Walter A. Hanks and Dr. Gordon A. Lindsay, Health Sciences
President James E. Faust, Second Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, spoke during October 1995 General Conference of the increased willingness of many young people to take risks. He stated, “So many young people are enticed to go to the very edge or even beyond it. With only a precarious toehold, it is easy to be seriously injured, or even die.”
Many risk-taking behaviors have been identified among the 18-25 age group. We are continually reminded by McDonald Health Center reports and the media of the great toll risk taking behaviors have on BYU students. This study addresses one of the most serious risk taking behaviors affecting students today, driver fatigue and falling asleep at the wheel.
No reliable records exist regarding how many non-fatal accidents have occurred because of driver fatigue. However, a study recently conducted in the Health Sciences Department found that 35% of BYU students have experienced a dozing and driving incident during their college careers.1 Records maintained since the fall of 1981 by the Office of Student Life indicate that at least 85 students have died in traffic accidents while enrolled at BYU. A review of those records showed that dozing and driving, falling asleep at the wheel, was implicated as a primary or secondary cause in as many as 62 of those fatalities.
Students attending BYU come from a wide variety of locations, which increases their risk of a dozing related accident. About 31 % of students list Utah as their primary residence while 16% list California, 6% list Idaho, 6% list a foreign country, and 41 % are scattered among the remaining 47 states.2 Previous efforts to reduce the incidence of dozing and driving at BYU have focused on the long distances that students drive. Lindsay found that BYU students take an average of 4 automobile trips of over 150 miles each way during each year.1
Published studies indicate that other variables may play equal or greater roles. They include age, obesity, variability of work schedule, speed, time of day, total drive time, the use of stimulants (including caffeine) as a coping mechanism, and a willingness to take risks. Summala and Mikkola found that age effects were limited to high peaks in the 18-20 and the 56+ age groups. 3 They speculated that the increased risk for young drivers was due to increased motivational pressures to perform. We expected these performance pressures to be a significant barrier to change.
An educational intervention to increase student awareness of the risks of dozing and driving and the need to implement several precautionary practices was initiated November 1, 1996. Multiple messages were presented using a variety of mediums. These included a press kit that was distributed to local media, classroom presentations conducted student volunteers in over 80 classes across campus, flyers, and posters. The McDonald Health Center also assisted by sending letters to the parents of all students informing them of the dozing and driving problem at BYU.
A survey of student risk perceptions was completed in Stat. 221 during the fall term and served as the baseline measurement of risk perception. The Winter ’97 class of Stat. 221 (n = 577) was surveyed with the same instrument in order to measure the efficacy of the campaign. A Chi Squared analysis was completed to determine if significant changes had occurred ( < 0.10). In addition to this survey, focus groups were recruited from the student population. They were interviewed regarding their perception of accident risk, the effectiveness of the campaign, and barriers to change. Results were compiled and significant observations were recorded. The preliminary survey conducted in Stat. 221 indicated that the vast majority of BYU students are unaware of the risk they experience from dozing and driving. Only 48% of students ranked dozing as a major risk for the population as a whole, and only 32% ranked dozing as a major personal risk. Students ranked excessive speed, poor weather, and inattentiveness as the primary risk factors. Effects by gender (p < 0.000) were observed. Age and marital status were not statistically significant. Results of the post-testing during the Winter 1996 term indicated that a significant change in personal risk perception had occurred (p < 0.000). However, falling asleep at the wheel was still not perceived as the major traffic crash risk.
Results from focus group discussions were fairly consistent. Primary barriers to change were found to be resistance to the perceived source of the message, and performance pressures coming from academics, employers, parents, and peers. Concern over the university requirement to attend class on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving was raised in all groups. In general, women expressed more concern over crash risks than did men, and both men and women frequently expressed a perceived lack of control over travel circumstances.
Most students reported having heard or read something about the campaign, but few could identify the slogan or any significant message. When asked to explain why they had not attended to the messages, responses ranged from, “It just didn’t seem to apply to me,” to a more aggressive stance of, “I am sick and tired of professors and the administration trying to tell me how to think and what to do.” All participants agreed that they were less likely to attend to messages appearing to come from faculty or administrative sources than messages from parents or peers. Many students did report receiving phone calls from their parents after the parents received the letter sent by the McDonald Health Center. They further reported that holiday travel plans were discussed and modified, and that parental concerns were accepted and appreciated.
Results from both the risk perception survey and the focus groups suggest that a media based campaign is not an effective strategy for this population. While changes in risk perception were demonstrated, the changes were not judged to be of practical significance. Future interventions should attempt to employ interpersonal communication mediums, particularly those from student to student and from parents to students. In addition, future campaigns should develop strategies for enhancing decision-making skills and self efficacy relating to travel planning.
References
1. G.A. Lindsay et al. Descriptive epidemiology of dozing and driving in a college student population. Journal of American College Health. (In Press).
2. Institutional Studies at Brigham Young University, “http://28.187.241.2/acadvp/instuP”
3. H. Summala, and T. Mikkola, Fatal accidents among car and truck drivers: Effects of fatigue, age, and alcohol consumption, Human Factors (1994) 36(2); 315-326.