Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
A systematic investigation of the differential predictors for speeding, drink-driving, driving while fatigued, and not wearing a seat belt, among young drivers
Introduction
Road trauma is a major emotional, social and economic problem globally, partly because of the over-representation of young people in road crashes throughout the world, including Australia (see Australian Transport Safety Bureau, 2006).
Road user behaviour has been highlighted as a key contributor to road crashes (see Australian Transport Safety Bureau, 2006). Many people engage in driving behaviours that are risky either inadvertently or with the intention to “take the risk”. Younger drivers are particularly likely to engage in risky driving (Clarke, Ward, & Truman, 2005), perhaps because they tend to be inexperienced and lack the skills needed to negotiate difficult on-road driving situations, or have positive attitudes to taking risks. Risky driving has been consistently recognized as a key contributor to road crashes, and many studies have observed an association between several risky driving behaviours and road crashes (see Iversen, 2004), particularly for younger drivers (e.g. Turner, McClure, & Pirozzo, 2004).
Speeding, drink-driving, driving while fatigued, and not wearing seat belts, are four important risky driving-related behaviours in terms of their contribution to road crashes. The Roads (2007) estimated that, of all fatal crashes that occurred in 2006, 40% involved speeding, 25% involved alcohol, and at least 18% involved driver fatigue. At least 16% of fatally-injured motor vehicle occupants were not wearing available seat belts. The present research will focus on these four risky driving behaviours.
Interventions to reduce risky driving should be based on a sound, evidence-based understanding of contributing factors. Understanding of the factors that contribute to risky driving is hampered by the apparent assumption that different risky driving behaviours are caused by similar factors. For example, Morphett (2004) suggests that a widespread adoption of a range of media forms and images from different areas of health promotion may be employed to provide effective road safety interventions, without providing evidence for this extrapolation. Motivation to engage in different risky behaviours may vary considerably. For example, a decision to speed may result from a range of factors that may not influence a decision to drink–drive.
Table 1 summarizes a review of research examining relevant factors associated with speeding, drink-driving, driving while fatigued, and not wearing seat belts, which will guide the development of the questionnaires employed in the present research. The aim of this review was to examine whether the pattern of relevant factors is different for the different behaviours. The Health Belief Model (HBM; Janz & Becker, 1984) was employed as a starting point for the review due to its previous predictive usefulness in a range of health contexts including risky driving (e.g. Yagil, 2000). Based on additional theory and research, personality factors, social norms and demographic factors were also considered. The HBM proposes that a person’s decision to engage in safe behaviour is determined by: the perceived susceptibility to, and perceived severity of, the consequences of a risky behaviour, as well as the perceived benefits, and perceived costs, of the alternative safety behaviour (Janz & Becker, 1984).
The review highlights several important issues. First, it demonstrates the importance of the HBM factors. For example, perceived risk was shown to be relevant to each of the four risky driving behaviours, although the relationship observed for drink-driving was in a direction suggesting an influence of risky behaviour on perceived risk rather than vice versa. Second, it identifies the role of additional factors. For example, social norm was shown to be relevant to speeding, drink-driving and not wearing seat belts. Third, it demonstrates that the lists of factors emerging from previous research are slightly different for different behaviours. Fourth, it illustrates that some apparently relevant factors, such as authority rebellion and time urgency, have not been investigated in relation to risky driving at all.
In addition, the review illustrates that past research has not been systematic in comparing the many factors related to the four risky driving behaviours examined in the present research. Firstly, many studies have employed a general index of risky driving as the dependent variable (e.g. Dahlen, Martin, Ragan, & Kuhlman, 2005) and so results do not allow comparisons of predictors across specific driving behaviours. Secondly, several factors have been investigated in relation to only one or two particular behaviours, but not in relation to the other behaviours. For example, driver anger has been found to be associated with speeding, but not investigated in relation to the other three behaviours. Thirdly, few studies have examined a full and parallel range of factors across several risky driving behaviours. For example, Begg, Langley, and Stephenson (2003) investigated the factors associated with self-reported drink-driving and driving after cannabis use, and examined only a limited number of predictive factors.
