Understanding the psychosocial factors influencing the risky behaviour of young drivers

Young people aged 17–24 years are at high risk of being killed in road crashes around the world. Road safety interventions consider some influences upon young driver behaviour; for example, imposing passenger restrictions on young novice drivers indirectly minimises the potential negative social influences of peers as passengers. To change young driver risky behaviour, the multitude of psychosocial influences upon its initiation and maintenance must be identified. A study questionnaire was developed to investigate the relationships between risky driving and Akers’ social learning theory, social identity theory, and thrill seeking variables. The questionnaire was completed by 165 participants (105 women,60 men) residing in south-east Queensland, Australia. The sociodemographic variables of age, gender, and exposure explained 19% of the variance in self-reported risky driving behaviour, whilst Akers’ social learning variables explained an additional 42%. Thrill seeking and social identity variables did not explain any significant additional variance. Significant predictors of risky driving included imitation of the driving behaviours of, and anticipated rewards and punishments administered by, parents and peers. Road safety policy that directly considers and incorporates these factors in their design, implementation, and enforcement of young driver road safety interventions should prove more efficacious than current approaches.

Exploring how parents and peers influence the behaviour of young drivers

Despite ongoing enhancements to graduated licensing systems, young drivers continue to have a high risk of being killed or injured in car crashes. This study investigated the influence of parents and peers on the risky behaviour of young drivers, utilising Akers’ social learning theory. The specific factors examined related to parent and peer norms perceived by the young driver, and the rewards and punishments anticipated by the young driver from their parents and peers. A questionnaire was completed by 165 young drivers. Regression analysis revealed that these factors explained 54% of the variance in risky driving. The strongest predictor was anticipated parent rewards, followed by peer norms, and anticipated peer rewards. Exploratory analyses however revealed the profile of predictors varied for male and female participants, and for self-reported offenders and non-offenders. The results highlight the role of psychosocial factors in the risky behaviour of young drivers and the need for road safety policies and programs to consider the influence of both parents and peers upon this behaviour.

How do other people influence your driving speed? Exploring the 'who' and the 'how' of social influences on speeding from a qualitative perspective

Using only legal sanctions to manage the speed at which people drive ignores the potential benefits of harnessing social factors such as the influence of others. Social influences on driver speeds were explored in this qualitative examination of 67 Australian drivers. Focus group interviews with 8 driver types (young, mid-age and older males and females, and self-identified Excessive and Rare speeders) were guided by Akers’ social learning theory (Akers, 1998). Findings revealed two types of influential others: people known to the driver (passengers and parents), and unknown other drivers. Passengers were generally described as having a slowing influence on drivers: responsibility for the safety of people in the car and consideration for passenger comfort were key themes. In contrast, all but the Rare speeders reported increasing their speed when driving alone. Parental role modelling was also described. In relation to other drivers, key themes included speeding to keep up with traffic flow and perceived pressure to drive faster. This ‘pressure’ from others to ‘speed up’ was expressed in all groups and reported strategies for managing this varied. Encouragingly, examples of actual or anticipated social rewards for speeding were less common than examples of social punishments. Three main themes relating to social punishments were embarrassment, breaching the trust of others, and presenting an image of a responsible driver. Impression management and self-presentation are discussed in light of these findings. Overall, our findings indicate scope to exploit the use of social sanctions for speeding and social praise for speed limit compliance to enhance speed management strategies.

Order supported by law : the enforcement of norms in virtual communities

As online social spaces continue to grow in importance, the complex relationship between users and the private providers of the platforms continues to raise increasingly difficult questions about legitimacy in online governance. This article examines two issues that go to the core of egitimate governance in online communities: how are rules enforced and punishments imposed, and how should the law support legitimate governance and protect participants from the illegitimate exercise of power? Because the rules of online communities are generally ultimately backed by contractual terms of service, the imposition of punishment for the breach of internal rules exists in a difficult conceptual gap between criminal law and the predominantly compensatory remedies of contractual doctrine. When theorists have addressed the need for the rules of virtual communities to be enforced, a dichotomy has generally emerged between the appropriate role of criminal law for 'real' crimes, and the private, internal resolution of 'virtual' or 'fantasy' crimes. In this structure, the punitive effect of internal measures is downplayed and the harm that can be caused to participants by internal sanctions is systemically undervalued.

A comparison of the psychological, social, and legal factors contributing to speeding and drink driving behaviour

