Carine Pianelli

1

3rd International Lab Meeting Summer session
2005 2-10 July 2005
The Social Representation of the Use of Seat
Belts A Facet Theory Approach

• Carine Pianelli
• Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale
• (Université de Provence)

Erik H. Cohen Bar-Ilan University (Israel)
Jean-Claude Abric Laboratoire de Psychologie
Sociale (Université de Provence)
2
Previous research on driving 1/5

• The primary objectives of research on road safety
  are to determine principal factors leading to
  accidents and to identify types of drivers whose
  accident risk would be the highest.
• According to researchers working in this field,
  behaviors of drivers which violate traffic rules
  are relatively stable over time.
• Moget-Monseur and Biecheler-Fretel (1985)
  proposed the concept of basic behavior of the
  driver which is a system of rules of driving,
  both legal and conceptual, to which the driver
  strives to uphold.
• According to these authors, this system refers to
  the social representation of traffic laws.

3
Previous research on driving 2/5

• In research on driving, the principal methodology
  used is self-reported behavior.
• The Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ - Reason
  al., 1990) consists of fifty driving behaviors,
  errors and violations. Subjects are requested to
  estimate the frequency of their engaging in these
  behaviors.
• Reason emphasized that declared violations can be
  largely predicted by age, gender, driving skill
  and kilometers traveled.
• Moreover, there is a clear link between
  self-reported violations and implication in
  accidents.

4
Previous research on driving 3/5

• Many studies on driving have shown that young
  people (18-24 years) are particularly likely to
  violate traffic rules.
• In addition, research has shown that while
  nighttime driving represents less than 10 of the
  traffic but it accounts for 47 of mortality on
  road.
• The number of young people among victims of fatal
  accidents at night is high they account for 57
  of nighttime fatalities.

5
Previous research on driving 4/5

• Use of safety seat belts has been respected much
  more during the last years by drivers in France.
• In a study carried out by the SOFRES in 2000,
  drivers were asked to answer the following
  question For each of the following behaviors,
  would you say that you consider it unacceptable,
  condemnable or acceptable?
• The results show that if not putting on a seat
  belt in the front seat is unacceptable for 64,
  not putting on a seat belt in the back seat is
  considered to be unacceptable by only 31 this
  violation is largely tolerated and normalized by
  drivers in the back seat.
• Currently in France, seat belt is used in the
  front seat by 96 on the motorways and
  approximately 75 on residential roadways. In the
  back seat, percentages are 51 and 48,
  respectively.

6
Previous research on driving 5/5

• Moget-Monseur and Biecheler-Fretel (1985) showed
  that violations made in residential areas, which
  would seem relatively benign for experienced
  drivers, were considered unacceptable by
  recently-qualified drivers (those who have been
  driving for less than one year).
• These authors also established the statute of
  rules of circulation. According to them, rules of
  driving would be considered useless because the
  driver would trust only the feeling of immediate
  danger to satisfy his need for security.
• In the same way, Saad (1988) highlighted that
  risk-taking would depend on the importance of the
  perception and the assessment of the danger by
  the drivers.

7
Purpose and hypothesis of the current study

• For recently-qualified drivers, rules of driving
  are rules of the highway code they would be
  central and non contestable.
• With the practice of driving, they will make
  violations by economy, to adjust and adapt them
  at the traffic or for the pleasure.
• These violations go against rules considered as
  central and non contestable.
• These violations would be thus in contradiction
  with the central system of the social
  representation of rules of driving.
• In order to justify their violations, they will
  regard them as less dangerous (Moget-Monseur and
  Biecheler-Fretel, 1985).
• However, the multiplication of these violations
  and rationalizations would lead to the
  transformation of the central core of the
  representation.
• Thus, new informal rules would become central,
  and certain central rules would become
  peripheral.
• Thus, certain rules would be more or less
  respected as regards to the context.
• The most declared violations will be those
  considered as the least dangerous and rules
  associated will be the most disputed.

