How Important Is Vehicle Safety for Older Consumers in the Vehicle Purchase Process?

This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent] On: 11 November 2014, At: 15:53 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Traffic Injury Prevention Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcpi20 How Important Is Vehicle Safety for Older Consumers in the Vehicle Purchase Process? Sjaan Koppel a , Belinda Clark a , Effie Hoareau a , Judith L. Charlton a & Stuart V. Newstead a a Monash University Accident Research Centre , Monash University , Clayton , Australia Accepted author version posted online: 08 Nov 2012.Published online: 16 Jul 2013. To cite this article: Sjaan Koppel , Belinda Clark , Effie Hoareau , Judith L. Charlton & Stuart V. Newstead (2013) How Important Is Vehicle Safety for Older Consumers in the Vehicle Purchase Process?, Traffic Injury Prevention, 14:6, 592-601, DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2012.740642 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2012.740642 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcpi20 http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15389588.2012.740642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2012.740642 http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions Traffic Injury Prevention (2013) 14, 592–601 Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1538-9588 print / 1538-957X online DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2012.740642 How Important Is Vehicle Safety for Older Consumers in the Vehicle Purchase Process? SJAAN KOPPEL, BELINDA CLARK, EFFIE HOAREAU, JUDITH L. CHARLTON, and STUART V. NEWSTEAD Monash University Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Australia Received 6 September 2012, Accepted 13 October 2012 Objective: This study aimed to investigate the importance of vehicle safety to older consumers in the vehicle purchase process. Methods: Older (n = 102), middle-aged (n = 791), and younger (n = 109) participants throughout the eastern Australian states of Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland who had recently purchased a new or used vehicle completed an online questionnaire about their vehicle purchase process. Results: When asked to list the 3 most important considerations in the vehicle purchase process (in an open-ended format), older consumers were mostly likely to list price as their most important consideration (43%). Similarly, when presented with a list of vehicle factors (such as price, design, Australasian New Car Assessment Program [ANCAP] rating), older consumers were most likely to identify price as the most important vehicle factor (36%). When presented with a list of vehicle features (such as automatic transmission, braking, air bags), older consumers in the current study were most likely to identify an antilock braking system (41%) as the most important vehicle feature, and 50 percent of older consumers identified a safety-related vehicle feature as the highest priority vehicle feature (50%). When asked to list up to 3 factors that make a vehicle safe, older consumers in the current study were most likely to list braking systems (35%), air bags (22%), and the driver’s behavior or skill (11%). When asked about the influence of safety in the new vehicle purchase process, one third of older consumers reported that all new vehicles are safe (33%) and almost half of the older consumers rated their vehicle as safer than average (49%). A logistic regression model was developed to predict the profile of older consumers more likely to assign a higher priority to safety features in the vehicle purchasing process. The model predicted that the importance of safety-related features was influenced by several variables, including older consumers’ beliefs that they could protect themselves and their family from a crash, their traffic infringement history, and whether they had children. Conclusions: These findings are consistent with previous research that suggests that, though older consumers highlight the impor- tance of safety features (i.e., seat belts, air bags, braking), they often downplay the role of safety in their vehicle purchasing process and are more likely to equate vehicle safety with the presence of specific vehicle safety features or technologies rather than the vehicle’s crash safety/test results or crashworthiness. The findings from this study provide a foundation to support further research in this area that can be used by policy makers, manufacturers, and other stakeholders to better target the promotion and publicity of vehicle safety features to particular consumer groups (such as older consumers). Better targeted campaigns may help to emphasize the value of safety features and their role in reducing the risk of injury/death. If older consumers are better informed of the benefits of safety features when purchasing a vehicle, a further reduction in injuries and deaths related to motor vehicle crashes may be realized. Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher’s online edition of Traffic Injury Prevention to view the supplemental file. Keywords: older drivers, older consumers, vehicle safety, consumer purchasing decisions Introduction Demographic Factors Amajor shift is occurring in the age distribution of Australia’s and most other Western countries’ populations as a result of the baby boomers’ maturation, lower birth rates, and in- creased longevity (Organisation for Economic Co-operation Address correspondence to Sjaan Koppel, Monash University AccidentResearchCentre, Building 70,MonashUniversity, Clay- ton, VIC 3800, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] andDevelopment [OECD] 2001). Australia, likemostWestern societies, predicts substantial changes in the proportion of older individuals as the current population ages (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010). For example, the proportion of persons aged 65 years and older in Australia is predicted to increase from 13 percent in 2006 to between 23 and 25 percent in 2056 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010). Along with the growth in the number and proportion of older people in the population, it is anticipated that with each successive genera- tion, there