Within Australia, motor vehicle injury is the leading cause of hospital admissions and fatalities. Road crash data reveals that among the factors contributing to crashes in Queensland, speed and alcohol continue to be overrepresented. While alcohol is the number one contributing factor to fatal crashes, speeding also contributes to a high proportion of crashes. Research indicates that risky driving is an important contributor to road crashes. However, it has been debated whether all risky driving behaviours are similar enough to be explained by the same combination of factors. Further, road safety authorities have traditionally relied upon deterrence based countermeasures to reduce the incidence of illegal driving behaviours such as speeding and drink driving. However, more recent research has focussed on social factors to explain illegal driving behaviours. The purpose of this research was to examine and compare the psychological, legal, and social factors contributing to two illegal driving behaviours: exceeding the posted speed limit and driving when over the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for the drivers licence type. Complementary theoretical perspectives were chosen to comprehensively examine these two behaviours including Akers’ social learning theory, Stafford and Warr’s expanded deterrence theory, and personality perspectives encompassing alcohol misuse, sensation seeking, and Type-A behaviour pattern. The program of research consisted of two phases: a preliminary pilot study, and the main quantitative phase. The preliminary pilot study was undertaken to inform the development of the quantitative study and to ensure the clarity of the theoretical constructs operationalised in this research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 Queensland drivers recruited from Queensland Transport Licensing Centres and Queensland University of Technology (QUT). These interviews demonstrated that the majority of participants had engaged in at least one of the behaviours, or knew of someone who had. It was also found among these drivers that the social environment in which both behaviours operated, including family and friends, and the social rewards and punishments associated with the behaviours, are important in their decision making. The main quantitative phase of the research involved a cross-sectional survey of 547 Queensland licensed drivers. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between speeding and drink driving and whether there were any similarities or differences in the factors that contribute to a driver’s decision to engage in one or the other. A comparison of the participants self-reported speeding and self-reported drink driving behaviour demonstrated that there was a weak positive association between these two behaviours. Further, participants reported engaging in more frequent speeding at both low (i.e., up to 10 kilometres per hour) and high (i.e., 10 kilometres per hour or more) levels, than engaging in drink driving behaviour. It was noted that those who indicated they drove when they may be over the legal limit for their licence type, more frequently exceeded the posted speed limit by 10 kilometres per hour or more than those who complied with the regulatory limits for drink driving. A series of regression analyses were conducted to investigate the factors that predict self-reported speeding, self-reported drink driving, and the preparedness to engage in both behaviours. In relation to self-reported speeding (n = 465), it was found that among the sociodemographic and person-related factors, younger drivers and those who score high on measures of sensation seeking were more likely to report exceeding the posted speed limit. In addition, among the legal and psychosocial factors it was observed that direct exposure to punishment (i.e., being detected by police), direct punishment avoidance (i.e., engaging in an illegal driving behaviour and not being detected by police), personal definitions (i.e., personal orientation or attitudes toward the behaviour), both the normative and behavioural dimensions of differential association (i.e., refers to both the orientation or attitude of their friends and family, as well as the behaviour of these individuals), and anticipated punishments were significant predictors of self-reported speeding. It was interesting to note that associating with significant others who held unfavourable definitions towards speeding (the normative dimension of differential association) and anticipating punishments from others were both significant predictors of a reduction in self-reported speeding. In relation to self-reported drink driving (n = 462), a logistic regression analysis indicated that there were a number of significant predictors which increased the likelihood of whether participants had driven in the last six months when they thought they may have been over the legal alcohol limit. These included: experiences of direct punishment avoidance; having a family member convicted of drink driving; higher levels of Type-A behaviour pattern; greater alcohol misuse (as measured by the AUDIT); and the normative dimension of differential association (i.e., associating with others who held favourable attitudes to drink driving). A final logistic regression analysis examined the predictors of whether the participants reported engaging in both drink driving and speeding versus those who reported engaging in only speeding (the more common of the two behaviours) (n = 465). It was found that experiences of punishment avoidance for speeding decreased the likelihood of engaging in both speeding and drink driving; whereas in the case of drink driving, direct punishment avoidance increased the likelihood of engaging in both behaviours. It was also noted that holding favourable personal definitions toward speeding and drink driving, as well as higher levels of on Type-A behaviour pattern, and greater alcohol misuse significantly increased the likelihood of engaging in both speeding and drink driving. This research has demonstrated that the compliance with the regulatory limits was much higher for drink driving than it was for speeding. It is acknowledged that while speed limits are a fundamental component of speed management practices in Australia, the countermeasures applied to both speeding and drink driving do not appear to elicit the same level of compliance across the driving population. Further, the findings suggest that while the principles underpinning the current regime of deterrence based countermeasures are sound, current enforcement practices are insufficient to force compliance among the driving population, particularly in the case of speeding. Future research should further examine the degree of overlap between speeding and drink driving behaviour and whether punishment avoidance experiences for a specific illegal driving behaviour serve to undermine the deterrent effect of countermeasures aimed at reducing the incidence of another illegal driving behaviour. Furthermore, future work should seek to understand the factors which predict engaging in speeding and drink driving behaviours at the same time. Speeding has shown itself to be a pervasive and persistent behaviour, hence it would be useful to examine why road safety authorities have been successful in convincing the majority of drivers of the dangers of drink driving, but not those associated with speeding. In conclusion, the challenge for road safety practitioners will be to convince drivers that speeding and drink driving are equally risky behaviours, with the ultimate goal to reduce the prevalence of both behaviours.

Individual differences in drivers’ cognitive processing of road safety messages

Using Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST), we examined the influence of personality on processing of words presented in gain-framed and loss-framed anti-speeding messages and how the processing biases associated with personality influenced message acceptance. The r-RST predicts that the nervous system regulates personality and that behaviour is dependent upon the activation of the Behavioural Activation System (BAS), activated by reward cues and the Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS), activated by punishment cues. According to r-RST, individuals differ in the sensitivities of their BAS and FFFS (i.e., weak to strong), which in turn leads to stable patterns of behaviour in the presence of rewards and punishments, respectively. It was hypothesised that individual differences in personality (i.e., strength of the BAS and the FFFS) would influence the degree of both message processing (as measured by reaction time to previously viewed message words) and message acceptance (measured three ways by perceived message effectiveness, behavioural intentions, and attitudes). Specifically, it was anticipated that, individuals with a stronger BAS would process the words presented in the gain-frame messages faster than those with a weaker BAS and individuals with a stronger FFFS would process the words presented in the loss-frame messages faster than those with a weaker FFFS. Further, it was expected that greater processing (faster reaction times) would be associated with greater acceptance for that message. Driver licence holding students (N = 108) were recruited to view one of four anti-speeding messages (i.e., social gain-frame, social loss-frame, physical gain-frame, and physical loss-frame). A computerised lexical decision task assessed participants’ subsequent reaction times to message words, as an indicator of the extent of processing of the previously viewed message. Self-report measures assessed personality and the three message acceptance measures. As predicted, the degree of initial processing of the content of the social gain-framed message mediated the relationship between the reward sensitive trait and message effectiveness. Initial processing of the physical loss-framed message partially mediated the relationship between the punishment sensitive trait and both message effectiveness and behavioural intention ratings. These results show that reward sensitivity and punishment sensitivity traits influence cognitive processing of gain-framed and loss-framed message content, respectively, and subsequently, message effectiveness and behavioural intention ratings. Specifically, a range of road safety messages (i.e., gain-frame and loss-frame messages) could be designed which align with the processing biases associated with personality and which would target those individuals who are sensitive to rewards and those who are sensitive to punishments.

