Don't be scared, you don't have to wear your lifejacket: Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand lifejacket usage in Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, Canada

Abstract

Water related activities result in a large number of fatalities annually throughout Canada, especially in the Canadian north, where drowning rates are up to ten times the national average. This study used participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and archival research to understand why residents of Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories (NWT) rarely wear lifejackets. Three themes emerged. Firstly residents largely perceive lifejackets to be inaccessible, secondly drownings are attributed to factors other than failing to wear a lifejacket and thirdly lifejacket use is not encouraged by important individuals in the community. It is suggested that successful lifejacket promotion for this population requires drowning prevention programmes that move away from simplistic approaches that encourage people to wear lifejackets and instead must utilise an approach that addresses each component of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB).

Full text

Polar Record, Page 1 of 8. c
Cambridge University Press 2009. doi:10.1017/S0032247409990180 1
‘Don’t be scared, you don’t have to wear your lifejacket’:
using the theory of planned behaviour to understand
lifejacket usage in Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories,
Canada
Audrey R. Giles, Shaelyn Strachan and Gwenyth Stadig
School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada
(agiles@uottawa.ca)
Ava C. Ba k e r
Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, T2N 4N1, Canada
Received January 2009
ABSTRACT. Water related activities result in a large number of fatalities annually throughout Canada, especially
in the Canadian north, where drowning rates are up to ten times the national average. This study used participant
observation, semi-structured interviews, and archival research to understand why residents of Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest
Territories (NWT) rarely wear lifejackets. Three themes emerged. Firstly residents largely perceive lifejackets to be
inaccessible, secondly drownings are attributed to factors other than failing to wear a lifejacket and thirdly lifejacket use
is not encouraged by important individuals in the community. It is suggested that successful lifejacket promotion for
this population requires drowning prevention programmes that move away from simplistic approaches that encourage
people to wear lifejackets and instead must utilise an approach that addresses each component of the theory of planned
behaviour (TPB).
Contents
Introduction 1
Situating the community and its residents 1
Review of literature 2
Theoretical framework 2
Methodology and methods 3
Results 3
Discussion 5
Conclusion 6
Acknowledgements 7
References 7
Introduction
Water related activities result in a large number of
fatalities annually throughout Canada (Lifesaving So-
ciety 2005); unfortunately a disproportionate number
of these fatalities occur within the country’s aboriginal
population (Canadian Red Cross 2005; Health Canada
2001). Although aboriginal people represent 3% to 5%
of the Canadian population, they represent 9% of all
boating related drowning, 10% of drowning fatalities
during aquatic activities, 16% of drowning from falls into
water, and 26% of snowmobile related drowning (Health
Canada 2001). The problem is even more pronounced
in Canada’s north, which has a drowning rate that is
up to ten times the national average, with aboriginal
peoples accounting for a greater number of fatalities
than their non-aboriginal counterparts (Health Canada
2001). According to Health Canada (2001), aboriginal
people are more vulnerable to drowning due to their
proximity to large bodies of water. Despite the fact that
lifejackets have been found to reduce risks of drowning
(Canadian Red Cross 2007), many northerners do not
wear these potentially lifesaving devices. In this paper
focus is placed on one community, Tuktoyaktuk, NWT,
and we elucidate some of the reasons why residents of
Tuktoyaktuk (who are primarily Inuvialuit) appear averse
to wearing lifejackets and personal flotation devices,
despite the substantial reduction in drowning that such
behaviour could yield because of lifejackets’ ability to
enable wearers to float when unexpectedly entering the
water (Canadian Red Cross 2007).
Situating the community and its residents
Tuktoyaktuk, NWT, is a town of 870 residents located on
the Beaufort Sea. The majority (84%) of residents identify
themselves as aboriginal Canadians (that is Inuit, North
American Indian or M´
etis) (Aboriginal population profile,
2006 census, 2008: 1). Residents of Tuktoyaktuk have
had limited exposure to formal water safety instruction.
In 1972, ‘Corky the barge’ a barge with a swimming
pool on it, visited the community for several weeks
and swimming instruction was offered. In 1990, a six
week waterfront programme was offered in Tuktoyaktuk,
which was repeated in 1992. In 1993, a small (12 ×
3 m) shallow water pool was built in the community.
This pool is housed in a ‘spring form’ structure, which
looks much like a tent, and is operated on a seasonal
basis during the warmer summer months due to the fact
that the structure is not insulated. Swimming lessons,
which include water safety education, are offered at
the swimming pool. Pool staff typically consists of a
swimming pool supervisor who is hired from southern
Canada, along with several local community members

2 GILES, STRACHAN, STADIG, AND BAKER
who work as swimming pool assistants. Despite years of
southern derived water safety education, drownings are
still quite common in Tuktoyaktuk, and few community
members wear lifejackets while participating in aquatic
based activities.