will be an increase in older drivers’ licensing rates (Sivak and Schoettle 2011). Further, the private car is likely to remain the dominant form of transport for the emerging D ow nl oa de d by [ U ni ve rs ity o f K en t] a t 1 5: 53 1 1 N ov em be r 20 14 Importance of Vehicle Safety to Older Consumers 593 cohorts of older drivers, who will be undertaking longer and more frequent journeys (OECD 2001). Older Drivers and Predicted Crash Levels Though older drivers are currently involved in few crashes in terms of absolute numbers, they represent one of the highest risk groups for crashes involving serious injury and fatalities per number of drivers and per distance traveled (OECD 2001). The growth in older driver numbers and their high serious casualty crash involvement rate poses a particular challenge for road safety policy makers and researchers. Physical Fragility of Older Drivers It is now recognized that older drivers are overrepresented in serious injury and fatal crashes at least partly because of their physical fragility and hence increased vulnerability to injury (Koppel et al. 2011). The energy required to cause in- jury reduces as a person ages (Augenstein 2001): older adults’ biomechanical tolerances to injury are lower than those of younger persons (Mackay 1998; Viano et al. 1990), primar- ily due to reductions in bone and neuromuscular strength and fracture tolerance (Dejeammes and Ramet 1996; Pad- manaban 2001). Li et al. (2003) estimated that fragility ac- counted for 60 to 90 percent of older drivers’ fatal crash overinvolvement. Older Drivers and the Importance of Vehicle Safety Given older drivers’ physical fragility and hence increased vul- nerability to injury, vehicle safety and keeping older occu- pants safe within their vehicle is of particular importance and could provide great potential in terms of possible safety gains (Charlton et al. 2002). However, several studies investigating the role of vehicle safety in older consumers’ purchasing deci- sions suggest that vehicle safety is not well understood and is not considered ahighpriority in their vehicle purchase process. For example, Charlton and colleagues (2002) conducted focus groups with adults aged 55 years and older in the Australian state of Victoria. Overall, participants reported that they pre- ferred vehicle features that improved comfort or ease of driv- ing. Few participants identified specific safety features such as air bags or antilock brakes. When given a list of 5 factors and asked to select the most important within the vehicle purchas- ing decision, handling of the vehicle was identified as the most important by 40 percent of participants, vehicle safety by 30 percent, fuel economy by 20 percent, and vehicle appearance and make or model less than 10 percent each. The commonly identified top 5 safety features were drivers’ visibility, handling of the vehicle, antilock brakes, air bags, seat belt pretensioners, andpower steering.However, safety features that protect occu- pants in a crash were poorly understood by participants, and misconceptions about features such as air bags were common. Similarly, Zhan and Vrkljan (2011) conducted focus groups with Canadian older drivers aged 70 to 90 years and reported that whereas older participants highlighted the importance of a few standard safety features (i.e., seat belts, air bags, and reli- able brakes), they downplayed the role of safety in their vehicle purchasing decisions. In addition, older participants’ percep- tions of more advanced safety systems, such as adaptive cruise control, were mixed in terms of their contributions to safety, with many arguing that vehicle technologies were less impor- tant than drivers’ own driving skills and habits. The authors also noted that most older participants consider all new ve- hicles as safe. For example, one participant noted: “You can’t buy a bad car anymore. You can find a better one, but you can- not buy a lemon.Most cars are ok” (Zhan andVrkjlan 2011, p. 104). The most important factors influencing purchasing de- cisions were price and fuel economy, although it was noted that visibility around the vehicle has become increasingly important. On the other hand, recent research conducted by Koppel et al. (2008) showed that older consumers in Spain and Swe- den were significantly more likely to list vehicle safety as their most important consideration in the vehicle purchase deci- sion relative to middle-aged or younger vehicle consumers. Older consumers were most likely to select a safety-related factor (e.g., EuroNCAP rating/crash test results) and a safety- related feature (e.g., antilock brakes) as their highest priorities in the new vehicle purchase decision. Consistent with previ- ous research, many older consumers equated vehicle safety with the presence of specific vehicle safety features or tech- nologies rather than the vehicles’ crash safety/test results or crashworthiness. In their recent review of the literature, Eby and Molnar (2012) concluded that research so far suggests that though safety is clearly important to older consumers, other consid- erations such as price and fuel economy come into play and often take precedence. In addition, several findings suggest that older consumers may lack knowledge about how some safety features work and misunderstand their effectiveness in protecting vehicle occupants in the event of a motor vehicle crash (Charlton et al. 2002; Zhan and Vrkjlan 2011). Aims The overall aim of this research was to gain a better under- standing of the key mechanisms that drive Australian con- sumer choice in vehicle selection (for younger, middle-aged, and older vehicle consumers) and validate this against cur- rent known profiles in vehicle ownership identified in vehicle registration data patterns. These findings are described else- where (see Clark et al. 2012). The focus of this manuscript was to investigate (1) the importance of vehicle safety to older consumers’ in the vehicle purchase process relative to other factors, (2) how older consumers conceptualize vehicle safety, and (3) the profile of older consumers more likely to assign a higher priority to safety features in the vehicle purchasing process. D ow nl oa de d by [ U ni ve rs ity o f K en t] a t 1 