Investigating risky, distracting, and protective peer passenger effects in a dual process framework

• Published in: Accident analysis and prevention Vol. 93; pp. 217 - 225
• Main Authors: Ross, Veerle, Jongen, Ellen M.M., Brijs, Kris, Brijs, Tom, Wets, Geert
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.08.2016
• Subjects: Acceleration; Accident analysis; Accidents, Traffic - prevention & control; Accidents, Traffic - psychology; Adolescent; Attention; Automobile Driving - psychology; Awareness; Cognition; Driving simulation; Dual processes; Female; Humans; Inhibition (Psychology); Interpersonal Relations; Male; Passengers; Peer Group; Peer passengers; Protective; Protective Factors; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Risk-Taking; Running; Simulation; Spatial Behavior; Subgroups; Traffic safety; Young Adult; Young novice drivers; Young novice drivers; Driving simulation; Dual processes; Peer passengers
• ISSN: 0001-4575; 1879-2057
• DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.05.007

•Initial support for a dual-process-theory of risky driving was found.•Red light running was more prevalent in the drive with peer passengers.•Speeding was more prevalent with peer passengers in drivers with low inhibitory control.•Distractive effects were reflected in lateral vehicle control.•Protective effects were found for amber lights and hazards. Prior studies indicated higher collision rates among young novice drivers with peer passengers. This driving simulator study provided a test for a dual process theory of risky driving by examining social rewards (peer passengers) and cognitive control (inhibitory control). The analyses included age (17–18 yrs, n=30; 21–24 yrs, n=20). Risky, distracting, and protective effects were classified by underlying driver error mechanisms. In the first drive, participants drove alone. In the second, participants drove with a peer passenger. Red-light running (violation) was more prevalent in the presence of peer passengers, which provided initial support for a dual process theory of risk driving. In a subgroup with low inhibitory control, speeding (violation) was more prevalent in the presence of peer passengers. Reduced lane-keeping variability reflected distracting effects. Nevertheless, possible protective effects for amber-light running and hazard handling (cognition and decision-making) were found in the drive with peer passengers. Avenues for further research and possible implications for targets of future driver training programs are discussed.