While Tuktoyaktuk is the focus of this study, the
community and its residents share many similarities
with other northern communities: exposure to swimming
lessons through the NWT aquatics programme (NWTAP).
These similarities include a remote setting; high drowning
rates; and low lifejacket use. As a result, the findings of
this study may have relevance to other NWT and Nunavut
communities and can be used to inform lifejacket use in
these communities.
Review of literature
Drowning is the second leading cause of injury death
in most aboriginal communities (Health Canada 2001;
Saylor 2004) throughout Canada. In the NWT it is more
pronounced, as drowning is a leading cause of injury
death in every age group from 0 to 65 years of age
(NWTHSS 2004). The NWTAP was designed to address
this very issue, as well as to develop future northern,
and particularly aboriginal, aquatics leaders. Despite the
programme’s 40 year presence in Canada’s north, it has
failed to meet its most fundamental objectives (Giles and
others 2007).
The NWTAP has met with enormous popularity,
reaching its height in 1997 with 41 aquatics programmes
territory wide (Szabo 2002): nevertheless, the NWT has
maintained an exceedingly high drowning rate, despite
a substantial decrease across the rest of Canada. One of
the key features of the NWTAP, which currently uses the
Canadian Red Cross’s ‘SwimKids’ and the Lifesaving
Society of Canada’s Swim for Life programmes, includes
a focus on drowning prevention and the related use
of lifejackets while in, on, or around bodies of water.
Certainly, this approach is supported by Health Canada’s
(2001) Unintentional and intentional injury profile for
aboriginal people in Canada, 1990–1999 report, which
found that risks ‘associated with drowning in Aboriginal
victims...include low use of flotation devices’ (Health
Canada 2001: iii). The report further noted that only
6% of aboriginal drowning victims were found to be
wearing lifejackets. These findings beg the question,
‘[w]hy do so few Aboriginal peoples wear lifejackets,’
especially in light of the fact that many communities
have had exposure to drowning prevention programmes.
Saylor (2004) attempted to answer this question and
found that unlike in the non-aboriginal world, cars,
snowmobiles, etc. had arrived much more abruptly in
aboriginal communities. Safety measures such as seat
belts, car seats, helmets and other injury prevention
interventions were not used at the time. Even today
personal flotation devices are not commonly used (Saylor
2004: 313)
Although Saylor shed light on the issues at hand,
there are many other personal, cultural and environmental
factors that must be addressed fully to understand
lifejacket use or lack thereof. Here, we have identified
themes regarding why Tuktoyaktuk residents commonly
fail to wear lifejackets and have chosen a well-supported
health-behaviour theory, the theory of planned behaviour
(TPB), to interpret these themes in order to elucidate the
multiple factors that may influence lifejacket usage among
residents of Tuktoyaktuk.
Theoretical framework
The TPB (Ajzen 1991) is a deliberative processing
model (Connor and Sparks 2005) that attempts to explain
human motivation and rational behaviour (Maddux 1993).
This theory assumes that information or beliefs about
a given behaviour and its consequences influence the
likelihood of performing a specific behaviour. Although
the TPB is mostly used in conjunction with quantitative
research, here it is used as a heuristic framework to
interpret themes that emerged through our qualitative
study; indeed, employing a theoretical framework as a
guide has been identified as an appropriate approach to
conducting qualitative research (Creswell 1994). The TPB
has been applied to the study of numerous health risk
behaviours including drug and alcohol use (see Conner
and Sparks 2005 for a review), sexual behaviours (see
Godin and Kok, 1996 for a review) as well as health
promoting or protecting behaviours such as physical
activity (see Hagger and others 2002 for a review), safe
bicycle riding practices and health screening (see Conner
and Sparks 2005 for a review). In a review of the use of
the TPB in health behaviour research, Connor and Sparks
(2005) suggested that the TPB has been largely successful
in explaining health behaviours. The TPB is thus an
appropriate framework for the study of lifejacket use.
In the TPB the most proximal determinant of behaviour
is one’s intention to do that behaviour. According to
the theory, behavioural intention is determined by three
determinants. The first is an individual’s attitude(s)
towards a particular behaviour, the second is the subjective
norms associated with the behaviour, and the third is
one’s perceived behavioural control over the behaviour
(Montano and others 1997). Attitude is determined by
behavioural beliefs which are individual beliefs about
the outcomes associated with performing the behaviour.
