Perceived Risk and Driving Behavior: Lessons for Improving Traffic Safety in Emerging Market Countries

  • Donald G. MacGregor
  • Paul Slovic
Conference paper


Very often the risks of driving are expressed in terms of the total number of deaths that occur yearly as the result of motor vehicle operation. Yet, despite the thousands of people who die each year in automobiles in the U.S. alone, driving behavior seems relatively unresponsive to statistical portrayals of risk. Research in risk perception suggests that this apparent unresponsiveness is rooted in the manner by which risks are psychologically evaluated and judged. In general, perceptions of controlability of a hazard are a prime factor in personal assessments of its riskiness. Unfortunately, drivers appear to have an exaggerated sense of their personal control over driving situations and hazard potential, leaving them unrealistically optimistic about their chances of avoiding harm. However, emerging market countries seeking to develop better motor-vehicle risk management are cautious about drawing too heavily upon risk perception research conducted in industrialized countries with mature risk management institutions — risk as a concept appears highly conditioned on the cultural context within which it is experienced. Thus, emerging nations are encouraged to develop risk management approaches within their own cultural matrix, relying on a base of research stimulated by cross-cultural collaboration.


Motor Vehicle Risk Perception Seat Belt Driving Behavior Driving Situation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085–1096, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buss DM, Craik KH, Dake KM. Contemporary worldviews and perception of the technological system. In V. T. Covello, J. Menkes,& J. Mumpower (Eds.), Risk evaluation and management (pp. 93–130). New York: Plenum. 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cotgrove S. Catastrophe or cornucopia: The environment, politics and the future. New York: Wiley. 1982.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dake K. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61–82. 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeJoy DM. An examination of gender differences in traffic accident risk perception. Accident Analysis&Prevention, 24, 237–246. 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Englander T, Farago K, Slovic P, Fischhoff B. A comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and the United States. Social behavior, 1, 55–66. 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finucane ML, Maybery MT. Risk perceptions in Australia. Psychological Reports, 79, 1331–1338. 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson S. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Report No. 98–7. Eugene, OR: Decision Research. 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127152. 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108. 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goszczynska M, Tyszka T, Slovic P.. Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 179–193. 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, MacGregor DG. The role of past states in determining reference points for policy decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 195–206. 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jasper JM. Nuclear politics: Energy and the state in the United States, Sweden, and France. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karpowicz-Lazreg C, Mullet E. Societal risk as seen by the French public. Risk Analysis, 13, 253–258. 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keown C. Risk perceptions of Hong Kongese vs. Americans. Risk Analysis, 9, 401–405. 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kleinhesselink RR, Rosa EA. Cognitive representation of risk perceptions: A comparison of Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 11–28. 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lern S. One Human Minute (C. S. Leach, Trans.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1986.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    MacGregor DG. Worry over technological activities and life concerns. Risk Analysis, 11, 315324. 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacGregor DG, Slovic, P. Perception of risk in automotive systems. Human Factors, 31, 377–389. 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peters E, Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(16), 1427–1453. 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sivak M, Soler J, Trankle U. Cross-cultural differences in driver selfassessment. Accident Analysis&Prevention, 21, 371–375. 1989a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sivak M, Soler J, Trankle U. Cross-cultural differences in driver risk-taking. Accident Analysis&Prevention, 21, 363–369. 1989b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sivak M, Soler J, Trankle U, Spagnhol JM. Cross-cultural differences in driver risk-perception. Accident Analysis&Prevention, 21, 355–362. 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280285. 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Slovic P, Peters E. The importance of worldviews in risk perception. Risk Decision and Policy, 3(2), 165–170. 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective. Accident Analysis&Prevention, 10, 281–285. 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. The Psychometric Study of Risk Perception. In Covello, V. T., Menkes, J., and Mumpower, J. (eds.), Risk Evaluation and Management (pp. 3–24). New York: Plenum. 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Slovic P, Flynn J, Mertz CK, Mays C, Poumadere M. Nuclear power and the public: A comparative study of risk perception in France and the United States (Report No. 96–6). Eugene, OR: Decision Research. 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Slovic P, MacGregor, DG, Kraus NN. Perception of risk from automobile safety defects. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 19, 359373. 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith KR. The risk transition. International Environmental Affairs, 2, 227–251. 1990.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Starr C. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165, 12321238. 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Svenson O, Fischhoff B, MacGregor DG.. Perceived driving safety and seatbelt usage. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 17, 119–133. 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Teigen KH, Brun W, Slovic P. Societal risks as seen by a Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 111–130. 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Treat JR. A study of precrash factors involved in traffic accidents. Highway Safety Research Institute Research Review, 10(6), 1–35. 1980.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Treat JR, Stansifer, R. L. Vehicular problems as accident causes: An overview of available information. Detroit: Society of Automotive Engineers. 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vleck C, Stallen P-J. Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 235–271. 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weinstein ND. Effects of personal experience on self-protective behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 31–50. 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Weinstein ND, Klein WM. Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of Social&Clinical Psychology, 15, 1–8. 1996.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wildavsky A. Searching for safety. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald G. MacGregor
    • 1
  • Paul Slovic
    • 1
  1. 1.Decision ResearchUSA

Personalised recommendations