Child booster seat safety: an attitudinal model of the use of booster seats.
Anitsal, M. Meral ; Anitsal, Ismet ; Liska, Kevin 等
INTRODUCTION
According to the Center for Disease Control, "In the United
States, 1,791 children younger than 15 years were killed and 282,000
were injured as passengers in motor vehicle crashes in 1997 (2007). As
stated by the Washington State Booster Seat Coalition (2003),
motor-vehicle collisions were the single largest killer of children age
4-8 years because riding unrestrained generated the greatest risk for
death and injury among child passengers. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's (NHTSA) review of field data revealed that
of children ages 0 to 14 killed in motor vehicle crashes during 2005,
nearly half were unrestrained" (2006).
Unfortunately, many children who should be in a booster seat
restrained by a seat belt are restrained. According to NHTSA, up to 90%
of children in the U.S. who should be using booster seats were not using
them regularly or at all (2006 and 2007). National SAFE KIDS Coalition
(2003) found that only 19% of children who should be restrained in
booster seats use them. Glassbrenner and Ye (2007) found that about 41
percent of 4- to 7-year old children were restrained in booster seats in
2006 in the U.S. Another study found that 72% of nearly 3,500 observed
child-restraint systems were misused, increasing a child's risk of
injury in a crash (NHTSA 2006).
What is a booster seat? Who should use it? What would happen with
lack of or improper use of it? What would happen to child passengers
only using seatbelts designed for adults with no booster seat in a
motor-vehicle crash? All parents should know the answers to these
questions by the time they have their first child. The National Safety
Belt Coalition (2007) dictated booster seats should be used as a
transition to safety belts by older children who had clearly outgrown
their booster seat but were not ready for the vehicle-belt system
because a booster seat raised a child to ensure the safety belt fit
correctly. The shoulder belt should cross the chest and rest snugly on
the shoulder, and the lap belt should rest low across the pelvis or hip
area. An ill-fitting seat belt during a crash might cause devastating
injuries (CNW Group 2008). Seatbelts designed for adults can create the
risk of abdominal and spinal-chord injuries to children, and loosely
fitting belts can cause facial and/or brain injuries when the head
strikes the knees or other surfaces (Wall Street Journal 2003). Every
state has its own laws on using seat belts and booster seats (Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety 2007). Tennessee was the first state to
enact a law mandating that children be restrained in a safety seat and
is also one of only 18 states requiring children up to age 8 to be
restrained in a booster seat (Tennessee Department of Safety 2008). The
first booster seat law was introduced in Washington State after a fatal
accident involving a 4-year-old child using an adult seat belt (Higgins
2005).
Booster seats can greatly improve children's protection when
used appropriately; in fact, "A properly used safety seat or
booster reduces the chances of a child being seriously injured or killed
in a car crash by more than half (Baltimore Sun 2008). Usually parents
protect their children in baby seats until age 4; however, many parents
seem unaware of their children's vulnerability when using adult
seatbelts before age 9. Booster seats provide 60 percent more protection
than seat belts alone for children four to nine years old (CNW Group
2008).
Children's injuries and deaths caused by not using or by
misusing seat belts and booster seats must be reduced. This lack of use
or misuse may result from parents, family members, and other adults not
encouraging child occupants to practice good safety standards and
behavior. To remedy this situation, the Ollie Otter Seatbelt and Booster
Seat Education Campaign was designed as a comprehensive program to
encourage children to use booster seats and seat belts.
From August 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008, Ollie's
Seatbelt and Booster Seat Safety Program reached over 57,184 children
from 2,928 classrooms in 154 schools representing 95 counties of
Tennessee. In its first year, this program impacted over 13 percent of
Tennessee's 1,156 elementary schools. In contrast, the first-year
project goals were to reach 50 schools and 100 classrooms. Parallel to
this program is a research stream that is asking four main questions:
(1) What motivates parents to buy and use booster seats for their
children? (2) How do parents' various attitudes toward driving and
children relate to their intentions toward buying and using booster
seats? (3) What impact do situational factors such as state laws, peer
pressure and cost of booster seats have on the purchase and use of
booster seats? (4) What are the demographic characteristics of parents
who prefer to use booster seats versus those who do not?
The current paper includes only the second research question: What
are parental attitudes toward buying booster seats, and what other
factors influence these attitudes?
