Traffic Offences: Planned or Habitual? Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour and habit strength to explain frequency and magnitude of speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol

Abstract

This study addresses the socio-cognitive determinants of traffic offences, in particular of speeding and drinking and driving. It has two aims: (1) to test the hypothesis of a direct effect of habits on offences (i.e., independent of intentions) by employing a specific measure of habits (i.e., the SRIH) and (2) to analyse the offences by taking account of three distinct parameters: Frequency, usual magnitude (i.e., the most frequent deviation from the law) and maximal magnitude (i.e., the greatest deviation occasionally adopted) in order to represent more accurately the variability of the offending behaviours. A total of 642 drivers replied to a questionnaire. The results corroborate the idea that intention and habit are distinct and direct determinants of offences. The use of the SRIH dismisses the criticisms made with regard to the measure of past behaviour. The distinction between the three behavioural parameters proves to be relevant, as their determinants are not exactly similar. Finally, attitude and subjective norm had direct effects on the maximal magnitude and/or on the frequency of the offence. The discussion concerns the contribution of this study to the analysis of offences as well as its limitations and addresses the theoretical plausibility of the direct effects of attitude and the subjective norm.

An application of the prototype willingness model to drivers' speeding behaviour

“…They are therefore likely to be important in the prediction of readily repeatable (i.e., highly habitual) behaviours such as those often found in the context of driving. Indeed, measures of both past behaviour and habit have been shown to be strong predictors of driver behaviour (e.g., Elliott, Armitage, & Baughan, ; Elliott & Thomson, ; Lheureux et al, ; Tseng, Chang, & Woo, ).…”

“…Previous research shows that the TPB is a good model for predicting driving. In line with reviews of general social and health behaviours (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2001;McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011), it has been shown to account for 'large' proportions of the variance (in excess of R 2 = 0.25; see Cohen, 1992) in behavioural intentions and 'moderate-to-large' proportions of the variance (R 2 = 0.10 to 0.25) in subsequently performed speeding, drink-driving, tailgating, dangerous overtaking, red light running and mobile phone use while driving (e.g., Cestac, Paran, & Delhomme, 2011;Conner et al, 2007;Elliott, 2012;Elliott, Thomson, Robertson, Stephenson, & Wicks, 2013;Lheureux, Auzoult, Charlois, Hardy-Massard, & Minary, 2015;Nemme & White, 2010).…”

Prototypes reflect normative perceptions: implications for the development of reasoned action theory

“…RQ2 treats the variable as a mediated precursor variable. Although these analysis principles are documented (Bleakley & Hennessy, 2012; Hennessy et al, 2010), many attempts to augment reasoned action use ad hoc “hierarchical” regressions (Lheureux et al, 2015; Paquin & Keating, 2017; Plows et al, 2017; Rivis et al, 2006; van der Linden, 2011; Wilson, Woolfson, Durkin, & Elliott, 2016) that do not include a mediation analysis (Bryan, Schmiege, & Broaddus, 2007; Holbert & Stephenson, 2003) (note that Paquin and Keating’s meta-analysis below is an exception to this generalization). These analyses fail to persuade that they identify important extensions to reasoned action because the alternative explanations of (1) miss-labeled measures and (2) theoretical sufficiency have not been rejected.…”

“…They review the role of additional variables such as desire, affective vs. cognitive attitude measures, anticipated regret, self-identity, and moral norms as they pertain to the behavior of having a child. Other examples include adding habit in predicting drinking and driving and speeding (Lheureux, Auzoult, Charlois, Hardy-Massard, & Minary, 2015), personal responsibility as a variable predicting hygiene practices (Jenner, Watson, Miller, Jones, & Scott, 2002), and social activism and organizational relevance as variables predicting participation in vaccine trials (Frew et al, 2010). [2] …”

Teen Drivers’ Perceptions of Inattention and Cell Phone Use While Driving

“…In this study, we use the TPB in the context of teen driving behaviors (see Figure 1) and focused on attitudes, perceived behavioral control and subjective norms of the teens. While the TPB has been applied to predict driving behaviors such as talking on the cell phone while driving, 23,24 texting and driving, 25,26 and seatbelt use and speeding; 27 there is a gap in the literature with testing a TPB intervention to reduce teen driving inattention. Therefore, the use of focus group methods is a logical strategy for us to understand the perceptions and experiences of inattention to the roadway, and ultimately, to develop and test an intervention to improve attention to the roadway (see Table 1).…”