Abstract

Normative beliefs are proved to correlate significantly with behavioural intentions and behaviour [1–3], also driving behaviour [4,5]. This means, that normative beliefs about road safety might be directly related to driving behaviour. On the other hand, many research demonstrate that driving behaviour is well correlated with risk-taking. However, risk-taking and dealing with uncertainty is not a homogenous construct. As Blais and Weber argue, our proneness to take risk depends on the decision domain [6]. According to the authors, vehicle driving falls into the domain of health and safety. If so, normative beliefs about breaking legal road safety rules should correlate with risk-taking in the domain of health and safety. The aim of the study was to verify whether normative beliefs about breaking road safety rules are related to risk-taking, especially in the domain of health and safety. An online study on Polish drivers (N = 180; 114 female and 66 male) aged 19 - 81 (M = 33, SD = 12.25) was conducted. Normative beliefs about breaking road safety rules were measured with the Controversies questionnaire [pol. Kontrowersje] [7] - an originally developed 10 item scale based on Polish traffic regulations. Proneness to take risk was measured with Polish version of the DOSPERT (Domain Specific Risk-taking) questionnaire [6]. The questionnaire consists of 30 items divided into six scales which represent risk-taking behaviour in six domains: social, recreational, financial/investment, financial/gambling, health/safety, and ethical risk. The results of the study confirmed that normative beliefs about breaking traffic safety rules are correlated with risk-taking in general. There is also a statistically significant correlation between the score in Controversies scale and risk-taking in the domain of health and safety. The strength of this correlation, however, is not age-independent. Even more interestingly, age groups differ with regard to the domain in which risk-taking correlates with drivers’ normative beliefs which lead to the acceptance of breaking the traffic rules. While for the oldest subjects the correlation has been observed in the domain of health/safety specifically, in the youngest group it occurred in most of the domains, but the highest coefficients have been obtained for financial risk-taking. The results of the study need further examination due to the limited number of the older participants. However, the results suggest initially that vehicle driving might fall into different domains of risky decision making for various groups of individuals. Consequently, it might be useful to differentiate social communication intended to promote safe driving, so that it could refer to various domains of life.

Highlights

  • Human error is pointed out to be the major cause of 90-95% of road accidents, and drivers are considered to be the main perpetrators [8]

  • The results of Pearson correlation analyses confirmed that in all age groups normative beliefs which lie beneath the approval of breaking traffic safety rules are positively correlated with risk-taking in the domain of health and safety

  • The results of the study confirmed that normative beliefs about breaking traffic safety rules are correlated with risk taking in general

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Human error is pointed out to be the major cause of 90-95% of road accidents, and drivers are considered to be the main perpetrators [8]. As drivers are considered the main actors in road safety, it seems crucial to understand their behaviour and the source of their errors. Among different kinds of errors, an important part of driving behaviour results from following road safety rules [9], which emphasizes the meaning of the drivers attitude towards legal and social norms. Norms understanding encompasses knowing them and being aware of the consequences of neglecting them, and getting its sense in relation to one’s individual values system [11]. Legal and social norms incorporated into, and deeply rooted in the individual’s system of values, may express themselves as normative beliefs

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call