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Surprisingly, no formal research has been reported about attitudes
toward booster seat use. On the other hand, literature on attitude
formation and change is rich. To benefit from the literature,
researchers have observed situations in which parents preferred to use
or not use booster seats. Researchers also conducted informal
discussions with parents about booster seat use. This exploratory
research on drivers' activities in a typical driving situation
revealed that multi-tasking was common. Some drivers like to take risks
to enhance the fun of driving, while others are more concerned about
their safety. These attitudes are reflected in the vehicle-safety
features they choose, as well as in their daily activities. Also, the
general attitude of parents toward their children may influence their
attitudes toward booster seat purchase and use. Finally, observations
revealed a difference in parents' attitudes toward their children
in general and their attitudes while driving. Engaging in multiple
activities while driving is common. For example, many drivers are
frequently seen talking on their cell phone and eating and drinking
whether these activities correlate with an increased number of accidents
has created much public debate. During informal interviews, researchers
realized some parents believe talking on a cell phone does not influence
driving abilities and, therefore, should be tolerated. Others believe
that those engaging in other activities while driving should be ticketed
as they endanger other drivers and passengers. Those who multi-task
while driving are likely to be more attracted to risk taking. In
contrast, those who are in favor of banning these activities seem to be
more risk averse. Because no research is available about relationships
among multi-tasking, risk aversion, and risk attraction, researchers
hypothesize the following:
[H.sub.1a]: Attitude toward multi-tasking while driving and
attitude toward risk aversion are likely to positively correlate.
[H.sub.1b]: Attitude toward multi-tasking while driving and
attitude toward risk attraction are likely to negatively correlate.
Risk-aversion construct measures personality characteristics
towards risk affinity, whereas, risk-attraction construct measures
context-dependent risk taking (Conchar, Zinkhan, Peters and Olavarrieta,
2004). Although scales have established reliabilities and validities,
these two constructs have not been investigated simultaneously.
Therefore, researchers assume that they are different, yet related
constructs. Specifically, although some parents like to take some risks,
they are likely to behave responsibly towards their children and be more
risk averse in situations regarding children. Hence, researchers offer
the following hypothesis:
[H.sub.2]: Attitude toward risk aversion and attitude toward risk
attraction are likely to positively correlate.
Donthu and Gilliland (1996) studied risk aversion scale as a
personality trait, measuring the degree to which a person expresses a
desire to avoid taking risks. This trait can also influence
drivers' attitudes toward risk aversion. Risk-averse respondents
are likely to show a tendency toward extreme caution (Griffin, Babin and
Attaway 1996). Those who are keen on avoiding risky movements in traffic
are likely to buckle up. Their motto of "Better safe than
sorry" may also influence their attitude toward children while
driving and toward their children's behavior. For example, they are
less likely to let small children sit in the front seat. They may also
enforce seatbelt use for even short errands. Therefore, researchers
hypothesize the following:
[H.sub.3]: Attitude toward risk aversion while driving is likely to
have a direct, positive effect on attitude toward children.
[H.sub.4]: Attitude toward risk aversion while driving is likely to
have a direct, positive effect on attitude toward children while
driving.
Griffin, Babin and Attaway (1996) and Zuckerman (1971) suggested
that risk seekers believed they could easily handle unexpected
challenges and hazardous situations. They seek the thrill of risky
situations and are likely to carry this trait into their driving. They
may prefer fast driving to over-take slow drivers, make more moves in
traffic, and fantasize about having race cars. They are also likely to
care about their children's well being in general. Yet, as they
actively seek the fun of taking risks, they are likely to be aware of
the hazards of risky situations. Having children will not likely
discourage them from taking risks, but will encourage taking extra
precautions while driving to ensure the safety of their children.
Therefore, they are likely not to forget to buckle up their children, or
to let them out of their booster seats during a trip. While no research
exists about how risk seekers are likely to behave in their
children's presence, researchers assume that parents will be
cautious to protect their children and be more aware of the hazards of
risky situations. Research, however, is necessary to provide evidence
supporting or falsifying this assumption, thus the following hypotheses:
[H.sub.5]: Attitude toward risk attraction while driving is likely
to have a direct, positive effect on attitude toward children.
[H.sub.6]: Attitude toward risk attraction while driving is likely
to have a direct, positive effect on attitude toward children while
driving.
The driver's attitude toward children is another influential
construct. Those who strongly appreciate their children and feel good
about them are less likely to let their children do potentially
dangerous activities while driving. Indeed, they may neither let them
unbuckle their seatbelts while the car is moving nor forget to secure
them in booster seats for short errands. Therefore, researchers make the
following hypothesis:
[H.sub.7]: Attitude toward children is likely to have a direct,
positive effect on attitude toward children while driving.
