Feedback interventions and driving speed: A parametric and comparative analysis.
Post easy-to-hit feedback numbers and add a short warning to cut problem behavior fast.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers placed a big sign by the road. It showed the percent of drivers who were not speeding.
They tried three rules. One rule let drivers go 20 km/h over the limit. Another rule was stricter. They also handed out warning papers.
The team watched speed for many days. They wanted to see which rule kept cars slowest.
What they found
The lenient rule cut speeding best. More cars stayed slow, and the change lasted longer.
Adding the warning paper made the drop even bigger. The strict rule helped less.
How this fits with other research
Volkmar et al. (1985) later used the same signs across whole cities in Canada and Israel. Crashes went down too. The 1983 study gave the recipe; the 1985 study proved it works on a big stage.
Sisson et al. (1993) looks like a contradiction. They posted feedback outside taverns to stop drunk driving, but nothing changed. The difference: sober drivers see the sign and slow down; drunk patrons do not.
Falligant et al. (2021) also played with rule size. They showed that specific feedback beats vague feedback when training staff. Both papers say the same thing: clear, easy targets work best.
Why it matters
You can borrow the lenient-criterion trick today. Post a simple chart in your clinic or classroom. Show the percent of clients who met a daily goal. Pick a goal most kids can hit so the number stays high and motivating. Pair the chart with a quick verbal warning to the few who fall short. Expect bigger, longer gains than with tough standards.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Put up a big chart showing the percent of clients who followed the safety rule yesterday; praise the group if the number is 80% or more.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Five experiments were conducted to assess the effects of several variables on the efficacy of feedback in reducing driving speed. Experiment 1 systematically varied the criterion used to define speeding, and results showed that the use of a lenient criterion (20 km/hr over the speed limit), which allowed for the posting of high percentages of drivers not speeding, was more effective in reducing speeding than the use of a stringent criterion (10 km/hr over the speed limit). In Experiment 2 an analysis revealed that posting feedback reduced speeding on a limited access highway and the effects persisted to some degree up to 6 km. Experiments 3 and 4 compared the effectiveness of an unmanned parked police vehicle (Experiment 3) and a police air patrol speeding program (Experiment 4) with the feedback sign and determined whether the presence of either of these enforcement variables could potentiate the efficacy of the sign. The results of both experiments demonstrated that although the two enforcement programs initially produced larger effects than the feedback sign, the magnitude of their effect attenuated over time. Experiment 5 compared the effectiveness of a traditional enforcement program with a warning program which included handing out a flier providing feedback on the number and types of accidents occuring on the road during the past year. This experiment demonstrated that the warning program produced a marked reduction in speeding and the traditional enforcement program did not. Furthermore, the warning program and a feedback sign together produced an even greater reduction in speeding than either alone.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1983 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1983.16-253