Models in Traffic Psychology

  • Raphael D. Huguenin
  • Kare Rumar
Chapter

Abstract

“There is nothing as practical as a good theory” (Lewin). This is true also within traffic psychology (OECD, 1997). Theories and models make it possible to sort our observations in a way which explains our observations, create ideas about how to make further studies, gives ideas about how to solve problems and predicts future development. Some decades ago there were ambitions to create a unified traffic science with its own theories and models. However, presently most researchers agree that the best research is carried out on the disciplinary level, that is, for example, traffic psychology (Rumar, 1990).

Keywords

Traffic Safety Road User Driver Behavior Objective Risk Accident Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aberg, L. (1997), “The Role of Perceived Risk of Detection in the Theory of Planned Behavior”, in ROTHENGATTER, I., CARBONELL, E. (Eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology, Valencia ( 1996 ), Amsterdam: Elsevier (in print).Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M. (1977), “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research”, Psychology Bulletin, (84), 888–918.Google Scholar
  3. Aschenbrenner, M., Biehl, B., Wurm, G. (1988), Mehr Verkehrssicherheit durch bessere Technik? Felduntersuchungen zur Risikokompensation am Beispiel des Antiblockiersystems (ABS), ( Unpublished ), Mannheim.Google Scholar
  4. Bock, O., BrÜHning, E., Dilling, J., Ernst, G., Miese, A., Schmid, M. (1989), “Aufbereitung und Auswertung von Fahrzeug-und Unfalldaten”, Unfall-und Sicherheitsforschung Strassenverkehr. Heft 74. Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen (BASt), Bergisch Gladbach.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, I. D. (1986), “Functional Requirements of Driving”, paper presented at the Berzelius Symposium Cars and Casualities, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  6. Colbourn, C. J. (1978), “Perceived Risk as a Determinant of Driver Behavior”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (2), 131–141.Google Scholar
  7. Deutsch, M., Kraub, R. (1976), Theorien der Sozialpsychologie, Fachbuchhandlung für Psychologie,Frankfurt/M.Google Scholar
  8. Evans, L. (1984), Human Behavior Feedback and Traffic Safety, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, L. (1986), “Risk Homeostasis Theory and Traffic Accident Data”, Risk Analysis, (1), 81–94.Google Scholar
  10. Fleury, D. (1989), “Accident Analysis Methodology”, Referat, gehalten anlässlich der First Round Table der International Scientific Initiatives on Road Traffic (ISIRT) de Wipselberg/NL, Paris: INRETS.Google Scholar
  11. Forsyth, E., Maycock, G., Sexton, B. (1995), Cohort Study of Learner and Novice Drivers: Part 3, Accidents, Offences and Driving Experience in the First Three Years of Driving, TRRL Project Report 11, Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  12. Forward, S. (1997), “Subjective Norm and Who is the Significant Other?”, in Rothengatter, I. Carbonell, E. (Eds) (1996), Proceedings of the International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology, Valencia, Amsterdam: Elsevier (in print).Google Scholar
  13. Fuller, R. (1984), “A Conceptualization of Driving Behavior as Threat Avoidance”, Ergonomics, (11), 1139–1155.Google Scholar
  14. Fuller, R. (1988), “On Learning to Make Risky Decisions”, Ergonomics, 31 (4), 519–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson, J. J., Crooks, L. E. (1938), “A Theoretical Field-Analysis of Automobile Driving”, American Journal of Psychology, 51, 453–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haight, F. A. (1986), “Risk - Especially Risk of Traffic Accident”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (5), 359–366.Google Scholar
