首页    期刊浏览 2022年05月19日 星期四
登录注册

文章基本信息

  • 标题:Parental perspectives on booster seat usage: do moms and dads share common ground?
  • 作者:Anitsal, M. Meral ; Anitsal, Ismet ; Brown, Amanda
  • 期刊名称:Academy of Marketing Studies Journal
  • 印刷版ISSN:1095-6298
  • 出版年度:2012
  • 期号:May
  • 语种:English
  • 出版社:The DreamCatchers Group, LLC
  • 摘要:According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2008, the use of seat belts in passenger vehicles saved an estimated 13,250 lives. Furthermore, using booster seats versus adult seat belts alone lowers the risk of children being injured in crashes by 59 percent. The number-one cause of serious injuries and deaths in children ages two to sixteen is related to automobile accidents and the lack or improper use of child-restraint systems or seatbelts (www.nhtsa.gov).
  • 关键词:Automotive safety;Child health;Children;Domestic relations;Family relations;Parenting;Seat belts

Parental perspectives on booster seat usage: do moms and dads share common ground?


Anitsal, M. Meral ; Anitsal, Ismet ; Brown, Amanda 等


INTRODUCTION

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2008, the use of seat belts in passenger vehicles saved an estimated 13,250 lives. Furthermore, using booster seats versus adult seat belts alone lowers the risk of children being injured in crashes by 59 percent. The number-one cause of serious injuries and deaths in children ages two to sixteen is related to automobile accidents and the lack or improper use of child-restraint systems or seatbelts (www.nhtsa.gov).

The Ollie Otter Booster Seat and Seat Belt Safety Program was developed by the Tennessee Road Builders Association and Tennessee Tech University (TTU) as an experimental solution to a serious problem: lack of booster seat and seatbelt education for youth at the critical age when good safety habits are formed. Ollie Otter, the spokes character for the Seat and Safety Program in Tennessee, seeks to be a role model for children regarding booster seat and seatbelt use. Choosing to use seatbelts and booster seats involves the following steps: recognizing the need for a booster seat or seatbelt, searching for more information on booster seats or seatbelts, evaluating the different alternatives for booster seats or seatbelts, and ultimately either purchasing a booster seat or using the seatbelt already in the vehicle. Therefore, to increase booster seat and seatbelt use, safety programs, such as Ollie Otter's, need information on who influences the decision making process within the family.

Using survey information from parents whose children were part of an Ollie Otter Program presentation in Tennessee elementary schools, this research study seeks to couple consumer opinions about booster seat and seatbelt safety with implications of the family decision making process. Based on this research, suggestions can be made for influencing that process, thereby promoting use of booster seats and seatbelts.

In 2010, this study's authors reported preliminary results of booster seat use's attitudinal model. This new study confirms the preliminary results about the model's rigor and provides interesting differences between mothers' and fathers' attitudes and intentions regarding booster-seat use. A family must not only decide to buy, but also regularly use a booster seat for each child. From this perspective, both mothers' and fathers' attitudes are equally important. As can be easily seen from children's art about and letters to Ollie (http://www.seatbeltvolunteer.org/), Ollie Otter and booster seats were "cool" from children's perspective. However, all family members must cooperate to ensure children use their booster seats regularly. Therefore, the following review of family decision making in the literature on consumer behavior can be helpful for understanding behavior associated with using booster seats.

FAMILY DECISION MAKING RESEARCH

The decision making process can be as simple as a split-second impulse buy, or as complex as spending months researching alternatives before making a purchase. Decision making generally involves several phases: need recognition, information search, alternative evaluations, and purchase. This process becomes the family decision making process when two or more family members participate. When more than one person becomes involved, additional questions must be answered: Does everyone value the same attributes? Does everyone go through the same decision making phases? Does everyone take the same amount of time to go through the process? And, perhaps most importantly, who has the most influence over the decision? (Harcar, Spillan, and Kucukemiroglu, 2005). In addition, different family members can play different roles. Gatekeepers, for example, control the information flow from one family member to another. Purse holders control the flow of money from within the household. If a child expresses desire for a particular product to his or her mother but the mother (gatekeeper) never tells the father (purse holder), the child may not get the product. These decision-making roles can also change from one family type to another; therefore, understanding different family types is helpful.