5: 53 1 1 N ov em be r 20 14 594 Koppel et al. Method Recruitment The questionnaire was administered by Pureprofile Pty. Ltd., an online panel provider with access to over 320,000 members within Australia. Individuals become members of PureProfile by visiting the PureprofileWeb site and registering their name, e-mail address, date of birth, and location. Members have a log-in account to which our survey link was forwarded, and participants accumulate small monetary incentives (ranging from 20 cents to $2) on completion of surveys. This mone- tary incentive is part of a preexisting arrangement of their Pureprofile membership. Questionnaire Previous research investigating the factors that influence ve- hicle purchasing decisions was used to guide the development of the questionnaire (Charles River Associates Incorporated 1998; Desrosiers Automotive Report 2002; General Motors Corporation 1994; J.D. Power and Associates 1993; Market and Opinion Research International 2005; Progressive Insur- ance Co. 2001). The questionnaire was designed to gather information about how important vehicle safety is in the ve- hicle purchase process, the importance that consumers place on safety features relative to other convenience and comfort features, and how consumers conceptualize vehicle safety, as described previously by Koppel et al. (2008). The question- naire was modified to suit Australian vehicle consumers and updated to include vehicle features that have been introduced since 2008.More specifically, the questionnaire included ques- tions regarding the following: • Vehicle details: • Make, model, and year of purchased vehicle? • Vehicle purchased new or used? • Main driver of vehicle purchased? • Vehicle purchase decision process: • Main decision maker? • Reason for vehicle purchase (replacement of old or dam- aged vehicle, first vehicle, more suitable vehicle)? • Information used in purchase decision (Australasian New Car Assessment Program [ANCAP] results, sales rep, company Web site, word of mouth)? • Vehicle factors and features that played a key role in decision? • Importance of vehicle safety factors and features in pur- chase decision? • Demographic factors of vehicle purchasers: • Gender, age, number of children, education level, geo- graphic location, motor vehicle crash history, and traffic infringement history? Procedure As is standard practice for the company, Pureprofile account holders (potential participants) were e-mailed an online invi- tation to complete a questionnaire. Within the invitation, they were informed of the approximate time it would take to com- plete the questionnaire, the amount of payment they would receive for completing the questionnaire, and that the ques- tionnaire was part of a research project funded by Monash University. Details of the questionnaire theme were not avail- able until the potential participants accepted the invitation to participate. Account holders then had the option to volun- teer to complete the questionnaire or decline participation. The invitation to participate was distributed to members in Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria. Potential par- ticipants were eligible to participate if they responded “Yes” to the question “Have you recently purchased a new or used vehicle?” In accordance with the research team’s brief, quotas were applied to the host database to ensure a stratified sample in relation to the following: • Age: a representative number of participants aged 18–24 years, 25–64 years, ≥65 years • Gender: equal numbers of females and males • Geographic location: rural and urban participants (1:2 ra- tio) This study was reviewed and approved by theMonashUni- versity Human Research Ethics Committee. Analyses Descriptive analyses were undertaken to investigate the im- portance of vehicle safety in the vehicle purchase process. Participants’ responses to open-ended questions were coded into representative categories. For example, responses such as “cost,” “finances,” “affordability,” etc., were grouped under the category “price.” The frequencies and percentages were then calculated and compared for each category. Chi-square analyses were conducted, where appropriate, to explore age group differences in purchasing decisions. A logistic regres- sion model was also developed to predict the profile of older consumers more likely to assign a higher priority to safety features in the vehicle purchasing process. Results Recruitment Rates The questionnaire link was e-mailed to 7740 potential partic- ipants across the Australian states of Queensland, New South Wales, andVictoria. Of these 7740 potential participants, 7187 (93%) accepted the invitation to participate. Of those poten- tial participants who accepted the invitation, only 2230 (31%) were eligible to participate (i.e., answered “Yes” to the ques- tion “Have you recently purchased a new or used vehicle?” Of those eligible to participate, 1002 participants (45%) com- pleted the questionnaire. Questionnaire Responses Participants’ responses to the questionnaire are described below. D ow nl oa de d by [ U ni ve rs ity o f K en t] a t 1 5: 53 1 1 N ov em be r 20 14 Importance of Vehicle Safety to Older Consumers 595 Table 1. Participants’ demographic characteristics Younger consumers Middle-aged consumers Older consumers Total percentage Demographic characteristics (18–25 years) (26–64 years) (65+ years) (number) Percentage (number) 11% (109) 79% (791) 10% (102) 100% (1002) Gender Male 37% (40) 52% (407) 54% (55) 50% (502) Female 63% (69) 48% (384) 46% (47) 50% (500) Marital status Married/de facto 14% (15) 68% (540) 69% (70) 62% (625) Single (never married) 86% (94) 21% (167) 4% (4) 26% (265) Divorced/separated 0% (0) 9% (74) 20% (20) 9% (94) Widowed 0% (0) 1% (10) 8% (8) 2% (18) Place of residence Metropolitan 72% (78) 71% (563) 57% (58) 70% (699) Regional city/country or rural town 28% (31) 29% (228) 43% (44) 30% (303) Household income .1. A signif- icantly smaller proportion of older consumers reported that they were the main driver of the vehicle (65%) compared to younger and middle-aged vehicle consumers (82%, 74%, re- spectively), χ2(2) = 7.857, P < .05. Consumers were asked to indicate the reasons for purchas- ing their vehicle. The reasons ranked as most