Application of Behavior Change Theory to the Development

36
BEHAVIOR CHANGE THEORY
Only 29 percent expressed empathy, 25 percent attempted to use environmental
reevaluation, an astonishingly low 17 percent stressed personal responsibility or
encouraged self-reevaluation, and a mere 13 percent offered help.
Compared with the balance of the studies, the treatment letters used by Marsh (1985-
1995), on average, employed fewer general, early, and late stage elements (personal
responsibility, choice of strategy, empress empathy, strengthen self efficacy, dramatic
relief, environmental reevaluation, helping relationships, and contingency
management).
Jones (1997)
RATINGS:
Design Quality: 20/24
Standard Letter: 7/33
Soft-Sell Letter: 23/33
The Jones article reported on an evaluation of the Oregon Driver Improvement Program
that monitors driver records and implements corrective treatments at various levels of
negligent driving behavior. The author’s focus was upon the effectiveness of a soft-sell
warning letter as a countermeasure to negligent driving. Jones was motivated to
initiate the study by his knowledge that much of the research into the effectiveness of
low-threat warning letters was, by then, more than a quarter century old.
A total of 8,462 eligible drivers were selected for this study and 4,278 received the softsell,
experimental letter, while the balance was mailed the Department’s standard
warning letter. Those in both treatment conditions and the no-contact control group,
which consisted of 456 eligible drivers, were monitored for 26-38 subsequent months to
determine the traffic safety implications of the letters.
For older drivers, both letters were effective treatments relative to accident and major
conviction reductions, with the soft-sell letter being the more effective, although neither
was found to be more effective than the control condition. The risk of moving
violations does not appear to be affected by either letter, regardless of age or gender.
However, for younger drivers, accident free survival was significantly poorer for both
letter groups. Generally, the warning letters, especially the soft-sell letter, were
effective with drivers at least 35 years old, but for drivers 25 and under, doing nothing
resulted in a significantly better result than sending either letter.
Oregon’s standard (Appendix B-30) and soft-sell letters (Appendix B-31) are very
different in their use of some TTM components but identical in others. The standard
letter (Table 12) utilized systematic feedback from the general change elements,
consciousness-raising from the early stage techniques, and helping relationships and
contingency management from the late stage methods. Only 25 percent of the available
methods were used in the standard letter.