Over the past several years, family types have drastically changed from "nuclear families" to much more diverse family types. These types include "fragmented" families that have a single parent; "blended" families that include step-parents and step-siblings; extended families that include extended family members (aunts, uncles, cousins) also living in the same household; and "intact" families that consist of two parents and one or more children (Tinson, Nancarrow, Brace, 2008). Depending on the family type, each individual family member may have more influence (in the case of fragmented families) or less influence (in the case of extended families) the number of people weighing in on a particular decision.

The evolution of family decision making over time has been well researched. As women are spending more time outside the household and in the workplace, there has been a shift in who makes the purchase decisions in the household. Women have much more influence than they did in the past, specifically in areas that used to be male-dominated like the search for information, evaluation of alternatives, and final decision making. Furthermore, men are gaining influence within areas that used to be considered female-dominated, like childcare and grocery selection (Belch and Willis, 2001). Therefore, purchasing a booster seat, which may have traditionally been considered a female-dominated choice, may be more likely to be done by the man of the family.

While a woman's role in family decision making may have increased, so has the children's. Research shows several reasons for children's increased input when it comes to family decision making. First, parents are having fewer children, giving each child more influence. Second, the increase in single-parent families has resulted in children doing their own shopping. Third, more and more mothers are working outside the home, providing the family with more income to spend on their children. Finally, with working families' hectic lifestyles, children are forced to become more self-reliant (Caruana and Vassallo, 2003).

How can an organization or business use children as an influence within a family's decision-making process? Research shows that children have a greater impact when they are better informed and have more experience with consumer purchasing (Gram, 2007). This finding was also supported in a study done in the South Pacific. This study showed that one way children try to influence their parents' purchasing decisions is rational persuasion. They use information they have encountered as "real data" to support their request for a product or service (Wimalasiri, 2004). Therefore, organizations or movements interested in increasing booster-seat and seatbelt awareness may find it helpful to provide children with necessary information to take home and share with the rest of their family.

The purpose of this study is to test an attitudinal model of booster seat use and compare mothers and fathers in terms of their approaches to using booster seats. Purchasing and regularly using booster seats involve the whole family. If mothers and fathers are not consistent with and positive about using booster seats, expecting a permanent positive change in children's views of booster seats is unrealistic despite educational efforts in classrooms.

METHOD

Data for this research was collected from parents of K-4 students. The campaign directed to students encouraged them to use booster seats and learn about vehicle safety. They were also encouraged to share their knowledge with their parents. While this program reached 95 counties of Tennessee, data was collected randomly throughout the year in multiple waves. Teachers of selected schools and classrooms distributed surveys in blank envelopes with no address or identity-related questions. Once surveys were returned in sealed envelops, teachers received vouchers to have pizza party for students. Pre-test data indicated that responses were coming mainly from mothers, so students were encouraged to engage their fathers more.

There were 1325 responses to this survey. Five of the questionnaires had to be removed from the database because they had more than 50 percent of the items missing. All other items had about 6 missing points that were replaced with the average value of the item. The 1320 questionnaire (256 from fathers and 1064 from mothers) were used for final data analysis. Before testing the theory presented in structural equation modeling (Figure 1), items were investigated for reliability; pre-test factor loadings and Cronbach's alpha values were found to be valid. The authors can provide details of validity and reliability checks upon request.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Demographics analysis showed that 80.6 percent of respondents were mothers and 19.4 percent were fathers. The average age range was 25-34. In terms of ethnic origin, 83.8 percent of the participants were Caucasian, 7.0 percent African American and 4.5 percent Hispanic. These numbers were close to those of Tennessee averages: 80.2 percent, 16.8 percent and 4.2 percent respectively. There were 2.3 vehicles per household with 46.9 percent having one car, 43.7 percent one truck, 33.4 percent one SUV, and 26.1 percent one minivan. In terms of education, 31% of the respondents had a high school diploma (compared to 33.5% of Tennessee residents). Of the respondents, 74.3% were married with at least one child between 5-9 years old. In terms of yearly income, 50.8% of the households had income of less than $40,000, compared to the median Tennessee income of $42.943.

