Risk-taking and Risk Perception

Being at risk, according to Furedi (2006), is “a condition of life”. Contact with hazards on a daily basis increases “the probability of damage, injury, illness, death or other misfortunes”. Thus hazards threaten the things that people value and therefore exposure to risks is generally avoided whenever and wherever possible. To avoid hazards and hazardous events, people use risk perceptions, or intuitive risk judgements, to help them evaluate the potential for such events. The more risks become associated with danger, the greater the tendency to adopt risk- avoidance strategies.

Heuristics, or mental strategies, are used in conditions of uncertainty by individuals to try and make sense of their surroundings (Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky, 1982). Occasionally these heuristics can, however, lead to large and persistent biases, which interfere with the ability to make accurate risk assessments. Thus situations may arise where the risks are either over or under estimated.

When comparing themselves to others, young drivers tend to have what could be termed as an “unrealistic optimism” (or optimistic bias) about their encountering risks (Weinstein 1980; Weinstein & Klein, 1996). The more undesirable the consequences of an event, the more they believe that compared to others their chances of encountering such negative events are smaller (Weinstein 1980; Weinstein & Klein, 1996), with the opposite being true for desirable events. The more desirable the consequences of an event, the more the belief that compared to other persons the chances of encountering such positive events are greater (Weinstein 1980; Weinstein & Klein, 1996).

These distortions help to protect self-esteem and reduce anxiety about risk, but in some circumstances these biases can have negative consequences. For example, when young drivers underestimate the likelihood of experiencing negative events they tend to increase their exposure to risks and when hazards are more salient, their optimistic biases tend to become stronger (Weinstein 1980; Weinstein & Klein, 1996).

Prior experience affects unrealistic optimism as it makes it easier for individuals to imagine situations in which the event could occur, and increases their perceived probability of possible future reoccurrences of events. Thus, when they are in a similar situation they can draw upon their past experiences and use the knowledge that they gained (this is known as the “availability heuristic” as described by Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).

Perceived controllability also influences these biases, the more control an individual perceives that they have over a negative event the greater their beliefs that their chances of encountering it are close to zero. For example, young drivers who believe they are good drivers and would not get themselves into a collision situation, report greater beliefs that they will not be involved in a collision (Brown, 1982; Deery, 1999; Mayhew & Simpson, 1995). The opposite is true of positive events, the more control an individual perceives that they have over a positive event the more they believe that they will encounter it (Brown, 1982; Deery, 1999; Mayhew & Simpson, 1995). Stereotyping also affects bias. By placing people into groups that are more or less likely to encounter specific negative events, an individual‟s belief about their own chances of experiencing the same event are either increased or decreased.

When optimism biases reduce actions that are self-protective, and the likelihood of negative consequences (such as illnesses and injury) increase, the need arises to find methods for reducing them. Young drivers may be more inclined to engage in risk behaviours when they believe that they are exempt from risk or that their actions reduce their level of risk below that of others (Brown, 1982; Deery, 1999; Mayhew & Simpson, 1995).

There are a number of causal factors that have been proposed to explain why some drivers are more prone to risk than others. Iversen (2004) found that attitudes toward rule violation and speeding were strong predictors of engagement in risk-taking behaviour among a random group of Norwegian drivers (who were on average aged 45 years). Drivers with positive (high-risk condoning) attitudes towards rule violations and speeding engaged in more risky driving behaviours than those with negative (safe) attitudes.

Other risk factors regularly emphasised in the published risk literature include: the actual commission of violations, age, gender, controllability and sensation seeking.

Committing traffic violations on the road and therefore taking risks have been shown to be good predictors of accident involvement (Begg & Langley, 2001; Trimpop & Kirkaldy,

1997). Lourens et al. (1999) reported that drivers who received fines were more accident- involved than drivers who had not. High mileage drivers were also more likely to be fined and to have higher accident risk than other road users. In the Lourens et al. (1999) study, the difference in accident involvement between drivers who had been fined and those who had not, was found to be much greater among younger drivers. A difference of 11-13% was found for 18-24 year olds. As age increased, this difference became less pronounced but it remained significantly higher for accident-involved drivers (Lourens et al., 1999).

