Understanding how drivers learn to anticipate risk on the road: A laboratory experiment of affective anticipation of road hazards.

This study examines whether there is evidence that converging theories from the domains of risk and decision making, neuroscience, and psychology can improve our understanding of how drivers learn to appraise on-the-road hazards. Within the domain of decision making it is suggested that there are two distinct ways in which humans appraise risk: risk as feelings and risk as analysis. Meanwhile, current neurological theory, in the form of the Somatic Marker Hypothesis, supports the role of feelings and emotion as an evolved automated system of human risk appraisal that biases judgment and decision making. This study used skin conductance responses (SCRs) to measure learner, novice and experienced drivers' psycho-physiological responses to the development of driving hazards. Experienced drivers were twice as likely to produce an SCR to developing hazards as novice drivers and three times as likely when compared with learner drivers. These differences maintained significance when age, gender and exposure were controlled for. Further analysis revealed that novice drivers who had less than 1000 miles driving experience had anticipatory physiological responses similar to learner drivers, whereas novices who had driven more than 1000 miles had scores approaching those of experienced drivers. This demonstrated a learning curve mediated by driving experience supporting experiential learning as proposed within the Somatic Marker Hypothesis. A differentiation between cognitive and psycho-physiological responses was also found supporting theory that distinguishes between conscious and non-conscious risk appraisal.

Application of the theory of planned behaviour to the prediction of objectively assessed breaking of posted speed limits.

In two studies the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) including moral norms, anticipated regret and past behaviour was applied to predicting intention to exceed the posted speed limit across different roads and objectively assessed speeding behaviour. All measures except behaviour were taken by self-report questionnaires referring to different driving scenarios. The behaviour measures were based on performance in a simulator (Study 1) or unobtrusive on-road speed camera assessment taken without driver awareness (Study 2) across roads with varying posted speed limits. Results are reported averaged across road types in both studies. In Study 1 (N=83), 82% of the variance in intentions to speed was explained, with attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control (PBC), moral norms, anticipated regret and past behaviour being significant predictors. A total of 35% of the variance in speed as assessed on a driving simulator was accounted for with intentions, PBC, moral norms and previous accidents being significant predictors. In Study 2 (N=303), 76% of the variance in intentions to speed was explained with attitudes, moral norms, anticipated regret and past behaviour being significant predictors. A total of 17% of the variance in speed as assessed on-road was accounted for with intentions and moral norms being significant. Practical implications of the findings for road safety are discussed.

Translating the psychobiology of post-traumatic stress disorder into clinically useful analogy.

Psychological theorizing about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has developed considerably since early behavioural formulations (Brewin, Dalgleish, & Joseph, 1996; Mowrer, 1960) and there have been parallel developments in biological understanding (Yehuda, 1998). However clinical practice has not been affected by the new psychobiology. It is suggested that it is possible to translate this new understanding into a clinically useful analogy that will help circumvent the difficulties of forming a therapeutic alliance with trauma victims which have been reported (Pitman et al., 1991; Scott & Stradling, 1997).

Driving errors, driving violations and accident involvement.

A survey of over 1600 drivers is reported, the results of which are consistent with those reported in an earlier study (Reason et al. 1990), which identified a three-fold typology of aberrant driving behaviours. The first type, lapses, are absent-minded behaviours with consequences mainly for the perpetrator, posing no threat to other road users. The second type, errors, are typically misjudgements and failures of observation that may be hazardous to others. The third type, violations, involve deliberate contraventions of safe driving practice. In the present study the survey instrument used, the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire, was also shown to be reliable over time. Each type of behaviour was found to have different demographic correlates. Most importantly, accident liability was predicted by self-reported tendency to commit violations, but not by tendency to make errors or to have lapses. The implications for road safety are discussed.