“They’re lunatics on the road” : Exploring the normative influences of parents, friends, and police on young novices’ risky driving decisions

Purpose: Young novice drivers experience significantly greater risk of being injured or killed in car crashes than older more experienced drivers. This research utilised a qualitative approach guided by the framework of Akers’ social learning theory. It explored young novice drivers’ perspectives on risky driving including rewards and punishments expected from and administered by parents, friends, and police, imitation of parents’ and friends’ driving, and advantages and disadvantages of risky driving. Methods: Twenty-one young drivers (12 females, 9 males) aged 16–25 years (M = 17.71 years, SD = 2.15) with a Learner (n = 11) or Provisional (n = 10) driver licence participated in individual or small group interviews. Findings and conclusions: Content analysis supported four themes: (1) rewards and (2) punishments for risky driving, and the influence of (3) parents and (4) friends. The young novice drivers differed in their vulnerability to the negative influences of friends and parents, with some novices advising they were able to resist risky normative influences whilst others felt they could not. The authority of the police as enforcers of road rules was either accepted and respected or seen as being used to persecute young novices. These findings suggest that road safety interventions should consider the normative influence of parents and friends on the risky and safe behaviour of young novices. Police were also seen as influential upon behaviour. Future research should explore the complicated relationship between parents, friends, the police, young novices, and their risky driving behaviour.

The experiences of learner drivers, provisional drivers and supervisors with graduated driver licensing in two Australian jurisdictions