  17. HÄKkinen, S. (1958), “Traffic Accidents and Driver Characteristics”, Finnland’s Institute of Technology, Scientific Research Bulletin, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  18. Hale, A. R., Stoop, J., Hommels, J. (1990), “Human Error Models as Predictors of Accident Scenarios for Designers in Road Transport Systems, Ergonomics,(33), 1377–1388.Google Scholar
  19. Harano, R. M., Peck, R. C., Mcbride, R. S. (1975), “The Prediction of Accident Liability Through Biographical Date and Psychometric Tests”, Journal of Safety Research, (7) (1), 1652.Google Scholar
  20. Heckhausen, H. (1976), “Relevanz der Psychologie als Austausch zwischen naiver und wissenschaftlicher Verhaltenstheorie”, Psychol. Rundschau, (1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  21. Holm, V. (1978), “Alkohol und Fahrverhalten”,Schweiz.Apothekerzeitung,(22), 615–621.HOLZKAMP,R.(1976),Kritische Psychologie, Frankfurt/M: Fischer.Google Scholar
  22. Hoyos, G. C., Keller, H., Kannheiser, W. (1977), Risikobezogene Entscheidungen in Mensch-Maschine-Systemen: Arbeitsplatzanalysen in Industriebetrieben, Forschungsbericht zum Projekt HO 182/7, Institut für Psychologie und Erziehungswissenschaft, Technische Universität München, München: Lehrstuhl für Psychologie.Google Scholar
  23. Hovos, G. C., Pupka, M. (1977), “Motivorientierte Aspekte der Verkehrspsychologie”, Unfall-und Sicherheitsforschung Strassenverkehr (7), Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen (BASt), Bergisch Gladbach.Google Scholar
  24. Huguenin, R. D. (1984), “Die Risikokompensationstheorie im Bereich des Strassenverkehrs - kritische Stellungnahme”, Referat anlässlich des V. GFS-Seminars Ingolstadt, Gesellschaft für Sicherheitsforschung, Köln.Google Scholar
  25. Huguenin, R. D. (1988), “The Concept of Risk and Behavior Models in Traffic Psychology”, Ergonomics, 31 (4), 557–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janssen, W. H., Tenkink, E. (1987), Risk Homeostasis Theory and its Critics: Time for an Agreement, TNO Institute for Perception, Soesterberg.Google Scholar
  27. Klebelsberg, VON, D. (1969), Risikoverhalten als Persönlichkeitsmerkmal, Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  28. Klebelsberg, VON, D. (1977), “Das Modell der subjektiven und objektiven Sicherheit”,Schweiz.Z.Psycho!,(4),285–294.Google Scholar
  29. Klebelsberg, VON, D. (1977), “Psychologische Erklärungshypothesen für das Verkehrsverhalten”, Informationen und Mitteilungen, BdP, Sektion Verkehrspsychologie, (9), 3–13, Bonn.Google Scholar
  30. Klebelsberg, VON, D. (1982), “Die Bedeutung von subjektiver und objektiver Sicherheit: Fahrerverhalten als Risikoverhalten”, in, Verkehrssicherheit, Vorträge anlässlich des Seminars der Forschungsgruppe Berlin, 5/6 November 1981, Daimler-Benz AG, Stuttgart: Forschung und Entwicklung.Google Scholar
  31. Koornstra, M. J.(n.y.),Une approche systémique générale du risque collectif et individuel dans la circulation routière,SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  32. Kunkel, E. (1973), Unfallneigung im Strassenverkehr: das persönliche Unfallrisiko unter dem Aspekt empirisch-statistischer Methoden, TÜV Rheinland GmbH, Köln.Google Scholar
  33. Marek, J., Sten, T. (1977), “Traffic Environment and the Driver: Driver Behavior and Training in International Perspective”, Springfield I II: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  34. Maycock, G., Lockwood, C. R., Lester, J. F. (1991), The Accident Liability of Car Drivers, Research Report No. 315, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, TRRL, Crowthome.Google Scholar
  35. Mckenna, F. P. (1985), “Do Safety Measures Really Work? An Examination of Risk Homeostasis Theory”, Ergonomics, (2), 489–498.Google Scholar
  36. Mckenna, F. P. (1987), “Behavioral Compensation and Safety”, J. Occupational Accident, (9), 107–121.Google Scholar
