For all of you out there involved in behavior based safety, I have a TRICK QUESTION for you… Is it easier to convince people to AVOID an UNSAFE ACT or is it easier to get them to COMMIT a SAFE ACT? I ask this because I am trying to figure out a plan of attack for a particular unsafe act called “texting while driving”. As I sit here and think about what all is involved it dawned on me that we are talking about two ENTIRELY different beast when we look at an approach to safety… Do we convince people to AVOID UNSAFE ACTS or convince people to COMMIT SAFE ACTS?
For all of you out there involved in behavior based safety, I have a TRICK QUESTION for you… Is it easier to convince people to AVOID an UNSAFE ACT or is it easier to get them to COMMIT a SAFE ACT? I ask this because I am trying to figure out a plan of attack for a particular unsafe act called “texting while driving”. As I sit here and think about what all is involved it dawned on me that we are talking about two ENTIRELY different beast when we look at an approach to safety… Do we convince people to AVOID UNSAFE ACTS or convince people to COMMIT SAFE ACTS?
If we look back at one VERY SUCESSFUL method (wearing seatbelts), our approach was to convince people to commit a very particular SAFE ACT. I would even argue, this is MORE difficult, as the reciprocal of this act does NOT create an actual hazard (e.g. you not wearing your seatbelt is NOT a direct hazard to you in of its self). We have been very successful over the years with awareness campaigns on using seatbelts; of course most states also now have laws requiring the use of seatbelts which has certainly helped skew the numbers.
But when I look at the “texting while driving” issue, I see an entirely different issue. Instead of trying to get people to do something SAFE, now we are trying to stop people from doing something UNSAFE. Which is harder – convincing people to do things to improve their safety by committing a safe act (e.g. wear seatbelts) or convincing people to improve their safety by avoiding an unsafe act (e.g. not texting while driving)?
Do we use the same approach in both situations? Which is more affective? Do you use both methods in your approach?
In my mind I see it that we are asking two different things:
1) in wearing a seatbelt, we are asking someone to ADD a safe act that: a) cost NOTHING, b) takes only 2-3 seconds to commit, and c) the PAYBACK could be HUGE for them. On the flip side, not wearing one cost NOTHING, saves you 2-3 seconds of your day each time you enter your vehicle and the consequences could be HUGE for them.
2) in texting while driving, we are asking someone to AVOID an unsafe act that: a) (in most cases) is costing them a small fee to text, b) takes time out of their day to send the text, and c) the CONSEQUENCES could be HUGE. On the flip side, texting while driving (in most cases) is costing them a small fee to text, takes time out of your day, and the PAYBACK could be HUGE for them.
Have I lost my mind? Does anyone else see “safety from this perspective”? Any comments, insights, suggestions will be appreciated.