Newly licensed drivers on a provisional or intermediate licence have the highest crash risk when compared with any other group of drivers. In comparison, learner drivers have the lowest crash risk. Graduated driver licensing is one countermeasure that has been demonstrated to effectively reduce the crashes of novice drivers. This thesis examined the graduated driver licensing systems in two Australian states in order to better understand the behaviour of learner drivers, provisional drivers and the supervisors of learner drivers. By doing this, the thesis investigated the personal, social and environmental influences on novice driver behaviour as well as providing effective baseline data against which to measure subsequent changes to the licensing systems. In the first study, conducted prior to the changes to the graduated driver licensing system introduced in mid-2007, drivers who had recently obtained their provisional licence in Queensland and New South Wales were interviewed by telephone regarding their experiences while driving on their learner licence. Of the 687 eligible people approached to participate at driver licensing centres, 392 completed the study representing a response rate of 57.1 per cent. At the time the data was collected, New South Wales represented a more extensive graduated driver licensing system when compared with Queensland. The results suggested that requiring learners to complete a mandated number of hours of supervised practice impacts on the amount of hours that learners report completing. While most learners from New South Wales reported meeting the requirement to complete 50 hours of practice, it appears that many stopped practising soon after this goal was achieved. In contrast, learners from Queensland, who were not required to complete a specific number of hours at the time of the survey, tended to fall into three groups. The first group appeared to complete the minimum number of hours required to pass the test (less than 26 hours), the second group completed 26 to 50 hours of supervised practice while the third group completed significantly more practice than the first two groups (over 100 hours of supervised practice). Learner drivers in both states reported generally complying with the road laws and were unlikely to report that they had been caught breaking the road rules. They also indicated that they planned to obey the road laws once they obtained their provisional licence. However, they were less likely to intend to comply with recommended actions to reduce crash risk such as limiting their driving at night. This study also identified that there were relatively low levels of unaccompanied driving (approximately 15 per cent of the sample), very few driving offences committed (five per cent of the sample) and that learner drivers tended to use a mix of private and professional supervisors (although the majority of practice is undertaken with private supervisors). Consistent with the international literature, this study identified that very few learner drivers had experienced a crash (six per cent) while on their learner licence. The second study was also conducted prior to changes to the graduated driver licensing system and involved follow up interviews with the participants of the first study after they had approximately 21 months driving experience on their provisional licence. Of the 392 participants that completed the first study, 233 participants completed the second interview (representing a response rate of 59.4 per cent). As with the first study, at the time the data was collected, New South Wales had a more extensive graduated driver licensing system than Queensland. For instance, novice drivers from New South Wales were required to progress through two provisional licence phases (P1 and P2) while there was only one provisional licence phase in Queensland. Among the participants in this second study, almost all provisional drivers (97.9 per cent) owned or had access to a vehicle for regular driving. They reported that they were unlikely to break road rules, such as driving after a couple of drinks, but were also unlikely to comply with recommended actions, such as limiting their driving at night. When their provisional driving behaviour was compared to the stated intentions from the first study, the results suggested that their intentions were not a strong predictor of their subsequent behaviour. Their perception of risk associated with driving declined from when they first obtained their learner licence to when they had acquired provisional driving experience. Just over 25 per cent of participants in study two reported that they had been caught committing driving offences while on their provisional licence. Nearly one-third of participants had crashed while driving on a provisional licence, although few of these crashes resulted in injuries or hospitalisations. To complement the first two studies, the third study examined the experiences of supervisors of learner drivers, as well as their perceptions of their learner’s experiences. This study was undertaken after the introduction of the new graduated driver licensing systems in Queensland and New South Wales in mid- 2007, providing insights into the impacts of these changes from the perspective of supervisors. The third study involved an internet survey of 552 supervisors of learner drivers. Within the sample, approximately 50 per cent of participants supervised their own child. Other supervisors of the learner drivers included other parents or stepparents, professional driving instructors and siblings. For two-thirds of the sample, this was the first learner driver that they had supervised. Participants had provided an average of 54.82 hours (sd = 67.19) of supervision. Seventy-three per cent of participants indicated that their learners’ logbooks were accurate or very accurate in most cases, although parents were more likely than non-parents to report that their learners’ logbook was accurate (F (1,546) = 7.74, p = .006). There was no difference between parents and non-parents regarding whether they believed the log book system was effective (F (1,546) = .01, p = .913). The majority of the sample reported that their learner driver had had some professional driving lessons. Notwithstanding this, a significant proportion (72.5 per cent) believed that parents should be either very involved or involved in teaching their child to drive, with parents being more likely than non-parents to hold this belief. In the post mid-2007 graduated driver licensing system, Queensland learner drivers are able to record three hours of supervised practice in their log book for every hour that is completed with a professional driving instructor, up to a total of ten hours. Despite this, there was no difference identified between Queensland and New South Wales participants regarding the amount of time that they reported their learners spent with professional driving instructors (X2(1) = 2.56, p = .110). Supervisors from New South Wales were more likely to ensure that their learner driver complied with the road laws. Additionally, with the exception of drug driving laws, New South Wales supervisors believed it was more important to teach safety-related behaviours such as remaining within the speed limit, car control and hazard perception than those from Queensland. This may be indicative of more intensive road safety educational efforts in New South Wales or the longer time that graduated driver licensing has operated in that jurisdiction. However, other factors may have contributed to these findings and further research is required to explore the issue. In addition, supervisors reported that their learner driver was involved in very few crashes (3.4 per cent) and offences (2.7 per cent). This relatively low reported crash rate is similar to that identified in the first study. Most of the graduated driver licensing research to date has been applied in nature and lacked a strong theoretical foundation. These studies used Akers’ social learning theory to explore the self-reported behaviour of novice drivers and their supervisors. This theory was selected as it has previously been found to provide a relatively comprehensive framework for explaining a range of driver behaviours including novice driver behaviour. Sensation seeking was also used in the first two studies to complement the non-social rewards component of Akers’ social learning theory. This program of research identified that both Akers’ social learning theory and sensation seeking were useful in predicting the behaviour of learner and provisional drivers over and above socio-demographic factors. Within the first study, Akers’ social learning theory accounted for an additional 22 per cent of the variance in learner driver compliance with the law, over and above a range of socio-demographic factors such as age, gender and income. The two constructs within Akers’ theory which were significant predictors of learner driver compliance were the behavioural dimension of differential association relating to friends, and anticipated rewards. Sensation seeking predicted an additional six per cent of the variance in learner driver compliance with the law. When considering a learner driver’s intention to comply with the law while driving on a provisional licence, Akers’ social learning theory accounted for an additional 10 per cent of the variance above socio-demographic factors with anticipated rewards being a significant predictor. Sensation seeking predicted an additional four per cent of the variance. The results suggest that the more rewards individuals anticipate for complying with the law, the more likely they are to obey the road rules. Further research is needed to identify which specific rewards are most likely to encourage novice drivers’ compliance with the law. In the second study, Akers’ social learning theory predicted an additional 40 per cent of the variance in self-reported compliance with road rules over and above socio-demographic factors while sensation seeking accounted for an additional five per cent of the variance. A number of Aker’s social learning theory constructs significantly predicted provisional driver compliance with the law, including the behavioural dimension of differential association for friends, the normative dimension of differential association, personal attitudes and anticipated punishments. The consistent prediction of additional variance by sensation seeking over and above the variables within Akers’ social learning theory in both studies one and two suggests that sensation seeking is not fully captured within the non social rewards dimension of Akers’ social learning theory, at least for novice drivers. It appears that novice drivers are strongly influenced by the desire to engage in new and intense experiences. While socio-demographic factors and the perception of risk associated with driving had an important role in predicting the behaviour of the supervisors of learner drivers, Akers’ social learning theory provided further levels of prediction over and above these factors. The Akers’ social learning theory variables predicted an additional 14 per cent of the variance in the extent to which supervisors ensured that their learners complied with the law and an additional eight per cent of the variance in the supervisors’ provision of a range of practice experiences. The normative dimension of differential association, personal attitudes towards the use of professional driving instructors and anticipated rewards were significant predictors for supervisors ensuring that their learner complied with the road laws, while the normative dimension was important for range of practice. This suggests that supervisors who engage with other supervisors who ensure their learner complies with the road laws and provide a range of practice to their own learners are more likely to also engage in these behaviours. Within this program of research, there were several limitations including the method of recruitment of participants within the first study, the lower participation rate in the second study, an inability to calculate a response rate for study three and the use of self-report data for all three studies. Within the first study, participants were only recruited from larger driver licensing centres to ensure that there was a sufficient throughput of drivers to approach. This may have biased the results due to the possible differences in learners that obtain their licences in locations with smaller licensing centres. Only 59.4 per cent of the sample in the first study completed the second study. This may be a limitation if there was a common reason why those not participating were unable to complete the interview leading to a systematic impact on the results. The third study used a combination of a convenience and snowball sampling which meant that it was not possible to calculate a response rate. All three studies used self-report data which, in many cases, is considered a limitation. However, self-report data may be the only method that can be used to obtain some information. This program of research has a number of implications for countermeasures in both the learner licence phase and the provisional licence phase. During the learner phase, licensing authorities need to carefully consider the number of hours that they mandate learner drivers must complete before they obtain their provisional driving licence. If they mandate an insufficient number of hours, there may be inadvertent negative effects as a result of setting too low a limit. This research suggests that logbooks may be a useful tool for learners and their supervisors in recording and structuring their supervised practice. However, it would appear that the usage rates for logbooks will remain low if they remain voluntary. One strategy for achieving larger amounts of supervised practice is for learner drivers and their supervisors to make supervised practice part of their everyday activities. As well as assisting the learner driver to accumulate the required number of hours of supervised practice, it would ensure that they gain experience in the types of environments that they will probably encounter when driving unaccompanied in the future, such as to and from education or work commitments. There is also a need for policy processes to ensure that parents and professional driving instructors communicate effectively regarding the learner driver’s progress. This is required as most learners spend at least some time with a professional instructor despite receiving significant amounts of practice with a private supervisor. However, many supervisors did not discuss their learner’s progress with the driving instructor. During the provisional phase, there is a need to strengthen countermeasures to address the high crash risk of these drivers. Although many of these crashes are minor, most involve at least one other vehicle. Therefore, there are social and economic benefits to reducing these crashes. If the new, post-2007 graduated driver licensing systems do not significantly reduce crash risk, there may be a need to introduce further provisional licence restrictions such as separate night driving and peer passenger restrictions (as opposed to the hybrid version of these two restrictions operating in both Queensland and New South Wales). Provisional drivers appear to be more likely to obey some provisional licence laws, such as lower blood alcohol content limits, than others such as speed limits. Therefore, there may be a need to introduce countermeasures to encourage provisional drivers to comply with specific restrictions. When combined, these studies provided significant information regarding graduated driver licensing programs. This program of research has investigated graduated driver licensing utilising a cross-sectional and longitudinal design in order to develop our understanding of the experiences of novice drivers that progress through the system in order to help reduce crash risk once novice drivers commence driving by themselves.

