Differential moderating effect of locus of control on effect of driving experience in young male and female drivers

Investigations of relationships between the specific personality variable, locus of control (LOC, Rotter, 1966) and driver behaviour or accidents have returned contrasting results. Review suggests dependence on gender or experience characteristics of participants, suggesting these factors interact with LOC to influence driving. Relationships were investigated in terms of influence on the eight driving styles of the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory (MDSI, Taubman-Ben-Ari, Mikulincer & Gillarth, 2004) in young drivers (18-29 years). Gender and LOC differences in driving styles previously related to accidents were proposed. It was also proposed that driving experience influences driving style, and LOC influences effect of driving experience. Gender differences were found for dissociative, anxious, patient, risky, angry and high velocity styles. Women had more external LOC than men, and driver stress styles increased with more external LOC, but reduced with increased driving experience, but so did patient style. High velocity style increased with experience. Controlling for LOC revealed important gender differences in effect of experience: positive effects for men (reducing angry and high velocity, increasing carefulness) and negative effects for women (increasing angry and higher velocity, reducing carefulness). Findings suggest negative influence of high internal LOC on young men in terms of its interaction with experience.

Individual and group differences in driving behaviour

Road traffic accident involvement rates show that younger males are over represented in accidents. A number of studies have shown individual differences in accident involvement. Questionnaire-based methods to investigate individual and group differences in driver stress and risk perceptions reported in chapter 2 and 3 revealed that neuroticism was associated with; heightened perception of personal risk, driver stress, and inefficient coping strategies. Younger drivers and female drivers reported higher levels of stress. Young male drivers assessed their personal risk and driving abilities less realistically than did other age and sex groups. Driving simulator-based methods reported in chapter 4 revealed that young drivers and male drivers; drive faster, overtake more often, and commit more `high risk' overtakes than do other age and sex groups. Middle-aged and elderly drivers were poorer at maintaining a fixed distance from a lead `vehicle'. Older drivers adopt a slower, more cautious driving style, but appear to be worse at controlling distance from a `lead' vehicle. Results are consistent with individual and group differences in accident involvement rates. Findings are discussed with reference to the implementation of driver education programs to reduce stress, the adoption of more realistic perceptions of risk among younger drivers, and the training of compensation strategies to counteract age-related changes in older drivers.

Influence of personal mobile phone ringing and usual intention to answer on driver error

Given evidence of effects of mobile phone use on driving, and also legislation, many careful drivers refrain from answering their phones when driving. However, the distracting influence of a call on driving, even in the context of not answering, has not been examined. Furthermore, given that not answering may be contrary to an individual’s normal habits, this study examined whether distraction caused by the ignored call varies according to normal intention to answer whilst driving. That is, determining whether the effect is more than a simple matter of noise distraction. Participants were 27 young drivers (18-29 years), all regular mobile users. A Theory of Planned Behaviour questionnaire examined predictors of intention to refrain from answering calls whilst driving. Participants provided their mobile phone number and were instructed not to answer their phone if it were to ring during a driving simulation. The simulation scenario had seven hazards (e.g. car pulling out, pedestrian crossing) with three being immediately preceded by a call. Infractions (e.g. pedestrian collisions, vehicle collisions, speed exceedances) were significantly greater when distracted by call tones than with no distraction. Lower intention to ignore calls whilst driving correlated with a larger effect of distraction, as was feeling unable to control whether one answered whilst driving (Perceived Behavioural Control). The study suggests that even an ignored call can cause significantly increased infractions in simulator driving, with pedestrian collisions and speed exceedances being striking examples. Results are discussed in relation to cognitive demands of inhibiting normal behaviour and to drivers being advised to switch phones off whilst driving.