Testing models of Driver Behaviour

813 views

Published on

A summary of five years of work looking at testing psychological models that seek to explain why people drive the way that they do. This presentation was originally given at VTI in Sweden, Feb, 2012.

Published in: Automotive
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
813
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
275
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Testing models of Driver Behaviour

  1. 1. Testing models of Driver Behaviour Ben Lewis-Evans b.lewis.evans@rug.nl
  2. 2. Why? Do people drive like this?
  3. 3. Why? Do people drive like this?
  4. 4. The Answer? MODELS!
  5. 5. Some have been tested
  6. 6. Utility ModelsTrading off risks and safety to get the optimal benefit
  7. 7. Utility Models ―… people… run risks, but they do not take them‖Wagenaar (1992)
  8. 8. AttitudeModels Attitude Intention Behaviour
  9. 9. AttitudeModels ―…accidents are not caused by risky attitudes but by risky behaviour‖ Rothengatter et al (1989)
  10. 10. But most have not
  11. 11. So? Time for SCIENCE!
  12. 12. Experiment One Behavioural Adaptation to Road Width Lewis-Evans & Charlton (2006)
  13. 13. METHOD DS9 Driving Simulator 49 participants (25 M 24 F) All full licence holders 23.8 years old on averageSpeed, ratings, & open questions
  14. 14. METHOD Four Roads PracticeNarrow(W) Control (E) - 2m Wide (S) + 3m
  15. 15. Narrow(W) Wide (S) Control (E)
  16. 16. RESULTS Speed * * * ** statistically significant difference (at least p < .05)
  17. 17. RESULTS Ratings * * **statistically significant difference (at least p < .05)
  18. 18. RESULTS What was different? ―Road Width‖ 10 people , only 1 correct―Nothing‖ 8 people Narrow road had more ―Curves‖ 14 people Many non-factual responses e.g. narrow road had more trucks
  19. 19. CONCLUSIONS Experiment 1 Impact of (narrow) road width on speed Associated with increases in risk and task difficulty Awareness of road width changes low
  20. 20. Experiment Two Speed and the assessment of risk, difficulty, effort and comfort Lewis-Evans & Rothengatter (2009)
  21. 21. Fuller, McHugh& Pender (2008) Digitally altered videoIncreasing 5 mph increments 3 road types Task difficulty and Risk (feeling & probability)
  22. 22. Fuller, et al (2008)Residential
  23. 23. ―…task difficultyand feelings of risk are continuously present variableswhich inform driver decisions…‖ Fuller, et al 2008
  24. 24. METHOD 47 participants (25 M 22 F) ~20-21 years oldTwo roads: urban & rural Observation & Driving 9 randomly presented speeds (10 km/h increments + Free choice)
  25. 25. METHOD Speed data + Subjective ratingsTask difficulty Feeling of RiskCrash risk Habit/Typicality Effort Comfort
  26. 26. RESULTS Averaged Driving Residential – Fuller et al Residential – Lewis-Evans & (2008) Rothengatter (2009)
  27. 27. RESULTS Averaged Driving Residential
  28. 28. RESULTS Relative to free speed choiceResidential
  29. 29. CONCLUSIONS Experiment 2 Fuller et al (2008) not replicatedThreshold or U-shaped trends Task difficulty, feeling of risk, & effort highly correlatedHabit appears to be important
  30. 30. Experiment Three Close following - risk, difficulty, effort and comfort Lewis-Evans, de Waard, & Brookhuis (2010)
  31. 31. Subjective impressions;Constant or Threshold?
  32. 32. METHODMETHOD 40 participants (20 M 20 F)17 Inexperienced, 23 Experienced Residential road, left & right side9 randomly presented 50 km/hfollowing distances(0.5 to 4.0 sec + Freechoice)
  33. 33. METHOD Distance + Subjective ratings Task difficulty Feeling of RiskCrash risk Typicality Effort Comfort
  34. 34. RESULTS Averaged
  35. 35. RESULTS Relative to free choice
  36. 36. CONCLUSIONS Experiment 3 Threshold trends again Task difficulty, feeling of risk, & effort highly correlated Habit appears to be important No impact of Experience or side of road
  37. 37. Experiment Four Speed maintenance under cognitive load Lewis-Evans, de Waard, & Brookhuis (2011)
  38. 38. Question What is the impact of secondary mental workload on these trends?
  39. 39. METHOD Four conditions (1 min) Baseline sets speed Baseline +/- 0 to 30 km/h Counter balanced Baseline +/- 0 to 30 km/h + PASAT Return to Baseline
  40. 40. Paced auditory serialPASAT addition task 6 5 44 2 3 1 …
  41. 41. METHOD 53 participants (21 M 32 F) Speed data + Subjective ratingsTask difficulty Feeling of Risk Typicality Effort Comfort