Boards' contribution to strategy and innovation

Among the most disputed issues within the business arena and among academic scholars are which role boards of directors are expected to fulfill, and how they contribute to a company’s success and survival (Monks & Minow, 2008). Recent failures of large corporations worldwide has led corporate governance and strategic management scholars to call for increased board involvement in decision-making (Tricker, 2009) that has paralleled regulators’ requests for higher monitoring and punishments in the case of frauds and misbehaviors (Coffee, 2005)

Disciplinary unfairness in Queensland public service legislation

A just system of discipline within an organisation requires four characteristics: a clear set of offences, proportionate punishments clearly linked to the offences, oversight and appeals from disciplinary decisions and independence from political masters. This paper examines Queensland public sector legislation and policy from 1863 to the present to demonstrate how well these four criteria are addressed. An analysis of the presence of these four characteristics in the Queensland context finds that the public sector legislation in Queensland is in breach of the guidelines that define a just and fair system in which disciplinary action is dispensed. We argue that creation of arbitrary powers to punish or dismiss staff is unjust if the legislation does not fully inform staff of what constitutes a breach of discipline, does not guarantee proportionate punishments to offences, and/or it allows the disciplinary process to be used as a tool to coerce staff to perform in a politicised or otherwise unethical manner. We conclude by making recommendations as to how this situation may be rectified.

A comprehensive investigation of the risky driving behaviour of young novice drivers