In a longitudinal study by Iversen (2004), drivers that had been involved in traffic accidents or crashes during the previous year were found to engage in significantly more risky driving behaviours. They also took more risks while driving compared to those drivers who had been non-accident involved at the onset of the study.

Research by Begg and Langley (2001) found that among a group of 21 year-old New Zealand drivers, there was a relatively high prevalence of risky behaviours. These included driving after drinking alcohol; driving after using marijuana; driving fast for a thrill; driving faster than the legal national speed limit; and following closely behind slower drivers. The prevalence of these risk behaviours among the males in the group significantly declined in the five-year period between the ages of 21 and 26. Significant decreases in this age group were noted, which included the frequency of drinking and driving where the ability to drive safely was impaired; high speed driving just for the thrill of it; and those who often drove faster than the legal speed limit on the open road.

When comparing themselves to their peers or to older drivers, young drivers tended to under- estimate their risk of being involved in a crash (Finn & Bragg, 1986; Mathews & Moran, 1986). They also tended to estimate their risk of receiving a speeding ticket as being lower than other drivers (Arnett, 1991).

These studies highlight the problems of unrealistic optimism in younger drivers. Since young drivers‟ under-estimate the likelihood of negative events occurring, they increase their exposure to risks and thus simultaneously increase their potential of experiencing hazardous events. These factors therefore increase their potential for being accident-involved.

Engaging in risky driving behaviour without incident or punishment has also been shown to reinforce anti-social conduct (Kulick & Rosenberg, 2000). Kulick and Rosenberg (2000)

assessed a group of university students and found that after drinking and driving, drivers who arrived at their destination without incident or arrest were more likely to repeat the behaviour in the future because their perceived chances of being caught or accident-involved were very low. These results thus imply that in order to change drink-driving behaviour, more needs to be done to make drivers perceive that the chances of being caught are high.

After content analysing 1000 narrative accident reports from 16-19 year olds, McKnight and McKnight (2003) put forward another explanation for the high accident rates among young drivers. They found that drivers in this age group were at risk simply because they did not employ safe driving practices and could not see the danger in failing to do so. They often drove too fast for the conditions and paid inadequate attention to other cars on the road. McKnight and McKnight (2003) also found that only a small minority of the reported accidents had involved drivers deliberately engaging in risk behaviour. Therefore they suggested that sensation seeking and risk-taking may not always be adequate explanations for young novice driver accident-involvement.

In considering young driver attitudes, gender differences in risk taking behaviour and accident involvement have been reported in various studies. Males are reported to have a higher mean number of accidents in comparison to female drivers; chose to drive at higher speeds, and report significantly higher scores on desirability for control (Chliaoutakis et al., 1999; Hammond & Horswill, 2002). Begg and Langley (1999, 2001) concluded that risky driving behaviour is predominantly a young, male, driver problem. They found that over a five-year period between the ages of 21 to 26 years, females had fewer significant increases or decreases in the prevalence of risky behaviours compared to males whose risky behaviour decreased. There was only a slight decrease in the prevalence of driving fast for the thrill of it. The fact that the prevalence of these behaviours in females was low to begin with supports the prevailing view that risky driving is more of an issue for younger males.

In conclusion it has been suggested that risky driving behaviours are part of a syndrome of problem or reckless behaviours (Arnett 1992, 1995; Jessor 1987ab; Jessor & Jessor, 1977). Adolescents who engage in these behaviours are considered to be trying to attain an adult-like status, however, once they have attained the desired status they are thought to discontinue engaging in problem behaviours. Arnett (1991) explains the changes in behaviour from adolescence into adulthood as a developmental process. It was proposed that characteristics known to promote reckless behaviours, such as egocentrism and sensation seeking, decline

with maturity (Arnett, 1991). Throughout adult life and until the age of around 70, crash risk is negatively correlated with age (Begg & Langley, 2001). This latter research supports Arnett‟s developmental explanation of risky driving, as reckless behaviours among males in their research group appeared to have “matured out” by the time they reached 26 years of age.