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.