  37. Meyer, W. U., Schmalt, H. D. (1978), “Die Attributionstheorie”, in FREY, D. (Ed), Theorien der Sozialpsychologie, Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  38. Michon, J. A. (1985), “A Critical View of Driver Behavior Models: What Do we Know, What should we Do?”, in EVANS, L., SCHWING, R. (Eds.), Human Behavior and Traffic Safety, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Michon, J. A. (1989), “Explanatory Pitfalls and Rule-Based Driver Models”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (21) (4), 341–353.Google Scholar
  40. Naatanen, R., Summala, H. (1974), “A Model for the Role of Motivational Factors in Drivers’ Decision-Making”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (3/4), 243–261.Google Scholar
  41. Naatanen, R., Summala, H. (1975), “A Simple Method for Simulating Danger Related Aspects of Behavior in Hazardous Activities”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (l), 63–70.Google Scholar
  42. Naatanen, R., Summala, H. (1976), Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  43. Nagayama, Y. (1978), “Characteristics of Excessively Car-Oriented People”, in IATSS, Mobility for Man and Society, Report of the Symposium on traffic science, International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  44. O’NEILL, B. (1977), “A Decision-Theory Model of Danger Compensation”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (3), 157–165.Google Scholar
  45. Oecd (1990), Behavioral Adaptations to Changes in the Road Transport System, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  46. OECD (1997), Road Safety Principles and Models, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  47. Parker, D., West, R., Stradling, S., Manstead, A. S. R. (1995), “Behavioral Characteristics and Involvement in Different Types of Traffic Accident”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (27) (4), 571–581.Google Scholar
  48. Pfafferott, 1., Huguenin, R. D. (1991), “Adaptation nach Einführung von Sicherheitsmassnahmen - Ergebnisse und Schlussfolgerungen aus einer OECD-Studie”, Zeitschrift für Verkehrssicherheit, (37), 71–83.Google Scholar
  49. Popper, R. (1966), Logik der Forschung, Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  50. Ranney, T. A. (1994), “Models of Driving Behavior: A Review of their Evolution”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (26) (6), 733–750.Google Scholar
  51. Rasmussen, J. (1987), “The Definition of Human Error and a Taxonomy for Technical System Design”, in Rasmussen, J., Duncan, K., Leplat, J. (Eds), New Technology and Human Error, Chichester, U.K: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Reason, J. (1994), Menschliches Versagen, Psychologische Risikofaktoren und moderne Technologien, Heidelberg/Berlin/Oxford: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  53. Rumar, K. (1985). “The Role of Perceptual and Cognitive Filters in Obseved Behavior”, in EVANS, L., SCHWING, R. C. (Eds), Human Behavior and Traffic Safety, London: Plenum.Google Scholar
  54. Rumar, K. (1990), “The Impossibility of a Unified Traffic Science”, IATSS Research, 14, 1, 27–31.Google Scholar
  55. Rumar, K. (1993), “Road User Needs”, in PARKES, A. M., FRANZEN, S. (Eds). Driving Future Vehicles, London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  56. Spoerer, E. (1979), Einführung in die Verkehrspsychologie, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  57. Summala, H. (1985), “Modeling Driver Behavior: A Pessimistic Prediction?”, in EVANS, L., SCHWING, R. C. (Eds), Human Behavior and Traffic Safety, New York.Google Scholar
  58. Summala, H. (1986), Risk Control is not Risk Adjustment: The Zero-risk Theory of Driver Behavior and its Implications,University of Helsinki, Traffic Research Unit, Report 11, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  59. Svenson, O. (1978), “Risks of Road Transportation in a Psychological Perspective”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (4), 267–280.Google Scholar
