Supervisory safety practices in the work-related driving context

Work-related driving crashes are the most common cause of work-related injury, death, and absence from work in Australia and overseas. Surprisingly however, limited attention has been given to initiatives designed to improve safety outcomes in the work-related driving setting. This research paper will present preliminary findings from a research project designed to examine the effects of increasing work-related driving safety discussions on the relationship between drivers and their supervisors and motivations to drive safely. The research project was conducted within a community nursing population, where 112 drivers were matched with 23 supervisors. To establish discussions between supervisors and drivers, safety sessions were conducted on a monthly basis with supervisors of the drivers. At these sessions, the researcher presented context specific, audio-based anti-speeding messages. Throughout the course of the intervention and following each of these safety sessions, supervisors were instructed to ensure that all drivers within their workgroup listened to each particular anti-speeding message at least once a fortnight. In addition to the message, supervisors were also encouraged to frequently promote the anti-speeding message through any contact they had with their drivers (i.e., face to face, email, SMS text, and/or paper based contact). Fortnightly discussions were subsequently held with drivers, whereby the researchers ascertained the number and type of discussions supervisors engaged in with their drivers. These discussions also assessed drivers’ perceptions of the group safety climate. In addition to the fortnightly discussion, drivers completed a daily speed reporting form which assessed the proportion of their driving day spent knowingly over the speed limit. As predicted, the results found that if supervisors reported a good safety climate prior to the intervention, increasing the number of safety discussions resulted in drivers reporting a high quality relationship (i.e., leader-member exchange) with their supervisor post intervention. In addition, if drivers reported a good safety climate, increasing the number of discussions resulted in increased motivation to drive safely post intervention. Motivations to drive safely prior to the intervention also predicted self-reported speeding over the subsequent three months of reporting. These results suggest safety discussions play an important role in improving the exchange between supervisors and their drivers and drivers’ subsequent motivation to drive safely and, in turn, self reported speeding.

Can’t we all just get along? A qualitative investigation of the cognitive processes motivating driver aggression.

Although driver aggression has been identified as contributing to crashes, current understanding of the fundamental causes of the behaviour is poor. Two key reasons for this are evident. Firstly, existing research has been largely atheoretical, with no unifying conceptual framework guiding investigation. Secondly, emphasis on observable behaviours has resulted in limited knowledge of the underlying thought processes that motivate behaviour. Since driving is fundamentally a social situation, requiring drivers to interpret on-road events, insight regarding these perception and appraisal processes is paramount in advancing understanding of the underlying causes. Thus, the current study aimed to explore the cognitive appraisal processes involved in driver aggression, using a conceptual model founded on the General Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The present results reflect the first of several studies testing this model. Participants completed 3 structured driving diaries to explore perceptions and cognitions. Thematic analysis of diaries identified several cognitive themes. The first, ‘driving etiquette’ concerned an implied code of awareness and consideration for other motorists, breaches of which were strongly associated with reports of anger and frustration. Such breaches were considered intentional; attributed to dispositional traits of another driver, and precipitated the second theme, ‘justified retaliation’. This theme showed that drivers view their aggressive behaviour as warranted, to convey criticism towards another motorist’s etiquette violation. However, the third theme, ‘superiority’ suggested that those refraining from an aggressive response were motivated by a desire to perceive themselves as ‘better’ than the offending motorists. Collectively, the themes indicate deep-seated and complex thought patterns underlying driver aggression, and suggest the behaviour will be challenging to modify. Implications of these themes in relation to the proposed model will be discussed, and continued research will explore these cognitive processes further, to examine their interaction with person-related factors.