Due to lack of research on attitudes toward using booster seats, authors combined constructs relevant to children and driving based on observations and informal discussions with parents (2010). Constructs identified in the preliminary research included attitude toward multitasking while driving, attitude toward risk aversion in driving, attitude toward risk attraction in driving, attitude toward children, attitude toward children while driving, attitude toward booster seats, and intention toward using booster seats.

Newly developed and existing scales used in the study were primarily 7-point Likert scales. Constructs of multi-tasking, attitude toward children and attitude toward children while driving were developed for this research. Attitude toward booster-seat use was adapted from Dabholkar (1994). Donthu and Gilliland's (1996) risk-aversion scale and Griffin, Babin and Attaway's (1996) risk-attraction scales were adapted to driving situations. Originally, these scales were developed separately and have not been tested simultaneously. Conchar et al (2004) hypothesized that risk aversion was a personality characteristic and that risk attraction was context-dependent. They are likely to correlate negatively. Multi-tasking is a new phenomenon observed with both males and females. Those who are in favor of banning multi-tasking are likely to be risk averse. As a result, attitude toward multi-tasking while driving and risk attraction are expected to negatively correlate. For this study, the following hypotheses are to be tested:

H1a: Attitude toward multi-tasking while driving and attitude toward risk aversion are likely to positively correlate.

H1b: Attitude toward multi-tasking while driving and attitude toward risk attraction are likely to negatively correlate.

H2: Attitude toward risk aversion and attitude toward risk attraction are likely to negatively correlate.

Risk-averse drivers are likely to pay more attention to rules and avoid risky moves while driving. They will not only use seatbelts even for short errands, but also make their children use booster seats regularly. In this study, the following hypotheses regarding attitude toward risk aversion while driving are to be verified or negated:

H3: Attitude toward risk aversion while driving is likely to have a direct, positive effect on attitude toward children.

H4: Attitude toward risk aversion while driving is likely to have a direct, positive effect on attitude toward children while driving.

Risk seekers in driving situations are likely to be more relaxed in terms of letting children do what they want in the vehicle. Even though they care for their children's well being, they may not stop actively seeking the fun of risk taking. They may also be more lax in buckling up when doing short errands or driving slowly on rural roads. Research is not available to predict risk-attraction behavior in the presence of one's children; hence, empirical evidence is necessary to support or falsify the following hypotheses:

H5: Attitude toward risk attraction while driving is likely to have a direct, positive effect on attitude toward children.

H6: Attitude toward risk attraction while driving is likely to have a direct, negative effect on attitude toward children while driving.

When driving, parents who feel good about their children are likely to try preventing them from doing potentially dangerous activities while riding in the car. Although booster seats can be cumbersome to install and uninstall, these parents are likely to have positive attitudes toward regularly using booster seats. They also spend more time on finding good booster seats and talking about benefits. These ideas lead to the following hypotheses:

H7: Attitude toward children is likely to have a direct, positive effect on attitude toward children while driving.

H8: Attitude toward children while driving is likely to have a direct, positive effect on attitude toward booster seats.

H9: Attitude toward booster seats is likely have a direct, positive effect on intention towards using booster seats.

Based on discriminant and convergent validity and reliability checks, one redundant item from attitude toward booster seat use and two items from intention toward booster seat use were removed. The updated model showed better fit than the preliminary model (2010). Chi-square was 2013 with 17 degrees of freedom. Model fit statistics--including CFI (0.934), RMSEA (0.047), AGFI (0.898) and GFI (0.911)--indicated a good fit of model and data. All items loaded significantly only to their related constructs, indicating adequate construct validity.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The total sample was checked for model validity. When two groups--mothers and fathers--were fitted separately, fit indices were improved, indicating differences in both groups' attitudes (Table 1).