  60. Taylor, D. H. (1964), “Drivers’ Galvanic Skin Response and the Risk of Accident”, Ergonomics, (7), 439–451.Google Scholar
  61. Trankle, U., Gelau, C., Metker, T. (1989), “Einflüsse von Alter und Geschlecht auf die Wahrnehmung situationsspezifischer Risiken im Strassenverkehr”, Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, Bd. XXXVI (2), 311–327.Google Scholar
  62. Van Der Molen, H. H., BÖTticher, A. M. T. (1988), “Risk Models for Traffic Participants: A Concerted Effort for Theoretical Operationalizations”, in ROTHENGATTER, J. A., DE BRUIN, R. A. (Eds), Road Users and Traffic Safety, 61–81, Assen/Maastricht/Wolfeboro: van Gorcun.Google Scholar
  63. VEILING, I. H. (1984), “A Laboratory Test of the Constant Risk Hypothesis”, Acta Psychologica, (55), 281–294.Google Scholar
  64. Vollmer, G. R. (1974), Risikoverhalten im innerbetrieblichen Transportsystem Kranführer - Kran. Forschungsbericht No. 120, Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Unfallforschung, Dortmund.Google Scholar
  65. Vrootvt, V. H. (1967), Work and Motivation, New York/London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  66. Wilde, G. J. S. (1978), Theorie der Risikokompensation der Unfallverursachung und praktische Folgerungen für die Unfallverhütung. Hefte zur Unfallheilkunde, (131), 134–156.Google Scholar
  67. Wilde, G. J. S. (1982), “Critical Issues in Risk Homeostasis Theory”, Risk Analysis, (4), 249–257.Google Scholar
  68. Wilde, G. J. S. (1988), “Risk Homeostasis Theory and Traffic Accidents: Propositions, Deductions and Discussion of Recent Commentaries”, Ergonomics, (31), 441–468, London.Google Scholar
  69. Wilde, G. J. S. (1994), Target Risk - Dealing with the Danger of Death, Disease and Damage in Everyday Decisions,PDE Publications.Google Scholar
  70. Wilde, G. J. S., Kunkel, E. (1984), Die begriffliche und empirische Problematik der Risikokompensation: eine Erwiderung auf Dr. R. D HUGUENIN, Zeitschrift fir Verkehrssicherheit, (2), 52–61, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  71. Zink, R. J. (1980), “Arbeitssicherheit als Akzeptanzproblem aus motivationstheoretischer Sicht”, Zbl. Arbeitsmedizin, (2), 39–48, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  72. Aberg, L. (1997), “The Role of Perceived Risk of Detection in the Theory of Planned Behavior”, in ROTHENGATTER, I., CARBONELL, E. (Eds),Proceedings of the International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology, Valencia ( 1997 ), Amsterdam: Elsevier (in print).Google Scholar
  73. Aschenbrenner, M., Biehl, B., Wurm, G. (1988), Mehr Verkehrssicherheit durch bessere Technik? Felduntersuchungen zur Risikokompensation am Beispiel des Antiblockiersystems (ABS), ( Unpublished ), Mannheim.Google Scholar
  74. Colbourn, C. J. (1978), “Perceived Risk as a Determinant of Driver Behavior”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (2), 131–141.Google Scholar
  75. Evans, L. (1984), Human Behavior Feedback and Traffic Safety, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren.Google Scholar
  76. Forward, S. (1997), “Subjective Norm and Who is the Significant Other?”, in ROTHENGATTER, I., CARBONELL, E. (Ed) (1996), Proceedings of the International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology, Valencia, Amsterdam: Elsevier, (in print).Google Scholar
  77. Fuller, R. (1988), “On Learning to Make Risky Decisions”, Ergonomics, 31 (4), 519–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Haight, F. A. (1986), “Risk - Especially Risk of Traffic Accident”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (5), 359–366.Google Scholar
  79. Hale, A. R., Stoop, J., Hommels, J. (1990), “Human Error Models as Predictors of Accident Scenarios for Designers in Road Transport Systems”, Ergonomics, (33), 13771388.Google Scholar
  80. Huguenin, R. D. (1988), “The Concept of Risk and Behavior Models in Traffic Psychology”, Ergonomics, 31 (4), 557–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Janssen, W. H., Tenkink, E. (1987), Risk Homeostasis Theory and its Critics: Time for an Agreement, TNO Institute for Perception, Soesterberg.Google Scholar