Although installing and uninstalling booster seats and changing
their location from one vehicle to another are cumbersome and sometimes
inconvenient, parents are likely to appreciate booster seats and have a
positive attitude toward them because they want to ensure their
children's safety during driving. They may not remove them from
their seats, no matter how much their children whine about being
restrained, hence the following hypothesis:
[H.sub.8]: Attitude toward children while driving is likely to have
a direct, positive effect on attitude toward booster seats.
A positive attitude about booster seats is likely to make parents
not only spend time finding a good booster seat, but also talk to other
parents about the benefits of using one. Thus, researchers make the
following hypothesis:
[H.sub.9]: Attitude toward booster seats is likely have a direct,
positive effect on intention towards using booster seats.
The theoretical model is shown in Figure 1.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
METHOD
This research was conducted simultaneously in parallel to the Ollie
Otter Program. In this educational campaign, volunteers visit K-4
schools in Tennessee and explain the importance of using seat belts and
booster seats to students. The campaign mascot, Ollie the Otter, makes
appearances and enforces the campaign message with songs and activities.
Students are also encouraged to share their thoughts and feelings with
their parents and to send letters to Ollie.
The survey method was used to collect data from parents of students
who have been exposed to the booster seat safety program. To expedite
the data collection process and ensure an acceptable response rate,
teachers distributed the survey to their students, who were take them
home to their parents. To ensure anonymity and avoid overstating
positive feelings, surveys were distributed in blank envelopes; and no
address or identity-related information was collected. Once the surveys
were completed by parents, sealed in the blank envelopes provided, and
returned to teachers, the teachers mailed the class package to the
researchers. No incentives were provided for the survey respondents.
However, as a token of appreciation, teachers were provided two payment
vouchers: one to be used for a classroom pizza party allowing for
further discussion of Ollie's message: "Wear Seatbelts
Everyday: under 4 feet 9--booster time" and another for personal or
classroom needs. Each package was opened and surveys were coded at the
research center.
Thirty-one teachers responded with a total of 422 questionnaires.
Eight questionnaires were discarded due to missing values, and 414
questionnaires were used for further analysis. Some missing responses
were replaced with the item averages before using AMOS 7.0 software to
test the theory presented in structural equation modeling. Data
collection has continued in parallel to the Ollie Otter program. The 422
responses represent a small coverage of the program reach; however, they
provide an opportunity for preliminary analysis.
The survey instrument contains both newly developed and existing
scales. For all concepts, respondents rated their agreement or
disagreement level using seven-point scales ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). All seven measurement items
describing the subjects' intention toward booster seat use were
newly developed for this study. Five items of the subjects'
attitude toward booster seat use were adopted from Dabholkar (1994). New
items were added to this scale to measure attitude toward such issues as
multi-tasking, attitude toward children, attitude toward children while
driving constructs based on observations and individual in-depth
discussions with parents about how they drive in presence/absence of
children, what aggravates them most, what they did to stop distraction,
and what they thought about multi-tasking. Items for measuring attitude
toward risk aversion in driving was adapted from Donthu and
Gilliland's (1996) risk aversion construct, which measures inherent
and invariant personality characteristics (Conchar et al., 2004). Five
items representing attitude toward risk attraction were adapted from
Griffin, Babin and Attaway's (1996) risk attraction construct that
can be described as context-dependent willingness to take risks (Conchar
et al., 2004).
Demographic analysis showed that the majority of respondents were
between 25 and 44 years old (with 48.2% being 25-34 years old and with
33.1% being 35-44 years old). In terms of ethnic origin, 87.4% was
Caucasian. Furthermore, 34.9% had a high school diploma, and 24.9% had
some college experience. The median income was $59,000 and 75% was
married. Respondents had an average of 2.3 vehicles per household.
RESULTS
The first step of analysis was to investigate the constructs'
reliability and validity. Coefficient alpha was used to test construct
reliability. As shown in Table 1, the reliability and factor loadings of
each construct were adequate. The evaluation of discriminant and
convergent validities and hypothesis testing were performed using AMOS 7
software package.
