Better Driving: "Respect on the Road"
Annex B: Psychological Background - A Paper by Professor Mark Conner, University of Leeds
There is currently a lack of research directly on respect on the road either within the psychology literature or more broadly. However, there are a number of useful isolated studies and research on related behaviours that may have value that are overviewed here. In particular, relevant research on errors, lapses and violations; driver attitudes measures; driving aggression; predictors of driving behaviours (intentions, attitudes, social pressure, perceived control, anticipated regret, moral norms); and interventions for changing behaviours (downstream and upstream interventions) is briefly reviewed. In the final section some recommendations for research in this area are made.
Driving Measures Relevant to Respect on the Road
Although there is little research directly concerned with respect on the road there has been work developing measures of driving behaviours and attitudes that appears relevant to understanding respect on the road. The first such work has developed a Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ; Reason et al., 1990). The DBQ distinguishes between various driving-related errors, lapses and violations. Errors refer to the failure of planned actions to achieve their intended consequences (e.g., Underestimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle when overtaking). Lapses refer to departures of planned actions from some satisfactory path towards a desired goal (e.g. Attempt to drive away from traffic lights in third gear). Violations are defined as deliberate deviations from those practices believed necessary to maintain safe driving (e.g. become impatient with a slow driver in the outer lane and overtake on the inside). A self-report questionnaire has been developed to tap each of these components. It is clear that most, if not all, the violations used in the DBQ would be classed as disrespectful driving behaviours, while the vast majority of lapses would not. Mistakes fall into a middle category with some unlikely to be judged disrespectful (e.g. Get into the wrong lane as a roundabout or approaching a junction) while others might be more likely to be judged as disrespectful (e.g., Misjudge your crossing interval when turning right and narrowly miss collision). Nevertheless, it is clear that a measure of DBQ-violations could usefully be used to as a validated measure to monitor a range of disrespectful driving behaviours.
A related measure is the Driver Attitude Questionnaire (DAQ), which is a self-report questionnaire designed to tap attitudes towards various aspects of driving including drink driving, close-following, dangerous overtaking, and speeding (Parker et al., 1996). Each of which might be considered important aspects of disrespectful driving. Rather than tapping engagement in the behaviour as the DBQ attempts to do, the DAQ taps the individual's evaluation of the behaviour as positive or negative. This may be useful because the attitudes that the DAQ taps are held to be more amenable to change through persuasive messages, yet likely to also lead to corresponding behaviour change. The DBQ and DAQ measures may be useful measures that could be employed in relation to assessing aspects of disrespectful driving or the value of interventions to change such behaviours. Interestingly in this regard a recent study (Conner & Lai, 2005) assessed the impact of an on-road and classroom based intervention offered to drivers liable to prosecution for dangerous driving (the National Driver Improvement Scheme) on DBQ and DAQ scores. The study indicated the scheme to significantly reduce levels of self-reported errors, lapses, violations and driver attitudes in those attending the scheme compared to those not attending and these differences to be maintained over periods as long as 12 months. Similar findings have been reported in classroom based interventions offered to those exceeding the speed limit by modest amounts as an alternative to prosecution (Fylan et al., 2006). Thus it would appear that interventions that effectively tackle some aspects of disrespectful driving (as tapped by the DBQ and DAQ) are currently available. We return to interventions later in this section.
Driving Aggression
It is possible that a number of disrespectful driving behaviours may be the result of aggression (e.g. swearing/shouting at other drivers). Research indicates that driving violations (assessed by the DBQ) are higher in drivers with high levels of aggression (Lawton et al., 1997) and that drivers who are aggressive on the road are also aggressive in other aspects of their lives (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Ward et al., 1998). Aggressive individuals are also more physiologically reactive to provocative stimuli (Malta et al., 2001) and recent research has shown prison populations to view driving aggression (e.g., obscene gesturing) as less severe than members of the public (Smith et al., 2006). Several measures of driver aggression have been developed (Driver Aggression Scale: Lajunen et al., 1998; Driver Violence Inventory: Ward et al., 1998) and might be used to identify individuals more likely to engage in particular aggression-related disrespectful driving behaviours. However, it is not clear what would constitute the most effective means of intervention with such groups. The developing and testing of interventions for driver aggression would be a useful direction for future research.
