Person. individ. D@ Vol. 23, No. 6, pp.

981-995, 1997
0 1997 Elxvier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Pergamon Printed in Great Britain
PII: s0191-8869(97)00126-8 0191-8869/97 517.00+0.00

RECKLESS DRIVING BEHAVIOUR OF YOUTH:

DOES LOCUS OF CONTROL INFLUENCE PERCEPTIONS OF
SITUATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND DRIVING
BEHAVIOUR?

Toon W. Taris*
Kurt Lewin Institute/Free University Amsterdam, Department of Social Psychology,
Van der Boechorststraat 1, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands and Bok & Taris Psychological
Consultancy, Varenmeent 68, NL-1218 AR Hilversum, The Netherlands

(Received 25 February 1997)

Summary-The current study examines driving behaviour of youth as a function of desirability, con-
trollability and verifiability of this behaviour, in relation to locus ofcontrol. We expected that the occurrence
of undesirable behaviour would increase when this behaviour was not visible to others, or could be ascribed
to external circumstances. These mechanisms were expected to operate for externally oriented subjects, but
less so for internally oriented subjects.
A questionnaire was administered to 120 Dutch university students regarding their driving behaviour.
The questionnaire described two scenarios in which desirability, verifiability, and controllability of behav-
iour were systematically manipulated. The primary dependent variable involved judgements on the like-
lihood that one would engage in a particular behaviour. The data were analysed using ANCOVA. The
results supported our expectation that verifiability of behaviour would be more important for externally
than for internally oriented subjects. For controllability of behaviour, no such effects were found. Impli-
cations and limitations are discussed. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Key-Words: driving behaviour, locus of control, situational characteristics.

INTRODUCTION

Young drivers are relatively often involved in car accidents (Arthur & Graziano, 1996), e.g. no less
than 25% of the fatal car accidents in the Netherlands are, at least indirectly, caused by drivers
aged 18 to 24 years old (CBS, 1994). Figures like these underline the importance of research on the
effects of factors related to youths driving behaviour. The current research examines driving
behaviour of youth as a function of both situational and dispositional factors. We report on the
results of an experimental study among Dutch university students, focusing upon the relation
between their driving behaviour and perceptions of situational characteristics, as moderated through
Rotters (Rotter, 1966) locus of control. At the core of this research lies the assumption that the
way one drives is the result of a series of more or less conscious decisions to behave in a particular
way; such decisions, in turn, are based upon subjective judgements regarding an array of alternative
actions (such as the perceived desirability of a particular action, the likelihood that the action will
be seen by others, and whether circumstances justify the choice for a particular action).
As the judgements of the characteristics of situations are perceptions, personality traits may
influence the choice for a particular action (Arthur, Barrett & Alexander, 1991; Arthur & Graziano,
1996). One trait that has been shown to affect driving behaviour is Rotters (Rotter, 1966) locus of
control. This concept refers to the degree to which one feels able to influence the course of ones life
and to which one feels responsible for the events that occur in ones life (Mischel, 1981; Rotter,
1966). Externally oriented persons are expected to let the choice for a particular action be determined
by characteristics of the situation calling for this decision; that is, such persons are likely to be
strongly influenced by situational factors. Conversely, internally oriented persons are expected to
base their decisions upon their own values and attitudes; their behaviour is therefore to a lesser
degree guided by external circumstances. This reasoning suggests that the effects of the perceived

*E-mail: aw.taris@psy.vu.nl

987
988 Toon W. Taris

characteristics of a particular situation upon the choice for a particular action are moderated by
locus of control. The current study examines this proposition more closely. First we extend our
discussion of the presumed interaction between situational characteristics and locus of control.
Then the results of an experimental study on the driving behaviour of Dutch university students are
presented.