8
Purpose and hypothesis of the current study

• The results shows there is a transformation of
  the social representation of traffic rules with
  the practice of driving.
• Rules are not respected in the same way by
  experimented drivers as regards to the traveler's
  place in the vehicle, the time of the day and the
  type of road.
• In this work presented today we chose to center
  on the social representation of the use of the
  seat belt.
• In the previous study, evidence was provided by
  ANOVA that the use of the seat belt was more or
  less respected, not using it was considered
  dangerous and the rule mandating its use was
  disputed according to gender, traveler's place
  in the vehicle, the time of the day and the type
  of road.
• The current study will show that the Guttman
  approach is applicable to this type of material
  and that, more specifically, it allows the
  exposure of the structure of the data.

9
Population

• Our population is taken from the study of the
  master's dissertation of Pianelli Javoise
  (2002).
• It comprises 160 drivers from 18 to 25 years, all
  students.
• These drivers differ as regards to the gender (80
  men, 80 women), driving experience (80 subjects
  have been licensed for less than one year, 80 for
  more than one year) and their frequency of
  driving (80 drive often, 80 seldom drive).
• The building of the questionnaire was done
  individually in the universities of Law and
  Letters and Social Sciences of Aix-en-Provence
  and Paris.
• However, the variable place of residence was
  not taken into account because no significant
  difference according to the place of residence
  was noted during the pretest.

10
Construction of the questionnaire

• The questionnaire was built within the framework
  of the master's dissertation of Pianelli
  Javoise (2002).
• It was constructed from the items of the Driver
  Behavior Questionnaires of Reason (1990 1995),
  those of Moget-Monseur (1985) and oral arguments
  from relevant lawsuits in France in the year
  2000.
• The questionnaire is composed of three parts.
• The first part relates to the self-declared
  frequency of various driving behaviors.
• The second part deals with the contestable or
  non-contestable nature of certain rules.
• The third part addresses the perceived level of
  danger of these behaviors by the subjects.
• These three parts are organized around the same
  logic. Subjects must successively fill them out
  while thinking about driving in town, on trunk
  roads and on the motorway.

11
Facet Theory

• We analyze these data using Facet Theory and its
  various procedures.
• The facet analysis of the social representation
  of seat belt use will show the structural
  organization of the representation.
• The current study will show that the Guttman
  approach is applicable to this type of material.

12
Mapping sentence for this research
13
Mapping sentence for this research

• The driver X states the degree of
  in the use/non use of
• seat belt during time in the
  framework of road,
• in relation to recipients
  who are sitting at the
• of the car ? statement of
  Facet A.

14
Mapping sentence for this research
Structure of the questionnaire

• The driver X states the degree of
  in the use/non use of
• seat belt during time in the
  framework of road,
• in relation to recipients
  who are sitting at the
• of the car ? statement of
  Facet A.

15
Mapping sentence for this research

• The driver X states the degree of
  in the use/non use of
• seat belt during time in the
  framework of road,
• in relation to recipients
  who are sitting at the
• of the car ? statement of
  Facet A.

Various periods of time




16
Mapping sentence for this research

• The driver X states the degree of
  in the use/non use of
• seat belt during time in the
  framework of road,
• in relation to recipients
  who are sitting at the
• of the car ? statement of
  Facet A.

Various types of roads




17
Mapping sentence for this research

• The driver X states the degree of
  in the use/non use of
• seat belt during time in the
  framework of road,
• in relation to recipients
  who are sitting at the
• of the car ? statement of
  Facet A.

Various types of travelers
18
Mapping sentence for this research

• The driver X states the degree of
  in the use/non use of
• seat belt during time in the
  framework of road,
• in relation to recipients
  who are sitting at the
• of the car ? statement of
  Facet A.