Predictors of Driving Behaviours
A variety of research has been conducted with the aim of identifying the predictors of various driving behaviours (e.g., see Fylan et al., 2006 for a recent review in relation to speeding). Studies have linked driving behaviours such as speeding to demographic characteristics such as gender, age, and driving experience (e.g., French et al., 1993; Stradling, 2000). However, there has been less research relating driving behaviours to potentially modifiable motivational variables. One potentially useful and prominent model of the motivational influences on behaviour that has been employed in the driving area is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). The TPB proposes that intentions and perceived behavioural control (PBC) are the proximal determinants of behaviour. Intentions reflect the cognitive representation of an individual's readiness to perform a given behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). PBC describes the individuals' perception of the ease or difficulty of performing any given behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) or confidence they have in performing the behaviour under different conditions (sometimes referred to as self-efficacy). Intentions are influenced by three additional factors. Attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC are direct determinants of intentions. Attitudes towards a behaviour reflect the degree of positive or negative evaluation the individual has towards performing the behaviour. Subjective norms refer to the perceived social pressure to engage or not engage in a behaviour. The relative importance of intentions and PBC in predicting behaviour is assumed to differ across behaviours and populations, as can the importance of attitudes, subjective norms and PBC in the prediction of intentions. Underlying attitudes, subjective norms and PBC are beliefs that can form useful targets for interventions designed to change behaviour (see Hardeman et al., 2001).
A number of studies have applied the TPB to various driving behaviours that might be considered disrespectful. These include drivers propensity to speed, dangerously overtake, drink and drive, follow closely, recklessly weave, recklessly cut in, run red traffic lights, flash at vehicles in front, and engage in retaliatory/initiatory violations (see Conner et al., in press for a review). In general this research indicates the power of intentions to predict such behaviours and that attitudes, norms, and perceived control emerge as significant predictors of such intentions. For example, Conner et al. (in press, study 2) showed intentions to be the sole TPB predictor of objectively assessed speeding on the road, but attitudes, norms and perceived control to be predictors of such intentions to speed, with attitudes being the strongest predictor. This research would suggest the value of attempts to change such behaviours through changing underlying intentions, attitudes, norms and perceived control. Research has attempted this with some success in relation to speeding behaviour through the development of videos designed to tackle underlying beliefs (Parker et al., 1996). Further research examining the power of motivational interventions to change other disrespectful driving behaviours may be warranted.
Research with the TPB has also highlighted other factors that have impacts on driving behaviours. Two such factors that may be relevant in relation to disrespectful driving behaviours are anticipated regret and moral norms (Parker et al., 1995). Anticipated regret is a negative, cognitive based emotion that is experienced when we realize or imagine that the present situation could have been better had we acted differently. Studies have shown that over and above the components of the TPB, anticipated regret adds to the predictions of intentions to commit driving violations (Conner et al., in press; Parker et al., 1995). A number of disrespectful driving behaviours might be expected to engender such feelings of regret (e.g., close following). As such it would be useful for future research to examine whether making anticipated regret about such behaviours more salient might strengthen individuals intentions not to engage in such behaviours. Research with health behaviours (e.g., Abraham & Sheeran, 2003) suggest this might be an effective means to change the behaviour of those likely to experience regret.
Moral climate is created by shared belief that doing something is inherently "right" or "wrong", without regard to the benefits or costs to self. An example of the importance of moral climate is provided by the case of drink-driving, where the combination of education, legislation, and enforcement has changed moral norms concerning the behaviour. There is now a prevalent belief that drink-driving is morally wrong - a radical change since 1967. This moral climate, in turn, helps to support strong sanctions. Research in this area has focused on moral norms (Manstead, 2000). Moral norms are the individual's perception of the moral correctness or incorrectness of performing a behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) and take account of, " ... personal feelings of ... responsibility to perform, or refuse to perform, a certain behavior" (Ajzen, 1991, p.199). Moral norms might be expected to have an important influence on the performance of those behaviours with a moral or ethical dimension (e.g., Beck & Ajzen, 1991). Various driving behaviours may constitute such behaviours because of the potential for causing harm to oneself and others (Parker et al., 1995). Indeed recent research on speeding indicated moral norms and intentions to speed to be the only significant predictors of objectively assessed speeding in two studies (Conner et al., in press). In addition, other research has indicated that intentions that are based on moral norms tend to be more predictive of behaviour (Godin et al., 2005).
