Safety Science 47 (2009) 13371345

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssc i

The effect of aviation safety education on passenger cabin safety awareness

a,*
Yu-Hern Chang , Meng-Yuan Liao a,b,1
a
Department of Transportation and Communication Management Science, National Cheng Kung University, 1 Da-shue Road, Tainan 70101, Taiwan
b
Department of Aviation Service Management, Aletheia University, 70-11 Pei-shi Liao, Mato, Tainan County, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper examines the effect of aviation safety education on passenger cabin safety awareness in
Received 5 June 2008 knowledge, attitude, and behavior (KAB). The educational value of KAB has been addressed in various
Received in revised form 30 November 2008 elds such as AIDS prevention and campus safety. KAB has been applied in aviation safety related areas,
Accepted 6 February 2009
especially in training, such as crew resource management training, pilot training, and mechanic training.
However, KAB has not been implemented in aviation passenger education in cabin safety. This paper uses
the construct of aviation safety education, which is intended to inuence airline passenger knowledge
Keywords:
of, attitude toward, and behavior about cabin safety awareness. Passenger surveys were done at two Tai-
Aviation safety education
wan airports. The results show that aviation safety education positively affects airline passenger cabin
Cabin safety
Knowledge safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior. We recommend safety education that involves accurate
Attitude instruction about emergency equipment procedures, situational awareness, emergency responses, and
Behavior relevant cabin-safety regulations.
Our ndings indicated that an increase in cabin safety knowledge positively affected airline passenger
behavior, which supported knowledgebehavior consistency. We also found that a positive attitude
toward cabin safety positively affected airline passenger behavior, which supported attitudebehavior
consistency. The hypothesis that cabin safety knowledge positively affected passenger attitude knowl-
edgeattitude consistency was not supported.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The primary purpose of aviation safety education is to provide
airline passengers with accurate cabin safety knowledge, cultivate
positive passenger attitude, and appropriately affect passenger
behavior when an emergency occurs. Many cases of aircraft acci-
dents reveal that airline passengers need to be taught more about
ight safety. On 25 August 2000, a Hawaii BIA airlines PA-31-350
had engine failure and ditched into Hilo Bay with one fatality and
eight minor injuries. The passenger who died had inated their life
jacket too early to escape from the exit. On 13 July 2003, an Air Sun
Shine Cessna 402 ditched into Treasure Cay, Bahamas, causing two
deaths and ve minor injuries. One passenger had put three life
jackets on a child, while another had inated their life jacket before
exiting the aircraft. These cases reveal that one reason airline pas-
sengers act inappropriately in an emergency may be due to over-
stress or panic. However, Edwards (1990) pointed out that the pur-
pose of passenger education is to reduce stress and panic caused by
emergencies in order to allow passengers to prepare in advance to
face danger. In addition, passengers may generally lack accurate
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 6 275 7575x53220; fax: +886 6 275 3882.
E-mail addresses: yhchang@mail.ncku.edu.tw (Y.-H. Chang), myliao@mail.au.
edu.tw, liaoderder@gmail.com (M.-Y. Liao).
1
Tel.: +886 6 570 3100x7437; fax: +886 6 570 3834.
cabin safety knowledge, and they may have a passive attitude
about and be unprepared for emergencies, thereby contributing
to their own deaths and to the endangerment of other passengers.
Christensen (2005) developed new guidelines to educate passen-
gers about evacuations with infants or young children, stating that
passenger knowledge is a key factor that impacts passenger re-
sponses during an airplane accident. Also, Muir and Thomas
(2004) concluded that increasing airline passenger safety educa-
tion would increase the probability of passenger survival in an
emergency.
Aviation safety education is generally available to airline passen-
gers before and during their ights, but not to all members of the gen-
eral public, however, compared to other mass transportation, re
education, and safety education in public places. Although there are
fewer aviation accidents than accidents in other transportation elds,
the severity of aircraft accidents is usually much greater. However,
when aviation accidents occur, passengers still have a good chance
to survive. A study by The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) showed a 47% survival rate of passengers in aircraft accidents
(NTSB, 2006). Therefore, airline passengers are encouraged to learn
more cabin safety knowledge in order to develop a proper attitude
and, ultimately, to alter their behavior in emergencies.
The knowledge, attitude, and behavior (KAB) approach has been
discussed in several other areas. Pontes and Pontes (2005; p. 9) re-
ported that consumers with low knowledge exhibited a treatment

