Social Deviance and Driving

Another popular explanation for why the majority of young people are high-risk drivers is that they are individuals who generally engage in several different high-risk behaviours simultaneously. The Problem Behaviour Theory (PBT) as originally posited by Jessor and Jessor (1977) was created to explain the relationships between psychosocial characteristics and problem behaviours.

The PBT classifies behaviours as conventional and encouraged or problematic and prohibited. The theoretical model recognises that problem behaviours normally co-occur and that the motivations for involvement or avoidance of problem behaviours come from the Perceived Environment and Personality Systems (Figure 3.2). The major premise is that all behaviour is the result of person-environment interaction (Jessor, 1987a).

Figure 3.2 – Problem Behaviour Theory (Jessor, Donovan & Costa, 1991)

The PBT is composed of four connected systems: Social Environment System, Personality System, Perceived Environment System and Behavioural System (Jessor, 1987ab). The Social Environment System is concerned with the social influences (e.g., peer influence, media influence) that may have an impact on individuals. The Personality System consists of

variables that reflect social meanings and developmental experience. These socio-cognitive variables include: values, expectations, beliefs, attitudes and orientations to self and others. The Perceived Environmental System consists of social norms, expectations, models, sanctions and controls. The Behaviour System consists of two structures representing problem behaviour and conventional behaviour. The conventional behaviour structure includes behaviours oriented toward church and school, which are two conventional institutions of society.

The PBT views risky driving as one of a cluster of problem behaviours, such as delinquency or problem drinking that characterise adolescence. Research conducted in Canada on a group of year 9, 10 and 11 adolescents by Beirness and Simpson (1988) found that risky driving emerged as part of a more general adolescent lifestyle associated with the same set of social, psychological, and behavioural variables as other problem behaviours. A prominent characteristic of this lifestyle was a tendency toward risk-taking and thrill seeking.

Problem behaviours were linked to high-risk driving behaviours and crashes by Bingham and Shope (2005) who found that high crash rates among males were associated with less parental monitoring (supervision) and substance abuse. Low crash rates among males, on the other hand, were linked to better school grades. In females, high crash rates were associated with less parental monitoring, poor school grades, substance abuse and less parental orientation. West, Train, Junger, Pickering, Taylor and West (1998) have also identified a relationship between problem behaviour, risky road behaviour and traffic and non-traffic accident rates in pre-driving adolescents. Adolescents under 15 years of age who reported engaging in problem behaviours (e.g., stealing from shops, breaking into gardens/houses/buildings, using illegal drugs, drunk alcoholic drinks) also reported engaging in risky road behaviours (e.g., crossing the road without looking, running across the road without looking) and were involvement in significantly more traffic (as pedestrians or cyclists) and non-traffic (e.g., falling from a height, playing with matches, playing with or using a knife or sharp object) related accidents.

Jessor (1987ab) concluded that problem behaviours such as delinquency, problem drinking and illicit drug use share the same set of personality, perceived environment and behavioural variables. This is a view also shared by West et al. (1998) who found that personality measures of danger seeking, impulsiveness and aggressiveness (through frustration) were all associated with both risky road behaviour (e.g., crossing the road without looking, running

across the road without looking) and problem behaviour (e.g., stealing from shops, damaging or vandalising cars/buildings/public property, using illegal drugs). Jessor (1987ab) suggested that because problem behaviours share the same set of variable it is entirely possible that interventions designed to reduce another form of problem behaviour may also reduce the occurrence of risky driving and crash risk. Bingham and Shope (2004) suggested that individual characteristics associated with patterns of crash risk could also be identified and addressed through these behavioural programs.

Another method of counteracting problem behaviour was put forward in the Social Control Theory (SCT) (Hirschi, 1969). The SCT predicts adolescent behaviour and posits that adolescents would fail to conform to the rules and norms of society without adequate motivation. People who become affiliated with conventional social institutions (e.g., school and religious establishments) have the opportunity to develop stable relationships with other institutional members. This type of social bond would provide individuals‟ with the adequate motivation needed to conform to social rules. Thus the rationale behind encouraging young people to become affiliated to clubs and societies is that they would have more to lose from behaving anti-socially. The stronger the social bonds the more unlikely it is that individuals will break social rules and risk damaging connections with people and institutional ties (Bingham & Shope, 2005, 2004; Jessor et al., 1997).

Social deviance has been linked to risky traffic-related behaviour in young children (West et al., 1998). West et al. (1998) found that a reduction in adherence to responsible social values (e.g., not wanting to obey the law, disregarding other people‟s feelings) was synonymous with an increase in problem behaviour and risky road behaviour. Therefore, they suggested that interventions designed to raise standards of social responsibility, change attitudes and habits may be more effective in reducing traffic accident rates among children and young people than interventions that focus only on improving their road user knowledge and skills. The personality dimension social deviance has also been linked with risky driving practices and accidents in adults and new licensed adolescent drivers (Robins, 1966; West & Hall, 1994). Bingham and Shope (2005) suggested that interventions that encourage the development of positive relationships between adolescents and social institutions may reduce young driver crash risk.

In a longitudinal study covering 1988-1991, West et al. (1993) examined the role of social deviance in traffic accident risk. At „Time 1‟ (1988/89) self-reported measures of

thoroughness, accident risk, driving speed, driving violations, annual mileage, age and gender were taken. At „Time 2‟ (1990) self-reported measures of mild social deviance, Type-A behaviour patterns (people who display aggressive and competitive behaviour), driving speed and driving violations were taken. At „Time 3‟ (1990/1991) self-reported measures of thoroughness, speed, driving violations, accident risk and annual mileage were taken. These results showed that social deviance, measured approximately 12 months previously (at „Time 2‟), was positively correlated with average scores on driving speed and deviant driving and negatively correlated with age and average score on thoroughness. This suggested that those scoring high in social deviance drove at faster speeds, committed more driving violations, were less thorough in their decision making and were young drivers. Thoroughness was also negatively correlated with speed (i.e. the less thorough, the higher the driving speed). Drivers with Type-A personalities also drove faster.

The numbers of accidents reported over the three-year study were found to be positively associated with average scores on annual mileage, faster driving, social deviance, age, thoroughness and driving deviance. Although average scores were used, the re-test reliability after two years of measurements for thoroughness, speed, driving deviance and annual mileage were between 0.5-0.7 (although it was only 0.3 for driving deviance), which shows that there was a degree of stability over time. West et al. (1993) suggested that even by looking only at the measures taken at „Time 1‟ the results would be the same. Therefore they concluded that it is possible to predict behaviour up to three years previously.

West and Hall (1997) assessed attitude to driving violations, social deviance, driving speed, annual mileage and accident rate (accidents over the previous three years). The results showed that attitude towards driving violations correlated closely with fast driving compared to social deviance. Speed and attitude towards driving violations were associated with accidents in general, active accidents (where the driver was at fault), active shunts and active reversing accidents. Attitude to driving violations was also associated with active loss of control accidents and social deviance was associated with accidents in general, active accidents and active shunts. Active accidents were linked to attitudes towards driving violations through driving behaviour. Social deviance contributed to accident risk through its association with attitudes towards driving violations.

West and Hall (1997) believed that the relationship between active shunts (which they defined as a minor accident such as hitting another vehicle from behind), attitudes and social deviance

reflected a consistent pattern of reckless and careless driving. They concluded that drivers who have more positive (high-risk condoning) attitudes towards driving violations and higher levels of social deviance, drive faster and report more accidents. These researchers stated that attitudes towards violations and social deviance were measures that could be taken before an individual has passed their driving test in order to identify future high-risk drivers.

Irwin and Millstein (1986) believed that both the lack of cognitive ability and the absence of life experiences among teenagers underlie all adolescent risk-taking. This is because without both of these core attributes adolescents are unable to understand the risks associated with behaviours. Some adolescents, however, may choose to engage in risk-taking behaviour because they have problems with early or late physiological development. Irwin and Millstein (1986) suggested that the timing of biological maturation has a direct influence over psychosocial factors (cognitive scope, self-perceptions, perceptions of the social environment and personal values). These factors can predict risk-taking behaviour via the effects of peer group characteristics and risk perception. For example, Irwin and Millstein (1986) described how an early developer would be more likely to be cognitively immature and have a poor self-image because they are different to others and perceive a pressure to act older by adults. Ultimately early developers‟ peer-group selection would be affected as they would be more likely to choose older friends with different values; also their perception of risk may be unrealistic because of their immaturity. Irwin and Millstein (1986) therefore believed that bio-psychosocial factors might provide adolescents with a strong incentive to engage in risk- taking behaviour.

Jessor (1987ab) also linked psychosocial factors with the occurrence of high-risk problem behaviour in the Problem Behaviour Theory (PBT). Jessor (1987b) stated that “adolescent problem behaviour is functional, meaningful, purposeful and instrumental, rather than being arbitrary, pathological, or merely perverse”. For example, problem behaviours such as drinking or risky driving can serve a number of functions that are central to normal adolescent development (for instance showing commonality with peers and affirming independence from parents). The PBT shows that some adolescents are more prone to problem behaviours than others and as such engage in intentional and/or unintentional risks (for example, youths prone to problem behaviour place a low value on achievement, have low self-esteem and a high value on independence; Jessor, 1991ab). Jessor (1987ab) found that risky driving is linked with a wide-range of problem behaviours (for example, drinking, delinquency, drug use, cigarette smoking and sexual precocity) and is part of a syndrome of behaviours that characterise

adolescence. Therefore, youths engaging in one form of behaviour are likely to engage in another form of problem behaviour.

Wilde (1994a) stated that young drivers have less to lose from risky driving; they have fewer responsibilities, fewer accomplishments and much more to gain from risky driving behaviour. These gains include peer approval and expression of independence (Lonero & Clinton, 1997a). To some extent this can be considered true as Jessor, Turbin and Costa (1997) and Bingham and Shope (2005) identified conventionality among adolescents as an indicator of problem behaviour. By conventionality, Jessor et al. (1997), and Bingham and Shope (2005), meant that adolescents who are connected to social institutions, hold social responsibilities and hold beliefs in line with the values of conventional society are less likely to engage in problematic behaviour. Thus adolescents with greater conventionality are less likely to engage in problematic behaviour (Bingham & Shope, 2005).

From Jessor et al.‟s (1997) theory it may be inferred that youths may not always be aware that the behaviour they are engaging in is high-risk, because they have normalised it. Whilst the first occurrence of problem behaviour such as risky driving may be intentional, after a short period of time the behaviour is likely to have become normalised by the individual. The individual may therefore not see their behaviour as high-risk and thus unintentionally continue to engage in it or in other forms of such behaviour. Sensation seekers may not be aware that their behaviour is risky, again because they have normalised the behaviour. Jessor (1987a) stated that “risk-taking whilst driving in traffic is not a unique behaviour, but reflects a more general tendency toward thrill-seeking”.