C OMENTARIOS F INALES

Von Haeften and colleagues’ (2001) guidelines7 for analysing TPB beliefs were used in order to identify the critical beliefs underpinning drivers’ compliance with the SZSL. This approach seeks to use such information to ultimately help inform strategies which in this case would promote safety in school zones. This approach is a step-by-step method. First, Pearson correlations are calculated to identify those behavioural, normative, and control beliefs which are significantly correlated with intention. Second, only those beliefs found to be significantly correlated with intention are entered into an initial series of regressions whereby a separate regression is conducted for each belief type (i.e., behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs, control-barrier beliefs, and control-facilitator beliefs). Beliefs found to contribute significantly to the prediction of intention within these regression analyses are then retained and entered into one final regression model, predicting intention.

7 _{Von Haeften, et al.’s, (2001) guidelines were adopted as the results showed ceiling effects for}

intention to comply such that it was not possible to separate the group into high intenders and low intenders. The von Haeften et al. approach allows the researcher to identify the most salient beliefs related to the intention. Identification of the beliefs that have strongest influence on intention should increase the potential effectiveness of an intervention (Von Haeften, et al., 2001). Empirical evidence has demonstrated the use of the von Haeften et al. guidelines in TPB studies (e.g., Côté, Gagnon, Houme, Abdeljelil, & Gagnon, 2012; Hamilton, Daniels, Murray, White, & Walsh, 2012).

The means and standard deviations of the beliefs and the correlation coefficients with intention are reported in Table 6.14. As per the second step of von Haeften et al.’s (2001) approach, the beliefs which were significantly correlated with intention were then entered into the initial series of separate belief-based regression analyses. With the exception of the behavioural belief of, “I would feel more comfortable than if I was driving at more than 40km/hr” which was not significantly correlated with intention to comply with the SZSL, all other behavioural beliefs were significantly correlated and thus entered into subsequent regression analysis. In terms of

normative beliefs, out of the seven salient referent beliefs identified, five were significantly correlated with intention and therefore entered into the subsequent regression analysis. For the control beliefs, six barriers to and eight facilitators of compliance with the SZSL were significantly correlated with intention and thus entered into the subsequent regression analysis. The results of each of the regressions are shown in Table 6.15.

Table 6-13 Means and standard deviations of the individual behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs, control beliefs and correlations with intention to comply with the SZSL.

M SD r

Intention to comply with SZSL 4.67 .59

Behavioural beliefs

I would be helping to keep the school children safe. 6.28 1.07 .52**

I would feel more comfortable than if I was driving at more than 40km/hr.

4.86 2.08 .09

It would reduce the chances of me having a crash involving a school child or children.

6.10 1.14 .37**

It would make me less able to keep up with the flow of traffic.

3.65 1.90 -.26**

It would take me longer to reach my destination. 3.69 1.93 -.29**

It would make my driving less exciting. 2.23 1.61 -.34**

Normative beliefs Parent 5.92 2.78 .04 Husband/ Wife 5.30 3.08 .19** Friends 6.60 1.54 .44** Other drivers 5.92 1.67 .22** Partner 3.63 3.10 -.01

Other family members 6.68 1.67 .35**

General public 6.17 1.67 .27**

Control beliefs (Barriers to compliance)

Needing to be somewhere urgently. 4.68 .58 -.46**

Driving alone with no other road user on the road. 2.68 1.84 -.43**

Seeing that there are not any school children in the school zone.

2.65 1.89 -.45**

Being tailgated by another driver (i.e., the other driver is driving at more than 40km/hr).

2.91 1.96 -.35**

Being distracted (i.e., distracted by music, GPS, passenger/s, etc).

2.39 1.80 -.19**

Being on "autopilot" (i.e., you arrive at your destination but can't recall driving through a school zone).

3.03 1.84 -.20**

Control beliefs (Facilitators of compliance)

Seeing a police vehicle or police officer. 6.31 1.42 -.06 Knowing it is a school day and the school zone's time

period is operating.

6.47 .79 .47**

Seeing a speed camera. 6.24 1.40 .04

Experiencing congestion in the school zone area. 6.13 1.40 .08 Seeing other drivers driving at 40km/hr or below. 5.98 1.48 .25**

Having experienced a crash or near miss (in or around a school zone).

5.52 1.93 .25**

Seeing flashing lights in operation. 6.18 1.26 .36**

Driving over a speed hump. 5.56 1.66 .42**

Seeing school children on the foot path in the school zone area.

6.31 1.29 .43**

Seeing a crossing supervisor. 6.38 1.18 .52**

Seeing adult pedestrians on the foot path in the school zone area.