0925-7535/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.02.001
1338 Y.-H.
Y.-H.
Chang,
Chang,
M.-Y.
M.-Y.
LiaoLiao
/ Safety
/ Safety
bias and preferred physicians who provided more treatment, and
consumer education successfully reversed the treatment bias.
Rosenbloom et al. (2008) showed that an educational program con-
tributed to the improvement of childrens knowledge and behav-
ioral intentions about road safety. Miller et al. (1990) found that
using the KAB approach supported AIDS prevention. In addition,
Shaftel and Shaftel (2005) reported that the inuence of teaching
on knowledge and skill development is well understood at univer-
sities, but that much less is known about the inuence of effective
education on student attitude and behavior. Therefore, what indi-
viduals know may inuence their attitude about the topic, and how
they feel about that topic may inuence their behavior (Schrader
and Lawless, 2004).
However, the relationship between education and the KAB ap-
proach is rarely substantiated by solid empirical evidence (Fabrigar
et al., 2006), especially in aviation safety education for airline
passengers. Hence, the primary purpose of this study was to apply
aviation safety education using the KAB approach to test the im-
pact of aviation safety education on airline passenger cabin safety
knowledge, attitude, and behavior. The secondary purpose was to
identify, for potential providers of safety education, what airline
passengers need to know about airline cabin safety.
2. Conceptual background and hypotheses
2.1. Aviation safety education
The ying public usually obtains safety information from the
moment they enter the airport. To ensure ight safety, the carriers
typically follow standard procedures in providing both preight
and onboard safety information. Ground staff are instructed to or-
ally remind passengers at the departure lobby about ight safety
requirements, such as prohibited goods in carry-on baggage. Fur-
thermore, INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION (ICAO) (2001) AN-
NEX 6 CHAPTER 4 FLIGHT OPERATION, 4.2.11 PASSENGERS says that the air
operator shall ensure that passengers are familiarized with the
location and use of seat belts or harnesses, emergency exits, life
jackets, oxygen dispensing equipment, and other emergency
equipment provided for individual use. In an emergency during a
ight, passengers shall be instructed in such emergency action as
may be appropriate to the circumstances. The cabin crew is
responsible for providing safety demonstrations of the above infor-
mation to the passengers and running safety checks during the
ight. However, passengers usually ignore the safety demonstra-
tions because they may be distracted by other things or assume
that they already know what they are about to be told.
The content of aviation safety education can be divided into two
parts: regulations and hazardous circumstances. Murray and Tilley
(2006) reported that traditional safety education for sh harvesters
focuses on making the individual aware of safety regulations and
procedures. We believe that these two parts are also necessary
for aviation safety education. This suggests that passengers need
to know the most common potentially hazardous circumstances,
such as emergency landing, ditching, and in-ight turbulence,
and how to use the aircrafts emergency equipment (Edwards,
1990). People easily become nervous and even panic in unfamiliar
circumstances. Aviation safety education may help passengers de-
crease their panic and be mentally better prepared to appropriately
respond to emergencies.
2.2. The effect of aviation safety education on airline passenger cabin
safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior
A safe-driving education program in a New Zealand school
showed signicant improvement in students knowledge about
safe driving (Harre and Field, 1998). Also, an examination of the
Science
Science
47 (2009)
47 (2009)
13371345
13371345 1338
relationship between an education program and workers percep-
tions of workplace safety revealed that education positively af-
fected safety perception and lowered the accident rate (Gyekye
and Salminen, 2008). Different educational approaches have differ-
ent degrees of inuence on peoples knowledge, attitude, and
behavior. Borgia et al. (2005) compared the effectiveness of peer-
led and teacher-led curricula in AIDS prevention programs.
Although both groups showed signicant improvements in skill,
knowledge, attitude, and risk perception, the peer-led group
learned more than the teacher-led group. Here are reports of the
effects of topic-specic user education in other elds. They all
show a positive association between safety education and knowl-
edge, attitude, behavior. It is our intent to show a similar associa-
tion between safety education and KAB in commercial aviation.
Therefore, our rst three hypotheses for aviation safety education
are (Fig. 1):
H1: Aviation safety education will positively affect airline pas-
senger cabin safety knowledge.
H2: Aviation safety education will positively affect airline pas-
senger cabin safety attitude.
H3: Aviation safety education will positively affect airline pas-
senger cabin safety behavior.
2.3. The KAB approach
The knowledge, attitude, and behavior (KAB) approach has been
addressed in various elds; it has also long been assumed that in-
creases in knowledge are associated with a greater inuence of
attitude on behavior (Fabrigar et al., 2006; p. 557), and also
showed that knowledge positively affected the attitudebehavior
consistency of individuals in experiments. Kallgren and Wood
(1986) found that attitude based on large amounts of knowledge
were more highly correlated with environmentally related behav-
ior than attitude based on small amounts of knowledge. Lichten-
berg and Zimmerman (1999) reported that the safe use of
pesticides depended on the extent to which information was well
understood and translated into safer behavior and more thoughtful
attitude. In addition, several studies have reported that the interre-
lationships of KAB are complicated, dynamic, interactive (Alexan-
der and Dochy, 1995; Bruvold, 1990; Kim and Hunter, 1993), and
sometimes reciprocal (Schrader and Lawless, 2004). Therefore,
our next three hypotheses (Fig. 1) are:
H4: An airline passengers cabin safety knowledge will posi-
tively affect the passengers cabin safety attitude.
H5: An airline passengers cabin safety attitude will positively
affect the passengers cabin safety behavior.
H4
H2
H6
H5
Fig. 1. The conceptual model of the study.
1339 Y.-H.
Y.-H.
Chang,
Chang,
M.-Y.
M.-Y.
LiaoLiao
/ Safety
/ Safety
Science
H6: An airline passengers cabin safety knowledge will posi-
tively affect the passengers cabin safety behavior.
3. Methodology
3.1. Questionnaire design and sampling
We used a questionnaire to collect empirical data. Schrader and
Lawless (2004) suggested that knowledge consists of three forms:
(1) declarative, or knowing what, (2) procedural, or knowing how
and (3) conditional, or knowing when and why. To determine what
cabin safety knowledge airline passengers have, we may ask what
they know about the types of goods permitted and prohibited in
carry-on baggage, and whether they know the responsibilities of
passengers in exit-row seats, whether they know how to use the
airline-provided oxygen mask and life jacket, and whether they
know the proper time to inate the life jacket and why, and so on.
Some psychologists (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993; Erwin, 2001; Ga-
ble and Wolf, 1993) suggest that attitude includes three compo-
nents: cognitive, affective, and conative or behavioral. The
cognitive component represents the belief or idea associated with
a particular object. The affective component is the individuals
evaluation of the object and emotion associated with that object.
The conative component represents the action or intention toward
action directed at that object.
The theory of Research Action (TORA) (Ajzen and Fishbein,
1980) explains the relationship between attitude and behavior.
Shaftel and Shaftel (2005, p. 234) claimed that attitude also affects
behavioral intention, which represent a plan of action that is ar-
rived at through conscious, deliberative processing. Davidson
et al. (1985) found that intention based on a greater rather than
a lesser degree of knowledge was better predictors of behavior.
Therefore, in the present study, behavioral intention was used to
measure the cabin safety behavior of airline passengers.
Based on a review of the literature specically on aviation safety
education (Edwards, 1990) and cabin safety characteristics (Mur-
ray and Tilley, 2006; Subramaniam, 2004), airline passengers ca-
bin safety knowledge (Schrader and Lawless, 2004), attitude
(Eagly and Chaiken, 1993; Erwin, 2001; Gable and Wolf, 1993),
and behavioral intention (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980), we designed
a 39-item questionnaire. The questionnaire included all constructs
of the proposed model for investigating the hypotheses of interest.
We revised the survey instrument with feedback from ve aviation
safety experts, and nalized it after a January 2007 pilot sample of
110 airline passengers at the Tainan municipal airport, Taiwan. The
total Cronbachs a for testing reliability was larger than 0.7, which
is considered a satisfactory level of reliability in basic research (Lit-
win, 1995; Nunnally, 1978; Sekaran, 2003). The content validity of
the questionnaire used in this study was tested through a literature
review and interviews with practitioners, i.e., the items in the
questionnaire were based on previous studies and revised by a
number of aviation safety experts. Conrmatory factor analysis
with a multiple-indicator measurement model has been suggested
by several researchers to ensure validity (Anderson and Gerbing,
1988; Segars, 1997). We used conrmatory factor analysis to as-
sess the construct validity. Hence, the content validity and reliabil-
ity of the survey instrument were adequate. The questionnaire had
ve parts: (1) airline passenger perception of aviation safety edu-
cation [18 items], (2) airline passenger understanding of cabin
safety information [7 items], (3) airline passenger attitude about
cabin safety [8 items], (4) airline passenger cabin safety behavior
[5 items], and (5) demographic data of the participants [6 items].
The rst, third, and fourth parts of the questionnaire contained
Likert-scaled value statements from 1 = strongly disagree to
Science
47 (2009)
47 (2009)
13371345
13371345 1339
5 = strongly agree. The second part contained Likert-scaled value
statements from 1 = totally unaware to 5 = totally aware. The fth
part asked for 6 items of demographic information: gender, age,
occupation, education, number of ights yearly, and purpose of
air travel.
The empirical study was done in Taipeis Songshan Airport
(domestic ights) and Taoyuan International Airport, Taiwan. In
general, larger samples produce more stable solutions that are
more replicable. A sample size of 200500 is appropriate when
using the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique (Schu-
macker and Lomax, 1996). Because of limitations in time and per-
sonnel to collect data, we using a convenience sample approach by
acquiring our data from 300 lled-out questionnaires collected in
the lobbies of these two airports in May 2007 (150 from each air-
port). Espinoza (1999) and Hsieh and Hiang (2004) pointed out
that when the study analyzing the relationship among variables
was faced with limited sources, then using convenience sampling
is acceptable.
3.2. Data analysis
Based on Koufteros (1999) and Koufteros et al. (2001), we ana-
lyzed the data in three stages. First, Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rota-
tion were used on aviation safety education and airline passenger
perceptions of their own cabin safety knowledge, attitudes, and
behaviors. EFA is a method for determining how many latent vari-
ables underlie the complete set of items and reducing those items
to a smaller, more manageable set of underlying factors. PCA is a
method of factor extraction that, in its full form, seeks the set of fac-
tors that can account for all the common and unique variance in a set
of variables: in other words, a data-reduction method. In the second
stage, a conrmatory factor analysis was used to specify and estimate
of one or more hypothetical models of factor structure, each of which
propose a set of latent variables to account for covariance within a set
of observed variables (Koufteros, 1999). In the third stage, we used
the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique and empirically
tested the relationships between aviation safety education and cabin
safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior. SEM is a multivariate tech-
nique that allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations.
It is also a statistical modeling technique that can handle a large num-
ber of endogenous and exogenous variables and, therefore, explain
the entire set of relationships (Hair et al., 2006).
4. Empirical results
4.1. Participant demographics
Of the 300 returned questionnaires, 288 were usable (response
rate = 96%). The great majority of the respondents were under
40 years old (79.9%), and a slight majority of the passengers were
male (55.9%). Most (69.8%) respondents had college degrees. The
two primary types of occupation of the respondents were white-
collar worker (34.7%) and service worker (18.1%). Almost half
(47.2%) the respondents made fewer than three ights annually,
and almost a quarter (24.7%) made between three and six ights
annually. The two main purposes for air travel were leisure/recre-
ation (37.2%) and business (29.9%) (Table 1). More than eighty-ve
percent (85.4%) of the respondents had an above average
education.
4.2. Exploratory factor analysis
We used a multi-attribute approach with an 18-item scale to
analyze aviation safety education and airline passenger cabin
1340 Y.-H.
Y.-H.
Chang,
Chang,
M.-Y.
M.-Y.
LiaoLiao
/ Safety
/ Safety
Science
Science
47 (2009)
47 (2009)
13371345
13371345 1340