To test the discriminant validity paths among the constructs, all
constructs were set to one; and the resulting one factor model-fit was
compared to the theoretical model as well as to alternative models
(Table 2). As indicated by fit statistics and the change of the
Chi-Square values, the one factor model was inferior to the theoretical
model. Another test for discriminant validity was to release the path
between intentions and attitude toward booster seats and set the rest of
the correlations to one. This model showed that the intention regarding
using booster seats was a separate construct. However, the resulting
model still had significantly worse fit indices than the theoretical
model. Similarly, the attitudes toward booster seats were tested and
found to be a distinctive construct. These results showed that the
theoretical model had discriminant validity.
The second stage of the analysis was confirmation of construct
validity as a measure of convergent validity. One indication of this
validity was the model fit. Table 3 shows the details of model fit and
tests of the hypothesized relationships. Results indicated that the
model fit was good. All items loaded significantly to their related
constructs, indicating adequate construct validity.
Table 4 is a summary of hypotheses and resulting path weights. Nine
out of ten hypotheses were supported, showing a sound theoretical
structure. All paths are significant and substantial except for the
correlation between the attitude toward multi-tasking while driving and
the attitude toward risk attraction. People in favor of banning such
multi-tasking activities as talking on cell phones and eating while
driving share a common personality trait of risk aversion, providing
support to the first hypothesis. The attitude toward the risk-attraction
construct has no relationship with multi-tasking.
The attitudes of subjects toward risk aversion and risk attraction
have strong positive effects on their attitude toward children and
toward children while driving. Their attitude toward children also has a
strong positive effect on their attitude toward children while driving.
As theorized, their attitude toward children while driving has a strong
positive effect on attitude toward booster seats. Moreover, alternative
models with direct paths from the rest of the constructs--namely
attitudes toward risk aversion, risk attraction, multi-tasking, and
children--were also investigated. None of those models have significant
paths to attitude toward booster seats and none generate a better fit
for the data. Finally, their attitude toward booster seats has a strong
direct effect on the intentions to buy and use booster seats.
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This preliminary research's results showed the importance of
the parents' attitude towards children while driving as an
influential construct on their attitude toward booster seats. Their
intent to buy, use, and recommend a booster seat for children depends
heavily on a positive attitude toward booster seats. The key variable in
forming a positive attitude towards booster seats was the subjects'
attitude toward children while driving. This information was very
important for the campaign's success. Target group of this campaign
(K-4 students) was selected correctly. Communication activities need to
focus on teaching children how to behave in a moving vehicle. By making
buckling the "cool thing," the responsibility of buckling and
staying buckled would belong to the children. As a result, parents will
be under less stress while driving.
The attitude towards children while driving was found to be
drastically different than the attitude toward children in general. In
the attitude toward children construct, we learned what parents think,
feel, and do about their children in general. Parents overwhelmingly
stated that children were fundamental to their enjoying life. They felt
good about their children and cared about their well-being. Parents also
declared that they try to protect their children from potential dangers.
If the above statements are correct, why do some parents not buckle
their children into booster seats? The attitude toward children while
driving construct sheds some light on this dilemma. Sometimes these
parents forgot to tell their children to buckle up. Once children
thought it was ok not to buckle up, they stopped using their booster
seat. This perception could have been further strengthened as some
parents believed that when driving very slowly on a rural road, putting
the child into booster seats was unnecessary. Some parents, on the other
hand, let their children get out of the booster seat to stop them from
whining in the car. Finally, still other parents believed their children
could responsibly sit on any seat they chose, including the front seat
next to driver.
The importance of the attitude toward children while driving
construct indicated once more the Ollie Otter Seatbelt and Booster Seat
Safety program's value. Thanks to this program, using booster seats
has become "cool" among elementary school children. The
parents' education about booster seats needs to be merged with this
program because research indicates that educating children to buckle up
in a booster seat every time they are in a vehicle and educating parents
to consistently require their to ride in booster seats and buckle up are
key factors in reducing children's injuries and death in vehicle
accidents.
This research has also significantly contributed to the perceived
risk literature in marketing. Conchar, Zinkhan, Peters and Olavarrieta
(2004) suggested an integrated framework for the conceptualization of
consumers' perceived risk processing. Their compiled literature on
the perceived risk construct identified contradictory results in risk
affinity (risk aversion) as a personality trait and propensity to take
risks (risk attraction) research. They concluded that risk affinity is a
static personality trait that shows a general tendency to seek or avoid
risks (Dowling, 1986). Risk-taking propensity (risk attraction), on the
other hand, was defined as a consumer's willingness to make a risky
choice in a specific situation (Conchar et al., 2004). Our research
provided some empirical support to this concept. Validity and
reliability checks showed the two constructs were clearly separate. Both
constructs have strong positive effects on attitude toward children
while driving. We need to do more qualitative research to obtain an
in-depth understanding of how these two constructs influence behavior;
however, this preliminary investigation revealed interesting outcomes.