Changing moral norms requires people to accept that a particular behaviour has negative outcomes for others, to take personal responsibility for these outcomes, and to care about these outcomes for others. However, little research has targeted moral norms in order to change behaviour. Increasing the salience of such constructs may be one way to produce behaviour change. An alternative is to target individual basic values. For example, research has indicated that when people are given an opportunity to develop their own reasons for possessing a value (e.g., helpfulness), they subsequently exhibit much more pro-value behaviour in such situations (Maio et al., 2001). Further studies of interventions that target moral norms and observe effects on driving behaviours are required.
Interventions for Changing Driving Behaviours
Whilst there is an extensive literature on behaviour change there is not at present a consensus on the most effective means of achieving behaviour change (Conner & Norman, 2005; Maio et al., 2006; Rutter & Quine, 2001). Nevertheless recent reviews of the literature (Fylan et al., 2006) which sought to derive lessons for changing speeding behaviour provide some useful insights that might be applied to changing disrespectful driving behaviours. In such a review, Fylan et al. (2006) concluded that effective interventions should target:
- Attitudes (beliefs and values) towards speeding, taking into account individual drivers' readiness to change, and increasing their motivation to drive at an appropriate speed.
- Beliefs about the acceptability and ubiquity of speeding (norms).
- Perceptions of responsibility for each driver's choice of speed (attributions).
- Perceptions of the benefits of speeding (response costs).
- Perceptions of the likelihood of drivers being detected if they speed (susceptibility).
- Negative consequences of crashing or being caught speeding (anticipated regret).
- Perceived barriers to driving at an appropriate speed (perceived behavioural control).
- The way in which speeding makes drivers feel (affective beliefs).
- Drivers' perceptions of their ability to drive at an appropriate speed (self-efficacy).
- When and where drivers will reduce their speed (implementation intentions).
Fylan et al. also suggest that interventions might be designed to:
- undermine the perception that speeding is associated with benefits: do you really get there quicker? do you really get ahead of other traffic?
- promote the idea that there are costs, other than crashing, associated with speeding: less money to spend because of a speeding fine; having to rely on other people to drive you around because you are banned from driving.
- promote the idea that drivers have control over the speed they adopt and that barriers to driving slowly are easy to overcome: it is easy to take your foot off the accelerator; a skilled driver is one who drives at the appropriate speed; leave yourself plenty of time to get to your destination.
- undermine the effect of normative pressure on driving fast: how cool is it to drive fast to impress a friend? are you sure your mates are really impressed by your fast driving? are you one of the herd or are you a skilled driver who adopts an appropriate speed?
- promote the affective benefits of driving more slowly: feeling less anxious; feeling in control; feeling less stressed.
The Fylan et al. report indicated that perceived control (or self-efficacy) may be a particularly important target because of its strong association with behaviour and the fact that there is good evidence about how to intervene effectively (e.g., persuasion, experience with behaviour). It was also suggested that persuasive messages to address the above targets should be paired with strategies that promote elaboration (e.g., group discussion).
Many of these recommendations seem equally applicable to a range of disrespectful driving behaviours. However, further research is needed to specifically address the value of these intervention strategies in relation to a range of disrespectful driving behaviours. For example, some strategies might be more effective for some disrespectful behaviour (e.g., close following) but not for others (e.g., swearing and shouting at other drivers). In addition, we need to know more about the effectiveness of these strategies across the full range of drivers. It may be that these strategies are effective for the vast majority of law abiding drivers who only occasionally behave in a disrespectful manner on the road, but that other individuals are less open to such interventions. The latter group might more effectively be targeted by prosecution. Fylan et al. (2006) make similar comments in relation to speeding behaviour distinguishing between four different sub-types of speeding drivers: unintentional speeders; moderate occasional speeders; habitual high speeders; and socially deviant drivers. They suggest that while the behaviour of the latter two groups might be most appropriately addressed by prosecution. Although they also note the difficulty in distinguishing groups based on observed speed.
Recommendations for Research
There is clearly a need for further research in this area. We would highlight the following areas:
- Studies of the frequency of disrespectful driving behaviours.
- Studies of the determinants of disrespectful driving behaviours.
- Tests of interventions to change disrespectful driving behaviours.
In relation to the first area it is worth pointing out that we appear to have relatively little systematic data about the frequency with which various disrespectful behaviours are performed. We also need to know more about whether the behaviours are relatively independent or tend to be performed by the same individuals. Research is also needed to address the impacts of these behaviours (e.g., on accidents, on annoyance to other road users, etc.). This research could then usefully inform the identification of the key disrespectful driving behaviours.
