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 qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

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: bscottpa@usc.edu.au

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