(for example ‘wearing a lifejacket may save my life,’
‘wearing a lifejacket will be uncomfortable’) weighted
by evaluations of those outcomes (‘I value safety,’ ‘I
value comfort’). Subjective norm is determined by the
perceptions of important referent individual(s)’s approval
or disapproval of the individual performing the behaviour,
known as ‘normative beliefs’ (for example ‘my friends
do not think I should wear a lifejacket’; ‘my friends
would look favourably upon me for wearing a lifejacket’),
weighted by the individual’s motivation to comply with
the wishes or opinions of the referent individual(s)

LIFEJACKET USAGE IN TUKTOYAKTUK, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, CANADA 3
(for example ‘I want their approval so I will/will not
wear a life-jacket’) (Montano and others 1997). Finally,
one’s perceived behavioural control is determined by
one’s control beliefs concerning the presence or absence
of resources for, and impediments to, performing the
specified behaviour (for example ‘I have enough money
to purchase a lifejacket’; ‘I do not have enough confidence
to wear a lifejacket when no one else is’), weighted by
the perceived impact of each resource and impediment to
facilitate or inhibit that behaviour (for example ‘[b]ecause
I can afford to buy a lifejacket, it will be easy for me
to wear one’; ‘[i]f I am not confident in my ability to
wear a lifejacket when no one else is, I likely will not
wear one’) (Montano and others 1997). While attitudes,
subjective norms and perceived behavioural control are all
seen as determinants of intention, perceived behavioural
control is also viewed as a direct determinant of behaviour
(Montano and others 1997). Thus, while one’s attitudes
and subjective norms may support one’s intention to wear
a lifejacket, if one does not perceive one has control over
wearing a lifejacket, then one will not wear one.
Notably, ‘all other factors including demographics and
environment operate through the model constructs and do
not independently contribute to explaining the likelihood
of a person’s performing a behaviour’ (Montano and
others 1997: 85). This characteristic of the TPB makes it a
favourable theory for interpreting the present data, as it is
not known why the aboriginal residents of Tuktoyaktuk,
NWT do not typically wear lifejackets. It is thus important
that the model used to analyse the data is broad and as
such may capture several of the factors important to this
population. For example, though socioeconomic status,
race and ethnicity often have been used in a simplistic
manner in the health literature (Pasick 1997), the TPB
may be able to account for the impact of cultural norms
and socioeconomic status to a reasonable degree through
the subjective norm, attitude, and perceived behavioural
control variables. Importantly, the TPB was not used in
the initial question formulations, but was applied after
initial data analysis revealed its utility to the project at
hand.
Methodology and methods
The research presented in this paper was gathered through
a two month community based initiative in Tuktoyaktuk
after acquiring ethics approval from the University of
Ottawa and a NWT research licence from the Government
of the NWT. All NWT research licences stipulate that
research teams must work with the community throughout
the research design and implementation processes in order
to remain sensitive to cultural practices and to ensure that
the project meets with community approval. The study
used participant observation, semi-structured interviews
and archival research as data collection techniques. Parti-
cipant observation is at the core of ethnographic fieldwork
(Emerson and others 2001). Researchers ‘establish a
place in [a] natural setting...to investigate, experience
and represent the social life and social processes that
occur in that setting’ (Emerson and others 2001: 352)
through participant observation, while striving to maintain
a professional distance (Fetterman 1998). This technique
yields rich qualitative data that can be used to provide
supporting evidence to participants’ statements about
their own behaviours. However, there are limitations
associated with this method, such as access and the
impact of observation (Flick 2007). Thus, semi-structured
interviews were also conducted with 20 Tuktoyaktuk
residents. The 20 interviewees were selected through
snowball sampling, which ‘involves the selection of
samples utilizing insider knowledge and referral chains
among subjects who possess common traits that are
of research interest’ (Kaplan and others 1987: 566).
Archival research of government documents and northern
newspapers further supplemented the data.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20
mostly Inuvialuit residents of Tuktoyaktuk ranging in age
from their teens to their late sixties. Questions that were
asked pertained to activities performed in aquatic settings,
safety precautions and perceptions of susceptibility to
drowning. Many of the questions had a specific focus
on the use of lifejackets. An example of a question that
was asked that tapped into the attitudinal component of the
TPB was ‘[d]o you think that any of the activities in which
you participate on the water are dangerous?’ Questions
that measured subjective norms included, ‘[h]as an elder
ever told you what to do around the water?’ Finally an
example of a question that measured behavioural control
was, [d]o you believe that lifejackets are affordable?’ All
interviews were transcribed verbatim and verified by the
interviewees, at which point they had the opportunity to
make changes. The interviewees were also given a copy of
their transcript for their own records. Names that appear
in full in the account below are individuals’ real names.
Names that appear as only first names and in italics are
pseudonyms.