The choice for a particular action: desirability of action, ver@ability, and controllability
Generally, people can choose from an array of alternative actions, some of which are usually
considered desirable (e.g. to stop for a red traffic light), while others are distinctly undesirable
(speeding). In this study the separation between desirable and undesirable actions is determined by
traffic regulations. These regulations are necessary to ensure a smooth and safe progress of traffic,
and many-if not all-participants will be aware of their purpose. This suggests that people
conforming to traffic regulations will be evaluated positively by others, and these persons will
evaluate themselves positively as well. Conversely, breaking the regulations (and, thus, endangering
ones own life and that of others) will be judged negatively, with negative consequences for ones
self image. Previous research (e.g. Bradley, 1978; Ross & Fletcher, 1985; Taris, in press) has
demonstrated that people strive to maintain and enhance a positive self image. Therefore, people
will feel that in general they are more likely to behave desirably rather than undesirably (Hypothesis
la).
However, members of some subcultures may want to demonstrate their resistance against the
establishment by purposely not complying with societally valued rules and regulations (rebels,
Stenner & Marshall, 1996). Given the incidence of undesirable driving behaviour among youth (e.g.
Baxter, Manstead, Stradling, Campbell, Reason & Parker, 1990; Parker, Manstead, Stradling,
Reason & Baxter, 1992) one might assume that ignoring traffic regulations would enhance the self-
esteem of many youth. This is consistent with Roysaubs (Roysaub, 1997) finding that many young
drivers actually value taking risks while driving. Thus, one alternative to Hypothesis la is that young
people feel that it is likely that they will behave undesirably rather than desirably (Hypothesis 1bb
the opposite of Hypothesis la.
Which factors are relevant in choosing between desirable and undesirable actions? According to
Ajzen and Fishbeins (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) theory of reasoned action (TRA), the choice for a
particular action is dependent upon the attitude toward this action, and the (perceived) social norms
relevant to this action. Further, in a later revision of the TRA (the theory of planned behaviour,
TPB), Ajzen (1988) stated that norms and attitudes are unlikely to be translated into behaviour,
unless a particular action is believed to be under ones control. Neglecting the attitudinal part of
the TRA and TPB, these theories suggest two factors relevant to acting either desirably or unde-
sirably. First, the degree of social norms influence the choice for a particular action; and second,
the degree to which one believes that one controls the occurrence of a particular action.
Regarding social norms, the implicit assumption in the TRA/TPB is that deviations from what
ought to be done in a particular situation have negative trade-offs, especially in terms of approval
or disapproval from others. This suggests that the effect of perceived social norms upon the intention
to do a particular behaviour depends upon the degree to which others can witness (or verifv) the
occurrence of that behaviour. If no-one knows about my acting undesirably, no negative trade-offs
are to be expected (cf. Allison, McQueen & Schaerfl, 1992; Jorgenson & Papciak, 198 1; Van Lange,
Taris & Vonk, in press; Tetlock, 1992). This is consistent with Baxter et als (1990) finding that
drivers were less likely to break traffic regulations when a passenger was present than when they
were alone. They suggest that passengers [...I may be perceived by drivers as representing particular
social norms of what constitutes good driving, and drivers may alter their driving according to the
perceived demands of these norms (p. 358). Thus, undesirable actions will not occur unless the
verifiability of that action is low. Conversely, there is no reason to assume that the occurrence of
desirable actions is dependent upon the verifiability of that action, implying that desirability and
verifiability of action interact (Hypothesis 2).
The second factor highlighted by the TPB is the perceived controllability of a particular action. It
is assumed that the intention to do a particular behaviour will be turned into action only if one
believes that one can successfully carry out this action. However, particular circumstances may
narrow the range of actions that can be carried out successfully (at least in a persons perception),
 Reckless driving behaviour 989