important in the vehicle purchase process are shown in Figure 1. The most important reasons reported by older consumers for purchasing their vehicle were replacing an old vehicle (65%), upgrading their vehicle (15%), and purchasing a more suitable vehicle (8%). A significantly greater proportion of older consumers reported that theywere replacing their old ve- hicle (65%) compared to younger and middle-aged consumers (31%, 44%, respectively), χ2(2) = 23.031, P < .01. A signif- icantly smaller proportion of older and younger consumers reported that they were purchasing a more suitable vehicle (8%, 10%, respectively) compared to middle-aged consumers (18%), χ2(2) = 10.315, P < .01. A significantly smaller pro- portion of older and middle-aged consumers reported that they were purchasing their first vehicle (1%, 4%, respectively) compared to younger consumers (28%), χ2(2) = 90.857, P < .001. There were no differences across the age groups in terms of the proportion of consumers who reported that upgrading their vehicle was the most important reason for their vehicle purchase, χ2(2) = 2.949, P > .1. Consumers were asked to indicate the sources of infor- mation they used to inform their purchasing decisions. The sources of information identified as most important in the vehicle purchase process are shown in Figure 2. The sources of information that were identified as most important by older consumers were vehicle dealerships (23%), friends or family members (18%), and vehicle manufacturing Web sites (15%). A significantly greater proportion of older and middle-aged consumers ranked the information obtained Fig. 1.Vehicle consumers’ ‘most important’ reason for purchasing their vehicle across age groups. D ow nl oa de d by [ U ni ve rs ity o f K en t] a t 1 5: 53 1 1 N ov em be r 20 14 596 Koppel et al. Fig. 2. Sources of information ranked as ‘most important’ in the vehicle purchase process across age groups. from the vehicle dealership as most important (23%, 18%, respectively), and a significantly smaller proportion of older and middle-aged consumers ranked the information obtained from friends or family members as the most important source of information (19%, 18%, respectively) compared to younger consumers (vehicle dealerships: 11%, χ2(2) = 6.011, P < .05; friends or family: 34%, χ2(2) = 13.534, P < .05). There were no differences across the age groups in terms of the proportion of vehicle consumers who ranked the vehicle manufacturing Web site as the most important source of information, χ2(2)= 2.437, P > .1. Using anopen-endedquestion format, consumerswere also asked to list the 3 most important factors considered when de- ciding which vehicle to purchase. Consumers were instructed to list the most important factor first. Older consumers were most likely to list price (43%), followed by vehicle safety and vehicle size (17% for both), as the most important factors con- sidered in the vehicle purchase process. A significantly smaller proportion of older and middle-aged consumers listed price (43%, 49%, respectively) as their most important consider- ation in the vehicle purchase process compared to younger consumers (65%), χ2(2) = 12.509, P < .01. A significantly greater proportion of older and middle-aged consumers listed vehicle size (17%, 11%, respectively) as their most important consideration in the vehicle purchase process compared with younger consumers (5%), χ2(2) = 8.202, P < .05. There was no significant difference across the age groups in terms of the importance of vehicle safety. Froma list, consumerswere asked to identify vehicle factors that were a high priority in the vehicle purchasing process and then were asked to identify the vehicle factor that was the highest priority in the vehicle purchasing process. Vehicle factors identified as the highest priority in vehicle purchasing process are shown in Figure 3. Older consumers were most likely to rate the vehicle’s pur- chase price (36%), ANCAP rating (28%), and pedestrian ag- gressivity1 (20%) as their highest priority in the vehicle pur- 1Where pedestrian aggressivity is defined as the serious injury risk that vehicles pose to pedestrians if they collide with them (Newstead et al. 2012). chasing process. A significantly greater proportion of older consumers listed pedestrian aggressivity as their highest prior- ity in the vehicle purchase process (20%) compared to younger and middle-aged consumers (0% for both), χ2(2) = 11.587, P < .01. There was no significant difference across the age groups in the priority assigned to vehicles’ purchase price or ANCAP rating (purchase price: χ2(2) = 3.015, P > .1; AN- CAP rating: χ2(2) = 0.140, P > .5). From a list, consumers were asked to identify vehicle fea- tures thatwere a high priority in the vehicle purchasing process and then were asked to identify the vehicle feature that was the highest priority in the vehicle purchasing process. Vehicle features identified as the highest priority in vehicle purchasing process are shown in Figure 4. Older consumers were most likely to list an antilock brak- ing system (ABS; 41%) as the highest priority vehicle feature, followed by automatic transmission (33%) and driver air bag (24%). Though a greater proportion of older consumers listed ABS as the highest priority vehicle feature (41%) compared to younger and middle-aged vehicle consumers (30%, 32%, re- spectively) and a smaller proportion of older consumers listed automatic transmission as the highest priority vehicle fea- ture (33%) compared to younger and middle-aged consumers (43%, 43%), these differences were not statistically significant (ABS: χ2(2)= 2.016, P > .1; automatic transmission: χ2(2)= 2.739, P > .1). There was no significant difference across the age groups in the priority assigned to driver air bags, χ2(2) = 2.858, P > .1. In order to determine whether consumers were more likely to identify a safety-related vehicle feature as the highest prior- ity in the vehicle purchase process, the vehicle features shown in Figure 4 were broadly divided into safety and non-safety features. Safety features included active head restraints, ad- vanced braking systems, automatic collision notification sys- tems, cruise control with frontal distance warning, curtain air Fig. 3. Vehicle