Young novice drivers - that is, drivers aged 16-25 years who are relatively inexperienced in driving on the road and have a novice (Learner, Provisional) driver's licence - have been overrepresented in car crash, injury and fatality statistics around the world for decades. There are numerous persistent characteristics evident in young novice driver crashes, fatalities and offences, including variables relating to the young driver themselves, broader social influences which include their passengers, the car they drive, and when and how they drive, and their risky driving behaviour in particular. Moreover, there are a range of psychosocial factors influencing the behaviour of young novice drivers, including the social influences of parents and peers, and person-related factors such as age-related factors, attitudes, and sensation seeking. Historically, a range of approaches have been developed to manage the risky driving behaviour of young novice drivers. Traditional measures predominantly relying upon education have had limited success in regulating the risky driving behaviour of the young novice driver. In contrast, interventions such as graduated driver licensing (GDL) which acknowledges young novice drivers' limitations - principally pertaining to their chronological and developmental age, and their driving inexperience - have shown to be effective in ameliorating this pervasive public health problem. In practice, GDL is a risk management tool that is designed to reduce driving at risky times (e.g., at night) or in risky driving conditions (e.g., with passengers), while still enabling novice drivers to obtain experience. In this regard, the GDL program in Queensland, Australia, was considerably enhanced in July 2007, and major additions to the program include mandated Learner practice of 100 hours recorded in a logbook, and passenger limits during night driving in the Provisional phase. Road safety researchers have also continued to consider the influential role played by the young driver's psychosocial characteristics, including psychological traits and states. In addition, whilst the majority of road safety user research is epidemiological in nature, contemporary road safety research is increasingly applying psychological and criminological theories. Importantly, such theories not only can guide young novice driver research, they can also inform the development and evaluation of countermeasures targeting their risky driving behaviour. The research is thus designed to explore the self-reported behaviours - and the personal, psychosocial, and structural influences upon the behaviours - of young novice drivers This thesis incorporates three stages of predominantly quantitative research to undertake a comprehensive investigation of the risky driving behaviour of young novices. Risky driving behaviour increases the likelihood of the young novice driver being involved in a crash which may harm themselves or other road users, and deliberate risky driving such as driving in excess of the posted speed limits is the focus of the program of research. The extant literature examining the nature of the risky behaviour of the young novice driver - and the contributing factors for this behaviour - while comprehensive, has not led to the development of a reliable instrument designed specifically to measure the risky behaviour of the young novice driver. Therefore the development and application of such a tool (the Behaviour of Young Novice Drivers Scale, or BYNDS) was foremost in the program of research. In addition to describing the driving behaviours of the young novice, a central theme of this program of research was identifying, describing, and quantifying personal, behavioural, and environmental influences upon young novice driver risky behaviour. Accordingly the 11 papers developed from the three stages of research which comprise this thesis are framed within Bandura's reciprocal determinism model which explicitly considers the reciprocal relationship between the environment, the person, and their behaviour. Stage One comprised the foundation research and operationalised quantitative and qualitative methodologies to finalise the instrument used in Stages Two and Three. The first part of Stage One involved an online survey which was completed by 761 young novice drivers who attended tertiary education institutions across Queensland. A reliable instrument for measuring the risky driving behaviour of young novices was developed (the BYNDS) and is currently being operationalised in young novice driver research in progress at the Centre for Injury Research and Prevention in Philadelphia, USA. In addition, regression analyses revealed that psychological distress influenced risky driving behaviour, and the differential influence of depression, anxiety, sensitivity to punishments and rewards, and sensation seeking propensity were explored. Path model analyses revealed that punishment sensitivity was mediated by anxiety and depression; and the influence of depression, anxiety, reward sensitivity and sensation seeking propensity were moderated by the gender of the driver. Specifically, for males, sensation seeking propensity, depression, and reward sensitivity were predictive of self-reported risky driving, whilst for females anxiety was also influential. In the second part of Stage One, 21 young novice drivers participated in individual and small group interviews. The normative influences of parents, peers, and the Police were explicated. Content analysis supported four themes of influence through punishments, rewards, and the behaviours and attitudes of parents and friends. The Police were also influential upon the risky driving behaviour of young novices. The findings of both parts of Stage One informed the research of Stage Two. Stage Two was a comprehensive investigation of the pre-Licence and Learner experiences, attitudes, and behaviours, of young novice drivers. In this stage, 1170 young novice drivers from across Queensland completed an online or paper survey exploring their experiences, behaviours and attitudes as a pre- and Learner driver. The majority of novices did not drive before they were licensed (pre-Licence driving) or as an unsupervised Learner, submitted accurate logbooks, intended to follow the road rules as a Provisional driver, and reported practicing predominantly at the end of the Learner period. The experience of Learners in the enhanced-GDL program were also examined and compared to those of Learner drivers who progressed through the former-GDL program (data collected previously by Bates, Watson, & King, 2009a). Importantly, current-GDL Learners reported significantly more driving practice and a longer Learner period, less difficulty obtaining practice, and less offence detection and crash involvement than Learners in the former-GDL program. The findings of Stage Two informed the research of Stage Three. Stage Three was a comprehensive exploration of the driving experiences, attitudes and behaviours of young novice drivers during their first six months of Provisional 1 licensure. In this stage, 390 of the 1170 young novice drivers from Stage Two completed another survey, and data collected during Stages Two and Three allowed a longitudinal investigation of self-reported risky driving behaviours, such as GDL-specific and general road rule compliance; risky behaviour such as pre-Licence driving, crash involvement and offence detection; and vehicle ownership, paying attention to Police presence, and punishment avoidance. Whilst the majority of Learner and Provisional drivers reported compliance with GDL-specific and general road rules, 33% of Learners and 50% of Provisional drivers reported speeding by 10-20 km/hr at least occasionally. Twelve percent of Learner drivers reported pre-Licence driving, and these drivers were significantly more risky as Learner and Provisional drivers. Ten percent of males and females reported being involved in a crash, and 10% of females and 18% of males had been detected for an offence, within the first six months of independent driving. Additionally, 75% of young novice drivers reported owning their own car within six months of gaining their Provisional driver's licence. Vehicle owners reported significantly shorter Learner periods and more risky driving exposure as a Provisional driver. Paying attention to Police presence on the roads appeared normative for young novice drivers: 91% of Learners and 72% of Provisional drivers reported paying attention. Provisional drivers also reported they actively avoided the Police: 25% of males and 13% of females; 23% of rural drivers and 15% of urban drivers. Stage Three also allowed the refinement of the risky behaviour measurement tool (BYNDS) created in Stage One; the original reliable 44-item instrument was refined to a similarly reliable 36-item instrument. A longitudinal exploration of the influence of anxiety, depression, sensation seeking propensity and reward sensitivity upon the risky behaviour of the Provisional driver was also undertaken using data collected in Stages Two and Three. Consistent with the research of Stage One, structural equation modeling revealed anxiety, reward sensitivity and sensation seeking propensity predicted self-reported risky driving behaviour. Again, gender was a moderator, with only reward sensitivity predicting risky driving for males. A measurement model of Akers' social learning theory (SLT) was developed containing six subscales operationalising the four constructs of differential association, imitation, personal attitudes, and differential reinforcement, and the influence of parents and peers was captured within the items in a number of these constructs. Analyses exploring the nature and extent of the psychosocial influences of personal characteristics (step 1), Akers' SLT (step 2), and elements of the prototype/willingness model (PWM) (step 3) upon self-reported speeding by the Provisional driver in a hierarchical multiple regression model found the following significant predictors: gender (male), car ownership (own car), reward sensitivity (greater sensitivity), depression (greater depression), personal attitudes (more risky attitudes), and speeding (more speeding) as a Learner. The research findings have considerable implications for road safety researchers, policy-makers, mental health professionals and medical practitioners alike. A broad range of issues need to be considered when developing, implementing and evaluating interventions for both the intentional and unintentional risky driving behaviours of interest. While a variety of interventions have been historically utilised, including education, enforcement, rehabilitation and incentives, caution is warranted. A multi-faceted approach to improving novice road safety is more likely to be effective, and new and existing countermeasures should capitalise on the potential of parents, peers and Police to be a positive influence upon the risky behaviour of young novice drivers. However, the efficacy of some interventions remains undetermined at this time. Notwithstanding this caveat, countermeasures such as augmenting and strengthening Queensland's GDL program and targeting parents and adolescents particularly warrant further attention. The findings of the research program suggest that Queensland's current-GDL can be strengthened by increasing compliance of young novice drivers with existing conditions and restrictions. The rates of speeding reported by the young Learner driver are particularly alarming for a number of reasons. The Learner is inexperienced in driving, and travelling in excess of speed limits places them at greater risk as they are also inexperienced in detecting and responding appropriately to driving hazards. In addition, the Learner period should provide the foundation for a safe lifetime driving career, enabling the development and reinforcement of non-risky driving habits. Learners who sped reported speeding by greater margins, and at greater frequencies, when they were able to drive independently. Other strategies could also be considered to enhance Queensland's GDL program, addressing both the pre-Licence adolescent and their parents. Options that warrant further investigation to determine their likely effectiveness include screening and treatment of novice drivers by mental health professionals and/or medical practitioners; and general social skills training. Considering the self-reported pre-licence driving of the young novice driver, targeted education of parents may need to occur before their child obtains a Learner licence. It is noteworthy that those participants who reported risky driving during the Learner phase also were more likely to report risky driving behaviour during the Provisional phase; therefore it appears vital that the development of safe driving habits is encouraged from the beginning of the novice period. General education of parents and young novice drivers should inform them of the considerably-increased likelihood of risky driving behaviour, crashes and offences associated with having unlimited access to a vehicle in the early stages of intermediate licensure. Importantly, parents frequently purchase the car that is used by the Provisional driver, who typically lives at home with their parents, and therefore parents are ideally positioned to monitor the journeys of their young novice driver during this early stage of independent driving. Parents are pivotal in the development of their driving child: they are models who are imitated and are sources of attitudes, expectancies, rewards and punishments; and they provide the most driving instruction for the Learner. High rates of self-reported speeding by Learners suggests that GDL programs specifically consider the nature of supervision during the Learner period, encouraging supervisors to be vigilant to compliance with general and GDL-specific road rules, and especially driving in excess of speed limit. Attitudes towards driving are formed before the adolescent reaches the age when they can be legally licensed. Young novice drivers with risky personal attitudes towards driving reported more risky driving behaviour, suggesting that countermeasures should target such attitudes and that such interventions might be implemented before the adolescent is licensed. The risky behaviours and attitudes of friends were also found to be influential, and given that young novice drivers tend to carry their friends as their passengers, a group intervention such as provided in a school class context may prove more effective. Social skills interventions that encourage the novice to resist the negative influences of their friends and their peer passengers, and to not imitate the risky driving behaviour of their friends, may also be effective. The punishments and rewards anticipated from and administered by friends were also found to influence the self-reported risky behaviour of the young novice driver; therefore young persons could be encouraged to sanction the risky, and to reward the non-risky, driving of their novice friends. Adolescent health programs and related initiatives need to more specifically consider the risks associated with driving. Young novice drivers are also adolescents, a developmental period associated with depression and anxiety. Depression, anxiety, and sensation seeking propensity were found to be predictive of risky driving; therefore interventions targeting psychological distress, whilst discouraging the expression of sensation seeking propensity whilst driving, warrant development and trialing. In addition, given that reward sensitivity was also predictive, a scheme which rewards novice drivers for safe driving behaviour - rather than rewarding the novice through emotional and instrumental rewards for risky driving behaviour - requires further investigation. The Police were also influential in the risky driving behaviour of young novices. Young novice drivers who had been detected for an offence, and then avoided punishment, reacted differentially, with some drivers appearing to become less risky after the encounter, whilst for others their risky behaviour appeared to be reinforced and therefore was more likely to be performed again. Such drivers saw t

