Key beliefs influencing young drivers' engagement with social interactive technology on their smartphones: A qualitative study. (17th February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gauld, Cassandra S.; Lewis, Ioni M.; White, Katherine M.; Watson, Barry
• Is Part Of: Traffic injury prevention. Volume 17:Number 2(2016)
• Page Start: 128
• Page End: 133
• Publication Date: 2016-02-17
• Subjects: Smartphone -- social interactive technology -- theory of planned behavior -- young drivers -- beliefs; Traffic safety -- Periodicals; Traffic accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and injuries -- Prevention -- Periodicals; 363.125
• DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2015.1047014
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1538-9588

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Objective: The main aim of this study was to identify young drivers' underlying beliefs (i.e., behavioral, normative, and control) regarding initiating, monitoring/reading, and responding to social interactive technology (i.e., functions on a Smartphone that allow the user to communicate with other people). Method: This qualitative study was a beliefs elicitation study in accordance with the theory of planned behavior and sought to elicit young drivers' behavioral (i.e., advantages, disadvantages), normative (i.e., who approves, who disapproves), and control beliefs (i.e., barriers, facilitators) that underpin social interactive technology use while driving. Young drivers ( N = 26) aged 17 to 25 years took part in an interview or focus group discussion. Results: Though differences emerged between the 3 behaviors of initiating, monitoring/reading, and responding for each of the behavioral, normative, and control belief categories, the strongest distinction was within the behavioral beliefs category (e.g., communicating with the person that they were on the way to meet was an advantage of initiating; being able to determine whether to respond was an advantage of monitoring/reading; and communicating with important people was an advantage of responding). Normative beliefs were similar for initiating and responding behaviors (e.g., friends and peers more likely to approve than other groups) and differences emerged for monitoring/reading (e.g., parents were more likely to approve of this behavior than initiating and responding). For control beliefs, there were differences between the beliefs regarding facilitators of these behaviors (e.g., familiar roads and conditions facilitated initiating; having audible notifications of an incoming communication facilitated monitoring/reading; and receiving a communication of immediate importance facilitated responding); however, the control beliefs that presented barriers were consistent across the 3 behaviors (e.g., difficult traffic/road conditions). Conclusion: The current study provides an important addition to the extant literature and supports emerging research that suggests that initiating, monitoring/reading, and responding may indeed be distinct behaviors with different underlying motivations.