چگونه سایر مردم سرعت رانندگی شما را تحت تاثیر قرار می دهد؟ بررسی "کیستی" و "چگونگی" تأثیرات اجتماعی بر بالا بردن سرعت از دیدگاه کیفی

Using only legal sanctions to manage the speed at which people drive ignores the potential benefits of harnessing social factors such as the influence of others. Social influences on driving speeds were explored in this qualitative examination of 67 Australian drivers. Focus group interviews with 8 driver types (young, mid-age and older males and females, and self-identified Excessive and Rare speeders) were guided by Akers’ social learning theory (Akers, 1998). Findings revealed two types of influential others: people known to the driver (passengers and parents), and unknown other drivers. Passengers were generally described as having a slowing influence on drivers: responsibility for the safety of people in the car and consideration for passenger comfort were key themes. In contrast, all but the Rare speeders reported increasing their speed when driving alone. Parental role modelling was also described. In relation to other drivers, key themes included speeding to keep up with traffic flow and perceived pressure to drive faster. This ‘pressure’ from others to ‘speed up’ was expressed in all groups and reported strategies for managing this varied. Encouragingly, examples of actual or anticipated social rewards for speeding were less common than examples of social punishments. Three main themes relating to social punishments were embarrassment, breaching the trust of others, and presenting an image of a responsible driver. Impression management and self-presentation are discussed in light of these findings. Overall, our findings indicate scope to exploit the use of social sanctions for speeding and social praise for speed limit compliance to enhance speed management strategies.

Drivers rarely operate in isolation; rather they share the road and the vehicle with others. Driving has been described as a socially regulated behaviour (see a review by Stradling, 2007) and speeding, a high-risk yet common behaviour, has received attention from social psychologists in an effort to better understand it. Previous research on the influence of others on driving speeds has canvassed a broad range of factors. Passengers have been found to play both protective and detrimental roles in influencing risky driving (including speeding), depending on the age and gender of driver and passenger (Conner et al., 2003 and Regan and Mitsopoulos, 2001). Normative influences have also been studied; how driver perceptions of the beliefs, attitudes, and actions of important others towards speeding can influence driving speeds (for examples see Conner et al., 2003, Elliott, 2001, Elliott et al., 2005, Fleiter et al., 2006, Forward, 2006, Forward, 2009, Letirand and Delhomme, 2005, Parker et al., 1992, Warner and Aberg, 2006 and Warner and Aberg, 2008). To a lesser extent, research has considered how the social traffic environment can influence driving speeds. The social nature of traffic environments refers to our interactions with other road users. Perceptions about the speed of other vehicles appear influential in speed selection (Hagland & Aberg, 2000). Connolly and Aberg (1993) described the social comparison or contagion model of speeding which suggests we adopt a speed according to comparisons made with the speed of others on the road. Research examining this proposition has indicated that the majority of participants overestimated the speed of other drivers, stated that they wished to drive like other drivers, and reported that other drivers would believe they were driving too slowly (Aberg, Larsen, Glad, & Beilinsson, 1997). This suggests that the mere presence of other drivers on the road can influence driver perceptions and potentially therefore, their driving speeds. Taken together, the findings cited above demonstrate the potential of other people to influence driving speeds. However, in the quest to reduce road trauma linked to excessive speeds, authorities continue to rely almost exclusively on legal sanctions such as monetary fines and demerit point penalties to regulate speeds and modify driver behaviour (Fildes et al., 2005 and Groeger and Chapman, 1997). While this approach is not without success, little attention has been paid to harnessing the influence of others in speed management (Hatfield and Job, 2006 and Parker et al., 1996). This reliance on legal sanctions stems from traditional deterrence principles which focus on the perceived risk of apprehension and perceptions about the certainty, severity and swiftness of penalties if apprehended (Homel, 1988). For each driving episode, subjective beliefs about the likelihood of apprehension, together with judgments regarding potential legal penalties are proposed to determine the degree to which an individual is deterred. However, despite the intuitive appeal of this theory, research across a range of behaviours, including risky driving behaviours such as speeding and drink driving, suggests that such perceptions about legal consequences do not necessarily deter behaviour and, in some cases, may actually do the opposite (see Fleiter and Watson, 2006, Freeman et al., 2006, Pogarsky and Piquero, 2003 and Watson, 