"If they say go faster or something I'll probably go faster" - peer influence upon the risky driving behaviour of young novice drivers

Purpose Young novice drivers are at considerable risk of injury on the road, and their behaviour appears vulnerable to the social influence of their friends. Research was undertaken to identify the nature and mechanisms of peer influence upon novice driver (16-25 years) behaviour to inform the design of more effective young driver countermeasures. Methods. Peer influence was explored in small group interviews (n = 21) and three surveys (n1 = 761, n2 = 1170, n3 = 390) as part of a larger Queensland-wide study. Surveys two and three were part of a six-month longitudinal study. Results Peer influence was reported from the pre-Licence to the Provisional (intermediate) periods. Young novice drivers who experienced or expected social punishments including ‘being told off’ for risky driving reported less riskiness. Conversely young novice drivers who experienced or expected social rewards such as being ‘cheered on’ by their friends – who were also more risky drivers – reported more risky driving including crashes and offences. Conclusions Peers appear influential in the risky behaviour of young novice drivers, and influence occurs through social mechanisms of reinforcement and sanction. Interventions enhancing positive influence and curtailing negative influence may improve road safety outcomes not only for young novice drivers, but for all persons who share the road with them. Among the interventions warranting further development and evaluation are programs to encourage the modelling of safe driving behaviour and attitudes by young drivers; and minimisation of social reinforcement and promotion of social sanctions for risky driving behaviour in particular.