Table 1 Table 2
Demographic prole of study participants (N = 288). Factor analysis of aviation safety education.

Variable n % Factors/items Factor EVa % of Cronbachs

loading variance a
Gender
Male 161 55.9 Factor 1: Emergency equipment use 3.780 22.235 0.900
Female 127 44.1 procedures
3040 years old 107 AE4 Correct use of oxygen mask 0.811
Age
AE7 Correct timing to inate life jacket 0.809
<30 years old 123 42.7
5160 years old 10 AE6 Correct method of wearing life 0.782
>60 years old 1 jacket 0.719
4150 years old 47 16.3 AE5while
Explanation
ditchingof necessity to fasten
0.3

Education seat belt 0.574

Junior high school 10 3.5
Factor 2: Situational awareness and 2.983 17.548 0.863
High school 32 11.1
Response
College 201 69.8
AE13 Notice the nearest exit during 0.729
Graduate school 45 15.6
take-off and landing
Occupation AE10 Correct response when 0.706
Housewife 10 3.5 turbulence occurs
Student 45 15.6 AE14 Passenger safety education 0.630
Service industry 52 18.1 provided while they are on board
Government employee 39 3.5 AE11 Limitation of exit-row seating 0.618
White collar worker 100 34.7 Passenger
Blue collar worker 2 0.7 AE9 Obligation of exit-row seating 0.539
Others 40 13.9 Passenger
Number of ights per year Factor 3: Regulations necessary to know 2.635 15.502 0.857
<3 136 47.2 AE2 The penalty for being an unruly 0.843
36 71 24.7 Passenger
710 34 11.8 AE1 Items prohibited from carrying on 0.841
P11 47 16.3 Board
Purpose of air travel AE3 Check-in luggage regulations 0.729
Business 86 29.9 Factor 4: Aviation safety education 2.512 14.778 0.768
Leisure and recreation 107 37.2 Channels
Visit friends and relatives 39 13.5 AE18 Government 0.826
Others 56 19.4 AE16 Compulsory education 0.823
AE17 Airlines 0.633
AE15 Society 0.564

safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior. Principle component fac-
tor analysis showed that four factors with an eigenvalue greater
than one explained 70.063% of the aviation safety education-scale
variance. One item relating to straightening the seat during takeoff
and landing had a factor loading less than 0.5 and was removed
from the scale. The varimax-rotated factor pattern implied that
the rst factor concerned emergency equipment use procedures
(5 items, a = 0.900), the second concerned situational awareness
and response (5 items, a = 0.863), the third concerned regula-
tions necessary to know (3 items, a = 0.857), and the fourth con-
cerned aviation safety education channels (4 items, a = 0.768)
(Table 2). The arithmetic means of the four multi-item factors were
used to build the construct of aviation safety education for subse-
quent analysis. Reliability for each of the factors was obtained
using the calculation of a Cronbach a coefcient. The Cronbach a
coefcients ranged from 0.900 to 0.768 (Table 2). All factors were
above the cut-off criterion of 0.7 recommended by Nunnally
(1978).
Similarly, two factors with an eigenvalue greater than one sep-
arately explained 78.092% of the variance in airline passenger ca-
bin safety knowledge and 64.112% of the variance in the attitude
scale using principal component factor analysis. One item relating
to goods prohibited from carry-on baggage that had a factor load-
ing less than 0.5 was removed from the scale. The varimax-rotated
factor pattern implied that the rst factor related to emergency
equipment (4 items, a = 0.884) with cabin safety knowledge and
to perception (4 items, a = 0.847) with cabin safety attitude.
The second factor related to emergency exit (2 items, a = 0.793)
with cabin safety knowledge and to belief (4 items, a = 0.760)
with cabin safety attitude (Tables 3 and 4). The arithmetic means
in each of the two multi-item factors were used to build the
constructs of cabin safety knowledge and attitude for subsequent
Total variance explained (%): 70.063; KMO = 0.913; Bartlett test: v2 = 3051.535,
df = 136, p = 0.0001.
a
Eigenvalue.
analysis. All 5 items (a = 0.836) were used to build the construct
of cabin safety behavior for further analysis: item 1: I am willing
to obey the regulations on goods prohibited from being carried on
board; item 2: I am willing to carefully listen to the cabin crews
safety demonstration every time I board a plane; item 3: I am
willing to verify the location of the nearest exit every time I board
a plane; item 4: I am willing to fasten my seat belt during the en-
tire trip; item 5: I am willing to carefully read the safety brieng
card every time I board a plane.
Reliability for each of the factors was obtained using the calcu-
lation of a Cronbach a coefcient. The Cronbach a coefcients ran-
ged from 0.884 to 0.760 (Tables 24). All factors were above the
cut-off criterion of 0.7 recommended by Nunnally (1978).
4.3. Conrmatory factor analysis
Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the ade-
quacy of the measurement model using LISREL with a covariance
matrix to test the convergent validity of the constructs in subse-
quent analyses. The t indices suggested by Joreskog and Sorbom
(1993) and Hair et al. (2006) were used to assess the model. The
convergent validity of CFA results should be supported by item
reliability (standardized factor loadings and t-values), construct
reliability, and average variance extracted (Hair et al., 2006). The
t-values for all the standardized factor loadings of the items were
signicant (p < 0.01) (Table 5). In addition, construct reliability
estimates ranging from 0.70 to 0.90 exceeded the critical value of
1341 Y.-H.
Y.-H.
Chang,
Chang,
M.-Y.
M.-Y.
LiaoLiao
/ Safety
/ Safety
Science
Science
47 (2009)
47 (2009)
13371345
13371345 1341

Table 3 4.4. Structural model

Factor analysis of airline passenger perceptions of cabin safety knowledge.

Factors/items
Factor 1: Emergency equipment
K4 You know the correct way to wear a
life jacket
K3 You know the correct way to use an
oxygen mask
K6 You know when to inate the life
jacket
K5 You know the correct way to
reduce damage during a collision
Factor 2: Emergency exit
K7 You know the limitations of exit-
row passengers
K2 You know the responsibilities of
exit-row passengers
Total variance explained (%): 78.092; KMO = 0.865; Bartlett test: v2 = 1000.426,
df = 15, p = 0.0001.
a
Eigenvalue.
Table 4
Factor analysis of airline passenger cabin safety attitude.
Factors/items
Factor 1: Perception
A5 Need to pay attention to cabin
crews demonstration
A8 Need to carefully read the safety
card
A4 Need to be actively alert for ight
safety information
A6 Need to notice the nearest exit
before take-off and landing
Factor 2: Belief
A1 Having a safe ight is each
passengers responsibility
A2 Complying with ight safety
regulations is publicized by the
government and airline
A7 Seatbelts should always be fastened
A3 You select an airline with a good
safety record
Total variance explained (%): 64.112; KMO = 0.857; Bartlett test: v2 = 938.879,
df = 28, p = 0.0001.
a
Eigenvalue.
Factor EVa % of Cronbachs After the proposed model had been puried during conrma-
loading variance a tory factor analysis, we applied the covariance matrix with the
2.668 44.462 0.884 26 measurement items as input. An SEM analysis was performed
0.896 to examine the relationships between each pair of hypothesized
constructs. The results of the hypotheses testing indicate a good
0.851
t between the model and the observed data (Table 6). The overall
0.765 t indices of the measurement model (v2 = 78 with 32 degrees of
freedom, p = 0.00001, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.98, Adjusted
0.625 Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.90, Comparative Fit Index
(CFI) = 0.98, Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.97, Non-Normed Fit Index
2.018 33.630 0.793 (NNFI) = 0.97, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
0.859
(RMSEA) = 0.071 (Table 6). Technically, the p-value should be
0.847 greater than 0.05, but our results yielded statistically insignicant
p-values. However, in practice the v2 value in LISREL is directly re-
lated to sample size (Doney and Cannon, 1997; Chen and Tsai,
2007) and frequently results in the rejection of a model that ts
well. Therefore, the ratio of v2 over df has been recommended as
a better measure of goodness-of-t (Hair et al., 2006). A better level
of the v2/df ratio is <3. The v2/df ratio of our model was 2.43 (i.e.,
78/32). The GFI, AGFI, and CFI exceeded or equaled the recom-
mended 0.9 threshold level. In addition, an RMSEA 6 0.05 is con-
Factor EVa % of Cronbachs sidered a good t (Steiger, 1989; Browne and Mels, 1990; Hair
loading variance a et al., 2006) whereas an RMSEA > 0.05 and <0.08 is considered a
2.727 34.091 0.847 fair t (Kaplan, 2000; Whang, 2002; Min and Mentzer, 2004).
0.842 Our analysis showed that aviation safety education has a signif-
icantly positive effect on airline passenger cabin safety knowledge,
0.813
attitude, and behavior (c1 = 0.17, t-value = 2.57; c2 = 0.69, t-va-
0.740 lue = 13.17; c3 = 0.44, t-value = 4.81; c5 = 0.41, t-value = 4.13; and
c6 = 0.18, t-value = 3.19; all p < 0.01) (Fig. 2) and, thus, that the
0.732 hypothesized model ts the empirical data. H1, H2, H3, H5, and H6
were supported at the p < 0.01, which indicated that those relation-
2.402 30.021 0.760 ships were at more signicant level (Hinkle et al., 1994; Hair et al,
0.829
2006), but H4, cabin safety knowledge has a positive effect on atti-
0.785 tude, was not supported due to the insignicance with a standard-
ized coefcient of 0.08, t-value 1.75 (p > 0.05). The empirical test
suggests that aviation safety education has a direct effect on airline
0.668
passenger cabin safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior. However,
0.591
the KAB conceptual model was not totally supported. The total ef-
fect of aviation safety education on cabin safety behaviors, which
includes the sum of the direct (0.44) and indirect effects on cabin
safety attitudes (0.69 0.41 = 0.28) and of the effect on cabin safety
knowledge (0.17 0.18 = 0.03), was 0.75 (0.44 + 0.28 + 0.03).