Table 2 shows the hypotheses' test and resulting path weights. Eight out of ten hypotheses were supported, indicating a sound theoretical structure. As expected, risk aversion and risk attraction were related but separate constructs. Multi-tasking correlated positively and strongly with risk aversion. For females, risk attraction correlated negatively with multi-tasking. While this correlation provided partial support to H1b, the relationship was not significant for fathers.

Respondents' attitudes toward risk aversion had strong and significant effects on attitudes toward children and toward children while driving. Both groups had approximately equal standardized regression weights for H3 and H4. Surprisingly, the path between risk attraction and attitude toward children constructs (H5) was found to be insignificant. Fathers and to some degree mothers did not seem to relate their preference for risk attraction (or avoidance) to their attitudes toward their children. Likewise, fathers did not seem to relate their risk attraction to their attitude toward children while driving. Parents with risk-attraction inclinations (H6) were more likely to let children unbuckle their seat belts for short errands.

For both fathers and mothers, attitude toward children was found to be a significant construct that influenced attitude toward children while driving together with attitude toward risk aversion (H7). Pre-test results indicated attitude toward children while driving was the only construct that affected attitudes toward booster seats. Even though still strong for the total sample, attitude towards risk aversion influenced mothers' attitudes toward booster seats as strongly as toward children while driving.

Another interesting result regarding fathers was that none of the paths leading to attitude toward booster seats was significant. That result may be due to the family decision making processes in which mothers make the final decisions regarding booster seat use. Fathers' attitudes, in contrast, may be based on their hands-on experience using, installing, and uninstalling booster seats. This result required further investigating both groups' responses. Comparison of mothers' and fathers' mean responses can be seen in Table 3.

Comparison of mean responses between mothers and fathers reveals statistically significant differences on multiple constructs. As expected, mothers seemed to have a more favorable attitude towards risk aversion during driving than fathers. This difference may be explained by the philosophy of being "safe rather than sorry" in every aspect of child care. For example, mothers tended to avoid aggressive drivers and risky moves and pay attention to cars' safety features more than fathers. They also claimed to buckle up more than fathers. Fathers, on the other hand, seemed to have more a favorable attitude toward risk attraction in driving than mothers. They considered risky situations as fun and drove more aggressively. However, their risk loving behavior in driving did not necessarily mean that they would take risks that could potentially endanger their children's safety.

Multi-tasking was another interesting construct in the sense that mothers seemed to be more favorable than fathers toward multi-tasking while driving, even though mothers were significantly more risk averse than fathers. This finding may be explained by the perception that mothers were usually expected to do more in less time than fathers regarding their children. However, they did not perceive that their multi-tasking activities could actually endanger their children.

Both mothers and fathers seemed to have similar attitudes toward their children in general and also while driving. However, fathers were more likely to forget to tell their children to buckle up. They would more likely than mothers to feel that wearing a seat belt or using a booster seat for a short errand was unnecessary. Also for fathers, driving slowly on a rural road did not always necessitate using a booster seat. These two observations about multi-tasking and short errands on rural roads found in this study should alert educators to focus training kids and indirectly parents about the dangers of the above mentioned habits.

In terms of securing their child in booster seats, fathers as well as mothers believed that booster seats were safe and that using them was wise. Fathers, on the other hand, were not as happy as mothers in terms of booster-seat characteristics. They tended to find them less pleasant, less appealing, and less appropriate to use in every occasion. This finding indicates that manufacturers of booster seats and cars must improve designs for easier installation. Informal talks with parents after this study revealed that installing and uninstalling seats were especially difficult if there were more than one child who needed more than one booster seat at home. Also, transfer of booster seats from vehicle to vehicle was a burden considering that households averaged 2 vehicles (most frequently a car and a truck).