factors identified as the highest priority in the vehicle purchasing process across age groups. D ow nl oa de d by [ U ni ve rs ity o f K en t] a t 1 5: 53 1 1 N ov em be r 20 14 Importance of Vehicle Safety to Older Consumers 597 Fig. 4. Vehicle features identified as the highest priority in the vehicle purchase process across age groups. bags, driver air bag, following distance sensor, front passen- ger air bag, lane change warning device, parking assistance/ reversing sensor, seat belt reminder system, seat belt tension- ers, speed alert, side air bags, stability control systems, 3-point belt in the center rear seat, and vehicle-specific child restraint. The remaining vehicle features were classified as non-safety- related features. A greater proportion of older consumers identified a safety- related vehicle feature as the highest priority vehicle fea- ture (50%) compared to younger and middle-aged consumers (41%, 39%, respectively); however, this difference was not sta- tistically significant, χ2(2) = 4.525, P > .05. Consumers were asked to list up to 3 features that make a vehicle safe and to list the most important factor first. Older consumers were most likely to list braking systems (35%), air bags (22%), and driver’s behavior or skill (11%) as the most important factors in making a vehicle safe. A significantly greater proportion of older and middle-aged consumers listed braking systems (33%, 29%) and the driver’s behavior or skill (11%, 7%) as the most important factor that makes a vehicle safe compared to younger consumers (braking systems: 14%, χ2(2) = 12.59, P < .1; driver behavior/skill: 2%, χ2(2) = 6.757, P < .5). Conversely, a significantly smaller proportion of older andmiddle-aged consumers listed air bags (22%, 28%, respectively) as themost important factor that makes a vehicle safe compared to younger consumers (air bags: 38%, χ2(2) = 6.982, P < .1). Consumers were asked to indicate how their concept of vehicle safety had influenced their decision-making process (see Figure 5). A greater proportion of older consumers reported that all new vehicles are safe (33%) and a smaller proportion of older consumers reported that they did not consider the safety of the vehicle at all (2%) compared to younger and middle-aged vehicle consumers (24%, 27%, 8%, 8%, respectively); however, these differences did not reach statistical significance (all ve- hicles safe: χ2(2)= 2.662, P > .01; did not consider the safety of the vehicle: χ2(2) = 5.246, P = .07). Consumers were asked to rate the safety of their vehicle compared to other average vehicles on the road.A significantly greater proportion of older consumers rated their vehicle as safer than average (49%) compared to younger and middle- aged consumers (31%, 36%, respectively), χ2(2) = 11.690, P < .05. All consumers were asked to rate their level of concern about the possibility of being involved in a motor vehicle crash (where 1 = not at all concerned and 5 = very concerned; see online supplement, Figure A1). A greater proportion of older andmiddle-aged consumers reported that theywere very concerned about the possibility of being involved in a motor vehicle crash (16%, 14%, respectively) compared to younger consumers (7%); however, this difference was not statistically significant, χ2(2) = 4.306, P > .05. Consumers were then asked to indicate the extent to which they felt they could protect themselves and their family from a motor vehicle crash (where 1= I can’t do much and 5= I can do a lot; see online supplement, Figure A2). A significantly greater proportion of older consumers reported that they can do a lot to protect themselves and their families from a motor vehicle crash (28%) compared to younger and middle-aged consumers (12%, 15%, respectively), χ2(2) = 11.287, P < .01. Safety Ratings of Used Vehicle Models Purchased In addition to analyzing the questionnaire responses, the ve- hicle safety ratings from the official Used Car Safety Rating Web site (http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au) for used ve- hicle models (n = 491) purchased by the participants were compared across the age groups (see Figure 6). As shown in Figure 6, most of the used vehicle models in the sample had a 4-star rating (35%). A significantly greater proportion of middle-aged vehicle consumers had purchased a 4- or 5-star-rated used vehicle (59%) compared to younger and older consumers (41%, 46%, respectively), χ2(2) = 8.417, P < .05. Profile of Older Drivers for Whom Safety Features Are a High Priority in the Vehicle Purchasing Decision Logistic regression was used to model factors associated with vehicle purchasing decisions with a high priority on safety features among respondents aged 65 years and over. Older consumers who had rated at least one secondary safety D ow nl oa de d by [ U ni ve rs ity o f K en t] a t 1 5: 53 1 1 N ov em be r 20 14 598 Koppel et al. Fig. 5. Influence of safety in the vehicle purchase process across age groups. feature2 as high in regards to the question “What features were a priority in your vehicle choice?” were defined as positive cases (27%) in the binary dependent outcome variable. The model was determined using all older participant responses (n = 102) with the statistical package STATA/SE 11.2 (Stata- corp, College Station, TX). A 4-predictor logistic model was fitted to the data with 3 of these predictors, perceived ability to protect self and family (referred to as protect here on), income and traffic infringement history achieving statistical signifi- cance. The fourth predictor, number of children (referred to as children here on) was not statistically significant; however, it was included in the model because it moderated the predictive power of both income and protect. All interaction terms were tested and none were found to be significant. The results of the final model are presented in Table 2. Older consumers who felt that they could do more to pro- tect themselves and their family from a crash were 3.2 times more likely to rate a secondary safety feature high in impor- tance in their purchasing decision relative to older consumers, who indicated that they were not able to do much (odds ratio [OR]: 3.