Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents.

Abstract

iO automobile drivers whose driving involved them in accidents serious enough to require hospitahzation were paired with SO drivers without accident histories but matched according to sex, approximate age, race, and educational level. The Ss were compared on the basis of their driving experiences and performance on written tests. The accident victims differed from the comparison Ss in a higher incidence of previous traffic violations but were not distinguishable from the comparison Ss on any written tests. The accident Ss were similar to the "safe" drivers in describing themselves as much closer to "expert" than "very poor" on a driving performance continuum. In fixing the responsibility for the accidents and in estimating their driving competence at the time of the accidents, the accident Ss' reports are at considerable variance with police reports.Traflk accidents, have been described as relatively infrequent phenomena, determined by multiple, not single, factors and, in the main, determined by more than one personall this in a constantly shifting environment. Traffic accidents for the entire country in 1960 resulted in 38,200 persons killed, 1,400,000 disabling injuries, and an estimated total cost of $6,500,000,000 (National Safety Council. 1960). Accidents rank first in the cause of death in ages 1 to 24 and are second in ages 25 to 64 with traffic accidents being far more common than any other type of accident. Traffic accident research has focused on traffic engineering, vehicle design, and physical and psychological driver characteristics (Mc-Farland, Moore, & Warren, 1955). Yet there is no consistent understanding of or agreement about the basic causes of traffic accidents. Attitudes, judgments, and other psychological characteristics of drivers are conceded to be ultimately important in the epidemiology of traffic accidents (Brody, 1959; Conger, Gaskill, Glad, Hassel, Rainey, & Sawrey, 1959;Forbes. 1953). Many investigators concerned with traffic research and driver education have long searched for a single, objective, easily administered instrument to differentiate the competent from the incompetent driver.

Reliability and Validity of the Seibrecht Attitude Scale

“…Findings similar to those in this study have been reported in the literature; for example, Bishop (1967) in a study of simulator instruction as related to driver education stated: &dquo;The Seibrecht Attitude Scale, although an instrument of proven validity and reliability, was not particularly appropriate for this study.&dquo; Preston and Harris (1965) found almost no difference in mean scores on the scale between accident and nonaccident drivers. In another study (Forlana and Wrightstone, 1956) correlation coefficients between the Seibrecht Attitude Scale scores and driver knowledge ranged from .20 to .40 (n = 100 to 208) and with intelligence correlation coefficients ranged from .30 to .52.…”

Self‐Enhancement and Social Responsibility: On Caring More, but Doing Less, Than Others

“…In fact, the rather dramatic finding that people will rate themselves as more concerned than others immediately after declaring that they do less than others is reminiscent ofearlier SELF-ENHANCEMENT 1315 studies on the tenacity of positive self-evaluations. In one such study, Preston and Harris (1965) found that automobile drivers who were hospitalized after serious accidents were just as likely as accident-free drivers to rate their driving ability near the "expert" end of a rating scale. In another study, van der Velde, van der Pligt, and Hooijkaas (1992) found that patients at a treatment clinic for sexually transmitted diseases rated their risk of syphilis as less than average compared with others oftheir gender and age.…”

Refusing to budge: a confirmatory bias in decision making?

“…Cutting closer to home,Cross (1977) has found that 94% of college professors (drawn from a wide distribution of disciplines) say they do above average work. An informal survey of economic professors at the 2004 AEA conference found similar ability overconfidence levels, as well as a professed readiness to bet real money on those beliefs.10 Preston and Harris (1965) found significant overconfidence regarding driver ability from respondents surveyed in a hospital just after a bad car accident.…”