5.31 1.59 .36**

Table 6-14 Step 2 regression results: individual beliefs as predictors of intention to comply with the SZSL

Items R2 _Adjusted

R2 Unstandardized _Coefficients Standardised _betas t Sig

B Std. Error (β)

Behavioural beliefs .34 .33

I would be helping to keep the school children safe. .26 .05 .47 5.11 .000*

It would reduce the chances of me having a crash involving a school child or children. -.01 .05 -.02 -.24 .809

It would make me less able to keep up with the flow of traffic. -.04 .02 -.11 -1.74 .084

It would take me longer to reach my destination. -.04 .02 -.12 -1.72 .087

It would make my driving less exciting. -.05 .03 -.14 -2.06 .041

Normative beliefs .22 .20

Husband/ Wife .02 .01 .08 1.15 .253

Friends .13 .03 .33 3.82 .000*

Other drivers -.06 .04 -.17 -1.41 .161

Other family members .06 .03 .17 2.12 .036

General public .06 .04 .17 1.36 .177

Control beliefs (Barriers to compliance) .25 .23

Needing to be somewhere urgently. -.08 .03 -.26 -2.63 .009

Driving alone with no other road user on the road. -.02 .04 -.06 -.50 .615

Seeing that there are not any school children in the school zone. -.07 .03 -.24 -2.08 .039

Being tailgated by another driver (i.e., the other driver is driving at more than 40km/hr). -.02 .03 -.05 -.63 .528

Being distracted (i.e., distracted by music, GPS, passenger/s, etc). .02 .03 .06 .70 .483

Being on "autopilot" (i.e., you arrive at your destination but can't recall driving through a school

zone). .01 .03 .03 .33 .744

Control beliefs (Facilitators of compliance) .36 .34

Knowing it is a school day and the school zone's time period is operating. .21 .05 .28 3.88 .000***

Seeing other drivers driving at 40km/hr or below. -.07 .03 -.17 -1.98 .049

Having experienced a crash or near miss (in or around a school zone). .02 .02 .07 .99 .326

Seeing flashing lights in operation. .01 .04 .02 .23 .817

Driving over a speed hump. .06 .03 .17 2.15 .033

Seeing school children on the foot path in the school zone area. -.01 .05 -.03 -.27 .785

Seeing a crossing supervisor. .17 .05 .34 3.23 .001***

Seeing adult pedestrians on the foot path in the school zone area. .01 .03 .03 .380 .705

Note: Significant with Bonferroni adjustment8_{. Behavioural and normative beliefs:*p <.01; Control beliefs- barrier:**p <.008;Control beliefs-facilitator: ***p <.006.}

8 _{Bonferroni adjustment was used to reduce the chance of making a Type I error. It was performed by dividing the critical P value (0.05) with the number of items in each} regression of beliefs.

Table 6.15 shows that one behavioural belief significantly predicted intention to comply with the SZSL, “I would be helping to keep the school children safe” (β = .47, p = .001). In terms of the analyses of significant normative referents, only

“Friends” contributed independently to the prediction of intention to comply with the SZSL (β = .33, p = .001). In relation to the control beliefs, only two items were found to be significant predictors of intention to comply with the SZSL, “Knowing it is a school day and the school zone's time period is operating” (β = .28, p = .001), and “Seeing a crossing supervisor” (β = .34, p = .001). In order to identify the critical belief-based targets for potential future interventions, these four significant beliefs were subsequently entered into the final regression analysis to predict intentions. The results of the final regression are presented in Table 6.16. In the final regression model, two of the four beliefs contributed significantly to the prediction of intention to comply with the SZSL, with this final model explaining 42% (Adjusted R² = .41, p < .01) of the variance in intention to comply with the SZSL. The two significant predictors were “I would be helping to keep the school children safe” (β= .29, p= .001) (a behavioural belief) and “Seeing a crossing supervisor” (β= .26, p= .001) (a control belief). The next section reports on the findings of the 2 x 2 scenario based aspect of the study.

Table 6-15 Regression analysis predicting intentions based on combination of behavioural, normative and control beliefs

Items R2 _Adjusted

R2 B (β) t Sig sr

2

Drivers’ beliefs .42 .41

I would be helping to keep

the school children safe. .16 .29 4.43 .000* 0.05

Friends .06 .15 2.37 .019 0.02

Knowing it is a school day and the school zone's time period is operating.

.12 .16 2.27 .024 0.02

Seeing a crossing

supervisor. .13 .26 3.84 .000* 0.07