Effective punishment experiences : the need for a more comprehensive approach to conceptualising behavioural punishers and reinforcers in a road safety context

Determining what consequences are likely to serve as effective punishment for any given behaviour is a complex task. This chapter focuses specifically on illegal road user behaviours and the mechanisms used to punish and deter them. Traffic law enforcement has traditionally used the threat and/or receipt of legal sanctions and penalties to deter illegal and risky behaviours. This process represents the use of positive punishment, one of the key behaviour modification mechanisms. Behaviour modification principles describe four types of reinforcers: positive and negative punishments and positive and negative reinforcements. The terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ are not used in an evaluative sense here. Rather, they represent the presence (positive) or absence (negative) of stimuli to promote behaviour change. Punishments aim to inhibit behaviour and reinforcements aim to encourage it. This chapter describes a variety of punishments and reinforcements that have been and could be used to modify illegal road user behaviours. In doing so, it draws on several theoretical perspectives that have defined behavioural reinforcement and punishment in different ways. Historically, the main theoretical approach used to deter risky road use has been classical deterrence theory which has focussed on the perceived certainty, severity and swiftness of penalties. Stafford and Warr (1993) extended the traditional deterrence principles to include the positive reinforcement concept of punishment avoidance. Evidence of the association between punishment avoidance experiences and behaviour has been established for a number of risky road user behaviours including drink driving, unlicensed driving, and speeding. We chose a novel way of assessing punishment avoidance by specifying two sub-constructs (detection evasion and punishment evasion). Another theorist, Akers, described the idea of competing reinforcers, termed differential reinforcement, within social learning theory (1977). Differential reinforcement describes a balance of reinforcements and punishments as influential on behaviour. This chapter describes comprehensive way of conceptualising a broad range of reinforcement and punishment concepts, consistent with Akers’ differential reinforcement concept, within a behaviour modification framework that incorporates deterrence principles. The efficacy of three theoretical perspectives to explain self-reported speeding among a sample of 833 Australian car drivers was examined. Results demonstrated that a broad range of variables predicted speeding including personal experiences of evading detection and punishment for speeding, intrinsic sensations, practical benefits expected from speeding, and an absence of punishing effects from being caught. Not surprisingly, being younger was also significantly related to more frequent speeding, although in a regression analysis, gender did not retain a significant influence once all punishment and reinforcement variables were entered. The implications for speed management, as well as road user behaviour modification more generally, are discussed in light of these findings. Overall, the findings reported in this chapter suggest that a more comprehensive approach is required to manage the behaviour of road users which does not rely solely on traditional legal penalties and sanctions.

Continuity, Rupture, or just more of the 'Volatile and Contradictory': Glimpses of New South Wales' Penal Practice behind and through the Discursive

Throughout much of the western world more and more people are being sent to prison, one of a number of changes inspired by a 'new punitiveness' in penal and political affairs. This book seeks to understand these developments, bringing together leading authorities in the field to provide a wide-ranging analysis of new penal trends, compare the development of differing patterns of punishment across different types of societies, and to provide a range of theoretical analyses and commentaries to help understand their significance. As well as increases in imprisonment this book is also concerned to address a number of other aspects of 'the new punitiveness': firstly, the return of a number of forms of punishment previously thought extinct or inappropriate, such as the return of shaming punishments and chain gangs (in parts of the USA); and secondly, the increasing public involvement in penal affairs and penal development, for example in relation to length of sentences and the California Three Strikes Law, and a growing accreditation of the rights of victims. The book will be essential reading for students seeking to understand trends and theories of punishment on law, criminology, penology and other courses.

“I would have lost the respect of my friends and family if they knew I had bent the road rules” : parents, peers, and the perilous behaviour of young drivers

Young novice drivers are at considerable risk of injury on the road. Their behaviour appears vulnerable to the social influence of their parents and friends. The nature and mechanisms of parent and peer influence on young novice driver (16–25 years) behaviour was explored via small group interviews (n = 21) and two surveys (n1 = 1170, n2 = 390) to inform more effective young driver countermeasures. Parental and peer influence occurred in preLicence, Learner, and Provisional (intermediate) periods. Pre-Licence and unsupervised Learner drivers reported their parents were less likely to punish risky driving (e.g., speeding). These drivers were more likely to imitate their parents and reported their parents were also risky drivers. Young novice drivers who experienced or expected social punishments from peers, including ‘being told off’ for risky driving, reported less riskiness. Conversely drivers who experienced or expected social rewards such as being ‘cheered on’ by friends – who were also more risky drivers – reported more risky driving including crashes and offences. Interventions enhancing positive influence and curtailing negative influence may improve road safety outcomes not only for young novice drivers, but for all persons who share the road with them. Parent-specific interventions warrant further development and evaluation including: modelling safe driving behaviour by parents; active monitoring of driving during novice licensure; and sharing the family vehicle during the intermediate phase. Peer-targeted interventions including modelling of safe driving behaviour and attitudes; minimisation of social reinforcement and promotion of social sanctions for risky driving also need further development and evaluation.