Citation

Forward SE. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2009; 12(3): 225-234.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.trf.2008.12.003

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Road accidents are attributed to driving violations, a behaviour which is committed willingly. The most commonly used theoretical model used to predict this behaviour has been the theory of planned behaviour and its predecessor, the theory of reasoned action. This study includes a sample of 275 people of the general public holding a current driving licence. Its general aim is to understand the motive behind the action by assessing salient beliefs in greater detail. The results show a significant difference between intenders' and non-intenders' beliefs about the consequences of the behaviour. For the intenders speeding is predicted by factors considered as emotionally rewarding whereas dangerous overtaking is more controlled by a denial of negative consequences. Normative beliefs indicate that both men and women who intend to violate receive greatest consensus from men of same age as themselves. Finally, the results confirmed the link between perceived behavioural control, risk, intentions and attitudes. Those who argue that it is easy to violate also perceive less risk but the same also applies to those who advocate that external or internal factors might prevent them from observing the rule. The latter is interpreted as a form of denial of responsibility and/or ability which could serve as a form of justification of the behaviour. Implications of the current findings for the development of intervention programmes are discussed.