This study provides information about family decision making regarding booster-seat use. The findings indicate that all family members' involvement is important to ensure child safety. Mothers seem to be the key decision makers in purchasing and using booster seats; also they talk more about booster seats and recommend them to their friends. Nevertheless, consistent use of the seats requires children's cooperation. That cooperation has been enhanced through the Ollie Otter's Child Booster Seat Program, which has generated awareness and the desire to use booster seats as can be seen from children's letters and art works to Ollie (Official Site for Ollie Otter's Child Booster Seat Program, 2011). However, mothers still need fathers' cooperation with and commitment to regularly using booster seats. Such cooperation also reinforces children's perception of safety in vehicles.

REFERENCES

Anitsal, M. Meral, Ismet Anitsal, and Kevin Liska (2010). Child Booster Seat Safety: An Attitudinal Model of the Use of Booster Seats. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, ISSN 1095-6298, 13-25.

Belch, Michael A. and Laura A. Willis (2001). Family Decision at the Turn of the Century: Has the Changing Structure of Households Impacted the Family Decision-Making Process?. Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 2, 111-124.

Caruana, Albert and Rosella Vassallo (2003). Children's Perception of their Influence over Purchases: the Role of Parental Communication Patterns. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 55-66.

Conchar, M. P.; G.M. Zinkhan; C. Peters & S. Olavarrieta (2004). An integrated framework for the conceptualization of consumers' perceived-risk processing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 418-436.

Dabholkar, Pratibha (1994). Incorporating Choice Into an Attitudinal Framework: Analyzing Models of Mental Comparison Processes. Journal of Consumer Research, June 21, 100-118.

Donthu, N. & and D. Gilliland (1996). Observations: The Infomercial Shopper. Journal of Advertising Research, March/April, 69-76.

Gram, Malene (2007). Children as Co-Decision Makers in the Family? The Case of Family Holidays. Young Consumers, Vol. 8, No. 1, 19-28.

Griffin, M., B. J.Babin and J. S. Attaway (1996). Anticipation of Injurious Consumption Outcomes and Its Impact on Consumer Attributions of Blame. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 314-327.

Harcar, Talha, John E. Spillan, and Orsay Kucukemiroglu (2005). A Multi-National Study of Family Decision-Making. Multinational Business Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, 3-21. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, www.nhtsa.gov, Retreived March 2, 2011.

Tinson, Julie, Clive Nancarrow, and Ian Brace (2008). Purchase Decision Making and the Increasing Significance of Family Types. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 1, 45-56.

Wimalasiri, Jayantha S. (2004). A Cross-National Study on Children's Purchasing Behavior and Parental Response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21, No.4, 274-284.

Official Site for Ollie Otter's Child Booster Seat Program (2011). Retrieved March 4, 2011. http://www.seatbeltvolunteer.org

M. Meral Anitsal, Tennessee Tech University

Ismet Anitsal, Tennessee Tech University

Amanda Brown, Tennessee Tech University

Kevin Liska, Tennessee Tech University
Table 1: The Model Fit--Two Groups

Chi-Sq               4659.234
Degrees of freedom   1548
Chi-Sq Ratio         3.010
CFI                  0.932
RMSEA                0.028
AGFI                 0.885
GFI                  0.901

Table 2: Test of Hypotheses

Hypotheses          Path              Group    Standardized   P Value
                                                 Regression
                                                  Weights

H1a          Attitude Toward          Total        0.223       0.000
             Multi-Tasking            Male         0.324       0.000
             [left and right arrow]   Female       0.224       0.000
             Attitude Toward
             Risk Aversion

H1b          Attitude Toward          Total       -0.064       0.066
             Multi-Tasking            Male        -0.128       0.125
             [left and right arrow]   Female      -0.090       0.024
             Attitude Toward
             Risk Attraction

H2           Attitude Toward         Total       -0.407       0.000
             Risk Aversion           Male        -0.420       0.000
             [left and right arrow]  Female      -0.353       0.000
             Attitude Toward
             Risk Attraction

H3           Attitude Toward         Total        0.437       0.000
             Risk Aversion           Male         0.411       0.000
             [right arrow]           Female       0.447       0.000
             Attitude Toward
             Children

H4           Attitude Toward        Total        0.281       0.000
             Risk Aversion          Male         0.318       0.007
             [right arrow]          Female       0.251       0.000
             Attitude Toward
             Children While
             Driving

