Predicting self-reported driving speed compliance with the bi-dimensional attitudes

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. student in general psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Associate professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

3 Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

4 Associate professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: Attitudes play a key role in predicting speeding behavior. This study aimed to test: a) whether the positive/negative attitudes towards speeding, and the positive/negative attitudes towards compliance with the speed limit can predict the speed limit compliance behavior; b) which of the positive and negative dimensions of the attitudes have a greater contribution; c) whether the positive/negative attitudes towards compliance with the speed limit can account for variance in the speed limit compliance behavior over and above that explained by the positive/negative attitudes towards speeding.
Materials and Methods: In  the present study conducted in September 2020 to March 2021, 202 people who drive daily in the city of Mashhad-Iran voluntarily completed self-report questionnaires measuring their driving experiences, positive and negative attitudes towards speeding and compliance with the speed limit, and past behavior of compliance with the speed limit. The data were analyzed by using multiple regression analysis and SPSS-25 software.
Results: The positive-negative attitudes towards speeding independently accounted for a significant proportion of the variance of speed limit compliance behavior (R2= 0.32, P< 0.001), and the negative attitude towards speeding was the stronger predictor (β= 0.35, P< 0.001). The positive/negative attitudes towards compliance with the speed limit also accounted for a significant increment (3.6%, P< 0.01) to explain variance in speed limit compliance behavior.
Conclusion: The results provide more support for the bi-dimensional attitudes towards speeding in predicting speed limit compliance behavior. It demonstrates that the positive/negative attitudes towards compliance with the speed limit improve the prediction of the behavior independently of the positive/negative attitudes towards speeding. Also, negative attitude has a greater contribution in predicting speed limit compliance behavior.

Keywords


  1. World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety 2018: Summary. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2018: 1-20.
  2. Roth G. Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD 2017) Results. Seattle, United States: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), 2018. The Lancet 2018; 392: 1736-88.
  3. Zakeri R, Nosratnejad S, Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Dalal K, Yousefi M. The economic burden of road traffic injuries until one-year after hospitalization: A survey study. Accid Anal Prev 2021; 163: 106459.
  4. Cociu S, Ioncu O, Cazacu-Stratu C, Ceban S, Hamann C. The major risk factors for road traffic injuries. One health and risk management 2021; 2(4S): 84.
  5. Adanu EK, Jones S. Effects of human-centered factors on crash injury severities. J Adv Transport 2017; 2017: 1-11.
  6. Gargoum SA, El-Basyouny K. Exploring the association between speed and safety: A path analysis approach. Accid Anal Prev 2016; 93: 32-40.
  7. Doecke SD, Kloeden CN, Dutschke JK, Baldock MR. Safe speed limits for a safe system: The relationship between speed limit and fatal crash rate for different crash types. Traffic Injury Prev 2018; 19(4): 404-8.
  8. Ma Z, Zhao W, Steven I, Chien J, Dong C. Exploring factors contributing to crash injury severity on rural two-lane highways. J Saf Res 2015; 55: 171-6.
  9. Yu B, Chen Y, Bao S. Quantifying visual road environment to establish a speeding prediction model: an examination using naturalistic driving data. Accid Anal Prev 2019; 129: 289-98.
  10. Yousefifard M, Toloui A, Ahmadzadeh K, Gubari MI, Neishaboori AM, Amraei F, et al. Risk factors for road traffic injury-related mortality in Iran; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Acad Emerg Med 2021; 9(1): e61.
  11. Li Z, Man SS, Chan AHS, Zhu J. Integration of theory of planned behavior, sensation seeking, and risk perception to explain the risky driving behavior of truck drivers. Sustainability 2021; 13(9): 5214.
  12. Starkey NJ, Isler RB. The role of executive function, personality and attitudes to risks in explaining self-reported driving behaviour in adolescent and adult male drivers. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 2016; 38: 127-36.
  13. Yıldırım-Yenier Z, Vingilis E, Wiesenthal DL, Mann RE, Seeley J. Relationships between thrill seeking, speeding attitudes, and driving violations among a sample of motorsports spectators and drivers. Accid Anal Prev 2016; 86: 16-22.
  14. Stephens A, Nieuwesteeg M, Page-Smith J, Fitzharris M. Self-reported speed compliance and attitudes towards speeding in a representative sample of drivers in Australia. Accid Anal Prev 2017; 103: 56-64.
  15. Elliott MA, Thomson JA, Robertson K, Stephenson C, Wicks J. Evidence that changes in social cognitions predict changes in self-reported driver behavior: Causal analyses of two-wave panel data. Accid Anal Prev 2013; 50: 905-16.
  16. Lheureux F, Auzoult L, Charlois C, Hardy‐Massard S, Minary JP. Traffic Offences: Planned or Habitual? Using the T heory of P lanned B ehaviour and habit strength to explain frequency and magnitude of speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol. Br J Psychol 2016; 107(1): 52-71.
  17. Conner M, Sparks P, Povey R, James R, Shepherd R, Armitage CJ. Moderator effects of attitudinal ambivalence on attitude–behaviour relationships. Eur J Soc Psychol 2002; 32(5): 705-18.
  18. Elliott MA, Brewster SE, Thomson JA, Malcolm C, Rasmussen S. Testing the bi‐dimensional effects of attitudes on behavioural intentions and subsequent behaviour. Br J Psychol 2015; 106(4): 656-74.
  19. McCartan R, Elliott MA. Bi-dimensional attitudes, attitude accessibility and speeding behaviour. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 2018; 58: 581-93.
  20. McCartan R, Elliott MA, Pagani S, Finnegan E, Kelly SW. Testing the effects of explicit and implicit bidimensional attitudes on objectively measured speeding behaviour. Br J Soc Psychol 2018; 57(3): 630-51.
  21. McCartan RA. Using cognitive dissonance inducing interventions to change drivers' attitudes towards speeding and reduce speeding behaviour. Ph.D.Dissertation. United Kingdom: University of Strathclyde, School of Psychological Sciences and Health, 2020: 38-50.
  22. Richetin J, Conner M, Perugini M. Not doing is not the opposite of doing: Implications for attitudinal models of behavioral prediction. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2011; 37(1): 40-54.
  23. Paris H, Van den Broucke S. Measuring cognitive determinants of speeding: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 2008; 11(3): 168-80.
  24. Letirand F, Delhomme P. Speed behaviour as a choice between observing and exceeding the speed limit. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 2005; 8(6): 481-92.
  25. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics, Vol 5. Boston: Pearson Boston, MA; 2007: 481-95.
  26. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Hum Behav Emerg Technol 2020; 2(4): 314-24.
  27. Cumming G. Inference by eye: Reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Stat Med 2009; 28(2): 205-20.
  28. Elliott MA, Lee E, Robertson JS, Innes R. Evidence that attitude accessibility augments the relationship between speeding attitudes and speeding behavior: A test of the MODE model in the context of driving. Accid Anal Prev 2015; 74: 49-59.
  29. Van Huysduynen HH, Terken J, Eggen B. The relation between self-reported driving style and driving behaviour: A simulator study. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 2018; 56: 245-55.