0.7 recommended by Hair et al. (2006), which indicated that con-
struct reliability was satisfactory. The average variances extracted
for all the constructs fell between 0.54 and 0.70, and were greater
than the value of 0.5 suggested by Hair et al. (2006). Composite
scores for each construct were obtained from the mean scores
across items, except for the construct of cabin safety behavior,
which used the individual scores of items 2, 3, and 5 after conr-
matory factor analysis.
The proposed conceptual model (Fig. 1) was tested by using the
following four constructs: aviation safety education and airline
passenger cabin safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior. The four
factors emergency equipment use procedures, situational
awareness and response, regulations necessary to know, and
aviation safety education channels were used as the measure-
ment variables of aviation safety education. The two factors emer-
gency equipment and emergency exit were the measurement
variables of airline passenger cabin safety knowledge. Also, the
two factors perception and belief were the measurement vari-
ables of the airline passenger cabin safety attitude. Airline passen-
ger cabin safety behavior was measured using three items.
5. Discussion
Based on the results of the structural model (Fig. 2), our primary
ndings show that the essential factors contributing to aviation
safety education for airline passengers are emergency equipment
use procedures, situational awareness and response, regula-
tions necessary to know and aviation safety education channels.
Emergency equipment use procedures is the most important fac-
tor contributing to aviation safety education, according to Edwards
(1991). Overall, airlines try to establish a pleasant image of ying
for air travelers. They do not wish to cause or increase passenger
anxiety by emphasizing emergencies and how airline passengers
should make themselves aware of and prepared for such statisti-
cally improbable emergencies. Moreover, airlines tend to overem-
phasize the service role of their cabin crew (Kelleher and
McGilloway, 2005), which may cause some passengers to ignore
the cabin crews safety role and in-ight safety demonstrations.
We suggest that the cabin crew provide safety and emergency pro-
cedure briengs in a rm tone of voice and remind passengers that
the safety information is very important to them.
1342 Y.-H.
Y.-H.
Chang,
Chang,
M.-Y.
M.-Y.
LiaoLiao
/ Safety
/ Safety
Science
Science
47 (2009)
47 (2009)
13371345
13371345 1342

Table 5
Conrmatory factor analysis.

Construct/items Standardized factor loading Standard error t-Value Construct reliability Average variance extracted
Aviation safety education
Emergency equipment use procedures 0.90 0.69
AE7 0.91 0.04 19.68**
AE4 0.77 0.04 15.07**
AE6 0.90 0.04 19.13**
AE8 0.73 0.05 13.92**
Situational awareness and response 0.80 0.58
AE13 0.75 0.03 14.10**
**
AE14 0.74 0.04 13.89
AE11 0.79 0.04 15.25**

Regulations necessary to know 0.75 0.60

AE2 0.88 0.04 15.41**
AE1 0.78 0.04 13.53**

Aviation safety education channels 0.81 0.67

AE16 0.70 0.05 11.97**
**
AE15 0.90 0.05 15.57
Cabin safety knowledge
Emergency equipment 0.89 0.67
K4 0.87 0.04 17.88**
K3 0.85 0.05 17.19**
K6 0.80 0.05 15.90**
K5 0.75 0.05 14.38**
Emergency exit 0.79 0.66
K7 0.81 0.06 14.72**
**
K2 0.81 0.06 14.76

Cabin safety attitude

Perception 0.85 0.58
A5 0.80 0.04 15.37**
A8 0.78 0.04 14.70**
A4 0.76 0.04 14.36**
A6 0.71 0.04 12.99**