to the degree that one may be forced to do (or to abandon) a particular action, even if one is aware
of the fact that this is-morally or otherwise-wrong. Thus, circumstances may constrain ones
decision latitude, in that they limit the range of available actions-possibly to the point that only
an undesirable action may lead to a valued outcome (for applications cf. Parker et al., 1992; Parker,
Manstead & Stradling, 1995).
If this reasoning is correct, it would seem that undesirable actions are especially likely if in the
persons perception external circumstances necessitate (i.e. provide an alibi for) that action (Alicke,
1985): attribution of undesirable actions to the person will not improve ones self-image. Similarly,
the perceived characteristics of a situation may provide a person with an excuse for acting
undesirably (i.e. not complying with the regulations). For desirable actions, external attribution is
unnecessary; these actions are attributed to the person, as they enhance ones self-esteem (Ross &
Fletcher, 1985; Zuckerman, 1979). Therefore, we expect a desirability x controllability interaction
(Hypothesis 3).
Locus of control
Persons with an internal locus of control tend to perceive the occurrence of positive or negative
events as the result of their own behaviour, and they therefore also assume that they themselves are
responsible for these events. Conversely, externally oriented persons tend to think that particular
events are due to external factors which cannot be influenced. Thus, they also feel that they do not
bear any responsibility for the occurrence of these events. Whereas internally oriented persons feel
that they themselves determine what occurs in their lives, for externally oriented persons external
factors control the occurrence of particular events (cf. Mischel, 1981; Rotter, 1966).
Previous research on the influence of locus of control upon subjects behaviour in traffic situations
suggested that externally oriented persons are more prone to be involved in car accidents, as they
would be less careful and because they would take less precautions to prevent road accidents (e.g.
Hoyt, 1973; Knapper & Crowley, 1981; Montag & Comrey, 1987; Phares, 1978). However, the
effects of locus of control upon outcome variables (mainly involvement in car accidents, and driving
violations) cannot always be interpreted unambiguously (Arthur & Graziano, 1996; Elander, West
& French, 1993), whereas some studies (e.g. Arthur & Doverspike, 1992) failed to reveal significant
effects of locus of control. Thus, the evidence on the relation between locus of control and accident
involvement and driving violations seems somewhat mixed (cf. Arthur & Graziano, 1996).
To the degree that significant effects of locus of control upon outcome variables were found,
however, it seems that researchers have mainly examined the direct effects of this variable, The
current study, however, focuses upon the interaction effects between locus of control and perceived
situational characteristics. Theoretically, one would expect that for externally oriented subjects
external circumstances would be more important in influencing (intended) behaviour than for
internally oriented subjects. If this reasoning is correct, there should be an interaction between locus
of control and external circumstances (Hypothesis 4). Thus, for externally oriented subjects the
verifiability of action will be important in determining ones actions, whereas this effect should be
considerably smaller for internally oriented persons (Hypothesis 4a). Similarly, the presence of
external factors that could excuse a particular action (controllability of action) should be unim-
portant in determining the actions of internally oriented persons, whereas controllability of action
would be relatively important for externally oriented persons (Hypothesis 4b).
Finally, we expect that Hypotheses 4a/b will especially hold for the undesirable actions (Hypothesis
5). It seems likely that subjects will tend to think that the chance that they will act desirably is
always high, irrespective of the controllability and/or verifiability of that action. Thus, desirable
actions offer little opportunity for the effects of verifiability, controllability and locus of control to
manifest themselves. Conversely, we expect that the effects of situational factors and locus of
control will be found for undesirable actions, where the between-subjects variance is expected to be
considerably larger than for desirable actions.
METHOD

Participants
Participants in this study were 120 Dutch university students, who participated voluntarily
(Magc= 21.5, SD = 3.1; 43.7% male). They were paid the equivalent of %1 for their participation. All
990 Toon W. Taris

Ss held a valid driving licence, for on average 2.2 years (SD = 2.7). Their average annual mileage as
a driver over the 2 years preceding this study was on average 2420 miles (SD= 1090). Only six Ss
(5%) actually owned the car they were usually driving; the remainder usually used their parents
car (mentioned by males and females) or their friends (predominantly mentioned by females). The
Ss considered themselves reasonably good drivers: 63.2% indicating they thought they belonged to
the best 40% of drivers, whereas only three persons claimed to belong to the worst 20%. Of the
participants, 16.2% had been involved in at least one car accident over the last 3 years, and 21.2%
had been summoned at least once during that period.

Locus of control
The current study employed a shortened version of a Dutch adaptation of Rotters (Rotter, 1966)
locus of control-scale (Andriessen, 1972). From the original 33 items the ten highest-loading items
were selected. For the current study all items had to be answered on a six-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 6 = strongly agree); formerly, some items had to be answered by checking a six-point
scale, whereas other items employed a four-category format. An exploratory factor analysis showed
that seven out of ten items loaded highly on one factor (loadings 0.80 or better; this factor explained
as much as 71% of the variance of the items); the other three items loaded only weakly on this
factor (loadings ~0.30) and were omitted. Thus, the final scale consisted of seven items, and had
a reliability (Cronbachs u) of 0.90.