Various places in the car
19
List of the 26 questions and their Facet
profile1/3
20
List of the 26 questions and their Facet
profile1/3
21
(No Transcript)
22
The driver X states the degree of
in the use/non use of seat belt
during time in the framework
of road, in relation to
recipients who are
sitting at the of
the car ? statement of Facet A.




23
The driver X states the degree of
in the use/non use of seat belt
during time in the framework
of road, in relation to
recipients who are
sitting at the of
the car ? statement of Facet A.




24
List of the 26 questions and their Facet
profile2/3
25
List of the 26 questions and their Facet
profile3/3
26

• Results

27
Smallest Space Analysis (SSA)

• The data were analyzed using a technique, also
  developed by Guttman, called a Smallest Space
  Analysis (SSA).
• The first step in conducting the SSA is the
  calculation of a matrix of the correlation
  between the chosen variables.
• The Monotonicity Coefficient, a regression-free
  coefficient of correlation (Guttman, 1986), was
  used.
• The program calculates the correlations between
  each pair of items.

28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26
-------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
----- VF4 1 100 69 99 100 64 99 98
98 39 66 87 51 82 54 66 66 69 58 36
47 62 66 61 71 35 46 VF12
2 69 100 64 61 95 94 85 85 90 22
22 42 67 53 58 58 66 71 24 63 63 41
72 50 26 77 VF20 3 99
64 100 98 76 98 99 98 35 64 77 66 68
60 64 64 67 54 48 43 59 42 45 47 55
57 RF1 4 100 61 98 100
72 97 98 98 17 71 71 63 75 57 85 39
62 51 56 26 34 39 54 75 29 40
RF10 5 64 95 76 72 100 86 75
83 96 41 41 45 77 68 70 70 76 70 36
55 64 41 75 77 58 86 RF16
6 99 94 98 97 86 100 99 100 54 56
56 58 60 58 56 74 76 70 64 72 71 74
73 60 67 59 AF5 7 98
85 99 98 75 99 100 98 44 77 77 65 80
64 77 77 78 64 55 52 84 77 67 64 71
63 AF12 8 98 85 98 98
83 100 98 100 60 22 22 52 28 51 59 59
48 64 55 66 55 59 77 64 51 63
AF20 9 39 90 35 17 96 54 44
60 100 30 30 48 71 69 76 65 64 79 39
66 60 50 85 71 54 79 VC6
10 66 22 64 71 41 56 77 22 30 100
99 93 99 95 96 96 100 87 73 71 96 96
81 95 95 79 VC11 11 87
22 77 71 41 56 77 22 30 99 100 93 99
95 93 96 99 87 73 71 92 93 81 95 91
79 VC15 12 51 42 66 63
45 58 65 52 48 93 93 100 100 98 84 84
100 91 71 80 77 73 68 81 79 67
RC2 13 82 67 68 75 77 60 80
28 71 99 99 100 100 100 97 99 100 96 78
76 97 97 86 98 96 90 RC7
14 54 53 60 57 68 58 64 51 69 95
95 98 100 100 81 89 100 95 53 77 75 81
79 87 78 72 RC15 15 66
58 64 85 70 56 77 59 76 96 93 84 97
81 100 93 99 79 82 88 92 93 88 95 91
92 AC2 16 66 58 64 39
70 74 77 59 65 96 96 84 99 89 93 100
100 93 82 80 96 96 88 97 97 92
AC9 17 69 66 67 62 76 76 78
48 64 100 99 100 100 100 99 100 100 100 94
94 100 100 94 99 100 95 AC13
18 58 71 54 51 70 70 64 64 79 87
87 91 96 95 79 93 100 100 63 80 75 79
82 91 79 72 VD4 19 36
24 48 56 36 64 55 55 39 73 73 71 78
53 82 82 94 63 100 85 91 89 86 97 92
82 VD9 20 47 63 43 26
55 72 52 66 66 71 71 80 76 77 88 80
94 80 85 100 94 93 92 96 86 93
RD2 21 62 63 59 34 64 71 84
55 60 96 92 77 97 75 92 96 100 75 91
94 100 100 94 98 98 96 RD14
22 66 41 42 39 41 74 77 59 50 96
93 73 97 81 93 96 100 79 89 93 100 100
93 99 99 92 RD19 23 61
72 45 54 75 73 67 77 85 81 81 68 86
79 88 88 94 82 86 92 94 93 100 100 92
97 AD3 24 71 50 47 75
77 60 64 64 71 95 95 81 98 87 95 97
99 91 97 96 98 99 100 100 98 100
AD11 25 35 26 55 29 58 67 71
51 54 95 91 79 96 78 91 97 100 79 92
86 98 99 92 98 100 91 AD19
26 46 77 57 40 86 59 63 63 79 79
79 67 90 72 92 92 95 72 82 93 96 92
97 100 91 100
MONCO correlations between the 26 variables