Belief 0.70 0.54

A1 0.71
A2 0.89
Cabin safety behavior
Behavioral intention
B2 0.92
B3 0.73
B5 0.84
**
p < 0.01.
Emergency equipment and emergency exit are two impor-
tant factors contributing to passenger cabin safety knowledge. Ed-
wards (1991) says that increasing passengers understanding of
emergency equipment and procedures is the primary method of
improving aircraft accident survival rates. Therefore, to know
the limitations on and responsibilities of emergency exit-row
seating is important (Table 5). Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR, Part 121, Sec. 121.585) (2007) regulates what types of pas-
senger may and may not be assigned to exit-rows. The Taiwan Ci-
vil Aviation Administration (CAA) has a non-compulsory
suggestion for airlines to make passengers aware of exit-row seat-
ing requirements (Chang and Liao, 2008). The relevant informa-
tion should be provided to passengers for the benet of all
passengers. Passengers seated in exit-rows are responsible for
opening the emergency doors and for helping other passengers
evacuate in an emergency. The construct of passenger behavior
consists of attentiveness to in-ight safety demonstrations, exit-
row locations, and an awareness ight-safety-related materials.
The purpose of these behavioral intentions is that passengers be
mentally prepared for emergencies, by not panicking and by being
able to act appropriately.
Our results support our hypotheses because they indicate that
aviation safety education positively affects airline passenger cabin
safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior. Therefore, even though
we found no positive correlation between knowledge and attitude,
**
0.04 11.35
**
0.04 14.13
0.87 0.70
0.04 18.69**
0.04 13.68**
0.04 16.54**
we conclude that aviation safety education facilitates airline pas-
senger cabin safety awareness. This notion of knowledge is associ-
ated with an attitude consistency that has a limited ability to exert
a causal inuence on knowledgeattitude consistency. One possi-
ble reason is related to the amount, complexity, and specic con-
tent of knowledge. In particular, the content of knowledge may
often inuence attitude (Fabrigar et al., 2006). If, however, the
knowledge provided is insufcient, and the specic content is
not particularly related to that eld, the result may be an inconsis-
tency between knowledge and attitude. Therefore, the rst step for
developing adequate aviation safety education is to determine
what passengers need to know.
This knowledgeattitude inconsistency may exist because
forming attitude belief or perception is, for most people, more
related to how they value life (Debono, 1987; Homer and Kahle,
1988) and a reection of their personality (Ulleberg and Rundmo,
2003), something cultivated in a complex, long-term process,
rather than on how much objective knowledge they have about a
subject. Consequently, people may have formed attitude about var-
ious things but not necessarily based on the knowledge they have
acquired (Lingle and Ostrom, 1985; Fabrigar et al., 2006). There is a
general belief in Chinese society that accidents are controlled by
fate and, therefore, cannot be avoided. Therefore, a persons atti-
tude toward life-and-death issues is more inuenced by his or
her subjective belief than perceived knowledge. Besides, increased
1343 Y.-H.
Y.-H.
Chang,
Chang,
M.-Y.
M.-Y.
LiaoLiao
/ Safety
/ Safety
Science
Science
47 (2009)
47 (2009)
13371345
13371345 1343

Table 6 2007). While subject-specic education is undoubtedly a rst step

Structural model results. toward developing an individuals knowledge, the effects of that
Relationship t-Value Hypothesis knowledge on attitude may depend on more complex variables,
testing especially cultural and social values.
H1: Aviation safety education ? passengers cabin 2.57** Supported Indeed, education is important for knowledge and knowledge
safety knowledge behavior, and attitude and attitudebehavior consistency. Our
H2: Aviation safety education ? passengers cabin 13.17** Supported ndings support the implication that aviation safety education di-
safety attitude
H3: Aviation safety education ? passengers cabin 4.81** Supported
rectly affects airline passenger cabin safety knowledge, attitude,
safety behavior and behavior, and has a stronger effect on cabin safety attitude.
H4: Passengers cabin safety knowledge ? cabin safety 1.75 Not supported In addition, aviation safety education indirectly affects airlines pas-
attitude senger behavior through cabin safety knowledge and attitude. It
**
H5: Passengers cabin safety attitude ? cabin safety 4.13 Supported
indicates that cabin safety knowledge and attitude are also the
behavior
H6: Passengers cabin safety knowledge ? cabin safety 3.19 **
Supported two most important variables that inuence an airline passengers
behavior behavior.
GOODNESS OF FIT INDICES OF MODEL Criteria Indicators
v2 test 6. Conclusions
v2 78.00
v2/df <3 2.43 (78.00/32)
The research presented in this paper makes a contribution in a
FIT INDICES variety of ways. First, it uses an empirical method to evaluate the
GFI >0.9 0.98
effects of aviation safety education on passenger cabin safety
AGFI >0.9 0.90
CFI >0.9 0.98 awareness. It contributes to an understanding of the nature of avi-
NFI >0.9 0.97 ation safety education, which is a powerful and practical means of
NNFI >0.9 0.97 affecting and improving airline passenger cabin safety knowledge,
RMSEA <0.08 0.071
**
p < 0.01. Atti
Second, it provides
knowledge is likely to lead to attitude that are more stable and recommendations for airline safety manage- ment in cabin
resistant to change (Wilson et al., 1989; Eagly and Chaiken, crew training programs and for cabin safety educa- tion programs
1993). Thus, the knowledgeattitude inconsistency in the present for the general public. We divided aviation safety education into
study is understandable. four domains and evaluated each: emergency equipment use
It is also possible that the knowledgeattitude inconsistency is procedures, situational awareness and response,
cultural. Psychological, attitudinal, and cultural characteristics may regulations necessary to know, and aviation safety education
cause consumers to respond in a particular manner when facing channels. The present study also highlights the need for new types
food- or lifestyle-related hazards (Verbeke et al., 2007). Sudershan of safety demonstrations that place more emphasis on teaching
et al. (2007) concluded that, in Hyderabad, India, health education airline passengers how to correctly use the onboard emergency
about food safety needed to consider cultural differences. A similar equipment in the cabin. To increase the survival rate in a surviv-
caveat is applicable to aviation safety: numerous studies have able accident, there is also a need to educate airline passengers
shown that aviation safety behavior is strongly correlated with cul- to be more aware of emergencies so that they can take prompt
tural differences (Jing et al., 2001; Li and Harris, 2007; Li et al., and appropriate action.
Third, it advises passengers to always listen to the safety dem-
onstration every time aboard an airplane, recognize the nearest

Cabin safety Emergency

0.81
knowledge equipment
Emergency equipment 0.70
using procedures
Emergency Exit
0.17** (2.57) 0.08 (1.75)
0.54
Situational awareness
& response
0.49 0.69** (13.17) Perception
Aviation safety Cabin safety 0.60
education 0.18 **(3.19) attitude
0.42 0.58
Regulation necessary
Belief
to know
0.48

0.44 **(4.81) 0.41** (4.13)

attentiveness to in-flight
Aviation safety safety demonstration
education channels
0.60

Cabin safety attentiveness to exit

0.59
behavior location
0.62

cautiousness to flight
safety related materials
1344 Y.-H.
Y.-H.
Chang,
Chang,
M.-Y.
M.-Y.
LiaoLiao
/ Safety
/ Safety
Science
Science
47 (2009)
47 (2009)
13371345
13371345 1344