H5           Attitude Toward        Total       -0.034       0.352
             Risk Attraction        Male         0.007       0.934
             [right arrow]          Female      -0.077       0.057
             Attitude Toward
             Children

H6           Attitude Toward        Total       -0.136       0.000
             Risk Attraction        Male         0.024       0.768
             [right arrow]          Female      -0.215       0.000
             Attitude Toward
             Children While
             Driving

H7           Attitude Toward        Total        0.290       0.000
             Children               Male         0.294       0.003
             [right arrow]          Female       0.267       0.000
             Attitude Toward
             Children While
             Driving

H8           Attitude Toward        Total        0.169       0.000
             Children While         Male         0.149       0.086
             Driving                Female       0.176       0.000
             [right arrow]
             Attitude Toward
             Booster Seat

H9           Attitude Toward        Total        0.309       0.000
             Booster Seat           Male         0.375       0.000
             [right arrow]          Female       0.285       0.000
             Intention Toward
             Booster Seat

New Path     Attitude Toward        Total        0.114       0.005
             Risk Aversion          Male         0.066       0.436
             [right arrow]          Female       0.123       0.006
             Attitude Toward
             Booster Seat

Hypotheses          Path              Outcome

H1a          Attitude Toward          Supported
             Multi-Tasking            Supported
             [left and right arrow]   Supported
             Attitude Toward
             Risk Aversion

H1b          Attitude Toward          Not Supported
             Multi-Tasking            Not Supported
             [left and right arrow]   Partially
             Attitude Toward          Supported
             Risk Attraction

H2           Attitude Toward          Supported
             Risk Aversion            Supported
             [left and right arrow]   Supported
             Attitude Toward
             Risk Attraction

H3           Attitude Toward         Supported
             Risk Aversion           Supported
             [right arrow]           Supported
             Attitude Toward
             Children

H4           Attitude Toward         Supported
             Risk Aversion           Supported
             [right arrow]           Supported
             Attitude Toward
             Children While
             Driving

H5           Attitude Toward         Not Supported
             Risk Attraction         Not Supported
             [right arrow]           Not Supported
             Attitude Toward
             Children

H6           Attitude Toward         Supported
             Risk Attraction         Not Supported
             [right arrow]           Supported
             Attitude Toward
             Children While
             Driving

H7           Attitude Toward         Supported
             Children                Supported
             [right arrow]           Supported
             Attitude Toward
             Children While
             Driving

H8           Attitude Toward         Supported
             Children While          Not Supported
             Driving                 Supported
             [right arrow]
             Attitude Toward
             Booster Seat

H9           Attitude Toward         Supported
             Booster Seat            Supported
             [right arrow]           Supported
             Intention Toward
             Booster Seat

New Path     Attitude Toward         Significant
             Risk Aversion           Not Significant
             [right arrow]           Significant
             Attitude Toward
             Booster Seat

Table 3: Comparison of Mean Responses: Mothers and Fathers

Construct       Items        Item Description              Mean

                                                     Mothers   Fathers

Intention        Q39    Look for information          5.08      4.82
Toward                    about booster seats.
Booster          Q40    Spend your time to find       5.63      4.43
Seat                      a good booster seat.
                 Q41    Compare the benefits of       5.41      5.25
                          different booster seat
                          brands.
                 Q42    Buy a booster seat for        6.15      5.97
                          each child in your
                          household.
                 Q43    Secure your child into        6.44      6.31
                          a booster seat every
                          time you drive.
                 Q44    Discuss the importance of     5.56      5.08
                          using booster seat with
                          a friend.
                 Q45    Recommend that your           5.85      5.51
                          friends use a booster
                          seat for their children.