2004a). Attempts to refine traditional deterrence principles have included the addition of vicarious learning; observing the behaviour of others (Stafford & Warr, 1993). Including the role of others in the deterrence equation acknowledges the importance of those around us in shaping behaviour. Additionally, research outside the road safety field has considered the role of extra-legal sanctions in modifying behaviour such as socially-based consequences which have been shown to exert independent and strong effects on the extent of deviant behaviour (for a review see Zimmerman, 2008). Another theory used to examine social influence is the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Azjen, 1991). A key TPB concept is the subjective norm; beliefs about what important others would expect us to do, coupled with our motivation to comply with these expectations. This theory has been applied to better understand a range of road user behaviours including drink driving, dangerous overtaking, close following, speeding, and risky motorcycling ( Parker et al., 1992, Stradling and Parker, 1997, Warner and Aberg, 2006 and Watson et al., 2007). However, it has been argued that the normative-intention relationship is the weakest part of the theory because of the narrow focus on the expectations of other people ( Elliott, 2001 and Terry et al., 2000). Additional components such as moral norm and group norms have been used to further investigate the realm of social influence in the TPB with some success ( Godin et al., 2005, Gordon and Hunt, 1998 and Watson et al., 2007). However, the TPB does not specifically encompass intrinsic factors such as emotion or arousal ( Fylan, Hempel, Grunfeld, Connor, & Lawton, 2006). Furthermore, it appears to lack the ability to fully explain why enforcement influences our behaviour ( Siegrist, 2004). One theoretical approach to studying deviant behaviour that focuses strongly on social influence as well as on intrinsic and enforcement-related factors is Akers’ social learning theory (SLT) (Akers, 1998). This theory emphasises the importance of the people and groups with whom we associate and posits that deviance and conformity are learned in the same way, with the balance of influence stemming from the way behaviour is punished and rewarded. This theory has been applied to understand a variety of deviant behaviours (see Akers & Jensen, 2003) and has been used in the road safety context to examine travelling as a passenger with a drinking driver (DiBlasio, 1988), and more recently, to speeding (Fleiter & Watson, 2006), and unlicensed driving (Watson, 2004b). Essentially, the role of other people is central to each of the theory’s four components. Firstly, Imitation refers to modelling the behaviour of others. Secondly, Definitions, refers to personal attitudes and moral beliefs about a behaviour which can be shaped over time by significant others. Thirdly, Differential association refers to our interactions with other people and has two distinct dimensions. The behavioural dimension relates to direct exposure to the behaviour of others via our associations and interactions with them. The normative dimension relates to our exposure to the values and norms of the people with whom we associate and interact. Finally, Differential reinforcement refers to the overall balance of anticipated/actual reinforcements (i.e., punishments and rewards) associated with a given behaviour with reinforcements described as both social (e.g., praise, embarrassment) and non-social (e.g., anxiety, excitement) in nature. Overall, SLT emphasises exposure (direct and indirect) to the behaviours, attitudes, and norms of those with whom we mix as well as intrinsic and socially-based reinforcements. This theory offers a useful framework to investigate the impact of social influence on driving speeds as well as additional factors that are lacking in the more traditional theoretical approaches described above. As noted above, research has demonstrated that legal and extra-legal sanctions or punishments can exert independent, significant effects on criminal behaviour (Zimmerman, 2008). Extra-legal sanctions can be self-imposed and result from behavioural performance that is known by the individual to be morally wrong (e.g., guilt). Alternatively, the sanction can be socially-imposed. An example of a socially-imposed sanction is the embarrassment associated with reactions from salient others when they become aware of the behaviour. Embarrassment has been described as an internal reaction arising from negative evaluation by others; one that is reliant upon a socialisation process where we come to understand that behaviour has social consequences (Edelmann, 1987 and Miller and Leary, 1992). This has been linked to impression management theory and the concept of self-presentation (Bromley, 1993 and Schlenker, 1980). Impression management refers to ‘the goal-directed activity of controlling information about some person, object, idea or event to audiences’ whereas self-presentation relates specifically to ‘the control of information about self’ (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000, p. 201). Impression management theory proposes that we attempt to control the way others regard us by presenting