Individuals with a high risk-taking propensity while driving are likely
to be aware of their actions and the potentially hazardous consequences.
Therefore, they may be meticulous about driving safety by consistently
requiring their children to sit in booster seats. Similarly, parents who
are highly risk averse are likely to be equally meticulous about the
safety of their children while driving, as indicated by their attitude
toward using booster seats.
Researchers assumed that risk-seeking parents were likely to
continue their risk-seeking behavior, but would be more cautious about
their children's safety. A post-survey interview indicated that a
skate-boarder parent did not stop skate boarding; instead, he took his
children to skateboard with him, but bought helmets and knee and elbow
pads for them. However, the abovementioned assumption needs further
investigation in relation to driving. Another interesting finding of
this research is the lack of correlation between risk attraction and
multi-tasking constructs. This finding requires further qualitative
research to understand theoretical foundations of risk aversion, risk
attraction and multi-tasking.
The current study's limitation was that respondents were
predominantly female. A second wave of data collection is expected,
however, to compensate for this limitation. As a result, model
comparisons based on demographic variables will be performed. The
current research objective was to learn parents' attitudes toward
buying booster seats. At the same time, it also aimed to learn other
attitudinal factors influencing this attitude. Future research is needed
to understand other stakeholders' motivation regarding booster
seats. Situational factors, such as state laws, peer pressure, and cost
of booster seats, could also shed more light on the attitudinal model.
REFERENCES
AdCouncil (2007a). Retrieved August 23, 2007 from
Http://www.adcouncil.org/default.aspx?id=41
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (2007, February 24). Booster
seat law chart (38 states and DC).
Baltimore Sun (2008, June 30). Backseat boosterism: Maryland's
booster seat law certain to save lives," Baltimore Sun.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Child
Passenger Safety Week-February 14-20, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report 1999; 48(4):83-84. Retrieved August 23, 2007 from
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Child_Passenger_Safety/
boosterseat.html.
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.
CNW Group (2008, June 26). Safe kids applaud new booster seat laws
to protect children. News provided by Comtex.
Dabholkar, P. (1994, June 21). Incorporating choice into an
attitudinal framework: Analyzing models of mental comparison processes.
Journal of Consumer Research, 100-118.
Donthu, N. & and D. Gilliland (1996, March/April).
Observations: The infomercial shopper. Journal of Advertising Research,
69-76.
Dowling, G. R. (1986). Perceived risk: The concept and its
measurement. Psychology & Marketing, 3(3), 193-210.
Higgins, M. (2005, January 27). "Car seats for 8-year-olds;
States toughen laws requiring kids to be restrained in vehicles; Finding
one your child will sse," Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition,, p.
D1.
Glassbrenner, D. and Jianqiang Y. (2007, August). Booster seat use
in 2006. Traffic safety facts research note. NHTSA's National
Center for Statistics and Analysis, DOT HS 810 796.
Griffin, M., B. J. Babin & 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.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (1999). Research
update: Booster seats. Retrieved August 23, 2007 from
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/research/boosterseat.htm
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2006). Traffic
safety facts research note 2005: Misuse of child restraints: results of
a workshop to review field data results.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2007). Retrieved
August 23, 2007 from
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/childps/ParentGuide2005/
pages/Why.htm
National Safety Belt Coalition (2007). Retrieved August 23, 2007
from http://www.nsc.org/traf/sbc/sbcchild.htm
National SAFE KIDS Coalition (2003).
Tennessee Department of Safety (2008). Bredesen clebrates 30 yars
of keping cildren sfe: Anniversary of ntion's frst cild sat lw
cmmemorated. Retrieved November 5, 2008 from
http://www.tennessee.gov/safety/newsreleases/2008/08011730yearsSafe.htm
Washington State Booster Seat Coalition (2003, June) Quick fcts on
boster sats.
Zuckerman, M. (1971). Dimensions of snsation seking. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, (36) 35-53.
M. Meral Anitsal, Tennessee Tech University
Ismet Anitsal, Tennessee Tech University
Kevin Liska, Tennessee Tech University
Table 1--Reliability and Construct Validity
Construct Item Loading Alpha
Intention Toward Q39 Look for information 0.82
Booster Seat about booster seats.
Q40 Spend your time to 0.94
find a good booster
seat.