Fig. 2. Results of the structural model. Note: **parameter estimate is signicant at the 0.01 level. t-Values are in parentheses.
1345 Y.-H.
Y.-H.
Chang,
Chang,
M.-Y.
M.-Y.
LiaoLiao
/ Safety
/ Safety
emergency exit every time aboard an airplane, and carefully read
the safety information card every time aboard an airplane. Passen-
gers are asked to follow the cabin crews instructions when an
emergency occurs. However, the passengers will still need to rely
on themselves because the cabin crew may become incapacitated.
Although the verication of the KAB framework is not com-
pletely consistent in the present study, it is still an important con-
tribution toward understanding that education will lead to
improvements in aviation safety. Finally, further exploration in
cultural differences that may affect the education of airline passen-
gers in cabin safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior is needed for
the overall improvement of aviation safety.
Acknowledgment
This project was funded by grant NSC 96-2416-H-006-009-MY2
from the National Science Council, Taiwan.
Appendix A. Questionnaires
AE1 Do you think that the airline should give passengers
information about good prohibited from carrying on the
airplane before they board the airplane?
AE2 Do you think that the airline should tell passengers what
onboard unruly behaviors will be punished by the law?
AE3 Do you think that the airline should tell passengers the
safety requirements of the check-in luggage?
AE4 Do you think that the airline should illustrate the correct
method of wearing oxygen mask?
AE5 Do you think that the airline should illustrate the purpose
of using seat belts?
AE6 Do you think that the airline should tell passengers the
correct way to wear a life vest?
AE7 Do you think that the airline should tell passengers the
right moment to inate their life vest?
AE8 Do you think that the airline should illustrate any other
means to assist otation on the ocean surface?
AE9 Do you think that the airline should explain the
responsibilities of the passengers sitting next to the
emergency exits?
AE10 Do you think that the airline should tell passengers the
correct response when encounter turbulence?
AE11 Do you think that the airline should inform passengers of
the restrictions placed on those sitting next to the
emergency exits?
AE12 Do you think that the airline should require passengers to
erect their seats before take off and landing?
AE13 Do you think that the airline should tell passengers before
take-off and landing to know where all the emergency exits
are?
AE14 Do you think that the airline should provide aviation safety
education during ights?
AE15 Do you think that is it a good idea to spread the content of
the aviation safety education using social inuences?
AE16 Do you think that aviation safety education should be part
of everyones basic education?
AE17 Do you think that airlines are responsible for aviation safety
education?
AE18 Do you think that aviation safety education should be the
responsibility of the government?
K1 Do you know what goods are prohibited from being carried
on-board the airplane?
K2 Do you know the responsibilities of the passengers sitting
next to the emergency exit door?
Science
Science
47 (2009)
47 (2009)
13371345
13371345 1345
K3 Do you know the correct way to put on an oxygen mask?
K4 Do you know the correct way to wear a life vest?
K5 Do you know the correct way to reduce damage during a
collision?
K6 Do you know the correct moment to inate your life vest?
K7 Do you know the restrictions for passengers sitting next to
the emergency exit?
A1 Do you agree that maintaining cabin safety is every
passengers major responsibility?
A2 Do you agree that it is the passengers responsibility to
obey government cabin safety regulations to ensure safety?
A3 Do you agree that passengers should use an airlines safety
record when choosing the airline they wish to y?
A4 Do you agree that the public should actively pay attention
to cabin safety information?
A5 Do you agree that listening to the safety demonstration by
ight attendants every time when on board an airplane is
necessary?
A6 Do you agree that, before take-off and landing, knowing
where the emergency exits are is necessary?
A7 Do you agree that it is necessary to always keep your seat
belt fastened to be prepared for sudden turbulence in
ight?
A8 Do you agree that carefully reading the safety information
card every time you are aboard an airplane is necessary?
B1 I am willing to obey the regulations on goods prohibited
from being carried on board.
B2 I am willing to carefully listen to the cabin crews safety
demonstration every time I board a plane.
B3 I am willing to verify the location of the nearest exit every
time I board a plane.
B4 I am willing to fasten my seat belt during the entire trip.
B5 I am willing to carefully read the safety brieng card every
time I board a plane.
References
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Alexander, P.A., Dochy, F.J., 1995. Conceptions of knowledge and beliefs:
comparisons across varying cultural and educational communities. American
Educational Research Journal 32 (2), 413442.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),
411423.
Borgia, P., Marinacci, C., Schifano, P., Perucci, C.A., 2005. Is peer education the best
approach for HIV prevention in schools? Findings from a randomized controlled
trial. Journal of Adolescent Health 36, 508516.
Bruvold, W.H., 1990. A meta-analysis of the California school-based risk reduction
program. Journal of Drug Education 20 (2), 139152.
Browne, M.W., Mels, G., 1990. RAMONA Users Guide. Department of Psychology,
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Chang, Y.H., Liao, M.Y., 2008. Air passenger perception on exit row seating and ight
safety education. Safety Science 46, 14591468.
Chen, C.F., Tsai, D.C., 2007. How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioral intentions. Tourism Management 28, 11151122.
Christensen, J., 2005. Report recommends new efforts to educate airplane
passengers about evacuations with infants or young children. Flight Safety
Foundation-Cabin Crew Safety 40 (5), 15.
Davidson, A.R., Yantis, S., Norwood, M., Montano, D.E., 1985. Amount of information
about the attitude object and attitudebehavior consistency. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 49, 11841198.
Debono, K.G., 1987. Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive
functions of attitudes: implications for persuasion processes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 52 (2), 279287.
Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., 1997. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer
seller relationships. Journal of Marketing 61, 3551.
Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S., 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX.
Edwards, M., 1990. Stress, behavior, training and safety. Flight Safety Foundation-
Cabin Crew Safety 25 (3), 12.
1346 Y.-H.
Y.-H.
Chang,
Chang,
M.-Y.
M.-Y.
LiaoLiao
/ Safety
/ Safety
Science
Edwards, M., 1991. Safety in the air what more can be done. Flight Safety
Foundation-Cabin Crew Safety 26 (3), 12.
Erwin, P., 2001. Attitude and Persuasion. Taylor & Francis Inc., Philadelphia.
Espinoza, M.M., 1999. Assessing the cross-cultural applicability of a service quality
measure: a comparative study between Quebec and Peru. International Journal