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24–2.20, P = .024). In terms of income, there was a 63 percent decrease in the odds of rating a safety feature highly if the annual household in- come was above $50,000 relative to those whose income was less than $50,000 (OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.14–0.98, P = .046). 2In the automotive sector, the term active safety (or primary safety features) refers to safety systems that are active prior to a crash, such as ABS, electronic stability control, and collision- warning/avoidance through automatic braking. This compares with passive safety (or secondary safety features) that are active during a crash, such as seat belts, deformation zones, air bags, etc. (Newstead et al. 2011). Older consumers who had not incurred a traffic infringement in the last 3 years were 3.8 timesmore likely to rate a secondary safety feature as high in importance in their purchasing deci- sion (OR: 3.80, 95% CI: 1.02–14.13, P = .047). Moderating the results of the predictors income and protect, was the vari- able children. Having children appeared to help increase the odds of rating a secondary safety feature high in importance for those who felt that they could do more do protect their family from a crash but contributed to a slight decrease in the odds of purchasing a vehicle based on safety-related features for those whose income was greater than $50,000. Results of a likelihood ratio test showed that the model as a whole was statistically significant, χ24 = 12.2, P = .0158. The P-value (.3381) for the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of- fit test (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000) suggests that the model Fig. 6. UCSR star rating for consumers’ vehicles across age groups. D ow nl oa de d by [ U ni ve rs ity o f K en t] a t 1 5: 53 1 1 N ov em be r 20 14 Importance of Vehicle Safety to Older Consumers 599 Table 2. Factors associated with prioritizing of secondary safety features in vehicle purchasing decision Parameter Outcome Referent OR 95% CI P-value Protect Can do a lot Can’t do much 3.17 1.17–8.59 .024 Income $50,000 (AUS) ≤$50,000 (AUS) 0.37 0.14–0.98 .046 Traffic infringement in last 3 years No Yes 3.80 1.02–14.13 .047 Children Have children No children 4.34 0.48–39.53 .193 fit the data reasonably well. The model correctly classified 77 percent of cases with a high level of specificity (91%), but a comparatively low level of sensitivity (41%) and an acceptable level of discrimination was identified, with a measure of 0.71 for the area under the curve. Discussion How Important Is Vehicle Safety to Older Consumers in the New Vehicle Purchase Process? The first aim of this study was to investigate the importance of vehicle safety to older consumers in the vehicle purchase process relative to other factors. The findings of the current study are consistent with previous research that suggests that, though safety is clearly important to older consumers, other considerations such as price and fuel economy come into play and often take precedence (for a review, see Eby and Molnar 2012). Indeed, when asked to list the 3most important consid- erations in the vehicle purchase process (in an open-ended for- mat), older consumers were mostly likely to list price as their most important consideration. Similarly, when presented with a list of vehicle factors (such as price, design, ANCAP rating), older consumers were most likely to identify price as the most important vehicle factor (36%). When asked to identify the source of information that was most important in their vehi- cle purchase decision, a greater proportion of older consumers listed the information obtained from the vehicle dealership. This finding is consistent with previous research that suggests that though vehicle consumers appear to regard the purchase of a vehicle as a major investment that merits doing at least some homework, what could be viewed as fairly low engage- ment methods of obtaining information predominate: visits to dealers and similar vehicle purchase guides, with consumers rarely seeking arguably more sophisticated information such crash test results (Koppel et al. 2008). This finding is somewhat concerning given that older drivers’ overrepresentation in se- rious injury and fatal crashes is at partly due to their physical fragility and hence increased vulnerability to injury (Koppel et al. 2011). When asked about the influence of safety in the new vehicle purchase process, a greater proportion of older consumers reported that all new vehicles are safe and a signif- icantly greater proportion of older consumers reported that their vehicle was safer than average compared to middle-aged and younger vehicle consumers. These findings are consistent with the research reported by Charlton et al. (2002) and Zhan and Vrkljan (2011) that suggested that older consumers may not understand that there are differences between vehicles in terms of their crashworthiness and how different vehicles can provide different levels of occupant protection in the event of a motor vehicle crash. Interestingly, when presented with a list of vehicle features (such as automatic transmission, braking, air bags), older con- sumers in the current study were most likely to identify ABS (41%) as the most important vehicle feature. These findings are consistent with Zhan and Vrkljan (2011), who reported that though older consumers highlighted the importance of safety features (i.e., seat belts, air bags, braking), they often downplayed the role of safety in their vehicle purchasing de- cisions. How Do Older Consumers Conceptualize Vehicle Safety? The third aim of the current studywas to investigate how older consumers conceptualize vehicle safety. When asked to list up to 3 factors that make a vehicle safe, older consumers in the current study were most likely to list braking systems (35%), air bags (22%), and the driver’s behavior or skill (11%). These findings are consistent with earlier research conducted by Charlton et al. (2002) and Koppel et al. (2008), who reported that older consumers are more likely to equate vehicle safety with the presence of specific vehicle safety features or tech- nologies rather than the vehicles’ crash test results or crash- worthiness. These findings are also consistent with Zhan and