• The original coefficients were multiplied by 100
  and rounded into integer numbers.

29
Graphic representation of data by facets (1/7)

Figure 1 Geometric representation of the MONCO
correlations (alienation .185)
30
Graphic representation of data by facets (2/7)

• Figures 2 to 6 show the same graphic
  representation of the data, but with the profile
  for one facet shown in each figure.
• The applicability of the facet is verified if
  contiguous regions for each element may be
  recognized in the SSA.
• Results show that in general, the mapping
  sentence is empirically verified.
• Facets A, D and E are excellent. They are
  perfectly confirmed by the data analysis.
• One facet, the facet C, was not verified.
• All three basic shapes of SSA are represented in
  our case polar (Facets A and D), modular (Facets
  B and C) and axial (Facet E).

31
Graphic representation of data by facets (3/7)
FACET A Structure of the questionnaire
1.00

.369).
(polar structure)
Figure 2 Data according to the Facet A (
1.00 .369).
32
Graphic representation of data by facets (4/7)
FACET D Various types of travelers
1.00

.369).
(polar structure)
Figure 5 Data according to the Facet D (
1.00 .487).
33
Graphic representation of data by facets (5/7)
FACET E Various places in the car
1.00

.369).
(axial structure)
Figure 6 Data according to the Facet E (
1.00 .378).
34
Graphic representation of data by facets (6/7)
FACET B Various periods of time
1.00


.369).
(modular structure)
Figure 3 Data according to the Facet B (
.956 .495).
35
Graphic representation of data by facets (7/7)
FACET C Various types of roads

1.00

.369).
(modular structure)
Figure 4 Data according to the Facet C
36
Discussion concerning the facet C

• Based on the results of this analysis, we suggest
  that facet C, related to the type of road, not be
  retained in the final mapping sentence and SSA
  map.
• With the ANOVA, we had found that drivers use
  their seat belt on trunk roads and motorways more
  than in town and they consider not using seat
  belts on trunk roads and motorways to be more
  dangerous than not using them in town.
• Based on these results, it was expected that
  attitudes towards seat belt use would be related
  to type of road traveled. However, this was not
  upheld by the empirical data.
• Maybe for drivers, there is no difference between
  trunk roads and motorways it would be better to
  propose them not three types of networks but two
  types (trunk roads and motorways together and
  town).

37
Figure 7 Integrative SSA with Facets A, B, D and
E represented
38
Figure 7 Integrative SSA with Facets A, B, D and
E represented
39
Conclusions

• Four of the five facets of the mapping sentence
  are confirmed in two-dimensional SSA.
• One facet, type of road, was found to be
  problematic.
• These results indicate that the Guttman approach
  is applicable to this type of material and it
  allows the exposure of the structure of the data,
  simultaneously representing the various facets.
• Guttman approach could enrich and complete
  classic methods of studying social
  representations, notably by providing a visual
  representation of the structure of the social
  representation.

40
Thank you for your attention.