of Service Industry Management 10 (5), 449468.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), FARs (Part 121.sec.121.585), 2007. <http://
www.rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/
FARSBySectLookup/121.585>.
Fabrigar, L.R., Petty, R.E., Smith, S.M., Crites, S.L., 2006. Understanding knowledge
effects on attitude-behavior consistency: the role of relevance, complexity, and
amount of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (4), 556
577.
Gable, R.K., Wolf, M.B., 1993. Instrument Development in the Affective Domain:
Measuring Attitudes and Values in Corporate and School Settings, second ed.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Gyekye, S.A., Salminen, S., 2008. Educational status and organizational safety
climate: Does educational attainment inuence workers perceptions of
workplace safety? Safety Science. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.200712.007.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate
Data Analysis, sixth ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harre, N., Field, J., 1998. Safe driving education programs at school: lessons from
New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 22 (4), 447
450.
Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W., Jurs, S.G., 1994. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences, third ed. Houghton Mifin Company, Boston, MA.
Homer, P.M., Kahle, L.R., 1988. A structural equation test of the value-attitude
behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (4), 638
664.
Hsieh, Y.C., Hiang, S.T., 2004. A study of the impacts of service quality on
relationship quality in search-experience-credence services. Total Quality
Management 15 (1), 4358.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 2001. <http://www.icaodsu.
openface.ca/documentItemView.ch2?ID=6428>.
Jing, H.S., Lu, C.J., Peng, S.J., 2001. Culture, authoritarianism and commercial aircraft
accidents. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 1 (4), 341359.
Joreskog, K.G., Sorbom, D., 1993. LISREL VIII: Users Reference Guide. Scientic
Software International, Chicago.
Kallgren, C.A., Wood, W., 1986. Access to attitude-relevant information in memory
as a determinant of attitudebehavior consistency. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 22, 328338.
Kaplan, D., 2000. Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kelleher, C., McGilloway, S., 2005. Survey nds ight levels of worked-related stress
among ight attendants. Flight Safety Foundation-Cabin Crew Safety 40 (6), 4.
Kim, M., Hunter, J.F., 1993. Attitudebehavior relations: a meta-analysis of
attitudinal relevance and topic. Journal of Communication 43 (1), 101
141.
Koufteros, X.A., 1999. Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for
manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. Journal of
Operations Management 17, 467488.
Koufteros, X.A., Vonderembase, M.A., Doll, W.J., 2001. Concurrent engineering and
its consequences. Journal of Operations Management 19, 97115.
Li, W.C., Harris, D., 2007. Confucius in western cockpits: the investigation of long-
term versus short-term orientation culture and aviation accidents. Engineering
Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics 4562, 716722.
Li, W.C., Harris, D., Chen, A., 2007. Eastern minds in western cockpits: meta-analysis
of human factors in mishaps from three nations. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 78 (4), 420425 (April 6).
Science
47 (2009)
47 (2009)
13371345
13371345 1346
Lichtenberg, E., Zimmerman, R., 1999. Information and farmers attitudes about
pesticides, water quality, and related environmental effects. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 73, 227236.
Lingle, J.H., Ostrom, T.M., 1985. Principles of memory and cognition in attitude
formation. In: Petty, R.E., Ostrom, T.M., Brock, T.C. (Eds.), Cognitive Responses in
Persuasion. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 399420.
Litwin, M.S., 1995. How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity. Sage
Publications, London.
Miller, T.E., Booraem, C., Flowers, J.V., Iversen, A.E., 1990. Changes in knowledge,
attitude, and behavior as a result of a community-based AIDS prevention
program. AIDS Education and Prevention 2 (1), 1223.
Min, S., Mentzer, J.T., 2004. Developing and measuring supply chain management
concepts. Journal of Business Logistics 25 (1), 72.
Muir, H., Thomas, L., 2004. Passenger education: past and future. In: The Fourth
Triennial International Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference,
Lisbon Conference Center, Portugal (November 1518).
Murray, M., Tilley, N., 2006. Promoting safety awareness in shing communities
through community arts: an action research project. Safety Science 44 (9), 797
808.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 2006. Accidents involving passenger
fatalities: US Airlines (Part 121) 1982-Present. <http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/
Paxfatal.htm> (accessed 22.05.08).
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, second ed. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
Pontes, M., Pontes, N., 2005. Debiasing effects of education about appropriate
antibiotic use on consumers preferences for physicians. Health Care
Management Review 30 (1), 9.
Rosenbloom, T., Haviv, M., Peleg, A., Nemrodov, D., 2008. The effectiveness of road-
safety crossing guards: knowledge and behavioral intentions. Safety Science.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.11.001.
Schrader, P.G., Lawless, K.A., 2004. The knowledge, attitude, & behavior approach:
how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments.
Performance Improvement 43 (9), 11.
Schumacker, R.E., Lomax, R.G., 1996. A Beginners Guide to Structural Equation
Modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Mahwah, NJ.
Segars, A., 1997. Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: a paradigm and
illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega-
International Journal of Management Science 25 (1), 107121.
Sekaran, U., 2003. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, fourth
ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Shaftel, J., Shaftel, T.L., 2005. The inuence of effective teaching in accounting on
student attitudes, behavior, and performance. Accounting Education 20 (3),
231246.
Steiger, J.H., 1989. EZPATH: A Supplementary Module for SYSTAT and SYSGRAPH.
SYSTAT, Evanston, IL.
Sudershan, R.V., Subba Rao, G.M., Rao, P., Vishnu Vardhana Rao, M., 2007. Food
safety related perceptions and practices of mothers a case study in Hyderabad,
India. Food Control. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2007.05.017.
Subramaniam, C., 2004. Human factors inuencing re safety measures. Disaster
Prevention and Management 13 (2), 110116.
Ulleberg, P., Rundmo, T., 2003. Personality, attitudes and risk perception as
predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety Science 41
(5), 427443.
Verbeke, W., Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J., De Brabander, H.F., 2007. Why consumers
behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica
Chimica Acta 586, 27.
Whang, F.M., 2002. Structural Equation Modeling. Wunan, Inc., Taipei.
Wilson, T.D., Kraft, D., Dunn, D.S., 1989. The disruptive effects of explaining
attitudes: the moderating effect of knowledge about the attitude object. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology 25, 379400.