Q41 Compare the benefits 0.93
of different booster
seat brands.
Q42 Buy a booster seat 0.56 0.90
for each child in
your household.
Q43 Secure your child 0.53
into a booster seat
every time you
drive.
Q44 Discuss the 0.66
importance of using
booster seat with a
friend.
Q45 Recommend that your 0.63
friends use a
booster seat for
their children.
Attitude Toward Q31 Bad--Good 0.82
Booster Seat Q32 Unpleasant--Pleasant 0.83
Q33 Harmful--Beneficial 0.92
Q34 Unfavorable--Favorable 0.94 0.95
Q35 Unappealing--Appealing 0.87
Q36 Inappropriate-- 0.98
Appropriate
Q37 Foolish--Wise 0.92
Q38 Unsafe--Safe 0.84
Attitude Toward Q22 Children are 0.91
Children enjoyment in life.
Q23 I care about the 0.71 0.79
well being of my
children.
Q25 I feel good about my 0.68
children
Q27 I try to protect my 0.49
children from
potential dangers.
Attitude Toward Q18 Wearing a seat belt 0.52
Children While for a short errand
Driving (R) is not always
necessary.
Q26 Regardless of their 0.49
age, my children can
responsibly sit in
any seat they choose
in the car.
Q28 I can do anything to 0.61 0.70
Q29 stop my children 0.55
whining in the car
even let them get
out of the booster
seat. Sometimes I
forget to tell my
children to buckle
up.
Q30 When I am driving 0.51
slowly on a rural
road, putting my
child in his/her
booster seat is
unnecessary.
Attitude Toward Q19 Police should ticket 0.69
MultiTasking those who drive
While Driving while talking on
cell phone.
Q20 Eating while driving 0.80 0.80
is dangerous.
Q21 Drinking beverages 0.77
while driving is
dangerous.
Attitude Toward Q6 Fast driving would 0.35
Risk Attraction make driving more
in Driving (R) pleasant.
Q7 Q8 I would like to 0.54 0.86 0.71
drive a race car. I
sometimes do things
I know are dangerous
just for fun.
Q9 Taking risks can be 0.72
fun.
Q10 I never hesitate to 0.38
overtake those who
drive very slowly.
Attitude Toward Q12 I give the right of 0.48
Risk Aversion way to an aggressive
in Driving driver if he or she
endangers my safety.
Q14 Q15 I always buckle up. 0.67 0.70 0.71
I would rather be
safe than sorry.
Q16 I always avoid risky 0.53
moves in traffic.
Q17 I pay attention to 0.46
safety features
while buying a car.
R = Item has been reverse coded
Table 2--CFA Model Comparison for Discriminant Validity
if seven-factor model is correct, then:
Number of Factors d.f. Change in Chi-Sq. p
One Factor 21 3918.73 0.000
Two Factors 15 2329.69 0.000
Three Factors 10 1111.58 0.000
Table 3: The Model Fit
Chi-Sq 1326.12
d.f. 615
Chi-Sq Ratio 2.156
CFI 0.922
RMSEA 0.053
AGFI 0.830
GFI 0.851
Table 4: Test of Hypotheses
Standardized
Regression
Hypotheses Path Weights p
H1a: Supported Attitude Toward 0.21 0.003
Multi-Tasking [left
and right arrow]
Attitude Toward Risk
Aversion
H1b: Not Supported Attitude Toward 0.00 0.959
Multi-Tasking [left
and right arrow]
Attitude Toward Risk
Attraction
H2: Supported Attitude Toward Risk 0.39 0.000
Aversion [left and
right arrow]
Attitude Toward Risk
Attraction
H3: Supported Attitude Toward Risk 0.41 0.000
Aversion [right
arrow] Attitude
Toward Children
H4: Supported Attitude Toward Risk 0.18 0.040
Aversion [right
arrow] Attitude
Toward Children
While Driving
H5: Supported Attitude Toward Risk 0.19 0.004
Attraction [right
arrow] Attitude
Toward Children
H6: Supported Attitude Toward Risk 0.31 0.000
Attraction [right
arrow] Attitude
Toward Children
While Driving
H7: Supported Attitude Toward 0.21 0.003
Children [right
arrow] Attitude
Toward Children
While Driving
H8: Supported Attitude Toward 0.21 0.015
Children While
Driving [right
arrow] Attitude
Toward Booster Seat
H9: Supported Attitude Toward 0.29 0.000
Booster Seat [right
arrow] Intention
Toward Booster Seat
