|
Article Excerpt
Risk perception is considered one of the key factors involved in driving decisions and has been a target of national advertising campaigns in Australia and New Zealand for the last decade (Donovan, Jalleh, & Henley, 1999). These campaigns have graphically illustrated the risks of speeding, drinking and driving, and failing to wear a seat belt. However, there is an important difference between people understanding that something is risky, and acknowledging that they are personally at risk (Weinstein, 1988; Deery, 1999). For example, studies have found that young people may be aware that their peer group is at higher risk for crashes compared with drivers in general, but rate themselves as if they are not part of this group (Finn & Bragg, 1986; Guerin, 1994). This may have practical implications in terms of overconfidence (Deery, 1999), and there is evidence that drivers who believe, incorrectly, that they are safer than average, also tend to think injury prevention campaigns do not apply to them (Walton & McKeown, 2001).
Unrealistic optimism, a biased belief that one is less likely than one's peers to experience a negative event, has been found in relation to a number of adverse health events, including being involved in a traffic crash (see Van der Pligt, 1996 for a review). Studies on unrealistic optimism for crashes have generally looked at whether the bias exists, if it exists more in some groups than others, and the beliefs and experiences that may contribute to it. The aim of the first study outlined in this paper was to review this research, develop a list of factors that potentially relate to crash-risk optimism, and to measure these with a sample of young adult drivers. The aim of the second study was to examine the impact of television traffic safety campaigns that show dangerous driving resulting in a crash on self-enhancement and crash-risk optimism in young drivers.
It is important to realize that although one can confidently say a group as a whole may be unrealistically optimistic, if most individuals consider themselves at less risk than the average member, particular subgroups or individuals who consider themselves at less risk may in fact be realistically optimistic. This paper uses the term 'crash-risk optimism' to refer to the accurate or inaccurate perception of being at less risk in relation to one's peers. It is also of note that the reference group used for self/other comparisons in the studies reviewed here varies considerably. For example, Guppy (1993) used the very general concept of the 'average driver' as a basis for comparison, whereas Horswill, Waylen, and Tofield (2004, p. 183) used the very specific comparison of 'same age, sex, driving experience, education, occupation etc.'.
STUDY 1
Most studies on driving optimism have considered perceived relative crash-risk as the key dependent variable. In one of the earlier studies using only men, Finn and Bragg (1986) found that while young drivers recognized that their age group was more at risk of a crash than other groups, they perceived their own risk of a crash to be significantly less than their peers. Guppy (1993) found crash-risk optimism in male drivers of all ages and Svenson, Fischhoff, and MacGregor (1985) found this bias in US and Swedish drivers. Using a sample of college students, DeJoy (1989) found an optimism bias for both crash-risk, and for six out of eight specific crash scenarios, with no substantial age or gender differences. In a study comparing older and younger, male and female drivers, Glendo, Dorn, Davies, Matthews, and Taylor (1996) found evidence for crash-risk optimism that did not appear to apply to older men. Most recently, Rutter, Quine, and Albery (1998) found strong evidence for crash-risk optimism amongst motorcyclists and Horswill et al. (2004) found the bias in an Internet-based study of UK drivers.
A number of previous studies have suggested that drivers tend to think they are more skilful than their peers are (DeJoy 1989; Glendon et al., 1996; Horswill et al., 2004; Mathews & Moran, 1986; McKenna, Stanier, & Lewis, 1991; Svenson et al., 1985). While Glendon et al., found this held across older and younger and male and female drivers, Mathews and Moran found only younger men, not older men, rated their handling skills as superior to their peers. Only DeJoy's study of college students examined and found a relationship between perceived superiority in handling skills and relative optimism in avoiding a crash.
We were only able to find two studies that examined a bias in perceived reflexes relative to peers. Delhomme (1991) found that French drivers considered that they had better reflexes than average, and Mathews and Moran (1986) found an interesting reversal of the direction of most age effects, with older (but not younger) drivers rating their reflexes as superior to their peers. Neither study looked at the relationship between perceived superiority of reflexes and relative crash-risk optimism.
Two studies have investigated judgment, with Glendon et al. (1996) finding that both older and younger, and male and female drivers considered themselves to have better judgment than average. Mathews and Moran (1986) found younger, but not older, drivers saw their judgment as superior to their peers. However, neither study looked directly at the relationship between perceived superior judgment and relative crash-risk optimism.
Four studies examined and found self-enhancement with regard to how safe participants perceived they were as drivers relative to their peers (DeJoy, 1989; Delhomme, 1991; Horswill et al., 2004; Svenson et al., 1985). DeJoy and Svenson et al., also noted a relationship between perceived relative safety and relative crash-risk optimism. Delhomme found French drivers considered that they conform to the road rules more than average, but this study did not look at this in relation to perceived relative crash-risk. We could find no studies that looked directly at perceived risky driving relative to peers, however, given that risky driving is considered a major cause of crashes, we considered that it was important to explore this issue.
Experience was examined in the study by DeJoy (1989), but as an absolute rather than relative variable (i.e. participants were not asked to indicate their level of experience relative to their peers, but just to indicate how much driving experience they had). Experience was found to correlate with perceived relative safety and skill but not with crash-risk optimism. We were interested in whether experience might correlate with crash-risk optimism when measured as a relative variable. Although we did not find that time spent driving in difficult conditions had been used as a variable in previous studies, we included this in ours as we reasoned it may be (negatively) correlated with relative crash-risk optimism.
Perceived luck in avoiding crashes has not generally been considered in previous studies, however Svenson et al. (1985) found evidence that US but not Swedish drivers considered themselves luckier than average. It was unclear if this was related to relative crash-risk optimism.
Four non-relative factors were included. The first of these was the degree of control participants believed they had over being involved in a crash. Studies by DeJoy (1989) and McKenna (1993) suggested that perceived control is very strongly related to crash-risk optimism. A recent qualitative study of Australian motorcyclists also found that control was a key theme in the participants' discourse about risk reduction (Natalier, 2001). However, a review...
|
