Driving behaviour Flashcards
(4 cards)
Explain the Risk-Homeostasis theory.
Kjørendes persepsjon om risiko ved atferd er enda mer viktig enn objektiv risiko å undersøke, siden det er prediktor for skadelige trafikkulykker.
Oppfattet risiko påvirkes av hvem: personlighetskarakteristikk (stabile: sensation-seeking, trekk-aggresjon; mindre stabile: optimisme bias + illusjon av kontroll => self-enhancement bias)
Og hva: objektiv vei-trafikk karkateristikk (state-aggresjon, andre trafikkdeltagere).
Teorien: (RHT):
Av Wilde, 1994.
Foreslår at sjåfører har en terskel av risiko som de er villige til å akseptere - og hvis miljøet er under denne terskelen, så vil sjåfører være villige til å delta i mer risikofylt atferd opp til terskelnivået. Og omvendt. I systemet er det en “sammenligner” som opprettholder homeostase av a) terskelniv for risiko og b) perepsjon av risiko. Både persepsjon av risiko, og terskelnivå for risiko tas hensyn til i “sammenligneren” og blir til “ønsket handling”. Sammen med egne beslutningsegenskaper, og kjøreegenskaper påvirker dette atferd.
Det er en forskjell mellom persepsjon av risiko, og terskelnivå for risiko.
(a) target risk and
(b) perceived risk, the consequent adjustment
(c and d) and potential safety consequences
(e) with a lagged temporal feedback
(f) before the process repeats in a loop.
Kjerneantagelser:
* Perceived levels of risks make us adjust our behaviour
* People hold a preferred (ideal) level of risk (target/terskelnivå for risiko)
Factors influencing behaviour in the RHT
* Expected benefits of risk taking - e.g. getting there in time
* Expected costs of risk taking - e.g. tickets/accidents occurring
* Expected costs of caution - e.g. getting there too late
* Expected benfits of caution - e.g. avoid punishment/tickets, increased safety
Empirisk støtte:
- En studie: ABS (bremsekontroll) => forsinket bremsing + plutselige akselersjoner og bremsinger.
- Flere studier: mer forsiktige i krevende kjøreforhold
Kritikk:
- Indirekte evidens, ikke målt terskelrisiko i eksperimentelle settinger. Mangler empirisk evidens. Bygger på diskusjon.
- Ikke undersøkt om risikoterskel er stabil/dynamisk av kontekstuelle/individuelle faktorer
- dessuten er det debattert om risikopersepsjon er en predikerende variabel i kjøreatferd.
- Cultural factors were a stronger predictor of driving behaviour than risk perception.
- Tar ikke hensyn til mange faktorer: f.eks. samspill av kjøremiljø og kjøreegenskaper
- Task Capability Interface Model (Fuller, 2005) kombinerer trafikkrelevante kontekstuelle (miljø), individuelle (kjøreegenskaper), og motivasjonsfaktorer (risiko)
- operationalization/measurement of the target risk asserted in the model
- the fact that most safety measures (bicycles helmets, seat belts etc.) do not seem to be subjects to strong risk compensation in meta studies, Cochrane reviews hvor f.ek.s hjelmer beskytter hodet og forebygger ansiktsskader => at det skal medføre kompensering for risiko er tvilsomt.
- RHT also requires a certain level of awareness of the safety equipment when driving, and a strong association between risk perception and behaviour. Both assumptions are rather questionable based on available empirical evidence.
Viktig takeaway:
Kan forvente at ikke alle kjøretøyutviklinger, som kræsje-forvarsel-lyder, vil faktisk promotere trafikksikkerhet.
Trenger interdisiplinær tilnærming for å finne langtids og bærekraftige løsninger til trafikksikkerhet, f.eks. vei-engineering, siden miljøkondisjoner påvirker oppgave-krav og ulykkesrisiko ved et gitt tidspunkt.
What are the different aberrant=avvikende driving behaviors?
Violations
Errors
Lapses
Slips
”Hva-faktoren: atferd- og holdningsfaktorer
Holdningsfaktorer predikerer avvikende atferd, og kræsjinvolvering.
TPB: f.eks. negative holdninger mot trygg praksis (blinklys)
I tillegg egen oppfattels av atferdskontroll + subjektiv norm sammen med holdninger: umiddelbare prediktorer for intensjon om å krysse lov
TPB kan påvirke holdninger
- Explain the difference between “violations,” “errors,” and “slips” in connection with driving behavior.
- Violations: med vilje, intensjonell, f.eks. kjøre over fartsgrensen, tute aggressivt
- Errors: ikke med vilje, feile i å handle som nødvendig, f.eks. bruke bremse feil på glatt vei (Basic errors: mistake, lapses, slips)
- Slips: IKKE lapses! Oppmerksomhetsfeil, relativt harmløse
Errors and violations are distinct given their different psychological origins (Reason, Manstead, Stradling, Baxter, & Campbell, 1990). Errors are defined as unwitting deviations of action from intention or the failure of planned actions to achieve their intended consequence (Reason, 1990; Reason et al., 1990). In contrast, violations are ‘‘deliberate deviations from those practices believed necessary to maintain the safe operation of a potentially hazardous system” (Reason et al., 1990, p. 1316).
You have just purchased a car with a lot of sophisticated safety equipment. After the purchase, you notice that you are driving faster and more recklessly in traffic than before. Outline the psychological risk theory that can explain this psychological process.
The correct theory to consider is the Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) (see also Wilde, 1998; Steg et al., 2017, pp. 366 – 367). This theory argues that people hold a target level of risk, representing the risk they are willing to accept. When perceived risk/risk perception exceeds the target level risk, people are assumed to behave more cautiously in order to establish homeostasis. Conversely, they are expected to behave in a riskier manner when risk perception falls below the target level risk. Since novel safety equipment in most cases will reduce risk perception, the discrepancy between risk perception and target level risk can explain the psychological process in the question (i.e., drivers adjust their risk perception up to the target level by increasing their risky behaviour, due to their risk perception being reduced by safety equipment in their new car). Outlining this discrepancy between risk perception and target level risk, and the consequent compensatory process is the minimum requirement in response to the question.
It is noted that the book chapter (Steg et al., 2017) discusses the RHT on a very general level. The lecture on driving behaviour focused on the theory in somewhat more detail aided by the diagram in Figure 1. Students are not necessarily expected to reproduce the diagram. However, a strong response may incorporate the ‘inner parts’ of the model (a, b, c, d, e and f). These components and their interplay generally focus on: the interaction between
(a) target risk and
(b) perceived risk, the consequent adjustment
(c and d) and potential safety consequences
(e) with a lagged temporal feedback
(f) before the process repeats in a loop.
The comparator operates as a “thermostat” and maintains homeostasis between a and b. The lecture focused to a lesser extent on the more peripheral/distal components in the model (Figure. 1; components 1, 2, 3 and 4) and students are not expected to outline these in full detail (also considering the limit of 350 words in responses). In addition, the lecture focused on limitations in the theory. These were in general issues related to operationalization/measurement of the target risk asserted in the model (an aspect also mentioned briefly in the book chapter: Steg et al., 2017), and the fact that most safety measures (bicycles helmets, seat belts etc.) do not seem to be subjects to strong risk compensation in meta studies, Cochrane reviews and the like. RHT also requires a certain level of awareness of the safety equipment when driving, and a strong association between risk perception and behaviour. Both assumptions are rather questionable based on available empirical evidence.