some aspects of our behaviour and concealing others. The projection of an undesired impression may result in negative social feedback leading to embarrassment. Therefore, people may be motivated to avoid self-presentational failures in order to avoid such feelings (Bell, 2009 and Leary et al., 1999). This concept is akin to social punishment as described by SLT. The concepts of impression management and self-presentation have traditionally been viewed from the perspective of deception via socially desirable responding; ‘annoying contaminants of research that obscured the more fundamental and important processes that were of major concern to researchers’ (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000, p. 200). It has been argued that self-reported driving behaviours are particularly susceptible to bias from socially desirable responding and therefore, that researchers should take steps to control for such biases (Lajunen, Corry, Summala, & Hartley, 1997). More recently however, this argument for eliminating a social process (i.e., impression management) that may help us better understand social behaviour has been questioned (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000). Indeed, the relevance of self-presentational motives and actions may actually enhance, rather than hinder our understanding of social behaviour. For instance, self-presentational concerns have been linked to increases in health risks associated with skin cancer, HIV infection, and substance use (see Leary et al. (1999) for a review). With respect to driving however, the influence of personal risks such as embarrassment from self-presentation failures are not well understood. Traditionally, traffic psychology has explored risk perceptions from the perspective of risks associated with crashes, injury, detection, and sanctions. Few investigations of the risk of damage to personal reputation or image and associated negative social feedback such as embarrassment have been conducted in the road safety area. However, threats of embarrassment and shame have been linked to reductions in self-reported drink driving in a general community sample in the USA. Legislative increases in penalties during the 1980s were accompanied by a ‘moral crusade’ aimed specifically at altering values and community beliefs about drink driving (Grasmick, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993, p. 41). Annual survey results indicated that community views had altered substantially during the decade and threats of shame and embarrassment were identified as significantly related to reductions in self-reported drink driving (Grasmick et al., 1993). This example highlights the importance of changing community perceptions with the long term aim of reducing the perceived acceptance of the target behaviour. However, the efficacy of this approach might be limited with respect to ‘high risk’ offenders because the results discussed above relate to reductions in self-reported drink driving among a general community sample. By comparison, one of the few published studies to examine the influence of extra-legal sanctions on recidivist drink drivers in Australia revealed that loss of respect from friends was not a significant issue for repeat offenders (Freeman et al., 2006). Thus, the effects of altered public perceptions may only be relevant to those drivers who are not in the cycle of repeat offending or who do not place a large degree of importance on being seen as complying with the norm. Our knowledge of such issues as they relate to speeding is limited. Greater understanding of the interplay between self-presentation and embarrassment may prove useful in targeting areas for countermeasures development. These issues may be particularly relevant to younger drivers who are potentially most susceptible to peer appraisal and negative social consequences (Edelmann, 1998), although there is evidence to suggest that adults and adolescents are equally susceptible to such influences (Demo and Savin-Williams, 1992 and Martin et al., 2000). Given the social nature of driving, the utility of social reinforcements to reduce speeding warrants further attention. A better understanding of such reinforcement mechanisms could help to broaden the scope of behaviour change strategies beyond the traditional legal countermeasures. Therefore, this study used a social learning theory (SLT) framework to guide the design and analysis. There were two research aims: (1) to examine what types of people exert an influence on another’s driving speeds and in what way and (2) to expand our knowledge about the role of social reinforcement in speeding.1 A qualitative inquiry strategy was adopted because it offers an opportunity to gain a richer appreciation of issues than is possible with quantitative measures alone (Nagy Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006). Focus groups were selected as the research method because they offer a socially interactive setting for guided discussions where multiple views can be offered, debated, clarified, and challenged as discussion progresses (Morgan, 1998 and Rothe, 2000). This socially interactive strategy seemed particularly relevant to the current research in light of the social nature of driving.