Self-Determination Theory and Risk Behavior in a Collectivistic Society: Preventing Reckless Driving in Urban Nepal

Abstract

Traffic road accidents are one of the leading causes of mortality in Nepal and around the world. Drivers in Nepal are not adequately educated about road safety rules. Road conditions are chaotic as traffic regulations are also not strictly enforced. Public safety campaigns may be able to alter drivers’ attitudes and behaviors; however, little is known about which persuasive strategies may be most effective. Drawing on self-determination theory and the Health Belief Model, the current study used a post-only experimental design to test the impact of a short video message. The video included collective vs. individual appeals, and messages emphasizing one’s ability to make the right choice (autonomy support) vs. directive language. Participants were Nepali college students (mean age 20, N = 199). Using structural equation modeling, the study found that directive messages rather than autonomy support influenced an individual seeing value in the recommended behavior (identified regulation), which in turn influenced perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, and behavioral intention. The study also proposed a behavior change model by incorporating the stage of identification with the message upon exposure. This model aims to expand the model proposed by the Health Belief Model, to include a stage of value identification before cues to action influence perception of threat. Further implications are discussed.

Appendix: Description of the Stimulus Video

The stimulus video with three components, visual, audio and text. The audio component was a voiceover and the complementary text appeared when the voice was making recommendations for safe driving behavior. The visuals for all four experimental conditions were uniform, and only the audio and text changed based on the conditions. The four videos, which were 1 minute 29 seconds each, were divided into three parts: introduction, body, and conclusion. The introduction consisted of statistical information about accident rates in Kathmandu, the body consisted of a widely viewed viral clip (YouTube) of an actual event captured by a street camera showing a bus running over a motorcyclist, and the conclusion consisted of the recommended behavior presented in audio and text format. The three recommend behaviors were as follows: “Avoid speeding, especially at night when the roads are not well lit”; “Avoid dangerous overtaking, especially when you cannot see properly what’s ahead of you”; and “Avoid driving too close to the vehicle in front of you” (Parker et al., 1992). The four different experimental conditions were: 1) strong choice message + individualistic appeal, 2) strong choice message + collectivistic appeal, 3) weak choice message + individualistic appeal, and 4) weak choice message + collectivistic appeal. The strong choice message said, “It is in your hands to avoid traffic mishaps. It is up to you to choose to drive carefully. You are capable of making the right choice for yourself.” The weak choice message, on the other hand, was a directive and did not emphasize the autonomy of the driver. The message was, “You should not drive recklessly. You should follow the traffic rules. Stop driving recklessly.” The collectivistic appeal message, which focused on the impact of the behavior on others, read, “Driving recklessly can have severe consequences. It can lead others to lose their limbs and live a life of dependency. Not driving recklessly will keep the roads safe, and you could be saving someone’s son, daughter, mother, father or a relative.” And the individualistic appeal message, which focused on the impact of the behavior on self, read, “Driving recklessly can have severe consequences. It can lead you to lose your limbs and live a life of dependency. You could live a long and healthy life if you drive carefully and you could also be saving yourself from being caught by the traffic police.”