Attitude         Q31    Bad-Good                      6.54      6.36
Toward           Q32    Unpleasant-Pleasant           6.21      5.91
Booster          Q33    Harmful-Beneficial            6.42      6.20
Seat             Q34    Unfavorable-Favorable         6.72      6.16
                 Q35    Unappealing-Appealing         6.15      5.84
                 Q36    Inappropriate-Appropriate     6.45      6.27
                 Q37    Foolish-Wise                  6.49      6.30
                 Q38    Unsafe-Safe                   6.54      6.48

Attitude         Q22    Children are enjoyment        6.89      6.80
Toward                    in life.
Children         Q23    I care about the well         6.92      6.84
                          being of my children.
                 Q25    I feel good about my          6.86      6.84
                          children
                 Q27    I try to protect my           6.80      6.83
                          children from potential
                          dangers.

Attitude         Q18    Wearing a seat belt for       1.92      2.31
Toward                    a short errand is not
Children                  always necessary.
While            Q26    Regardless of their age,      2.10      2.11
Driving (R)               my children can
                          responsibly sit in any
                          seat they choose in the
                          car.
                 Q28    I can do anything to stop     1.44      1.59
                          my children whining in
                          the car even let them
                          get out of the booster
                          seat.
                 Q29    Sometimes I forget to         1.75      1.96
                          tell my children to
                          buckle up.
                 Q30    When I am driving slowly      1.39      1.64
                          on a rural road,
                          putting my child in
                          his/her booster seat is
                          unnecessary.

Attitude         Q19    Police should ticket          4.23      4.66
Toward                    those who drive while
Multi-Tasking             talking on cell phone.
While            Q20    Eating while driving is       4.89      5.23
Driving                   dangerous.
                 Q21    Drinking beverages while      4.10      4.53
                          driving is dangerous.

Attitude         Q6     Fast driving would make       2.21      2.50
                          driving more pleasant.
Toward Risk      Q7     I would like to drive a       2.29      3.59
                          race car.
                 Q8     I sometimes do things I       1.46      2.14
                          know are dangerous just
                          for fun.
Attraction       Q9     Taking risks can be fun.      1.67      2.22
in Driving       Q10    I never hesitate to           2.97      3.52
                          overtake those who
                          drive very slowly.

Attitude         Q12    I give the right of way       6.32      5.98
                          to an aggressive driver
Toward Risk               if he or she endangers
                          my safety.
Aversion in      Q14    I always buckle up.           6.35      6.12
Driving          Q15    I would rather be safe        6.77      6.50
                          than sorry.
                 Q16    I always avoid risky          6.04      5.69
                          moves in traffic.
                 Q17    I pay attention to safety     5.93      5.57
                          features while buying
                          a car.

Construct       Items   t-Value   P Value

Intention        Q39     1.895     0.058
Toward
Booster          Q40     1.721     0.086
Seat
                 Q41     1.308     0.191

                 Q42     1.681     0.093

                 Q43     1.448     0.148

                 Q44     3.707     0.000

                 Q45     2.714     0.007

Attitude         Q31     2.093     0.037
Toward           Q32     3.130     0.002
Booster          Q33     2.171     0.031
Seat             Q34     2.174     0.030
                 Q35     3.078     0.002
                 Q36     2.019     0.044
                 Q37     1.854     0.065
                 Q38     0.807     0.420

Attitude         Q22     1.808     0.071
Toward
Children         Q23     1.598     0.111

                 Q25     1.541     0.588

                 Q27    -0.565     0.572

Attitude         Q18    -2.961     0.003
Toward
Children
While            Q26    -0.107     0.914
Driving (R)

                 Q28    -1.540     0.124

                 Q29    -1.788     0.075

                 Q30    -2.395     0.017

Attitude         Q19    -3.018     0.003
Toward
Multi-Tasking
While            Q20    -3.038     0.002
Driving
                 Q21    -3.264     0.001

Attitude         Q6     -2.787     0.006

Toward Risk      Q7     -7.906     0.000

                 Q8     -5.986     0.000

Attraction       Q9     -4.976     0.000
in Driving       Q10    -4.294     0.000

Attitude         Q12     3.207     0.001

Toward Risk

Aversion in      Q14     2.396     0.017
Driving          Q15     3.890     0.000

                 Q16     3.860     0.000

                 Q17     3.350     0.001

R = Item has been reverse coded.
联系我们|关于我们|网站声明
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有