  42. 42. RESULTS Ratings Baseline vs Return to baseline
  43. 43. RESULTS Ratings Baseline vs Experimental * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **statistically significant difference (at least p < .05)
  44. 44. RESULTS Ratings Experimental vs PASAT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **statistically significant difference (at least p < .05)
  45. 45. RESULTS Speed Baseline vs Return to baseline * * * * * **statistically significant difference (at least p < .05)
  46. 46. RESULTS Speed Experimental vs PASAT * * **statistically significant difference (at least p < .05)
  47. 47. CONCLUSIONS Experiment 4 Threshold trends still apparent Mental workload shifts them Speed control habitual Unintentional Speeding
  48. 48. Experiment Five Unfelt emotions and speed Lewis-Evans, de Waard, Jolij & Brookhuis (2012)
  49. 49. Emotions are important Behaviour is maladaptive without them
  50. 50. i.e. Vulcans are wrong
  51. 51. Unfelt Emotions? Emotions: physiological reaction Feelings: conscious awareness
  52. 52. Much of Driving is automatic So can unfelt emotions affect it?
  53. 53. How to test? Ethics committees take a dim view of the above
  54. 54. Did you notice anything?
  55. 55. GodzillaDid you notice anything?
  56. 56. METHOD Masked Images 800 ms 32 ms 800 ms Deception: Images part of a ―memory task‖
  57. 57. METHOD 113 initial participants (39 M 74 F)- 8 saw (6 M 2 F) - 19 ―suspicious‖ (7 M 12 F) = 85 participants (26 M 59 F) Speed, subjective, bio
  58. 58. METHOD Images Masks Arousal 2.76 Valence 4.97 800 msNeutral Arousal 2.78 Valence 4.86 32 msNegative Arousal 6.59 Valence 1.80 32 ms
  59. 59. High Arousal Scared Negative Excited Low HighValence Valence Neutral Masks Bored Relaxed Low Arousal
  60. 60. RESULTS Speed
  61. 61. RESULTS PhysiologicalTask effect HR HRV Order x Image effect Neg to Neu HR HRV Neu to Neg HR HRV
  62. 62. RESULTS Subjective & Memory taskNo consistent effects on ratingsof risk or effort Good performance on the ―memory task‖
  63. 63. CONCLUSIONS Experiment 5Images supressed time on task effects Unconscious influences on drivingNo support for any specific model Gender?
  64. 64. In Conclusion People may run risks, but they do not usually feel them But what they do not feel may still affect them
  65. 65. The MoonThank You Questions? b.lewis.evans@rug.nl
  66. 66. ReferencesFuller, R., Bates, H., Gormley, M., Hannigan, B., Stradling, S., Broughton, P., Kinnear, N., & O’Dolan, C. (2008). The Conditions for Inappropriate High Speed: A Review of the Research Literature from 1995 to 2006. London: Department for Transport.Fuller, R., McHugh, C., & Pender, S. (2008). Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. Revue Européenne De Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 58(1), 13-21.Lewis-Evans, B., & Charlton, S. G. (2006). Explicit and implicit processes in behavioural adaptation to road width. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(3), 610-617.Lewis-Evans, B., & Rothengatter, T. (2009). Task difficulty, risk, effort and comfort in a simulated driving task— Implications for Risk Allostasis Theory. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(5), 1053-1063.Lewis-Evans, B., de Waard, D., & Brookhuis, K. A. (2010). Thats close enough—A threshold effect of time headway on the experience of risk, task difficulty, effort, and comfort. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 1926-1933.Lewis-Evans, B., de Waard, D., & Brookhuis, K. A. (2011). Speed maintenance under cognitive load – Implications for theories of driver behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(4), 1497-1507.Lewis-Evans, B., de Waard, D., Jolij, J., & Brookhuis, K. A. (2012). What You May Not See Might Slow You Down : Masked Images and Driving. PloS One, 7(1), e29857.Rothengatter, J. A., De Bruin, R. A., & Rooijers, A. J. (1989). The effects of publicity campaigns and police surveillance on the attitude-behaviour relationship in different groups of road users. Proceedings of the Second European Workshop on Recent Developments in Road Safety Research, France. 197- 202.Wagenaar, W. A. (1992). Risk taking and accident causation. In J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-Taking Behaviour . , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  67. 67. All images belong to their respective copyright holders

×