Experimental design
The study involved four within-subjects factors, namely Desirability of action (desirable vs
undesirable), Controllability (action necessitated by external circumstances vs action not necessi-
tated by external circumstances), Verifiability of action (the perceived likelihood that others would
verify the appropriateness of an action (high vs low verifiability), and Scenario (one scenario calling
for a decision to either exceed speed limits or not-the speeding scenario-and another calling for
a decision to either stop for a red traffic light or to drive on-the traffic light scenario). Locus of
control and annual mileage were included as between-subjects covariates. The primary dependent
variable involved probability judgements regarding the likelihood that the participants would engage
in a particular action, if they were facing a comparable situation.

Procedure
Each participant completed a computer-administered questionnaire. Each participant received
descriptions of four situations, in which Controllability and Verifiability were systematically manipu-
lated. For each situation two scenarios were presented, one scenario calling for a decision on the
speed at which one was driving, and the other involving a decision to either stop for a red traffic
light or to drive on. In each scenario a desirable and an undesirable action was given. The order of
presentation of the situations, scenarios and actions was randomised within Ss, eliminating the need
to control order of presentation. The first situation read (in the low controllability, high verifiability
condition):
You are driving home after work. The traffic is rather dense. You are aware that the police often
patrols in this area. The meeting at your job took more time than you expected. Now you will be
late for the home match of your volley-ball team, in which you are drafted. Your team counts on
you.
In the High-Controllability condition, the last three sentences were replaced with You left your
job at the usual time. Tonight you will play a home match with your volley-ball team, in which you
are drafted. Your team counts on you. In the Low-Verifiability conditions the third sentence read
You are aware that the police seldom patrols in this area.
In each of the four permutations of this situation two scenarios were presented. The undesirable
action in the speeding scenario read You drive on. At times you exceed the speed limits. The
desirable action read You drive on. Nowhere do you exceed the speed limits. In the traffic light
scenario, the desirable action was Ahead of you a traffic light turns red. You decide to stop, while
the undesirable action read Ahead of you a traffic light turns red. You decide to drive on.
 Reckless driving behaviour 991

Ratings
The desirable and undesirable actions were rated for desirability (1 = very undesirable, 9 = very
desirable), verifiability (how likely do you think it is that your action will be spotted by a police
agent? 1= very unlikely, 9 = very likely), and controllability (to which degree were circumstances
the reason for this action? 1 =circumstances were the only reason, 9 =circumstances did not play
any role at all). These ratings served as a check upon the validity of our manipulations. Further, we
tapped the participants opinions on the likelihood that they would engage in particular actions.
For each action, we asked How likely do you think you would take this decision, were you faced
with a comparable situation? (1 = very unlikely, 9 = very likely).

RESULTS

Manipulation checks: judgements of desirability, controllability, and verifiability