The data were manually coded for reoccurring themes,
which are explored in the results section. The fourth
author, who collected the data, returned to Tuktoyaktuk to
verify research findings prior to this article being written.
Results
Three themes surrounding lifejacket use by residents
in Tuktoyaktuk, NWT emerged through comprehensive
data analysis. Firstly, residents largely perceive lifejackets
to be inaccessible in Tuktoyaktuk. Secondly, wearing a
lifejacket is not perceived to prevent drowning; therefore,
it is not perceived to be essential to have when riding in
or on a watercraft. Lastly, because lifejackets are deemed
as non-essential safety equipment and are not perceived
to prevent drowning, they are not encouraged by referent
individuals in Tuktoyaktuk.
Theme one: inaccessible lifejackets
Lifejackets are perceived to be inaccessible to the resid-
ents of Tuktoyaktuk due to the costs and available stock

4 GILES, STRACHAN, STADIG, AND BAKER
found within the hamlet. Although not one interviewee
specified a precise lifejacket price in the interview, Stanley
Felix hypothesised that one would be very expensive
and would probably cost anywhere from $150 to $180
(personal communication, 8 July 2007). Joe Nasogaluak
repeated this sentiment. ‘Maybe they can’t afford it,’ he
commented when responding to a question about why
most residents of Tuktoyaktuk do not wear a lifejacket
when they enter a boat (personal communication, 10 July
2007). Teenaged resident Becky Steen also offered price
as a deterrent for lifejacket use and the primary reason
why she believes that people use more safety equipment
in the south than in the north (personal communication,
July 25, 2007).
Beyond inaccessibility due to perceived cost, Tuktoy-
aktuk residents felt that lifejackets were literally inaccess-
ible. As the community is small and relatively isolated,
residents only had access to two stores, the Northern and
Stanton’s, and neither store carries lifejackets in their
regular stock. Kelly stated that it is hard for residents to
access lifejackets in Tuktoyaktuk, ‘[because] they can’t
find them. We’re in a small community and it’s hard to get
stuff like that. I don’t even think they have any at Northern
and that’s, like, our main store’ (personal communication,
12 July 2007). Other residents said that if they ever
needed something like a lifejacket that they would order
it from the catalogue (Lionel, personal communication,
20 July 2007) or have someone in a bigger city like
Edmonton buy one on their behalf (Maureen Pokiak,
personal communication, 13 July 2007). Nevertheless,
Becky Steen reported that her parents owned a store in
Tuktoyaktuk years ago that ‘had like [...] lifejackets
galore. But they kind of sat there every year. Nobody
bought some’ (personal communication, 25 July 2007).
Theme two: drownings are attributed to factors other
than failing to wear lifejackets
The majority of the Tuktoyaktuk residents interviewed
knew someone who had drowned. Nevertheless, this
personal connection with drowning has not motivated
many Tuktoyaktuk residents to wear a lifejacket when
boating. Most of the interviewees believed that there were
factors other than the failure to wear a lifejacket that
make larger contributions to drowning, such as failing
to properly prepare for a trip on the ice or water or
snowmobiling on thin ice.
According to many Tuktoyaktuk residents, drowning
is attributed directly to one’s carelessness in preparation
for activities in aquatic settings. Tuktoyaktuk elder David
Noksana Sr. stated that he believed that it was the careless
that are most likely to drown: ‘[people] that don’t take
precautions. They don’t take...whatever they need to
survive out there in case something go wrong. They’re
the ones that going to drown’ (personal communication,
10 July 2007). Fellow elder Emily confirmed this attitude:
‘[take] your time, take three, four days to be ready.
Make sure you got everything, whatever safety in the
boat. But them [the careless], they rush and rush, that’s
not right to rush and rush, by the time you rush and
rush, you forget something’ (personal communication,
18 July 2007). Les Raddi provided insight into this
perspective when sharing memories about his childhood
in Tuktoyaktuk. He stated that at that time there were
no lifejackets, but everyone who was careful survived,
because they did not rush (personal communication, 14
July 2007). Thus, according to Tuktoyaktuk residents a
careful attitude approach towards water-based activities
is necessary for safety, but it such an approach does not
necessarily include lifejacket usage.
