Understanding how drivers learn to anticipate risk on the road: a laboratory experiment of affective anticipation of road hazards

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Understanding how drivers learn to anticipate risk on the road : a laboratory experiment of affective anticipation of road hazards. / Kinnear, Neale; Kelly, Stephen; Stradling, Steve; Thomson, James.

In: Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 50, 01.2013, p. 1025–1033.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Kinnear, N, Kelly, S, Stradling, S & Thomson, J 2013, 'Understanding how drivers learn to anticipate risk on the road: a laboratory experiment of affective anticipation of road hazards' Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol 50, pp. 1025–1033. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.08.008

APA

Kinnear, N., Kelly, S., Stradling, S., & Thomson, J. (2013). Understanding how drivers learn to anticipate risk on the road: a laboratory experiment of affective anticipation of road hazards. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 50, 1025–1033. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.08.008

Vancouver

Kinnear N, Kelly S, Stradling S, Thomson J. Understanding how drivers learn to anticipate risk on the road: a laboratory experiment of affective anticipation of road hazards. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2013 Jan;50:1025–1033. Available from, DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.08.008

Author

Kinnear, Neale; Kelly, Stephen; Stradling, Steve; Thomson, James / Understanding how drivers learn to anticipate risk on the road : a laboratory experiment of affective anticipation of road hazards.

In: Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 50, 01.2013, p. 1025–1033.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

BibTeX - Download

@article{f5877a89be314ef1a6337618b2c9493d,
title = "Understanding how drivers learn to anticipate risk on the road: a laboratory experiment of affective anticipation of road hazards",
abstract = "This study examines whether there is evidence that converging theories from the domains of risk and decision making, neuroscience, and psychology can improve our understanding of how drivers learn to appraise on-the-road hazards. Within the domain of decision making it is suggested that there are two distinct ways in which humans appraise risk: risk as feelings and risk as analysis (Slovic et al., 2004). Meanwhile, current neurological theory, in the form of the Somatic Marker Hypothesis (Damasio, 1994), supports the role of feelings and emotion as an evolved automated system of human risk appraisal that biases judgment and decision making. This study used Skin Conductance Responses (SCR) to measure learner, novice and experienced drivers’ psycho-physiological responses to the development of driving hazards. Experienced drivers were twice as likely to produce an SCR to developing hazards as novice drivers and three times as likely when compared with learner drivers. These differences maintained significance when age, gender and exposure were controlled for. Further analysis revealed that novice drivers who had less than 1,000 miles driving experience had anticipatory physiological responses similar to learner drivers, whereas novices who had driven more than 1,000 miles had scores approaching those of experienced drivers. This demonstrated a learning curve mediated by driving experience supporting experiential learning as proposed within the Somatic Marker Hypothesis. A differentiation between cognitive and psycho-physiological responses was also found supporting theory that distinguishes between conscious and non-conscious risk appraisal.",
keywords = "driving, novice drivers, hazard perception, risk , somatic marker hypothesis, skin conductance, anticipate risk, road, laboratory experiment, road hazards, affective anticipation",
author = "Neale Kinnear and Stephen Kelly and Steve Stradling and James Thomson",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.aap.2012.08.008",
volume = "50",
pages = "1025–1033",
journal = "Accident Analysis and Prevention",
issn = "0001-4575",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding how drivers learn to anticipate risk on the road

T2 - Accident Analysis and Prevention

AU - Kinnear,Neale

AU - Kelly,Stephen

AU - Stradling,Steve

AU - Thomson,James

PY - 2013/1

Y1 - 2013/1

N2 - This study examines whether there is evidence that converging theories from the domains of risk and decision making, neuroscience, and psychology can improve our understanding of how drivers learn to appraise on-the-road hazards. Within the domain of decision making it is suggested that there are two distinct ways in which humans appraise risk: risk as feelings and risk as analysis (Slovic et al., 2004). Meanwhile, current neurological theory, in the form of the Somatic Marker Hypothesis (Damasio, 1994), supports the role of feelings and emotion as an evolved automated system of human risk appraisal that biases judgment and decision making. This study used Skin Conductance Responses (SCR) to measure learner, novice and experienced drivers’ psycho-physiological responses to the development of driving hazards. Experienced drivers were twice as likely to produce an SCR to developing hazards as novice drivers and three times as likely when compared with learner drivers. These differences maintained significance when age, gender and exposure were controlled for. Further analysis revealed that novice drivers who had less than 1,000 miles driving experience had anticipatory physiological responses similar to learner drivers, whereas novices who had driven more than 1,000 miles had scores approaching those of experienced drivers. This demonstrated a learning curve mediated by driving experience supporting experiential learning as proposed within the Somatic Marker Hypothesis. A differentiation between cognitive and psycho-physiological responses was also found supporting theory that distinguishes between conscious and non-conscious risk appraisal.

AB - This study examines whether there is evidence that converging theories from the domains of risk and decision making, neuroscience, and psychology can improve our understanding of how drivers learn to appraise on-the-road hazards. Within the domain of decision making it is suggested that there are two distinct ways in which humans appraise risk: risk as feelings and risk as analysis (Slovic et al., 2004). Meanwhile, current neurological theory, in the form of the Somatic Marker Hypothesis (Damasio, 1994), supports the role of feelings and emotion as an evolved automated system of human risk appraisal that biases judgment and decision making. This study used Skin Conductance Responses (SCR) to measure learner, novice and experienced drivers’ psycho-physiological responses to the development of driving hazards. Experienced drivers were twice as likely to produce an SCR to developing hazards as novice drivers and three times as likely when compared with learner drivers. These differences maintained significance when age, gender and exposure were controlled for. Further analysis revealed that novice drivers who had less than 1,000 miles driving experience had anticipatory physiological responses similar to learner drivers, whereas novices who had driven more than 1,000 miles had scores approaching those of experienced drivers. This demonstrated a learning curve mediated by driving experience supporting experiential learning as proposed within the Somatic Marker Hypothesis. A differentiation between cognitive and psycho-physiological responses was also found supporting theory that distinguishes between conscious and non-conscious risk appraisal.

KW - driving

KW - novice drivers

KW - hazard perception

KW - risk

KW - somatic marker hypothesis

KW - skin conductance

KW - anticipate risk

KW - road

KW - laboratory experiment

KW - road hazards

KW - affective anticipation

U2 - 10.1016/j.aap.2012.08.008

DO - 10.1016/j.aap.2012.08.008

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 1025

EP - 1033

JO - Accident Analysis and Prevention

JF - Accident Analysis and Prevention

SN - 0001-4575

ER -

View graph of relations