In relation to determinants we need research on examining the importance of various factors in predicting who performs these behaviours. One strand of such research could usefully examine whether these disrespectful behaviours are predominantly performed by small groups of individuals with particular characteristics (e.g., high in driver aggression). Another strand of research could usefully examine the extent to which research on driving behaviours such as speeding generalises to various disrespectful driving behaviours. Finally, in relation to the last area of research, we need research to identify effective means of changing disrespectful driving behaviours. Such research needs to identify what interventions are effective for what behaviours and the extent to which effectiveness varies across different types of drivers. In this regard it may be useful to examine the effectiveness of current interventions for behaviours such as speeding (e.g., the Driver Improvement Scheme, Speed Awareness Courses) already have impacts on other disrespectful driving behaviours or could be adapted to do so.
References
Abraham, C., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Evidence that anticipated regret strengthens intentions, enhances intention stability, and improves intention-behaviour consistency. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 495-511.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaviour & Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285?301.
Conner, M., & Lai, F. (2005). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the National Driver Improvement Scheme. Road Safety Research Report No. 64. London: Department for Transport.
Conner, M., Lawton, R., Parker, D., Chorlton, K., Manstead, A.S.R., & Stradling, S. (in press). Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Speeding Behaviour. British Journal of Psychology.
Conner, M. & Norman, P. (2005) (Eds.) Predicting health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models (2nd Edn.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
French, D., West, R., Elander, J., & Wilding, J.(1993). Decision making style, driving style and self-reported involvement in road traffic accidents. Ergonomics, 36, 627-644.
Fylan, F., Hempel, S., Grunfeld, B., Conner, M., & Lawton, R. (2006). Effective interventions for speeding motorists. Road Safety Research Report No. 66. London: Department for Transport.
Godin, G., Conner, M., & Sheeran, P. (2005). Bridging the Intention-Behavior "Gap": The Role of Moral Norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 497-512.
Hardeman, W., Johnston, M., Johnston, D., Bonetti, D, Wareham, N.J., & Kinmonth, A.L. (2002). Application of the theory of planned behaviour in behaviour change interventions: A systematic review. Psychology and Health, 17, 123-158.
Lajunen, T., & Parker, D. (2001). Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A study of the relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness, driver anger and aggressive driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 243-255.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Stradling, S. (1998). Dimenions of driver anger, aggressive and highway-code violations and their mediation by safety orientation in UK drivers. Transportation Research Part F, 1, 107-121.
Lawton, R., Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1997). The role of affect in predicting social behaviours: The case of road traffic violations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1258-1276.
Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., Allen, L., & Bernard, M. M. (2001). Addressing discrepancies between values and behavior: The motivating effect of reasons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 104-117.
Maio, G.R., Verplanken, B., Stroebe, W., Manstead, A.S.R., Abraham, C., Sheeran, P., & Conner, M. (2006). Social Psychological Knowledge of Lifestyle Change: Report for the Foresight Obesity Project. University of Cardiff: Unpublished.
Malta, L.S., Blanchard, E.R., Friedenberg, B.M., Galovski, T.E., Karl, A., & Holzapfel, S.R. (2001). Psychophysiological reactivity of aggressive drivers: An exploratory study. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 26, 95-116.
Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). The role of moral norm in the attitude-behavior relation. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds), Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context (pp. 11-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1995). Extending the theory of planned behaviour: The role of personal norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 127-137.
Parker, D., Stradling, S.G., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1996). Modifying beliefs and attitudes to exceeding the speed limit: An intervention study based on the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1-19.
Reason, J.T., Manstead, A.S.R., Stradling, S.G., Baxter, J.S., & Campbell, K.A. (1990). Errors and violations on the road: A real distinction? Ergonomics, 33, 1315-1332.
Rutter, D., & Quine, L. (Eds.) (2001). Changing health behaviours. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Smith, P., Waterman, M., & Ward, N. (2006). Driving aggression in forensic and non-forensic populations: Relationships to self-reported levels of aggression, anger and impulsivity. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 387-403.
Stradling, S. (2000). Drivers who speed. Impact, 9, 38-41.
Ward, N.J., Waterman, M.G., & Joint, M. (1998). Rage and violence in driver aggression. In G. Grayson (Ed.), Behavioural research in road safety VIII. Crowthorne: TRL.