The human point of view on risk factors: Irrationality in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Juliane Haupt Eike Pokriefke

The human point of view on risk factors: Irrationality in perception.

presented by

Daniel Bell

Methods I

Participiants

• N = 20 drivers (14 ♂, 6 ♀; M = 39.15years; SD = 15.869 years)
• Driving experience > 10,000km
• Driving distance per year > 5,000km
• ADAS experience: range from hardly any up to very extensive

experience

Findings II Discussion & Conclusion Methods II Findings I Methods I

Methods I

Procedure

• Before: questionnaire asking for demographic information & level of

DAS experience

• (1.) Did you - and if yes, when did you first - use the particular

system?

• (2.) How often do you currently drive with the particular system

activated? and

• (3.) How familiar do you feel with the particular DAS?
• 4 Focus Groups (2 mixed-; 1 low-, 1 high DAS experience)

Findings II Discussion & Conclusion Methods II Findings I Methods I

Findings I

Perceived Risk “I feel safe on Austria’s roads.” “I’m afraid of youngsters that overestimate their skills.” “Many foreigners do not care about speed limits.” “Cyclists behave outside of laws. Even is they have a better view, it’s still risky.” „There are some risk groups: Opel-drivers; BMW-drivers, men with hats, women with glasses. Many public persons make jokes of Opel drivers. There must be truth in it. I‘m sure that‘s statistically verifiable. For instance BMW drivers: when someone jostles you, this is in 50% of the cases a BMW driver. And also the cliché of the ‚Sunday driver‘ is correct.“

Findings II Discussion & Conclusion Methods II Methods I Findings I

Findings I

Perceived behavioural control “I think, I control my car in every situation.” “I believe that I can avoid an accident actively.” “Many foreigners do not care about speed limits.” “I’ve balanced the errors of others already quite often.” “You have to compensate a lot of problems that other road users cause.” “I think I can compensate the wrongdoing of others often. That happens again and again ...”

Findings II Discussion & Conclusion Methods II Methods I Findings I

Methods II

Participiants

• N = 206 drivers (118 ♂, 88 ♀; M = 41.22 years; SD = 14.230 years)
• Driving experience of majority (N = 193) > 10,000km
• ADAS experience: range from hardly any up to very extensive

experience

Findings II Discussion & Conclusion Findings I Methods I Methods II

Findings II

Perceived risk I M = 3.14, SD = 1.226

Findings I Discussion & Conclusion Methods II Methods I Findings II

Findings II

Perceived risk II M = 4.82, SD = 1.443

Findings I Discussion & Conclusion Methods II Methods I Findings II

Findings II

Perceived behavioural control I M = 4.84 SD = 1.180

Findings I Discussion & Conclusion Methods II Methods I Findings II

Findings II

Perceived behavioural control II M = 4.10, SD = 1.472

Findings I Discussion & Conclusion Methods II Methods I Findings II

Findings II

Perceived risk of other and perceived behavioural control II N = 205 r = .224** p < .01

Findings I Discussion & Conclusion Methods II Methods I Findings II

Discussion & Conclusion

• Drivers are aware that being a road user is a risk as they perceive
• ther road users as risky

BUT

• Drivers perceive themselves as able to handle risks on the road in

comparison to other road users =

• Irrationality

Findings I Findings II Methods II Methods I Discussion & Conclusion

Discussion & Conclusion

• Possible explanation:

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (= discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions; Festinger, 1985)

• Space for further research:
• increase of safely behaviour in traffic or decrease?

Findings I Findings II Methods II Methods I Discussion & Conclusion

Juliane Haupt Juliane.Haupt@factum.at

Thank you for your attention!