The manipulation of the desirability, controllability and verifiability of the actions were analysed
in three separate four-factor (2 x 2 x 2 x 2) ANCOVAs, with Desirability of action (desirable vs
undesirable), Controllability of action (circumstances were only reason vs circumstances did not
play any role), Verifiability of action (verifiability low vs verifiability high), and Scenario (speeding
vs red light scenario) as within-subject factors, and Locus of control and annual mileage as between-
subjects covariates. These analyses served two purposes. First, to establish that the manipulations of
Desirability, Controllability, and Verifiability had the intended effects upon the Ss. Second, to
examine whether all Ss perceived our manipulations in the same way. For example, externally
oriented or less experienced-in terms of their mileage--drivers might consider undesirable actions
as less undesirable than internally oriented or less experienced drivers did.
For desirability we found a main effect of Desirability, F(1,117) = 834.12; p ~0.001: desirable
actions were perceived as more desirable than undesirable actions. This main effect was further
moderated by Scenario, F&117) = 38.58; p ~0.001. Follow-up analyses revealed that in both scen-
arios there was a large difference concerning the degree to which the desirable and undesirable
actions were perceived as desirable, but that this difference was larger for the red light scenario
(MS were 8.0, SD= 1.3, and 2.2, SD= 1.5) than for the speeding scenario (Ms were 7.6, SD= 1.1,
and 2.9, SD = 1.6; Fs with (1,119) df were in both cases > 100, ps c 0.001). None of the other effects
were significant. Thus, it appeared that our manipulation of Desirability had the intended effect.
Ratings of Verifiability were analysed in a similar four-factor ANCOVA. The analysis revealed
only a main effect for Verifiability, F(1,117) = 10.36;~ ~0.001. Actions in the low-verifiable condition
were indeed considered as less verifiable (m= 3.4, SD= 1.5) than actions in the high-verifiable
condition (m = 3.6, SD = 1S), F(l ,119) = 6.1; p ~0.05, although these figures indicate that the
manipulation of Verifiability was not strong.
Ratings of Controllability were analysed in an identical ANCOVA. We found main effects of
Controllability, F(1,117)=102.32; p-=zO.OOl,and Scenario, F(1,117)=128.25; p<O.OOl. Tests for
simple main effects revealed that the actions in the high-control conditions were considered more
controllable (m =4.6, SD = 1.6) than the alternatives in the uncontrollable alternatives (m = 3.5,
SD = 1. l), F( 1,I 19) = 64.8; p =x0.00 1. Thus, our manipulation of Controllability appears to have had
the desired effects. The actions in the speeding scenario were considered less controllable (m = 3.3,
SD= 1.2) than the actions in the red light scenario (m=4.8, SD= 1.5), F(1,119)= 142.O,p<O.O01.
As this effect does not touch upon the core questions to be examined, it will not be discussed further.
The lack of main or interaction effects of Locus of control and Annual mileage upon the Ss
ratings of controllability, verifiability, and desirability of the actions presented here suggests that,
irrespective of the Ss control orientations and average annual mileage, the Ss agreed on their
desirability, verifiability and controllability. This implies that one possible explanation for effects
of locus of control or driving experience upon driving behaviour of youth was ruled out: locus of
control and annual mileage did not seem to affect Ss perceptions of various alternative actions,

Ratings of the likelihood to choose a particular action

Concerning Hypotheses la/b we found a main effect of Desirability, F( 1,117) = I5.15; p e 0.001.
In support of Hypothesis la, desirable actions were considered more likely (m= 7.6, SD= -9) than
992 Toon W. Taris

undesirable actions (m=3.3, SD= 1.6), F(1,119)= 532.21; p<O.OOl. This result simultaneously
implies that Hypothesis lb was rejected: it appears not to be the case that youth feel they are likely
to act undesirably, as one might have expected.
Hypothesis 2 was supported by a Desirability x Verifiability interaction, F( 1,117) = 4.22; p < 0.05.
For desirable actions it was unimportant whether these actions were verifiable or not (ms were 7.6,
SD= 1.1, and 7.6, SD = 1.O, respectively); for the undesirable actions, however, we found that
undesirable actions were considered more likely if verifiability of this action was low (M=3.6,
SD= 1.8) than if its verifiability was high (M=3.1, SD= 1.7), F(1,119)= 15.64;p<O.O01.
Hypothesis 3 stated that undesirable actions were especially likely to occur if these actions were
more or less beyond control of the subject. This hypothesis was not supported; the expected
Controllability x Desirability interaction effect was not significant, F( 1,117) < 1.OO,ns. Contrary to
our expectations, undesirable actions were not considered more likely to occur if this action was
beyond the Ss control.

