Key beliefs influencing young drivers' engagement with social interactive technology on their smartphones: A qualitative study
Key beliefs influencing young drivers' engagement with social interactive technology on their smartphones: A qualitative study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/15389588.2015.1047014
复制
发表时间：
2016-02-17
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Watson, Barry
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gauld, Cassandra S.;Lewis, Ioni M.;Watson, Barry
目的：本研究的主要目的是确定年轻驾驶员关于社交互动技术(即智能手机上允许用户与他人交流的功能)的启动、监控/阅读和响应的潜在信念(即行为、规范和控制)。方法：本定性研究是根据计划行为理论进行的信念诱导研究，试图引出年轻驾驶员的行为(即优势、劣势)、规范(即谁赞成、谁反对)和控制信念(即障碍、辅助者)，这是在开车时使用社交互动技术的基础。结果：虽然行为信念、规范信念和控制信念三种行为在发起、监控/阅读和回应三种行为上存在差异，但最强的区别是行为信念类别(例如，与正在见面的人交流是发起的优势；能够确定是否回应是监控/阅读的优势；与重要人物沟通是回应的优势)。在发起和响应行为方面，规范信念是相似的(例如，朋友和同龄人比其他群体更有可能认可)，而在监控/阅读方面出现了差异(例如，父母更有可能批准这种行为，而不是发起和响应)。对于控制信念，这些行为的促进者的信念存在差异(例如，熟悉的道路和条件有助于启动；对传入通信的听觉通知有助于监控/阅读；接收即时重要的通信有助于反应)；然而，呈现障碍的控制信念在三种行为中是一致的(例如，困难的交通/道路条件)。结论：本研究是对现有文献的重要补充，并支持新的研究表明，启动、监控/阅读和响应可能确实是具有不同潜在动机的不同行为。
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 25years 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.