Vrkjlan (2011), who reported that within their focus groups, many older consumers argued that vehicle technologies were less important than a driver’s own skills and habits. These results are also consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that older drivers adapt their driving patterns to match age-related changes in their functional abilities, such as self-regulating when, where, and how they drive. For example, older adults typically choose to reduce their exposure by driv- ing fewer annual kilometers, making shorter trips, and mak- ing fewer trips by linking different trips together (Benekohal et al. 1994; Rosenbloom 1995, 1999). Older drivers have also been found to avoid complex traffic maneuvers that require high cognitive demands (Ball et al. 1998; Charlton et al. 2006; Charlton et al. 2006; Hakamies-Blomqvist and Wahlstrom 1998), limit their peak hour and night driving, restrict long distance travel, take more frequent breaks, and drive only on familiar and well lit roads (Ernst and O’Connor 1988; Smiley 1999). Profile for Older Consumers for Whom Safety Features Are a High Priority in the Vehicle Purchasing Decision The final aim of the current study was to identify those older consumers more likely to assign a higher priority to safety features in the vehicle purchasing process. Logistic regression analysis was used to predict the factors associated with older consumers who rated at least one vehicle feature high in the D ow nl oa de d by [ U ni ve rs ity o f K en t] a t 1 5: 53 1 1 N ov em be r 20 14 600 Koppel et al. survey. The analysis showed that the importance of safety- related features was influenced by several variables, including: consumers’ beliefs that they can protect themselves and their families from a crash, their traffic infringement histories, and whether they have children. Interestingly, older consumers earning more than $50,000 per year were significantly less likely to rate safety related features highly in the vehicle pur- chase process compared to those earning less than $50,000. The findings of this analysis suggest that there is still some work to do in terms of educating older consumers about the importance of vehicle safety in the vehicle purchase process. Limitations Some limitations of this study are noted. Firstly, the response rate for this questionnaire was moderately low (45%), and very limited information was provided by Pureprofile in terms of the representativeness of their group to the population of Australia, so those who chose to complete the questionnaire may not necessarily be representative of the Australian ve- hicle purchasing population. Secondly, the findings from the current study are purely based on the responses of vehicle consumers and have not been verified by another source such as a vehicle dealer (e.g., Johansson-Stenman and Martinsson 2006), and therefore it is important to note that participants in research about behaviors that are not socially acceptable have been shown to minimize the extent of their negative behav- iors (Swann et al. 2005). To minimize this social acceptability bias, any reference to safety was avoided in the introductory information about the questionnaire. Nevertheless, it is possi- ble that some vehicle consumers may have surmised that the research aimwas safety related andmay have overreported the importance of vehicle safety in their vehicle purchase process. Themodeling demonstrated some statistically significant find- ings; however, the confidence intervals suggest that the analy- sis was limited by a small sample. The results obtained would need to be replicated by a larger sample size to ensure that the study is well powered and provide more certainty around the effect sizes estimated. Though this study investigated the importance of vehicle safety in the vehicle purchase process, these findings could be enhanced through the use of other sur- vey methods such as willingness-to-pay. These techniques of- fer greater insight into what is really important in consumers’ buying strategies through the use of in-depth questioning and trade-off scenarios. For example, Andersson (2005) reported that Swedish vehicle consumers were willing to spend more money on vehicles with a higher estimated safety level; that is, consumers paid a safety premium for safer cars. Conclusions Given older drivers’ physical fragility and hence increased vul- nerability to injury, vehicle safety and keeping older occupants safe within their vehicle is a particularly important issue and one that could provide great potential in terms of possible safety gains (Charlton et al. 2002).However, the findings of the current study suggest that though vehicle safety is important to older consumers, it is not the most important consideration in their vehicle purchase process. The findings from this study provide a foundation to support further research in this area that can be used by policy makers, manufacturers, and other stakeholders to better target the promotion and publicity of vehicle safety features to particular consumer groups (such as older consumers). For example, vehicle manufacturers and dealerships may also be able to play a significant role in ed- ucating older drivers about the value of safety features and their role in reducing the risk of injury/death. This is particu- larly relevant because older drivers are willing to use/purchase new technology if they are provided with adequate training (Rogers et al. 1996) and if the benefits of the technology are clear to them (Melenhorst et al. 2001). In addition, vehicle manufacturers could develop a delivery process that famil- iarizes older drivers with the technologies of the vehicle at the time of the vehicle purchase and train older drivers to maximize the benefits of these systems (Coughlin and Reimer 2006). If older consumers are better informed of the benefits of safety features when purchasing a vehicle, a further reduction in injuries and deaths related to motor vehicle crashes may be realized. References Andersson H. The value of safety as revealed in the Swedish car market: an application of the hedonic pricing approach. J Risk Uncertain. 2005;30:211–239. Augenstein J. Differences in clinical response between the young and the elderly. Paper presented at: Aging and Driving Symposium; Feburary 19–20, 2001; Des Plaines, IL. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Population Projections, Australia, 2006–2101. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2010. Cat. no. 3222.0. Benekohal R, Michaels R, Shim E, Resende P. Effects of aging on older drivers’ travel characteristics. Transportation Research Record. 1994;1438:91–98. Charles River Associates Incorporated. Consumer Acceptance of Auto- motive Crash Avoidance Devices – A report of qualitative research. Boston, Massachusetts: US Department of Transportation; 1998. Charlton JL, Oxley J, Fildes B, Oxley P, Newstead S, Koppel S, O’Hare M. Characteristics of older drivers who adopt self-regulatory driving behaviours. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 2006;9(5):363–373. Charlton J, Fildes B, Andrea D. Vehicle safety and older occupants. J Gerentechnology. 2002;1:274–286. Clark B, Hoareau E, Newstead SV, Koppel S, Charlton JL. Understand- ing the Key Mechanisms That Drive Consumer Choice in Non-fleet Vehicle Selection. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre; 2012. Coughlin JF, Reimer B. New Demands From an Older Population: An Integrated Approach to Defining the Future of Older Driver Safety. In Proceedings of the Society of Automotive Engineers Convergence Conference, Detroit, MI, 2006. SAE Paper 2006-21-0008. Dejeammes M, Ramet M. Aging process and safety enhancement of car occupants. Paper presented at: 15th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles; May 13–16, 1996; Melbourne, Australia. Desrosiers Automotive Reports. The need for dialogue: A perspective on vehicle safety, vol. 16(9), 2002. Eby D, Molnar L. Has the Time Come for an Older Driver Vehicle? Ann Arbor,MI:University ofMichiganTransportationResearch Institute; 2012. Report No. UMTRI-2012-5. Ernst R, O’Connor P. Report on accident countermeasures focusing on elderly drivers. Adelaide: South Australian Department of Road Transport; 1988. D ow nl oa de d by [ U ni ve rs ity o f K en t] a t 1 5: 53 1 1 N ov em be r 20 14 Importance of Vehicle Safety to Older Consumers 601 GeneralMotors Corporation. Continuous AutomotiveMarket Informa- tion Program Buyer Behaviour. Detroit, MI: General Motors Corpo- ration; 1994. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2000. J.D. Power and Associates. Automotive Consumer Profile Study. Agoura Hills, CA: J.D. Power and Associates; 1993. Johansson-Stenman O, Martinsson P. Honestly, why are you driv- ing a BMW? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 2006;60:129–146. Koppel S, Bohensky M, Langford J, Taranto D. Older drivers, crashes and injuries. Traffic Inj Prev. 2011;12:459–467. Koppel S, Charlton JL, Fildes B, Fitzharris M. How important is ve- hicle safety in the new vehicle purchase process? Accid Anal Prev. 2008;40:994–1004. Li G, Braver ER, Chen L. Fragility versus excessive crash involvement as determinants of high death rates per vehicle-mile of travel among older drivers. Accid Anal Prev. 2003;35:227–235. Mackay M. Occupant protection and vehicle design. Paper presented at: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine Course on the Biomechanics of Impact Trauma; December 10–12, 1998; Los Angeles, CA. Market & Opinion Research International (MORI). 2005. Euro NCAP Consumer Car Buying Survey 2005. Available at www. euroncap.com/content/media/press releases/november 29 2005 survey1.html Melenhorst A, Rogers WA, Caylor EC. The use of communication tech- nologies by older adults: exploring the benefits from the users perspec- tive. Paper presented at: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society 45th Annual Meeting, October 8–12, 2001; Minneapolis, MN. Newstead SV, Keall MD, Watson LM. Rating the overall secondary safety of vehicles from real world crash data: the Australian and New Zealand Total Secondary Safety Index. Accid Anal Prev. 2011;43:637–645. Newstead SV, Watson LM, Cameron M. Vehicle Safety Ratings Es- timated From Police Reported Crash Data: 2012 Update Australian and New Zealand Crashes During 1987–2010. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre; 2012. Report 313. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Ageing and Transport. Mobility Needs and Safety Issues. Paris, France: OECD Publications; 2001. Padmanaban J. Crash injury experience of elderly drivers. Paper pre- sented at: Aging and Driving Symposium; Feburary 19–20, 2001; Des Plaines, IL. Progressive Insurance Co. 2001. Safety takes a back seat when shop- ping for a new car. Available from http://www.progressive.com/ newsroom/new car.asp. Accessed August 21, 2003. Rogers WA, Fisk AD, Mead SE, Walker N, Cabrera EF. Training older adults to use automatic teller machines. Hum Factors. 1996; 38:425–433. Rosenbloom S. Travel by the Elderly. In 1990 Nationwide Per- sonal Transportation Survey: Demographic Special Reports. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; 1995. Rosenbloom S. The mobility of the elderly: There’s good news and bad news. Paper presented at the conference onTransportation in anAging Society: A Decade of Experience, Transportation Research Board, Maryland; 1999. SivakM, Schoettle B.Recent Changes in the Age Composition of Drivers in 15 Countries. Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan Transportation Research Institute; 2011. Report No. UMTRI-2011-43. Smiley A. Adaptive strategies of older drivers. Paper presented at the Transportation in an Aging Society: A decade of Experience, Trans- portation Research Board, Maryland; 1999. Swann AA, Matthews CE, Ebbeling CB, Moore CG, Cunningham JE, Fulton J, Hebert JR. The Effect of Social Desirability and Social Approval on Self-Reports of Physical Activity. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2005;161:389–398. Viano DC, Culver CC, Evans L, Frick M, Scott R. Involvement of older drivers in multi-vehicle side impact crashes. Accid Anal Prev. 1990;22:177–188. Zhan J, Vrkjlan B. Exploring factors that influence vehicle purchase decisions of older drivers: Where does safety fit? Paper presented at: Sixth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design; June 27–30, 2011; Lake Tahoe, CA. D ow nl oa de d by [ U ni ve rs ity o f K en t] a t 1 5: 53 1 1 N ov em be r 20 14