Locus of control
The other hypotheses pertained to the effects of Locus of control. Hypothesis 4a stated that
internally oriented Ss were less likely to let circumstances influence their actions; more specifically,
that the degree to which a particular action was verifiable would be relatively unimportant for
internally oriented Ss. Conversely, for externally oriented Ss we expected that Verifiability of action
would be very important. The corresponding interaction between Verifiability and Locus of control
was significant, F( 1,117) = 8.42; p < 0.01. Table 1 presents the corresponding means and standard
deviations.
Supporting Hypothesis 4a, verifiability of action was important for externally oriented Ss; they
felt that actions that could well be verified by others were considerably more likely to occur (m = 5.7)
than actions that could not be verified (m = 5.4), F( 1,56) = 7.18, p < 0.01). For internally oriented Ss
this difference was considerably smaller, although significant (means were 5.5 vs 5.3, respectively;
F(1,62)=4.55,p<0.05).
Hypothesis 5 assumed that the Verifiability x Locus of control interaction effect expected in
Hypothesis 4a would be further moderated by Desirability of action. The corresponding three-way
interaction effect was significant, F(l ,117) = 4.37; p -C 0.05. Table 1 shows that for desirable actions
there are hardly any differences between the cells (means vary from 7.56 to 7.62). For undesirable
actions, however, we found stronger effects of Verifiability for externally oriented Ss (means 3.8 vs
3.2, F(1,56) =9.40; ~~0.01) than for internally oriented Ss (means were 3.4 vs 3.0, F(1,62) = 6.23;
p < 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis 5 was supported for Verifiability of action.
Hypothesis 4b stated that the effect of Controllability of action would be less pronounced for
internally oriented Ss than for externally oriented Ss. The corresponding Controllability x Locus
of Control interaction was not significant, however: F( 1,117) = 1.15, ns. Similarly, Hypothesis 5 was
not supported for Controllability of action, F( 1,117) < 1.OO;ns.
The only other significant effect in this analysis was a Desirability x Annual mileage interaction
effect, F(1,117) =4.54, p ~0.05. For the desirable actions, there was no difference between the
likelihood to engage in such actions, Ms were 7.56 (SD=O.92) and 7.62 (SD=O.97), for the low
and high annual mileage groups, respectively, F( 1,118) < 1.OO, ns. For the undesirable actions,
however, we found that the high mileage group was more likely to engage in such actions (M= 3.44,
SD= 1.61) than the low mileage group (M=3.20, SD= 1.58), F(1,118)=4.18,p<0.05.

Table 1. Ratings of likelihood of action as function of desirability, verifiability, and locus of

control (dichotomised for presentational purposes)

Locus of control

Desirability of External Internal

Verifiability action
Desirable Undesirable Desirable Undesirable

Low M 7.61 3.76 7.56 3.37

SD 1.21 1.84 0.99 1.66
High M 1.62 3.20 7.58 2.99
SD 0.91 1.75 1.00 1.62
 Reckless driving behaviour 993

Summarising, these results show that the interaction between locus of control and verifiability is
particularly important. For internally oriented Ss (for whom their own norms and values were
presumed to be much more important in determining ones actions than for externally oriented Ss)
it did not matter much whether actions were verifiable or not. Externally oriented Ss, however, were
considerably more sensitive to the visibility of their actions; they considered undesirable actions less
likely if such actions were visible to others. For controllability of action these effects were not
replicated, suggesting that the presence of an alibi for acting undesirably is not related to the
likelihood of acting in a particular way.

CONCLUDING REMARKS AND DISCUSSION

The current study examined driving behaviour of youth as a function of situational and dis-
positional factors. It was assumed that situational characteristics (such as the visibility of a particular
action and the degree to which circumstances necessitated a particular action) would influence the
choice for a particular action, and especially so for externally oriented Ss. The most important
results of this study are the following.
First, neither driving experience (measured as annual mileage) nor locus of control affected the
Ss ratings of desirability, verifiability and controllability of actions, implying that there were no
differences in the Ss perceptions of the actions presented in this study, at least not as a result of
differential amounts of driving experience or an internal vs an external locus of control. For example,
experienced drivers considered speeding as more undesirable than less experienced drivers did. It
was therefore interesting to note that especially experienced drivers felt that it was rather likely that
they would act undesirably, as evidenced by a desirability x annual mileage interaction effect. This
finding was not due to the fact that experienced drivers perceived undesirable actions as less
controllable or less verifiable than inexperienced drivers did (or this two-way interaction would
have been further moderated by controllability and/or verifiability). One tentative explanation for
this result might be that on the basis of previous experience with such situations, experienced drivers
may feel that the dangers of acting undesirably are overestimated, while inexperienced drivers tend
to exaggerate these. Thus, experienced drivers may indeed engage in undesirable actions to a
somewhat greater degree than inexperienced drivers will.
Secondly, the degree to which a particular action could be verified by others had an important
effect upon the choice for a desirable or undesirable action, in conjunction with locus of control.
For externally oriented Ss there was a strong effect between verifiability and choice of action,
whereas this effect was considerably weaker for internally oriented Ss. This is especially important
where it concerns undesirable behaviour.
Thirdly, the degree to which particular actions were considered controllable appeared an unim-
portant factor in the process leading to the choice for a desirable or an undesirable action. Locus
of control did not seem to matter here. As the manipulation checks reported earlier revealed that
the Ss were aware that some actions were more controllable than other actions, it appears unlikely
that the lack of effects of Controllability was due to the weakness of our manipulation of Con-
trollability. If this is correct, this suggests that Ss will act undesirably irrespective of the availability
of alternative-less undesirable-actions. If there is no other option, Ss will act undesirably if they
feel like it; but if there is, they will still act undesirably, unless there are other circumstances that
inhibit occurrence of the action (e.g. if the verifiability of that action is high). This applies not only
to the internally oriented Ss, but also to the externally oriented Ss who were presumed to be more
sensitive to the-characteristics of a situation.

Limitations of the study

Possibly the most important limitation of the current research is that it concerns an experimental
(laboratory) study. The dependent variable in this research is at best an intention to act desirably
or undesirably under particular circumstances, and this implies that the generalisability of the results
to actual behaviour may not be warranted. It must be noted however that the results were generally
in the expected direction, suggesting that a more life-like study might reveal stronger effects.
Secondly, the current study employed a limited number of scenarios describing specific situations,
994 Toon W. Taris

thereby representing only a small selection of a more varied set of actions that might occur in
everyday practice. Additionally, the two scenarios tended to focus on unambiguously desirable or
undesirable practices, whereas in reality individuals may consider less extreme actions not included
in this study. Despite these limitations, the results support the idea that young drivers actions are
at least partly determined by external factors and locus of control, and that both factors indeed
interact.
Thirdly, the current study employed a general measure of locus of control, rather than a tailored
one (such as Montag & Comreys (1987) MDIE scales). Generally, one would expect that a tailored
measure of locus of control would lead to higher proportions of explained variance in the dependent
variable than a general measure. For example, Montag and Comrey (1987) report that the proportion
of variance explained in the number of accidents was only 12% when using a general measure,
compared to 38% when using their tailored MDIE scales. However, using tailored measures bears
the risk that the distinction between explanatory variables and what is to be explained becomes
fuzzy, leading to inflated correlations and R-squares. Thus, we felt it was better to err on the safe
side than to draw conclusions on the basis of an unjustifiably large overlap between predictor and
predicted variable.
Finally, one might argue that other factors-such as social desirability, the tendency to behave
in agreement with what others expect in particular situations-are at least as important in explaining
driving behaviour as locus of control. Although this is presumably correct, one should note that the
primary aim of this study was not to explain as large a proportion of the variance in driving
behaviour as possible. Rather, we were interested in an examination of the interplay between one
particular personality variable-locus of control-and the perceived characteristics of the situations
in which one might act desirably or undesirably. Thus, although a full explanation of the occurrence
of undesirable behaviour would require that these explanatory variables be included, it appears that
inclusion of these variables in the current study would only have complicated matters.
Practical implications
While there are important limitations to the research reported here, results gained from this study
might provide interesting insights into the role of situational and dispositional factors in the decision
to drive carelessly. The results of this study-albeit preliminary and with limitations-underline our
proposition that dispositional factors (locus of control) and situational factors (verifiability of
action) are both important determinants of the choice to act either desirably or undesirably. The
results of this study suggest that enlarging the perceived visibility of actions (for instance, by
increasing the frequency of police patrols) may be a useful instrument to reduce the incidence of
undesirable behaviour. This suggestion, of course, is not new. What is interesting, however, is our
finding that these types of measures will be effective for part of the population of young car drivers
only, namely the externally oriented ones. For internally oriented Ss the characteristics of the
situation calling for a decision to act in a particular way are less important, and therefore changes
in that situation-for example, by enlarging the visibility of ones actions-will not lead to a
significant change of behaviour. Thus, it would seem that for internally oriented Ss other measures
would be needed to influence their behaviour. One would expect that for internally oriented Ss
measures aimed at increasing their perceptions of the undesirability of particular actions could be
effective. For example, one may point out that speeding brings about excessive risks for the lives of
self and others, thus hopefully affecting the Ss perceptions of the undesirability of speeding.
These results do not imply that having an external locus of control is actually beneficial for traffic
safety. Although it appears that the behaviour of externally oriented Ss is easier to manipulate (e.g.
by increasing police supervision), previous findings that the behaviour of externally oriented drivers
is more likely to be characterised in terms of lack of caution and failure to take precautionary steps
to avoid the occurrence of unfavourable outcomes than the behaviour of internally oriented Ss still
stand. Thus, in a way one could argue that influencing the behaviour of externally oriented Ss will
not only be easier, but also more effective than measures aimed to influence the behaviour of
internally oriented Ss.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1988) Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding attitude andpredicting social behaoiour. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
 Reckless driving behaviour 995

Alicke, M. E. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1621-1630.
Allison, S. T., McQueen, L. R. & Schaertl, L. M. (1992). Social decision making processes and the equal partitionment of
shared resources. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28,23-42.
Andriessen, J. H. T. H. (1972). Inteme of exteme beheersing (Internal or external control). Nederlands Ttja!whrtft uoor de
Psychologie, 27, 173-198.
Arthur, W., Barrett, G. V. & Alexander, R. A. (1991). Prediction of vehicular accidents involvement: A meta-analysis.
Human Performance, 4, 89-105.
Arthur, W. & Doverspike, D. (1992). Locus of control and auditory selective attention as predictors of driving accident
involvement: A comparative longitudinal investigation. Journal of Safety Research, 23, 73-80.
Arthur, W. & Graziano, W. G. (1996). The five-factor model, conscientiousness, and driving accident involvement. Journal
of Personality, 64, 593618.
Baxter, J. S., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, S. G., Campbell, K. A., Reason, J. T. & Parker, D. (1990). Social facilitation
and driver behaviour. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 351-360.
Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 56-7 1.
CBS (1994) Statistisch zalcboek 1994 (Statistical Year Book 1994). The Hague: SDU Press.
Elander, J., West, R. & French, D. (1993). Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: An
examination of methods and findings. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 279-294.
Hoyt, M. F. (1973). Internal-external control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7,
288-293.
Jorgenson, D. 0. & Papciak, A. S. (1981). The effects of communication, resource feedback, and identifiability on behavior
in a simulated commons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17,373-385.
Knapper, C. K. & Crowley, A. J. (1981) Social and interpersonal factors in driving. In G. M. Stephenson and J. M. Davis
(Eds.), Progress in applied socialpsychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191-220). New York: Wiley.
Mischel, W. (1981) Introduction to personality,(3rd edn). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Montag, L. & Comrey, A. L. (1987). Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 339-343.
Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R. & Stradling, S. G. (1995). Extending the theory of planned behaviour: The role of personal
norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 127-137.
Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, S. G., Reason, J. T. & Baxter, J. S. (1992). Intention to commit driving violations:
An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,94-101.
Phares, E. J. (1978) Locus of control. In H. London and J. Exner (Eds.), Dimensions ofpersonality (pp. 263-304). New York:
Wiley Interscience.
Ross, M. & Fletcher, G. J. 0. (1985) Attribution and social perception. In G. Lindsey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook
of socialpsychology (3rd edn., pp. 73-122). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external locus of control of reinforcement. Psychological
Monographs, 80(609), l-28.
Roysaub, E. (1997). Risk behaviour: Towards a model of affectively construed action. Personality and Individual Differences,
22, 33-46.
Stenner, P. & Marshall, H. (1996). A Q methodological study of rebelliousness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25,
621636.
Strickland, B. R. (1978). Internal-external expectancies and health-related behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 46, 1192-1211.
Taris, T. W. (in press), Subjective appraisals of youth regarding driving behavior. Journal of Social Psychology.
Tetlock, P. E. (1992) The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In M.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimentalsocialpsychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331-376). New York: Academic Press.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Taris, T. W. & Vonk, R. (in press). The social psychology of social psychologists: Self-enhancing
beliefs about own research. European Journal of Social Psychology.
Zuckennan, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution
theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287.