  82. Klebelsberg, Von, D. (1977), Psychologische Erklärungshypothesen für das Verkehrsverhalten, Informationen und Mitteilungen, BdP, Sektion Verkehrspsychologie, (9), 3–13, Bonn.Google Scholar
  83. Klebelsberg, Von, D. (1982), “Die Bedeutung von subjektiver und objektiver Sicherheit: Fahrerverhalten als Risikoverhalten”, in, Verkehrssicherheit, Vorträge anlässlich des Seminars der Forschungsgruppe Berlin, 5/6 November 1981, Daimler-Benz AG, Forschung und Entwicklung, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  84. Mckenna, F. P. (1985), “Do Safety Measures Really Work? An Examination of Risk Homeostasis Theory”, Ergonomics, (2), 489–498.Google Scholar
  85. Michon, J. A. (1985), “A Critical View of Driver Behavior Models: What Do we Know, What Should we Do?”, in EVANS, L., SCHWING, R. (Eds.), Human Behavior and Traffic Safety, New York.Google Scholar
  86. Micron, J. A. (1989), “Explanatory Pitfalls and Rule-Based Driver Models”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (21) (4), 341–353.Google Scholar
  87. Naatanen, R., Summala, H. (1976), Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  88. Oecd (1990), Behavioral Adaptations to Changes in the Road Transport System, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  89. Parker, D., West, R., Stradling, S., Manstead, A. S. R. (1995), “Behavioral Characteristics and Involvement in Different Types of Traffic Accident”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (27) (4), 571–581.Google Scholar
  90. Pfafferott, I., Huguenin, R. D. (1991), Adaptation nach Einführung von Sicherheitsmassnahmen - Ergebnisse und Schlussfolgerungen aus einer OECD-Studie, Zeitschrift ftir Verkehrssicherheit, (37), 71–83.Google Scholar
  91. Ranney, T. A. (1994), “Models of Driving Behavior: A Review of their Evolution”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (26) (6), 733–750.Google Scholar
  92. Rasmussen, J. (1987), “The Definition of Human Error and a Taxonomy for Technical System Design”, in RASMUSSEN, J., DUNCAN, K., LEPLAT, J. (Eds), New Technology and Human Error,Chichester, U.K: Wiley.Google Scholar
  93. Reason, J. (1994), Menschliches Versagen, Psychologische Risikofaktoren und moderne Technologien, Heidelberg/Berlin/Oxford: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  94. Rothengatter, T. (1997), “Psychological Aspects of Road User Behavior”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46 (3), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Shaw, L., Sichel, H. S. (1971), Accident Proneness: Research in the Occurrence, Causation and Prevention of Road Accidents, New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  96. Summala, H. (1985), “Modeling Driver Behavior: A Pessimistic Prediction?”, in EVANS, L., SCHWING, R. C. (Eds), Human Behavior and Traffic Safety, New York.Google Scholar
  97. Summala, H. (1986), Risk Control is not Risk Adjustment: The Zero-risk Theory of Driver Behavior and its Implications,University of Helsinki, Traffic Research unit, Report 11, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  98. .. (1988), “Risk Models for Traffic Participants: A Concerted Effort for Theoretical Operationalizations”, in ROTHENGATTER, J. A., DE BRUIN, R. A. (Eds), Road Users and Traffic Safety, 61–81, Assen/Maastricht/Wolfeboro: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  99. Wilde, G. J. S. (1994), Target Risk - Dealing with the Danger of Death, Disease and Damage in Everyday Decisions,PDE Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphael D. Huguenin
    • 1
  • Kare Rumar
    • 2
  1. 1.Swiss Council for Accident Prevention bfuBerneGermany
  2. 2.Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute VTILinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations