c consult author(s) regarding copyright matters · 2020. 12. 16. · gregersen, 2008; moller &...
TRANSCRIPT
This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:
Scott-Parker, Bridie, King, Mark, & Watson, Barry(2015)The psychosocial purpose of driving and its relationship with the risky driv-ing behaviour of young novice drivers.Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 33, pp.16-26.
This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/84942/
c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters
This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]
Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.06.004
Title
The psychosocial purpose of driving and its relationship with the risky driving behaviour of
young novice drivers
Authors and Affiliations
Scott-Parker, B. 1, 2, 3, King, M. J. 2, 3, & Watson, B.2, 3, 4
¹ Adolescent Risk Research Unit (ARRU), Faculty of Arts and Business, University of the
Sunshine Coast, Australia
2 Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q), Queensland
University of Technology, Australia
3 Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI), Queensland University of
Technology, Australia
4 Global Road Safety Partnership, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies
Corresponding author
Dr Bridie Scott-Parker
Adolescent Risk Research Unit (ARRU)
University of the Sunshine Coast
Sippy Downs Drive
Sippy Downs
Queensland, 4556, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Background The overrepresentation of young drivers in road crashes, injuries and fatalities
around the world has resulted in a breadth of injury prevention efforts including education,
enforcement, engineering, and exposure control. Despite multifaceted intervention, the young
driver problem remains a challenge for injury prevention researchers, practitioners and
policy-makers. The intractable nature of young driver crash risks suggests that a deeper
understanding of their car use – that is, the purpose of their driving – is required to inform the
design of more effective young driver countermeasures.
Aims This research examined the driving purpose reported by young drivers, including the
relationship with self-reported risky driving behaviours including offences.
Methods Young drivers with a Learner or Provisional licence participated in three online
surveys (N1 = 656, 17-20 years; N2 = 1051, 17-20 years; N3 = 351, 17-21 years) as part of a
larger state-wide project in Queensland, Australia.
Results A driving purpose scale was developed (the PsychoSocial Purpose Driving Scale,
PSPDS), revealing that young drivers drove for psychosocial reasons such as for a sense of
freedom and to feel independent. Drivers who reported the greatest psychosocial purpose for
driving were more likely to be male and to report more risky driving behaviours such as
speeding. Drivers who deliberately avoided on-road police presence and reported a prior
driving-related offence had significantly greater PSPDS scores, and higher reporting of
psychosocial driving purposes was found over time as drivers transitioned from the
supervised Learner licence phase to the independent Provisional (intermediate) licence phase.
Discussion and conclusions The psychosocial needs met by driving suggest that effective
intervention to prevent young driver injury requires further consideration of their driving
purpose. Enforcement, education, and engineering efforts which consider the psychosocial
purpose of the driving are likely to be more efficacious than those which presently do not.
Road safety countermeasures could reduce the young driver’s exposure to risk through such
mechanisms as encouraging the use of public transport.
Keywords
Young drivers, novice drivers, psychosocial, journey purpose, confirmatory factor analysis
1 Introduction
1.1 The young driver problem
The considerably increased risk of injury (fatal and non-fatal) through road crashes
experienced by all young drivers has been recognised for decades as the young driver
problem. Road crashes are the leading cause of death for persons aged 16-25 years (e.g.,
OECD, 2006; World Health Organization, 2014) and the second most common cause of
disability for male and female adolescents alike (World Health Organization, 2014). In
Australia in 2013, young drivers aged 17-25 years contributed 21.3% of the fatally-injured
drivers (BITRE, 2014), with life-threatening injuries sustained from crashes in particular
continuing to climb in recent years (Henley & Harrison, 2012). In the Australian state of
Queensland in 2013, 35.0% of hospitalised casualties arose from a crash involving a driver
aged 17-24 years. In Queensland in the year to 30 September 2014, 21.8% of fatalities of all
road users involved a young driver aged 17-24 years (TMR, 2014). In addition, risks are
greatest for the newly-licensed young driver, with 0.6% of fatalities involving a driver with a
Learner licence, in comparison to 8.8% of fatalities involving a driver with a Provisional
(intermediate) licence (TMR, 2014), despite these driver’s accounting for 5.2% and 5.3% of
the state’s licensed population, respectively (TMR, 2013). In addition, it is also noteworthy
that young drivers aged 17-24 years comprise only 12.9% of Queensland’s licensed driving
population (TMR, 2013). Accordingly, much research focus has been directed towards
understanding the influential factors in young driver road safety, particularly the on-road
driving behaviour (e.g., distracted driving, Westlake & Boyle, 2012) and driving-related
attitudes and beliefs (e.g., Fernandes, Hatfield, & Job, 2010) of the newly-licensed young
driver. One aspect of their on-road driving behaviour which has received some research
attention pertains to the purpose of their driving.
1.2 The purpose of driving
Driving serves many purposes. At its most fundamental level, driving a motor vehicle
is a reliable, efficient and economical mode of transport. Notwithstanding infrastructure
limitations and variable traffic demands, driving is also relatively flexible and can serve many
purposes, readily meeting the needs associated with family, leisure, education, and
employment in single and/or multiple-purpose trips (Hanson, 1980). Understanding trip
purpose is essential to promote the use of public transportation methods like trains, buses and
ferries; to minimise the negative environmental impact of traffic congestion (e.g., Curtis &
Headicar, 1997); and to facilitate social inclusion (e.g., Hamilton & Jenkins, 2000). Driving
purpose in relation to traffic offences (e.g., driving for leisure associated with increased
likelihood of speeding, Tseng, 2013) has received some attention, whilst the trip purposes of
other modes of road transport, such as riding a motorcycle, are also of interest (e.g., Huang &
Preston, 2004). Similarly, the psychological dis/benefits of driving and using public transport
(e.g., Stradling, Meadows, & Beatty, 1998) have been examined. A comprehensive
understanding of driving purpose and how it relates to risky driving would contribute to more
effective interventions to address young driver road safety. Accordingly considering the goal
and context of the driving is vital for intervening effectively in young driver road safety
(Berg, 2006).
Whilst many factors have been found to be associated with the risky behaviour of
young drivers (e.g., sensation seeking propensity, Jonah, 1997), particularly relevant to young
drivers is the psychosocial maturation associated with the development of their identity as a
driver (e.g., Redshaw, 1996; Scott-Parker, under review). Indeed, the car can be an extension
of the driver themselves, used as a form of self-expression by the young driver during their
driving journeys (e.g., OECD, 2006). Consistent with this notion, quantitative and qualitative
research alike repeatedly demonstrates that driving serves an important psychosocial function
for the young person, such as facilitating time spent with friends (e.g., carrying them as
passengers, travelling to their homes or other social outings) (e.g., Christmas, 2007; Moller &
Gregersen, 2008; Moller & Sigurdardottir, 2009). More broadly, young driver lifestyle
characteristics have also been found to relate to their driving style (e.g., see Gregersen &
Berg, 1994; Moller, 2004; Moller & Haustein, 2013). For example, a lifestyle characterised
by behaviours such as consuming alcohol and/or illicit drugs has been found to be associated
with higher crash risk, compared to a lifestyle characterised by engagement in/awareness of
religious matters which has been found to be associated with a lower crash risk (e.g.,
Chliaoutakis, Darviri, & Demakakos, 1999). The different purposes of driving across the
lifespan have also been identified. For example, a Finnish study revealed that driving ‘just for
fun’ accounted for approximately one quarter of driving by young males, and one fifth of
driving by females aged 18-21 years, however it accounted for less than 10% of the driving
of drivers aged 25-59 years old (Laapotti et al., 2006).
Importantly, the psychosocial function of driving has been found to be related to self-
reported risky driving behaviour, such that young drivers who used driving to gain social
status and, relatedly, to spend time driving with their friends, reported engaging in more risky
driving behaviours including speeding and tailgating (Moller & Gregersen, 2008). Presence
of young passengers is particularly of interest in young driver road safety, as a New Zealand
study concluded that the number of passengers was the most significant predictor of young
driver crashes after controlling for gender, blood alcohol concentration, mileage, fatigue, and
time of day (Keall, Frith, & Patterson, 2004). Furthermore, young drivers are more likely to
carry peer-aged passengers than older drivers (e.g., Laapotti et al., 2006). Driving ‘for
excitement’ has also been found to be associated with traffic offences and increased risk of
injury for young drivers aged 16-24 years (e.g., Blows, Ameratunga, Ivers, Lo, & Norton,
2005). An analysis of coronial reports pertaining to young driver fatal crashes found social
driving – characterised as driving without a destination and carrying friends as passengers
which suggests that driving was serving a psychosocial purpose – was a common factor
across 30 crashes involving 34 fatally injured persons aged 16-24 years (Pilkington et al.,
2014). As such, the current research focuses upon the psychosocial purpose of driving, whilst
acknowledging that driving also serves instrumental purposes (e.g., to get from point A to
point B) and logistical purposes (e.g., I am going to drive from point A to point B as it is the
most efficient way to make the journey).
In survey research the purpose of young driver journeys has been examined through
individual items (e.g., Blows et al., 2005) and through various purpose-built scales (e.g.,
Moller & Gregersen, 2008) which can emerge after data reduction analyses such as factor
analyses (e.g., Gregersen & Berg, 1994); however to date there is no valid and reliable
purpose-of-driving scale available to researchers. As such, there is a need for a young novice
driver-specific tool for measuring the psychosocial purpose of driving, and which can also be
used to explore the relationship with risky driving, crashes and offences. Accordingly the
following summarises three studies which develop, refine, and validate this instrument in
young driver populations in Queensland, Australia.
1.3 Car ownership and driving behaviour
Young drivers who have their own car have been found to engage in risky driving
behaviours to a greater extent than young drivers without ready access to a vehicle. To
illustrate, vehicle owners have been found to report lower compliance with graduated driver
licensing conditions and restrictions (Brookland, Begg, Langley, & Ameratunga, 2014),
greater mileage and more risky driving behaviours (Scott-Parker, Watson, King & Hyde,
2011), including speeding and mobile phone use (Senserrick, Garcia-Espana, & Ginsburg,
2007). Indeed, having exclusive access to a vehicle may actually facilitate meeting a variety
of psychosocial needs, such as seeing friends easily and showing independence, which could
not be achieved if they were reliant upon sharing the family vehicle. As such, the relationship
between car ownership and the psychosocial purpose of driving is also of interest.
1.4 Police avoidance and driving behaviour
The relationship between on-road enforcement activities and young driver behaviour
has received attention in the literature recently. Drivers who report deliberately avoiding on-
road police presence (including fixed operations such as speed cameras, and mobile
operations such as random breath testing), also report more risky driving attitudes (Scott-
Parker et al., 2012b) and more risky driving behaviours (Scott-Parker et al., 2013).
Interestingly on-road interactions with police officers conducting enforcement activities has
an enduring impact on young driver attitudes and behaviours, particularly for young males,
with young drivers who perceived the interaction was negative reporting that they have
changed their driving behaviours ( (Scott-Parker and Bates, under review). Young drivers
who report they avoid on-road police presence have also been found to differ on
psychological traits such as sensation seeking propensity (Scott-Parker, Watson et al., 2011).
As such, the relationship between police avoidance and psychosocial purpose of driving is
also of interest.
2 Study 1
2.1 Aim
The study had one aim: to develop a young novice driver-specific instrument that measures
the psychosocial purpose of driving.
2.2 Method
2.2.1 Participants
Six hundred and fifty-six tertiary students (206 males) with a valid Provisional (intermediate)
driver’s licence, aged 17 to 20 years (M = 18.5, SD = 0.89, Mode = 17, Median = 18 years)
from across the state of Queensland, Australia, volunteered to participate in the first study of
a larger online research project, Study One.
2.2.2 Materials, Design and Procedure
The study featured a cross-sectional survey design. The online survey was distributed
to all tertiary education institutions in Queensland, Australia (n = 13, with participants from 9
institutions only; response rate unable to be calculated), and was available online from mid-
August to 30 October, 2009 (paper survey available upon request). Students aged 17-25 years
with a Provisional driving licence were eligible to participate for the opportunity to receive
one of four fuel vouchers or credit for study participation as appropriate. Participants were
asked a range of socio-demographic questions (e.g., age, gender) and rated their agreement
with seven items exploring the purpose of their driving (1 never, 5 nearly all the time) which
were developed from pilot research which informed the research of Scott-Parker, Watson,
King (2009a, 2009b). Participants were instructed to think about their driving experiences
whilst on a Provisional driving licence, completing the 44-item Behaviour of Young Novice
Drivers Scale (BYNDS, Scott-Parker, Watson, & King, 2010) exploring self-reported risky
driving behaviour (1 never, 5 nearly all the time).
2.2.3 Statistical Analyses
A minimum sample size of five observations per variable is recommended for
exploratory factor analysis (EFA). For a preferred power of 80% and to detect a medium
effect size of .20, a sample size of 35 participants is required. A minimum of .30 was selected
to indicate a significant factor loading (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). This sample
size requirement was met. Reliability analyses used Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. All
analyses were undertaken in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 20.
2.3 Results
An EFA of the seven driving purpose items with principal component extraction identified
one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.00 explaining 56.5% of variance; and one factor
according to the scree test. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was
acceptable at .82, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at p < .001. Table 1
summarises the factor loadings for the seven items. A composite scale score (the
PsychoSocial Purpose of Driving Scale, PSPDS) was created by summing the individual item
responses.
[insert Table 1 here]
Table 2 summarises the mean and standard deviations of the seven items and the
composite PSPDS score, for the total sample and by gender. As can be seen, young drivers –
males and females alike – most commonly reported driving so that they could see friends
easily, to feel independent, and for a sense of freedom. Overall, the scale exhibited
satisfactory internal consistency (α = .86; males: α = .85; females α = .88).
[insert Table 2 here]
3 Study 2
3.1 Aims
The study had three aims: (1) to apply the PSPDS using a (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly
agree) scale consistent with contemporary psychological practice; (2) to apply the PSPDS in
a sample of young Learner drivers so that an EFA could be conducted; and (3) to explore the
relationships between psychosocial driving purpose and self-reported risky driving behaviour.
3.2 Method
3.2.1 Participants
Young drivers (N = 1051, 422 males) aged 17-20 years (M = 17.5, SD = 0.86, Mode = 17,
Median = 18 years) who progressed from a Learner to a P1 licence during the period 1 April
2010 to 30 June 2010 volunteered to participate in a Queensland-wide survey, Study Two.
3.2.2 Materials, Design and Procedure
All young drivers in Queensland who progressed from a Learner to a P1 driver’s licence
between 1 April 2010 and 30 June 2010 were invited to participate (with paper option
available) via a flyer issued by the government licensing authority (TMR) and a reminder
letter issued by TMR one month later (n = 9393 eligible Learners aged 17-97 years, however
response rate for drivers aged 17-20 years unable to be calculated). The online survey
explored Learner driving experiences and attitudes were surveyed, including the 44-item
BYNDS (Scott-Parker et al., 2010), and the PSPDS. Participants were offered the chance to
win petrol vouchers, shopping vouchers, and movie tickets.
3.2.3 Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses included EFA to examine the factor structure of the PSPDS with revised
scoring and in a Learner driver population, and correlation analyses as noted in 2.2.3. All
online surveys were administered via KeySurvey Online Survey Software. Only eligible
novice drivers received the survey hyperlink, and the survey site was securely maintained by
the Queensland University of Technology. All analyses were undertaken in SPSS, version 20,
evaluated at a significance level of p < .05.
3.3 Results
An EFA of the seven driving purpose items with principal component extraction identified
one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.00 explaining 60.03% of variance; and one factor
according to the scree test. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was
acceptable at .86, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at p < .001. Table 1
summarises the factor loadings for the seven items. Interestingly, despite the difference in the
scoring scale, and the sampling of two different populations (the participants in Study 1 were
young drivers with a Provisional licence who were attending a tertiary institution; the
participants in Study 2 were young drivers with a Learner licence anywhere in Queensland at
the time of sampling), the factor loadings for all but one item did not differ substantially.
Again, the PSPDS score was created by summing the individual item responses. Table 3
summarises the means and standard deviations of the seven items and the composite scale,
for the total sample and by gender. As can be seen, young drivers for the second time most
commonly reported driving for a sense of freedom, to feel independent, and driving so that
they could see their friends easily. In general, males reported significantly more engagement
in driving so that they could gain status amongst their friends and to relax; whilst females
reported significantly more engagement in driving so they could feel independent.
[insert Table 3 here]
Figure 1 illustrates the proportion of all drivers, males and females, reporting the various
(Likert response 5-7) driving purpose items. As can be seen and consistent with the findings
summarised in Table 2, a larger proportion of females reported driving to show independence
while a larger proportion of males reported driving to relax and gain status amongst their
friends.
[insert Figure 1 here]
Overall, the PSPDS composite scale exhibited satisfactory internal consistency (α = .89;
males: α = .90; females α = .88), and was significantly associated with self-reported risky
driving behaviour (r = .23, p < .001).
4 Study 3
4.1 Aims
The study had five aims: (1) to explore the relationships between psychosocial driving
purpose and self-reported risky driving behaviour; (2) to examine the differences in
psychosocial purpose of driving according to whether drivers deliberately avoided on-road
police presence; (3) to examine the differences in psychosocial purpose of driving according
to whether drivers had their own car or not; (4) to examine differences in driving purpose
over time, as drivers progressed from a Learner to a Provisional driver’s licence, and (5) to
apply the PSPDS in a second sample of young drivers with a Provisional licence so that a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) could be conducted.
4.2 Method
4.2.1 Participants
Three hundred and fifty-one drivers (109 males) aged 17-21 years (M = 17.8, SD = 0.84,
Mode = 17, Median = 17) (Study 2 participants were aged 17-20 years therefore six months
later Study 3 participants were aged 17-21 years) completed a 30-minute online survey. All
drivers had held a Provisional driver’s licence for six months.
4.2.2 Method, Design and Procedure
Every Study 2 participant was sent an email invitation for Study Three after they had driven
with a Provisional licence for a six month-period (paper option available). A reminder letter
was issued by DTMR one month later (response rate 33.4%). The driving experiences and
attitudes during the first six months of independent driving were surveyed, and participants
again were offered the chance to win petrol vouchers, shopping vouchers, and movie tickets.
During the longitudinal research project, the 44-item BYNDS was subsequently refined to a
more parsimonious 36-item Revised BYNDS (Scott-Parker et al., 2012a) which was applied
in this study. Participants were also asked if they had their own car (no, yes), deliberately
avoided on-road police presence (no, yes) or had an offence detected by Police (no, yes).
4.2.3 Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses included hierarchical multiple regression (HMR) to explore the
relationship between the individual PSPDS items and the revised-BYNDS; CFA to examine
the factor structure of the PSPDS with revised scoring and in a Provisional driver population;
correlation analyses as noted in 2.2.3; and comparison of means including analysis of
variance and paired t-tests. The CFA required an assessment of good model fit which was
determined by a non-significant chi-square (χ2). In addition, Bentler’s Comparative Fit Index
(CFI ≥ .95), the Steiger-Lind Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA ≤ .08)
including 90% confidence intervals (Kline, 2011), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI ≥ .95), and
Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC) were examined and used for the purposes of model
comparison and improved model fit during the iterative CFA process. Measures of internal
consistency utilised Cronbach’s alpha (α). The online survey tool was created in KeySurvey
Enterprise Online Survey Software. All analyses were conducted using AMOS version 18
and SPSS version 20.
4.3 Results
Table 3 summarises the mean and standard deviations of the seven items and the composite
scale, for the total sample and by gender. For the third time (notwithstanding the longitudinal
nature of the sampling in this case, with Learners who participated in Study 2 now
participating in Study 3 as independently-licensed drivers), young drivers most commonly
reported driving for a sense of freedom, to feel independent, and so they could see their
friends easily. In general, males reported significantly more engagement in driving so that
they could feel powerful, and to gain status amongst their friends. Also more generally, Study
3 reporting of the psychosocial driving purpose items was considerably greater in most
instances, for both genders, which perhaps reflects the independent driving capacity of the
Study 3 sample compared to the dependent driving capacity of the Study 2 sample.
Figure 2 illustrates the proportion of all drivers, males and females, reporting the
various (Likert response 5-7) driving purpose items. As can be seen and consistent with the
findings summarised in Table 3, a significantly larger proportion of males reported driving to
feel powerful and to gain status amongst friends (both p < .001), whilst driving to relax
approached significance (p = .06).
[insert Figure 2 here]
In the HMR, entering the individual PSPDS items in Step 2 after entering the socio-
demographic variables of gender and age in Step 1 accounted for a significant 13.1% of
variance in self-reported risky driving behaviour as measured by the revised BYNDS (Table
4). Significant predictors included driving to feel powerful which explained 2.9% of unique
variance, followed by driving to see friends easily (2.1%). Separate HMRs according to
gender revealed that the PSPDS items explained a significant 30% of variance in the revised
BYNDS scores for males (F (8, 100) = 6.89, p < .001) and 6% of variance in the revised
BYNDS scores for females (F (8, 233) = 2.93, p < .001). Significant predictors for males
included driving to feel powerful (beta = .45, 8.9% unique variance), to express adulthood
(beta = -.44, 8.1% unique variance), and so they could easily see friends (beta = .29, 5.2%
unique variance), whilst no significant individual predictors emerged for females.
[insert Table 4 here]
The stability in the importance of the psychosocial purpose of driving over the 6
month follow-up period (when the participant progressed from a Learner driver [Study 2] to
an independent driver with a Provisional licence [Study 3]) was examined via paired t-tests.
Perhaps unsurprisingly given the nature of the licensing requirements – and in particular
given that Learner drivers must be supervised by an experienced driver, which is most often
their parents (Scott-Parker, Bates, Watson, & King, 2011), as can be seen in Table 5, the
young drivers reported psychosocial driving purpose items over time. The important role of
police in young driver road safety has recently received attention (e.g., Scott-Parker et al.,
2012b, 2013), therefore the relationship between whether young drivers reported they
actively avoided on-road police presence and the PSPDS items was examined. Table 6
summarises these findings, with avoiders reporting significantly more of every PSPDS item
except driving to easily see their friends. Car owners reported significantly more driving to
feel independent, and driving to relax approached significance (p = .059).
[insert Table 5 and Table 6 here]
The original seven-item PSPDS was not a good fit to the data, χ2 (14, N = 351) =
220.97, p < .01, CFI = .82, TLI = .64, RMSEA = .19 [.17-.22]. Modification indices were
examined and three items (to easily see friends; to gain status; to feel powerful) were
removed through an iterative process which resulted in a model with a good fit: χ2 = 9.30, p =
.01, CFI = .99, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .09 [.04-.16]. Figure 3 depicts the final PSPDS model.
[insert Figure 3 here]
The PSPDS score was created by summing the four remaining item responses. Overall, the
scale exhibited satisfactory internal consistency (α = .83; males: α = .90; females α = .79).
The PSPDS score was significantly associated with self-reported risky driving (r = .30, p <
.001) and self-reported offences (r = .11, p < .05; 43 drivers reported they had been detected
for a driving-related offence).
5 Discussion
5.1 Summary of findings
Young drivers reported frequently driving to meet a number of psychosocial purposes,
ranging from gaining a sense of freedom to relaxing. Approximately 90% of the participating
young drivers agreed that driving served the psychosocial purpose of seeing their friends
easily, whilst approximately 70% of participants agreed that driving served the related
psychosocial purposes of gaining independence and gaining freedom. Half the participants
reported that driving helped them relax, whilst nearly a third of participants agreed that
driving meet the psychosocial need to showing they were now an adult. Young drivers
reported greater driving to meet psychosocial needs as they progressed from supervised to
independent driving, and young drivers who reported they actively avoided on-road police
presence also reported significantly greater psychosocial driving purposes. In addition, there
appears to be a relationship between the psychosocial purpose of driving and self-reported
risky driving behaviours.
5.2 Implications
The three-stage project has produced a reliable, robust and valid scale which has a number of
practical uses. The brief scale is freely available and can be incorporated in young driver
research which is either quantitative or qualitative in nature, thereby improving our
understanding of the psychosocial role of driving for adolescents and young adults. In
addition, the scale can be used to further our understanding of influential factors in young
driver road safety. As such, the scale can inform intervention development, implementation
and evaluation.
The PSPDS items point to several avenues of intervention in young driver road safety.
Interestingly, driving to show to that you are now an adult actually exerted a protective effect
on young driver road safety, with adolescents driving for this purpose reporting less risky
driving generally. Accordingly interventions could emphasise the legitimate role of driving in
the developmental progression to, and representation of, adulthood. Conversely, young
drivers who reported driving so they could see their friends easily, for freedom, for
independence, and to relax reported more risky driving generally. As such, consistent with
systems thinking regarding the young driver road safety system (see Scott-Parker et al., 2014;
Scott-Parker et al., 2015), interventions could highlight alternative means to see their friends
more easily (e.g., public transport, taxi); to experience freedom (e.g., gain employment); and
to relax (e.g., hobbies) as viable alternatives to driving to meet these psychosocial needs. The
psychosocial purpose of driving appears to be captured within the ‘driving goals and context’
level of the GADGET (Guarding Automobile Drivers through Guidance Education and
Technology) matrix (Siegrist, 1999). As such, education of young drivers, their young
passengers, and their parents should include information regarding risks of driving to meet
psychosocial needs and the benefits of choosing alternative transportation and other social
and developmental options. In addition, the influence of the psychosocial purpose of driving
upon driving behaviour differed considerably for the genders, with the psychosocial purpose
accounting for considerably more variance in risky driving for young male drivers. This
finding further reinforces the need for gender-based young driver road safety interventions.
5.3 Future research
Future research could apply the original seven-item PSPDS in young driver populations in
other jurisdictions in Australia and overseas to examine the factor structure, and thus the
robust nature, of the scale. In addition, the nature and extent of the influence of meeting
psychosocial needs upon young driver behaviour could also be examined in young driver
populations in other jurisdictions, utilising alternative methodologies to gauge the impact
upon driving behaviour (e.g., simulator, naturalistic). Additional driving purpose items which
consider the social needs which are being met by driving could also be incorporated.
Interventions targeting the psychosocial purpose of driving could also be developed,
implemented and the impact of these evaluations on young driver road safety could be
examined. Future research should also seek to engage with young drivers to elucidate
heretofore unrealised driving purposes, and alternatives to driving to meet their various
psychosocial needs. In this way, viable interventions can be designed, which operationalise
adolescent-relevant methodologies, thereby increasing their likely efficacy in improving
young driver road safety. Such research could also examine driving purpose for young drivers
more comprehensively by also exploring the instrumental and logistical purposes of driving.
This would allow elucidation of the relationships amongst instrumental, logistical and
psychosocial purposes of driving, thus further informing intervention development.
5.4 Strengths and Limitations
Three studies with three different driving populations (notwithstanding the longitudinal
nature of Studies 2 and 3) were used to develop and refine the PSPDS, with items gleaned
from qualitative pilot research with young drivers. In addition, exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses were used to refine the PSPDS, with the perspectives of young drivers
examined separately for each gender. Participant sampling is noteworthy, however: While the
participants in Study 1 were sampled once only, the participants in Study 3 were a subset of
participants from Study 2 (the longitudinal study). Whilst some similarity in results is thus
expected, it is important to note that the Study 2 participants were reflecting upon the
psychosocial purpose of driving as Learner drivers, while in Study 3 they were reflecting
upon the psychosocial purpose of driving as Provisional drivers. Fundamental differences in
these two licence stages are likely to have revealed differences in the psychosocial purpose of
driving reported: Learner drivers must be supervised by an experienced driver (most
commonly parents), and a strong focus of driving in Queensland is upon gaining 100 driving
hours recorded in the mandatory logbook (e.g., see Scott-Parker, Bates et al., 2011). In
comparison, Provisional drivers are not supervised, and do not have to monitor their driving
in a logbook. Whilst the three studies (and the preliminary research which informed the
nature of the PSPDS items) utilised self-report data, information regarding the psychosocial
purpose of driving cannot be gathered by other methodology. The findings may not be
generalisable beyond the populations sampled due to incalculable response rates, and low
response rates in the longitudinal research (discussed elsewhere, e.g., see Scott-Parker et al.,
2012a). Notwithstanding this, the scale appeared robust across the three sampled populations,
suggesting that the scale can be applied in other young driver populations.
6 Conclusions
Driving serves many purposes. Of particular interest for young driver road safety is the
psychosocial purpose of driving. A seven-item scale which can be used to understand the
young driver’s psychosocial purpose of driving was developed and refined in three studies.
Psychosocial purpose was a significant predictor of risky driving behaviour, and males,
drivers who deliberately avoid on-road Police presence, and drivers with a Provisional
licence reported greater driving to meet their psychosocial needs. Young driver road safety
interventions should consider more explicitly addressing the psychosocial purpose of driving,
consistent with the training and education efforts captured within the GADGET matrix.
Interventions can be driving-focused, such as the provision of alternative transportation
methods like public transport; and interventions can more generally address developmental
needs such as gaining independence through employment, and relaxation through the
engagement in group or individual hobbies. Enforcement, education, and engineering efforts
which consider the psychosocial purpose of the driving are likely to be more efficacious than
those which presently do not.
7 Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the Queensland department of Transport and Main Roads (formerly
Queensland Transport) for their assistance in the recruitment of novice drivers for the second
study. The first author was the recipient of a National Health and Medical Research Council
Postgraduate Research Scholarship at the time of data collection. Special thanks to Dr
Melissa Hyde, formerly of QUT, for her supervision during the first author’s doctoral
research program. Special thanks also to Ms Natalie Taylor for her assistance in preparing the
manuscript.
8 References
Berg, H. Y. (2006). Reducing crashes and injuries among young drivers: What kind of
prevention should we be focusing on? Injury Prevention, 12, 15-18.
BITRE (Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics). (2014). Road deaths
Australia. 2013 Statistical Summary. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure and
Regional Development.
Blows, S., Ameratunga, S., Ivers, R. Q., Lo, S. K., & Norton, R. (2005). Risky driving habits
and motor vehicle driver injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 619-624.
Brookland, R., Begg, D., Langley, J., & Ameratunga, S. (2014). Parental influence on
adolescent compliance with graduated driver licensing conditions and crashes as a
restricted licensed driver: New Zealand Drivers Study. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 69, 30-39.
Chliaoutakis, J. E., Koukouli, S., Lajunen, T., & Tzamalouka, G. (2005). Lifestyle traits as
predictors of driving behavior in urban areas of Greece. Transportation Research Part
F, 8, 413-428.
Christmas, S. (2007). Road safety research report No. 74. The good, the bad and the
talented: Young drivers’ perspectives on good driving and learning to drive.
Department for Transport: London.
Curtis, C., & Headicar, P. (1997). Targeting travel awareness campaigns. Which individuals
are more likely to switch from car to other transport for the journey to work?
Transport Policy, 4(1), 57-65.
Fernandes, R., Hatfield, J., & Job, R. F. S. (2010). A systematic investigation of the
differential predictors for speeding, drink-driving, driving while fatigued, and not
wearing a seat belt, among young drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 13, 179-196.
Gregersen, N. P., & Berg, H. Y. (1994). Lifestyle and accidents among young drivers.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26, 297-303.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International.
Hamilton, K., & Jenkins, L. (2000). A gender audit for public transport: A new policy tool in
the tackling of social exclusion. Urban Studies, 37(10), 1793-1800.
Hanson, S. (1980). The importance of the multi-purpose journey to work in urban travel
behavior. Transportation, 9, 229-248.
Henley, G., & Harrison, J. (2012). Trends in serious injury due to land transport accidents,
Australia 2000-01 to 2008-09. Injury research and statistics series no. 66. Cat. No.
INJCAT 142. Canberra: AIHW.
Huang, B., & Preston, J. (2004). A literature review on motorcycle collisions. Final report.
Transport Studies Unit: Oxford University.
Jonah, B. A. (1997). Sensation seeking and risky driving: A review and synthesis of the
literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 651-665.
Keall, M. D., Frith, W. J., & Patterson, T. L. (2004). The influence of alcohol, age, and
number of passengers on the night-time risk of driver fatal injury in New Zealand.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 49-61.
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.). London:
The Guilford Press.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Hernetkoski, K., Katila, A., Peraaho, M., & Salo, I.
(2006). Driving circumstances and accidents among novice drivers. Traffic Injury
Prevention, 7(3), 232-237.
Moller, M. (2004). An explorative study of the relationship between lifestyle and driving
behaviour among young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 1081-1088.
Moller, M., & Gregersen, N. P. (2008). Psychosocial function of driving as a predictor of
risk-taking behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 209-215.
Moller, M., & Haustein, S. (2013). Keep on cruising: Changes in lifestyle and driving style
among male drivers between the age of 18 and 23. Transportation Research Part F,
20, 59-69.
Moller, M., & Sigurdardottir, S. B. (2009). The relationship between leisure time and driving
style in two groups of male drivers. Transportation Research Part F, 12, 462-469.
OECD. (2006). Young drivers: The road to safety. Policy Brief and Summary Document.
Retrieved 10 February, 2007, from
http://www.cemt.org/JTRC/WorkingGroups/YoungDrivers/index.htm
Pilkington, P., Bird, E., Gray, S., Towner, E., Weld, S., & McKibben, M. A. (2014).
Understanding the social context of fatal road traffic collisions among young people:
A qualitative analysis of narrative text in coroners’ reports. BMC Public Health, 14,
78-92.
Redshaw, S. (2006). Dangerous gender performances: ‘Hydraulic masculinity’ as a norm for
young male drivers. 2006 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education
Conference, 25-27 October, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Scott-Parker, B. (under re-review). “You’re so used to having someone tell you what to do”:
Experiences of young drivers during the Provisional licence phase. Accident Analysis
and Prevention.
Scott-Parker, B., & Bates, L. (under review). “…it just feels like you are a suspect for
everything”: Investigating young drivers’ perceptions regarding interactions with
Police. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal.
Scott-Parker, B., Bates, L., Watson, B., King, M. J., & Hyde, M. K. (2011). The impact of
changes to the graduated driver licensing program in Queensland, Australia on the
experiences of Learner drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(4), 1301-1308.
Scott-Parker, B., Goode, N., & Salmon, P. (2015). The driver, the road, the rules.....and the
rest? A systems-based approach to young driver road safety. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 74, 297-305.
Scott-Parker, B., Salmon, P., Goode, N., & Senserrick, T. (2014). Key players and their
interactions within the young driver road safety system: Perspectives and partners. 5th
International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Krakow July.
Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., & King, M. J. (2009a). Understanding the psychosocial factors
influencing the risky behaviour of young drivers. Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12, 470-482.
Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., & King, M. J. (2009b). Exploring how parents and peers
influence the behaviour of young drivers. 2009 Australasian Road Safety Research,
Policing and Education Conference, 10-12 November, 2009, Sydney, New South
Wales, Australia.
Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., & King, M. J. (2010). The risky behaviour of young drivers:
Developing a measurement tool. Proceedings of the 20th Canadian Multidisciplinary
Road Safety Conference, Niagara Falls, Canada, June 6-9, 2010.
Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., King, M. J., & Hyde, M. K. (2012a). Confirmatory factor
analysis of the Behaviour of Young Novice Drivers Scale (BYNDS). Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 49, 385-391.
Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., King, M. J., & Hyde, M. K. (2012b). “They’re lunatics on the
road”: Exploring the normative influences of parents, friends, and police on young
novice’s risky driving decisions. Safety Science, 50, 1917-1928.
Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., King, M. J., & Hyde, M. K. (2013). Punishment avoidance and
intentional risky driving behaviour: What are the implications for ‘getting away with
it’? In N. Castro (Ed.), Psychology of Punishment: New Research (pp. 55-77). New
York: Nova.
Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., King, M. J., & Hyde, M. K. (2011). Mileage, car ownership,
experience of punishment avoidance and the risky driving of young drivers. Traffic
Injury Prevention, 12(6), 559-567.
Senserrick, T. M., Kinsman, S. B., Garcia-Espana, F., Hafner, L., Ginsburg, K. R., &
Winston, F. K. (2007). 79: Does having their own car increase teen drivers’ risk?
Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(2), S53.
Siegrist, S. (Ed.). (1999). Report 40. Driver training, testing and licensing – towards theory-
based management of young drivers’ injury risk in road traffic. Results of EU-Project
GADGET, Work Package 3. BFU, www.bfu.ch.
Stradling, S. G., Meadows, M. L., & Beatty, S. (1998). Psychological benefits and disbenefits
of driving. In Proceedings of the Behavioural research in Road safety VIII
Conference, United Kingdom, pp. 138-151.
TMR (Transport and Main Roads). (2014). Queensland Road Toll Report No: 855,
Comparative Queensland Road Toll Year to Date to 22 June 2014. Available at
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Transport-and-road-statistics/Road-safety-
statistics.aspx
TMR (Transport and Main Roads). (2013). Current Queensland Driver’s Licences. Available
at: http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/safety/transport-and-road-statistics/licensing-
statistics.aspx.
Tseng, C. M. (2013). Speeding violations related to a driver’s social-economic demographics
and the most frequent driving purpose in Taiwan’s male population. Safety Science,
57, 236-242.
Westlake, E. J., & Boyle, L. N. (2012). Perceptions of driver distraction among teenage
drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15, 644-
653.
World Health Organization. (2014). Health for the world’s adolescents. A second chance in
the second decade. Available at www.who.int/adolescent/second-decade.
Table 1: Items and factor loadings, Study 1 and Study 2.
Item Factor Loading
Study 1 Study 2
N = 656 N = 1051
You drove
for a sense of freedom .88 .86
so you could feel independent .83 .83
to show you were now an adult .78 .72
to relax .61 .67
to feel powerful .61 .68
so you could gain status amongst your friends .61 .60
so you could see your friends easily .52 .71
Table 2: Means (and standard deviations), including by gender, Study 1.
Drivers Males Females
Item N = 656 n = 206 n = 450
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
You drove1:
for a sense of freedom 2.25 (1.21) 2.15 (1.20) 2.30 (1.21)
so you could feel independent 2.21 (1.20) 1.98 (1.11) 2.31 (1.22)
to show you were now an adult 1.76 (1.06) 1.75 (1.07) 1.76 (1.05)
to relax 1.75 (0.95) 1.81 (0.92) 1.72 (0.96)
to feel powerful 1.37 (0.72) 1.39 (0.72) 1.36 (0.73)
so you could gain status amongst 1.40 (0.76) 1.49 (0.86) 1.35 (0.71)
your friends
so you could see friends easily 2.54 (1.28) 2.61 (1.29) 2.51 (1.27)
Composite 13.28 (5.41) 13.19 (5.34) 13.32 (5.45)
Note: Scores were collected on a five point scale of 1 (never) to 5 (almost always).
Table 3: Means (and standard deviations), including by gender, Study 2 and Study 3.
Item Study 2: Learner drivers Study 3: Provisional drivers
Total Males Females Total Males Females
N = 1051 n = 422 n = 629 N = 351 n = 109 n = 242
You drove
for a sense of freedom 4.24 (2.13) 4.13 (2.17) 4.31 (2.11) 5.03 (1.79) 5.01 (1.95) 5.05 (1.72)
so you could feel independent 4.33 (2.14) 4.03 (2.16) 4.53 (2.10)*** 4.99 (1.82) 4.98 (1.96) 5.00 (1.77)
to show you were now an adult 3.14 (1.98) 3.08 (1.93) 3.18 (2.01) 3.36 (2.01) 3.58 (2.08) 3.27 (1.98)
to relax 3.33 (1.99) 3.53 (2.03) 3.20 (1.96)** 4.03 (1.96) 4.31 (1.94) 3.90 (1.95)
to feel powerful 2.66 (1.82) 2.69 (1.77) 2.65 (1.85) 2.70 (1.88) 3.08 (1.88) 2.52 (1.75)**
so you could gain status amongst
your friends 2.52 (1.71) 2.72 (1.75) 2.39 (1.67)** 2.57 (1.77) 3.09 (1.89) 2.34 (1.67)***
so you could see your friends easily 3.94 (2.10) 3.91 (2.06) 3.96 (2.12) 5.76 (1.39) 5.83 (1.30) 5.73 (1.42)
PsychoSocial Purpose Scale 24.11 (11.72) 24.09 (11.03) 24.21 (10.51) 28.45 (9.05) 29.89 (10.38) 27.81 (8.33)*
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; Significant gender differences are bolded for ease of reference. Note: Scores were collected on a seven point scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression results for gender, age, and individual
psychosocial purpose items predicting risky driving, Study 3, N = 351.
Variables β sr2 R2 Adj R2 ∆ R2
Step 1
Gender .001
Age -.088
.014 .008 .014
Step 2
Freedom .053
Independent -.068
Adult -.086
Relax -.095
Powerful .227** .029
Status .099
Friends .169** .021
.145 .123*** .131***
** p < .01, *** p < .001. The variables at the final step are illustrated. Final model shown: Step one F (2, 348) = 2.46, ns; Step two F (9, 341) = 6.44, p <.001.
Table 5. Longitudinal changes in reported driving purpose, N = 351.
Psychosocial purpose Learner Provisional
Freedom 4.18 (2.15) 5.03 (1.79)***
Independent 4.23 (2.15) 4.99 (1.82)***
Adult 3.03 (2.00) 3.36 (2.01)**
Relax 3.14 (1.96) 4.03 (1.96)***
Powerful 2.56 (1.85) 2.70 (1.81)
Status 2.43 (1.73) 2.57 (1.77)
Friends 3.79 (2.06) 5.76 (1.39)***
Total 23.35 (10.81) 28.45 (9.10)***
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
32
Table 6. Reported driving purpose according to whether Provisional drivers reported intentionally avoiding on-road police presence, N
= 348, and had their own car, N = 351.
Psychosocial purpose Avoid Did not avoid Own car Did not have own car
n = 291 n = 57 n = 278 n = 73
Freedom 5.58 (1.64) 4.92 (1.80)* 5.10 (1.76) 4.77 (1.90)
Independent 5.56 (1.50) 4.89 (1.86)*** 5.10 (1.80) 4.58 (1.88)*
Adult 3.91 (2.25) 3.25 (1.95)* 3.40 (2.03) 3.22 (1.97)
Relax 4.91 (1.85) 3.85 (1.93)* 4.13 (1.94) 3.64 (1.97)
Powerful 3.65 (2.10) 2.50 (1.78)*** 2.72 (1.82) 2.63 (1.76)
Status 3.28 (2.20) 2.42 (1.65)*** 2.56 (1.77) 2.63 (1.78)
Friends 5.88 (1.32) 5.74 (1.40) 5.80 (1.35) 5.60 (1.50)
Total 32.77 (9.84) 27.57 (8.65)*** 28.82 (8.94) 27.07 (9.40)
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
33
Figure 1: Proportion (percentage) of young drivers endorsing driving for different purposes, Learners n = 1051.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total
Males
Females
34
Figure 2: Proportion (percentage) of young drivers endorsing driving for different purposes, Provisional drivers n = 351.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Total
Males
Females
35
Figure 3: Confirmatory factor analysis, Study 3, n = 351.
.80 .89
.68
.82
.36
.60
.42
.65
Freedom
Independent
PsychoSocial Purpose Driving Scale (PSPDS) Adult
Relax