Though some community members reported that they
believed that lifejacket use was important when going out
on the water, they perceive lifejacket use as an ‘option’
and not necessary for safety. Stanley Felix stated that
lifejackets were important; however, he reported that if a
lifejacket were not readily available, he would still ride in
the boat, thus it is an optional safety precaution. Similarly,
according to hunter Joe Nasogaluak, most people in
Tuktoyaktuk ‘have [lifejackets] in their boat, but they
don’t wear them’ (personal communication, 10 July 2007)
Instead of wearing them:
they sit on them. Most boats up here don’t have
padded seats, so most people use them for a cushion
on their seats. I hardly ever see anybody wearing
their lifejackets...someone like me, I use it for
a cushion...[because lifejackets are inconvenient],
uncomfortable, stiff, some of them smell (Stanley
Felix, personal communication, 8 July 2007)
Elder David Noksana Sr. agreed with this statement,
noting that while he does not wear his lifejacket when in
his boat, he has it right there, ‘it’s handy’, for when the
water gets rough and he feels the need to wear it (personal
communication, 10 July 2007). Though some community
members might keep a lifejacket handy, others stated that
they did not believe that they would save one’s life if
one fell into the frigid arctic waters. For example, Joe
Nasogaluak stated that he did not believe that a floater
suit would save his life if he fell into the water, noting,
‘[i]f I fell in with a Mustang [floater suit] on, I would be
frozen. I would float, maybe, but I would be frozen...the
Mustang is so expensive, and it will fill [up with water on
the inside]’ (Joe Nasogaluak, personal communication,
10 July 2007).
Theme three: referent individuals do not support
lifejacket use
Within Tuktoyaktuk lifejackets are not perceived to
prevent drowning in cold water and thus are deemed
unnecessary by many residents. This belief is perpetuated
by referent individuals within Tuktoyaktuk through their
actions and words. Resident Mallory likes to wear a
lifejacket, as it makes her feel safer on the water, but
the other residents with whom she associates think she
is ‘crazy’ for wearing one. She reported that friends
constantly tell her, ‘[don’t] be scared, you don’t have to
wear your lifejacket’ (personal communication, 14 July
2007). Mallory maintained that she does not let these

LIFEJACKET USAGE IN TUKTOYAKTUK, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, CANADA 5
comments affect her choice to wear a lifejacket, but it is
possible that such beliefs and comments have drastically
affected other residents’ lifejacket use.
According to many residents, Inuvialuit peoples tra-
ditionally listen to their elders and mirror their behaviour
(Bert Kimisana, personal communication, 6 July 2007;
Becky Steen, personal communication, 25 July 2007;
Henry, personal communication, 7 July 2007). Mirroring
can have both positive and negative effects, depending
on the message that referent persons are communicating.
Becky Steen reported that ‘when [she’s] been in a boat
with an elder, they’re like, “You can’t do that, that’s
too dangerous”’ (personal communication, 25 July 2007)
and because ‘elders are kind of the boss, in the north’
(personal communication, 25 July 2007), she listened to
their advice. However, when elders do not wear lifejackets
in their boats, they may communicate that lifejackets are
not necessary to be safe on the water, and thus do not need
to be worn at all times. James Pokiak commented on the
elders’ influence:
[First] of all you’re going to have to teach these elders
to start doing some of these [water safety] things. It’s
good to listen to the elders, and if you have an elder
who knows a lot of ways of being safe in the water,
you have to maybe get those people to let the public
know. But, I don’t think I know of any elders right
now in the community [who know a lot about water
safety] (personal communication, 26 June 2007)
Indeed, Treser and others (1997) found that children
were more likely to wear lifejackets when adults who were
on board were wearing lifejackets, though the inverse
was not found to be true. Because elders hold places of
authority in their communities it is important that they
model safe aquatics behaviour in order for such behaviour
to be modelled by other community members.
Discussion
The three identified themes map onto determinants of
intention and behaviour in the TPB. Lifejackets are
perceived to be inaccessible and this is consistent with
the perceived behavioural control component. Further,
participants do not perceive lifejackets as necessarily pre-
venting people from drowning, but believe that a careful
attitude does, which fits with the attitude component.
Finally, referent individuals do not encourage lifejacket
use in Tuktoyaktuk, which links to the subjective norm
component of the theory. Together, these three themes
can be used to understand many Tuktoyaktuk residents’
reluctance to wear lifejackets.
Inaccessible lifejackets
A significant deterrent to lifejacket accessibility in Tuk-
toyaktuk is the literal inaccessibility of lifejackets at the
local stores. Neither of the local stores carry lifejackets
in their regular stock because they are not in demand.
As a result, interested patrons must have lifejackets
shipped to the community from alternate suppliers. The
complications associated with acquiring a lifejacket make
it difficult for Tuktoyaktuk residents ultimately to wear
lifejackets; however, this has not always been the case.
As noted above by Becky Steen, there was a time in the
community’s history where literal lifejacket accessibility
was not a deterrent, but many residents did not take
advantage of this opportunity. This finding suggests that
the financial deterrent acknowledged by many residents,
as well as other components in the TPB, directly may also
affect the resultant behaviour (wearing a lifejacket).
