Etapa de Adquisición

Overall, the results of the Study 2a provided partial support for the efficacy of the TPB in predicting intentions and actual compliance with the SZSL among drivers in Queensland, Australia. Thus Hypothesis 1, which proposed that all of the TPB constructs would significant predict intentions, was partially supported. Attitude and PBC were significant predictors, accounting for a significant 35% of the variance in intention to comply with the SZSL. In contrast, however, subjective norm did not emerge as a significant predictor at any stage within the regression model. In relation to the additional predictors of mindfulness and habit, only mindfulness was found to be a significant predictor of intention, explaining a further 4% of the variance on intention to comply with the SZSL over and above the standard TPB constructs. The latter finding therefore provides partial support for Hypothesis 2 which proposed that both habit and mindfulness would significantly explain variance in intentions over and above the TPB constructs. Thus, overall, in the final step of the model, the findings of Study 2a indicated that only attitude, PBC and mindfulness were significant predictors of individuals’ intention to comply with the SZSL. Further, as expected, the standardized beta weights were positive, demonstrating that as attitudes, PBC and mindfulness increased, people were more likely to report intention to comply with the SZSL.

In relation to actual compliance with the SZSL, consistent with theoretical expectations, intention was found to be a significant, positive predictor of actual compliance; however, somewhat inconsistent with theory, PBC was not a significant predictor. Such findings therefore provided partial support for Hypothesis 1 which had initially proposed that both intentions and PBC would significantly predict actual compliance. The finding regarding PBC not being a significant predictor of

behaviour (while intention was) is not uncommon in the evidence with other studies (based on the prediction of different social behaviours) finding that intention was often the only significant predictor (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2001; Warner & Aberg, 2006). Study 2a also explored whether the additional constructs of

Habit and mindfulness moderate the intention-behaviour relationship, such that greater habit and mindfulness will strengthen intention, thus leading to compliance behaviour. The findings, however, did not support the prediction. Specifically, neither mindfulness nor habit was found to be significant predictors of actual behaviour.

The results of Study 2a, like those of other studies on compliance with the speed limit, are to a large extent in agreement with the TPB-based literature (Elliott & Armitage, 2003; Elliott, et al., 2007a; Warner, et al., 2009). In particular, the current study, in finding that attitude and PBC predict intention and that intention

subsequently predicts behaviour, is consistent with the tenets of the model. In addition, although subjective norm is hypothesised to also influence intention in the TPB, this study did not find that result. However, this finding is not uncommon or surprising as other studies including meta-analytical studies (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2001; Forward, 2009b) have also identified subjective norm to be the relatively weakest (relative to attitude and PBC) predictor of intentions. These studies, based on a range of social-related behaviours including physical activity and road crossing have found that subjective norm often does not contribute significantly to the prediction of intention, whereas attitude and PBC are usually found to be significant predictors. As a potential explanation for the relative weakness of subjective norm as a predictor of intentions, others (e.g., Rivis & Sheeran, 2003) have suggested that it may be that subjective norm does not entirely capture all of the potential normative influences which may be impacting upon an individual. For instance, subjective norm focuses on what an individual may think that important others would approve or disapprove of; however, evidence has indicated that

Figure 6-3 Summary of the application of the extended TPB in predicting drivers’ intention and actual compliance with the SZSL

normative influences including injunctive and descriptive norms, do enhance the prediction of intentions (e.g., health behaviour, Fekadu & Kraft, 2002; Smith- McLallen & Fishbein, 2008; smoking, Wiium, Torsheim, & Wold, 2006; helmet wearing, O'Callaghan & Nausbaum, 2006) including in relation to traffic psychology and speed-related studies (e.g., Cestac, et al., 2011; Forward, 2009b) (e.g., Cestac, et al., 2011). Injunctive norms concern the moral aspect of whether behaviour is

appropriate or not (White, Smith, Terry, Greenslade, & McKimmie, 2009) while descriptive norms refer to individuals’ perception of what is commonly done by others (Cialdini et al., 2006). Thus, for future studies, it is recommended that injunctive and descriptive norms be included in order to obtain a complete measure of likely normative influences upon drivers’ intentions to comply with the SZSL. Currently, there have not been any studies which have examined the impact of various normative influences on drivers’ intended compliance with the SZSL. Another possible reason why subjective norm did not predict intention to comply, which is mentioned here to foreshadow further discussion in the next chapter, may be attributable to the individualist/collectivist dimension of culture. Individualist

societies such as in a Western country like Australia emphasize personal

achievement rather than group responsibility, and defining one’s own identity in terms of personal attributes (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). As such, in relation to compliance with the SZSL, subjective norm may not be relevant as drivers are inclined to make decisions from an individualist perspective.

Study 2a also revealed that habit was not a significant predictor of intention; while mindfulness was. However, neither mindfulness (nor habit) emerged as significant predictors of actual behaviour. Thus, individuals who were found to be more mindful were also more likely to have a higher intention to comply with the speed limit. Greater mindfulness, however, was not associated with greater compliance

behaviour. The findings also revealed that habit and mindfulness did not moderate the intention-behaviour relationship. Even when habit was controlled for,

mindfulness did not moderate the intention-behaviour relationship. These findings suggest that greater mindfulness does not increase the likelihood that intention is translated into behaviour and thus does not provide support for Hypothesis 3. This finding is in contrast with Chatzisarantis and Hagger (2007) who found that

mindfulness moderated the intention-behaviour relationship in relation to physical activity. One possible explanation for the difference in findings may relate to the behavioural context and the complexity of factors likely to influence driving relative to leisure exercise. For instance, in relation to leisure time physical activity, once an individual’s behavioural intention to engage in the behaviour is formed, the

motivation phase is completed (Chatzisarantis & Hagger, 2007). An individual must then expend effort to actually initiate the activity and, at that point, mindfulness may help to heighten effort by increasing an individual’s awareness about the behaviour. In relation to leisure-time physical activity, the activity such as exercise, sports, recreation, or hobbies are not associated with activities as part of one's regular job duties. Therefore, people need to be mindful to enact the intention (leisure-time physical activity) because it is not something that they usually do. In contrast, driving is a regular activity involving dynamic situations where individual drivers must interact with other road users and, at the same time, need to be aware of and attentive to the surrounding road environment at every moment. Mindful drivers may be aware that they may need to comply and intend to comply, but other factors may influence the behaviour (e.g., perception that they need to just keep up with the traffic flow).