use of three early stage strategies.
Consciousness-raising melded with systematic feedback to increase the subject’s anxiety
about the possible consequences of negligent driving. However, these apprehensions
were allowed to subside (dramatic relief) through a technique that reinforced the
subject’s power to control the situation through future driving behaviors. Finally, the
warning letter employed an environmental reevaluation technique when it
reinterpreted the driving record in terms of elevated risk to self, loved ones, and
innocent others.
Taken as a whole, the ANOVA summary for violations during the five-months
subsequent to reinforcement found that the treatment by intimacy interaction was
significant (F = 10.48, p < 0.001), indicating that an interaction not evident in the first 7
months emerged in the last 5 months and is unrelated to reinforcement. This appears to
indicate that some enduring quality of the treatment and/or the intimacy dimensions
interacts with time to exert a positive effect long after treatment.
Meanwhile, the ANOVA summary for accidents during the seven-months post
treatment indicated a significant threat dimension effect (F = 3.05, p < 0.10) with low
threat treatments producing significantly more accident reductions than high threat
treatments.
In addition, the ANOVA summary for accidents during the five-months subsequent to
reinforcement found that the reinforcement by threat (F = 3.20, p < 0.10) and
reinforcement by intimacy by threat (F = 3.61, p < 0.10) interactions were significant.
These results indicate that the reinforcement effect is significantly larger when
accompanied by low threat and/or high intimacy treatments.
0