Residents’ perceptions that lifejackets are inaccessible
both financially and literally may affect their control
beliefs regarding the performance of the behaviour. These
beliefs regarding lack of control over lifejacket use
combined with beliefs regarding the ineffectiveness of
lifejackets at preventing drowning may result in percep-
tions of perceived behaviour control that do not facilitate
lifejacket use. According to the TPB, when control beliefs
and beliefs about the perceived impact of the behaviour are
not in place, perceptions of perceived behavioural control
should, in turn, fail to lead to intentions for or engagement
in the resultant behaviour (that is lifejacket use).
Drownings are attributed to factors other than failing
to wear a lifejacket
Because residents appear to believe that lifejacket use
is ineffective in preventing drowning deaths in cold
water and that careful attitudes are more important than
lifejacket usage in preventing drowning, they may lack the
necessary positive attitude for engaging in the behaviour.
Due to the fact that many Tuktoyaktuk residents are
living at or below the national poverty line, any extra
expense above and beyond the necessities (for example a
lifejacket) will certainly stretch the budget (Stanley Felix,
personal communication, 8 July 2007). Such a purchase
must yield a noticeable benefit to the consumer to
justify the financial sacrifice. The problem with lifejackets
is that they are a long term investment in personal health,
and thus do not produce a noticeable benefit immediately,
as is the case with milk and bread. To relate this to
Tuktoyaktuk residents’ attitudes, they may not deem the
expense of a lifejacket worthwhile because in order for
lifejackets to yield a favourable benefit they must save
someone’s life. While most of the interviewees have
known a drowning victim, they do not attribute the
drowning to a lack of lifejacket use, but rather to other
factors such as carelessness and the ineffectiveness of
lifejackets in saving lives in cold water, thus they do not
connect lifejacket use with drowning prevention. A short-
coming with this reasoning, however, is that lifejackets
must be worn in order to save lives. The fact that few
people wear lifejackets prevents Tuktoyaktuk residents
from seeing the potential benefits of consistent lifejacket
use for themselves and other community members.
The findings in theme two can be linked to the attitude
component in the TPB. One’s attitude is determined by
beliefs about the outcomes or attributes of performing
the behaviour (the behavioural beliefs that wearing a life-
jacket when in, on or around water will prevent drowning),

6 GILES, STRACHAN, STADIG, AND BAKER
weighted by the evaluations of those outcomes or
attributes (the individual values the outcome of drowning
prevention). In this case, participants’ behavioural beliefs
surrounding lifejacket use are not directly attributed to a
positive outcome, such as preventing drowning, and are
in fact sometime contributed to negative outcomes, such
as having to wear a smelly or uncomfortable lifejacket.
Referent individuals do not support lifejacket use
Many of the elders interviewed stated that they believe
that taking care when in, on or around the water is
essential for water safety; however, they do not necessarily
communicate this belief or extend this belief to consistent
lifejacket use. As a result, many individuals throughout
the community appear to view lifejackets as non-essential
when travelling by boat. This view may be due to the
messages that elders communicate through the behaviour
they exhibit surrounding lifejacket use, that is they do not
wear them or suggest that others wear them.
Referent individuals’ approval or disapproval regard-
ing lifejacket use in Tuktoyaktuk may impact behaviour
through the subjective norm component of the TPB.
Because elders’ (who are important referent individuals)
normative beliefs do not appear to support lifejacket use
as normative, it is not surprising that residents also fail to
wear lifejackets. Though most residents subscribe to the
subjective norm of not wearing lifejackets, there are some
exceptions. Tuktoyaktuk residents Mallory and Becky
Steen are strong young women who reported consistent
lifejacket use, despite the comments and pressure to
conform to norm of not wearing lifejackets. The fact
that individuals like Mallory and Becky Steen are taking
the initiative to wear lifejackets despite the normative
beliefs of referent individuals is promising; however, more
research is needed to understand what enabled them to
engage in this behaviour and how to equip others within
communities like Tuktoyaktuk to do the same.
Conclusion
The fact that many northern aboriginal residents do
not adhere to recommendations outlining lifejacket use
for drowning prevention cannot be overcome through
simple means. The practice of not wearing lifejackets
may be understood in part by considering variables in the
TPB, namely attitudes, subjective norms and perceived
behavioural control. As a result, intervention programmes
addressing this issue would benefit from taking all of these
factors into account.
Saylor (2004) proposed a variety of solutions to ad-
dress the aboriginal children’s high injury rate in Canada,
such as advocating for accessible bicycle helmets in first
nations communities, many of pertained to the perceived
behavioural control component of the TPB. Although
Saylor is correct to address this issue, as accessibility
to factors facilitating health is imperative to healthy
behavioural choices, the present research suggests that it
is also important that intervention programmes addressing
the issue of lifejacket use in aboriginal populations also
focus on changing attitudes and subjective norms in the
target population. Such a multi-pronged focus is essential
for any degree of success to be attained.