Previous research from the current investigators (Fernandes, Job, & Hatfield, 2007) is more comprehensive. A range of possible predictors of risky driving (including demographic, personality and attitudinal factors) were examined in relation to a range of risky driving behaviours, with results demonstrating that different factors predicted different behaviours. The present research will refine and extend this previous research by investigating a more comprehensive range of predictive factors, with greater effort to employ parallel measurement of variables, to allow systematic comparison of predictors for each of the risky driving behaviours.
Finally, the review demonstrates a lack of recent research examining plausible causal mechanisms for key variables such as perceived risk, despite theory hypothesizing such causal mechanisms. It seems logical that the perceived riskiness of engaging in a particular behaviour may differ for groups of drivers with different attitudes to risk (e.g. high versus low sensation seeking, males versus females). Theory and research regarding relationships involving risky driving, sensation seeking, and other related factors, has been conceptually imprecise. Most studies have assessed the direct relationship between sensation seeking and risky driving, but the role of sensation seeking as a moderating variable has not been adequately considered (see Jonah, 1997). DeJoy (1992) suggested that gender may moderate the relationship between perceived risk and risky driving, but this possibility is yet to be examined. Similarly, several plausible mediations of the effect of gender on risky driving behaviour are yet to be examined. For example, perceived risk may be a relevant mediator of the relationship between gender and risky driving, given that research has demonstrated significant gender differences in perceived risk regarding risky driving behaviour (e.g. DeJoy, 1992).
The present study aimed to systematically examine a range of demographic factors, personality factors, attitudes and beliefs in the prediction of speeding, drink-driving, driving while fatigued, and not wearing seat belts, via the use of four versions of a Risky Driving Questionnaire, for young drivers aged 16–25 years (given the over-representation of younger drivers in road crashes). Relevant mediators of the relationship between gender and risky driving, as well as relevant moderators of the relationship between perceived risk and risky driving, were also examined for each of the four risky driving behaviours. It is hypothesized that different patterns of predictors, moderators and mediators will be observed for the different behaviours.
The present study considered factors that are specific to each behaviour (e.g. be fined due to speeding), as well as factors of general framed in general terms (e.g. be fined), because recent studies have illustrated the importance of specific factors (see Fernandes et al., 2007).
Section snippets
Design
Four questionnaire versions (one for each of the four risky driving behaviours) were administered in two surveys, in order to reduce participant fatigue. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups (one received a survey on speeding and drink-driving, the other a survey on driving while fatigued and not wearing seat belts), by handing out corresponding questionnaires consecutively.
Participants and sampling
First-year psychology students (215) from the University of NSW participated in a study on “driving
Results
Data were analysed employing SPSS. A Type 1 error rate of 0.05 was employed for all analyses, and all tests were 2-tailed.
Discussion
The present research systematically examined potentially relevant factors across a range of risky driving behaviours. Results clearly illustrate that different predictors are relevant to individual risky driving behaviours (refer to Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, Table 12 for complete listings of significant predictors for each behaviour), supporting previous findings (Fernandes et al., 2007).
References (41)
- et al.
Identifying factors that predict persistent driving after drinking, unsafe driving after drinking, and driving after using cannabis among young adults
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(2003) - et al.
Speeding drivers’ attitudes and perceptions of speed cameras in rural England
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(2006) - et al.
The relationship between perceived risk of being ticketed and self-reported seat belt use
Journal of Safety Research
(2004) - et al.
Voluntary risk taking and skill deficits in young driver accidents in the UK
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(2005) Explanations for “understating” in self-reported speeding behaviour
Transportation Research Part F
(2001)- et al.
Driving anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and boredom proneness in the prediction of unsafe driving
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(2005) - et al.
Anger, aggression, and risky behavior: A comparison of high and low anger drivers
Behaviour Research and Therapy
(2003) An examination of gender differences in traffic accident risk perception
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(1992)- et al.
Different factors predict different risky driving behaviours: A challenge to the assumed generalizability of prediction and countermeasure
Journal of Safety Research
(2007) - et al.
Influences during adolescence on perceptions and behaviour related to alcohol use and unsafe driving as young adults
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(2004)