It is, of course, important to note that part of
the disconnect between lifejacket use and drowning
prevention might be due to the fact that lifejackets will
not always save lives. Certainly, if a person were to fall
into the Beaufort Sea’s freezing waters, a lifejacket might
not save the person’s life, as although s/he might not die of
drowning, death by hypothermia is a very real possibility.
Nevertheless, while lifejackets will not necessarily save
lives in all situations (O’Connor and O’Connor 2006),
they do increase the chances for survival (O’Connor and
O’Connor 2005).
A lifejacket lending programme, which was suggested
by several residents, and/or ‘float coat’ programme
(Zaloshnja and others 2003) have the potential to con-
tribute in positive ways to lifejacket use in aboriginal
populations in Canada’s north. Such initiatives, however,
will be successful only if the attitudes of the target pop-
ulation regarding lifejacket use are effectively changed
so that residents come to value lifejackets and other
personal flotation devices for their drowning prevention
characteristics. It is also imperative that any behavioural
intervention that occurs within an aboriginal population
‘identify and understand the wider set of social meanings
attached to specific risk behaviours and to develop with
indigenous and minority communities health strategies
that take into account the everyday realities of their
lives’ (Thompson and others 2000: 726). The involvement
of elders in water safety training through the NWTAP
at the local pool could strengthen the effectiveness of
water safety messages, as elders are powerful referent
individuals to many Tuktoyaktuk residents. Therefore,
their opinions and words carry greater weight than those
of the southerners typically hired to run northern pools.
It is only by working with local residents that we can
understand the diverse factors that influence drowning
prevention and thus create water safety programmes that
will meet aboriginal northerners’ unique needs.
The TPB provides a framework that is useful in
illustrating the ways in which complex factors need
to be addressed in order to facilitate health behaviour
change. One of the strengths of the TPB is its perceived
behavioural control component, which can explain the
relationship between behavioural intention and actual
behaviour, that is when a person does not have complete
control over a behaviour, behaviour intention cannot be
the only factor that determines an individual’s behaviour.
Indeed, Glanz and others (1997) have noted that the
TPB allows us systematically and empirically to identify
factors that may be important in interventions, such as
social norms.
While the TPB claims that ‘all other factors including
demographics and environment operate through the model
constructs and do not independently contribute to explain-
ing the likelihood of a person’s performing a behavior’
(Montano and others 1997: 85), there is the possibility

LIFEJACKET USAGE IN TUKTOYAKTUK, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, CANADA 7
that the model may actually miss some variables that are
not channelled through the chosen predictors of behaviour
and intention (Glanz and others 1997). For example,
French and others (2005) have suggested that the TPB
may not capture affect, which may play important roles
of predicting behaviour.
Another limitation to the TPB is that, as with other
deliberative processing theories, this theory assumes
that people hold the goal of keeping themselves safe.
Nevertheless, one might question the importance of this
goal in a hierarchy of goals when other more basic goals,
such as the daily stress of making ends meet, are not being
met. The suicide rate for Inuvialuit peoples (18/100,000)
is much higher than the Canadian average (13/100,000)
(Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami 2002). As such, it is important to
be cognisant of the fact that safety promoting behaviour,
such as wearing a lifejacket, may be met with heightened
resistance. Despite the selected theory’s limitations and its
a posteriori application, the present study presents a first
step in identifying specific aspects of the TPB that may
be relevant to understanding lifejacket use in northern
communities and, as such, may inform future research
efforts.
Inspiring residents of Tuktoyaktuk, and other com-
munities for that matter, to wear lifejackets is clearly
more complicated than having a swimming instructor
demonstrate how to select and wear a lifejacket or to have
these safety items given away free of charge. Instead,
lifejacket promotion campaigns must seek to engage with
all of the TPB’s components if they are to meet with
success and have a significant impact on reducing the
high number of water related fatalities in Canada’s north.
Acknowledgements
This research project was supported by a Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada grant to the
first author (Standard Research Grant #410 200 0204), a
Northern Scientific Training Program grant to the fourth
author, and assistance from the Northwest Territories
Recreation and Parks Association and the Department of
Municipal and Community Affairs at the Government of
the Northwest Territories. We would like to thank research
assistant Stacey Cockney for her assistance as well as the
people of the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk for its support.
References
Aboriginal population profile, 2006 census. 2008. Stat-
istics Canada. URL:http://www12.statcan.ca/english/
census06/data/profiles/aboriginal/Index.cfm?Lang=
E(accessed 10 April 2008.
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2):
179–211.
Canadian Red Cross. 2005. The facts about drowning in
Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Red Cross.
Canadian Red Cross. 2007. Lifejackets and personal
flotation devices. URL: http://www.redcross.ca/article.
asp?id=015198&tid=024 (accessed 10 April 2008).
Connor, M., and P. Sparks. 2005. Theory of planned
behaviour and health behaviour. In: Connor, M., and P.
Norman (editors). 2006. Predicting health behaviour.
Berkshire, UK: Open University Press: 170–222.
Emerson, R.M., R.I. Fretz, and L.L. Shaw. 2001. Par-
ticipant observation and fieldnotes. In: Atkinson, P.
(editor). Handbook of ethnography. London: SAGE:
352–368.
Fetterman, D.M. 1998. Ethnography: step by step (2nd
ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Flick, U. 2007. Doing ethnographic and observational
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
French, D.P., S. Sutton, S.J. Hennings, J. Mitchell, N.J.
Wareham, S. Griffin, N. Hardeman, and A.L. Kinmouth.
2005. The importance of affective beliefs and attitudes
in the theory of planned behavior: predicting intention
to increase physical activity. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 359(9): 1824–1848.
Furneaux, B. 2005. Theories used in research: theory of
planned behavior. URL:http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/
theoryofplannedbehavior.htm (acessed 25 February
2008)
Giles, A.R., A.C. Baker, and D.D. Rousell. 2007. Diving
beneath the surface: The NWT aquatics program and
implications for Aboriginal health. Pimatisiwin 5(1): 25–
50.
Godin, G., and G. Kok. 1996. The theory of planned
behavior: a review of its applications to health-related
behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion 11:
87–98.
Glanz, K., F.M. Lewis, and B.K. Rimer (editors). 1997.
Health behavior and health education (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hagger, M., N. Chatzisarantis, and S. Biddle. 2002. A
meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action
and planned behaviour in physical activity: predictive
validity and the contribution of additional variables.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 24: 3–32.
Health Canada. 2001. Unintentional and intentional injury
profile for Aboriginal people in Canada, 1990–1999.
Ottawa: Health Canada.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. 2002. Suicide prevention in Inuit
communities. Ottawa: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.
Kaplan, C.D., D. Korf, and C. Sterk. 1987. Temporal
and social contexts of heroin-using populations: an
illustration of the snowball sampling technique. Journal
of Nervous Mental Disorders 175(9): 566–574.
Lifesaving Society of Canada. 2005. National drowning
trends report – trends since 1990.Ottawa:Lifesaving
Society of Canada.
Maddux, J.A. 1993. Social cognitive models of health and
exercise behavior: an introduction and review of con-
ceptual issues. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 5:
116–140.
Montano, D.E., D. Kasprzyk, and S.H. Taplin. 1997. The
theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned
behavior. In: Glanz, K., F.M. Lewis, and B.K. Rimer
(editors). Health behavior and health education.San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 85–112.
Northwest Territories Department of Health and Social
Services. 2004. Injury in the Northwest Territories: a
descriptive report. Yellowknife, NWT: Government of
the Northwest Territories.
O’Connor, P.J., and N. O’Connor. 2006. Work-related
maritime fatalities. Accident analysis and prevention,
380: 737–741.

8 GILES, STRACHAN, STADIG, AND BAKER
O’Connor, P.J., and N. O’Connor. 2005. Causes and
prevention of boating fatalities. Accident analysis and
prevention, 37: 689–698.
Pasick, R.J. 1997. Socioeconomic and cultural factors in
the development and use of theory. In: Glanz, K., F.M.
Lewis, and B.K. Rimer (editors). Health behavior and
health education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 425–
440.
Saylor, K. 2004. Injuries in aboriginal children. Paediatrics
and Child Health 9(5): 312–314.
Szabo, C. 2002. NWT aquatics program: summary.
Yellowknife: Government of th Northwest Territo-
ries.
Thompson, S.J., S.M. Gifford, and L. Thorpe. 2000. The
social and cultural context of risk and prevention: Food
and physical activity in an urban aboriginal community.
Health Education and Behavior 27(6): 725–743.
Treser, C.D., M.N. Trusty, and P.D. Yang. 1997. Personal
flotation device usage: do educational efforts have an
impact? Journal of Public Health Policy 18(3): 346–
356.
Zaloshnja, E., T.R. Miller, M.S. Galbraith, B.A. Lawrence,
L.M. DeBruyn, N. Bill, K.R. Hicks, M. Keiffer, and
R. Perkins. 2003. Reducing injuries among Native
Americans: Five cost outcome analyses. Accident
Analysis and Prevention 35: 631–639.