Research Directions on Motivational Aspects of Road Traffic Behavior

Students considered it mandatory to comply or considered it civilized behavior; of which, 59.16% of students said the reason for wearing seat belts was fear of being fined, 18.3% of students said that they wore seat belts because they were convinced of its importance and voluntarily complied [63].

Tronsmoen (2010) studied a representative sample of 1,419 motorists aged 18–20 years in Norway to examine the association between young drivers’ driving experience and safety attitudes, as well as between their self-rated driving ability and self-reported driving behavior; and also to examine the association between their attitudes, self-rated driving ability and driving behavior and their involvement in accidents. The results showed that there was a significant association between attitudes towards road safety and risky driving behavior; attitudes and self-rated driving ability were significantly associated with self-reported risky behavior. This was particularly true for attitudes related to traffic violations [170].

Research by the group of authors Alonso, Esteban and Calatayud (2015) on

1,100 car drivers (678 men and 422 women) over the age of 14 in Spain through a self-reported behavioral survey and interviews on speeding behavior, which aimed to address the issue of drivers' attitudes towards speeding penalties through their severity. The results showed that: 97.1% of subjects agreed to punish speeding; over 75% of subjects assessed the accident risk of speeding as above 8 points (on a scale of 0-10 points, in which the average accident risk due to speed was previously calculated as 8.3 points); Attitude towards the severity of punishment was assessed by the subjects at 8.2 points, in which: students assessed the severity of punishment lower than other subjects and there was a significant difference when comparing by gender variable on this issue (men assessed lower than women), there was no difference in education level, driving on different types of roads; regarding the form of punishment: 90% agreed that it is necessary to fine and suspend the driver's license, 43% thought that there should be imprisonment for speeding [62].

Weissenfeld, Baldock, and Hutchinson (2013) studied 72 South Australian motorcyclists aged 19-76 years with 0.5-60 years of motorcycling experience and 1-30 hours of motorcycling per week using a survey containing seven different topics to examine their road safety threats, including attitudes towards other road users. The results showed that, while participating in traffic, motorcyclists

The machine shows positive or negative attitudes towards other road users that they perceive as a safety factor or a risk to themselves [176].

In summary, theoretical and practical studies approaching the attitudinal aspect of road traffic behavior are abundant, conducted on both car and motorbike drivers of different ages. Studies focus on attitudes towards traffic laws and road traffic law violations as well as drivers' attitudes towards traffic safety and other people's traffic behavior in different traffic situations. However, studies in this direction are still lacking in Vietnam.

From the proven theoretical model and reliable practical research results mentioned above, the author of the thesis inherits to study the attitudinal aspect of road traffic participation behavior of young people in Vietnam, specifically as follows:

- Youth attitudes towards road traffic regulations;

- Attitude of readiness towards implementing road traffic participation behavior of young people;

- Youth attitudes towards traffic safety;

- Youth's attitude towards traffic law violations by other traffic participants.

1.3. Research direction on the motivational aspect of road traffic participation behavior

1.3.1. Theoretical research direction

There are many theoretical studies on the motivational aspects of human behavior in general and road traffic behavior in particular. Here are some popular theories:

* Protection Motivation Theory (PMT):

This is a theory developed by Rogers in 1975 based on the previous research works of Lazarus (1966) and Leventhal (1970) to understand the concepts of fear resistance [148]. However, in 1983, Rogers expanded this theory to become a general theory of persuasive communication [149].

Protection motivation theory suggests that an individual's motivation to protect himself from danger by engaging in adaptive behavior is a linear function of four beliefs:

(1) Believe that the threat is serious (believe that it has serious consequences)

weight);

(2) Believe that one is vulnerable to threats (it could happen to me);

(3) Believing that I can perform coping responses (I am capable of performing the recommended preventive behaviors);

(4) Believe that the recommended coping response is effective in practice (the recommended behavior will prevent the threat from occurring).

Additionally, a person's motivation to engage in adaptive behavior is a positive linear function of two factors:

(1) Reinforcements associated with maladaptive responses

(2) The cost of that response (The response cost)

Threat Assessment

Source information

Environmental resources

Intent

Act

Internal sources

Motor protection

The above beliefs are included in threat assessment and response appraisal - factors that determine the level of protection motivation.

Extrinsic Rewards Severity Reward Within Vulnerability

Assess the response
	Confidence Reaction cost Reaction efficiency

Maybe you are interested!

Figure 1.1. Theoretical model of protection motivation

From figure 1.1, an overview of this theory is described and applied to improve road traffic safety for traffic participants as follows:

First of all, there is source information . Sources of information about threats can come from sources within the individual's psychology (for example, experiences of accidents that have happened to oneself or to relatives) or from the external environment (for example, from the propaganda content of traffic safety campaigns).

During the threat assessment , the individual will incorporate into the reward system the maladaptive behavior, such as speeding. The reward can be extrinsic or intrinsic: The behavior may be praised by others,

such as a peer group, in which speeding is seen as a sign of “bravery” and therefore receives respect from group members. This is a very powerful extrinsic reward for them. In this case, to persuade a driver not to speed, it is necessary to find a way to change the group’s (and society’s) attitudes toward the behavior in a way that reduces or eliminates the rewards associated with it. Threat appraisal also involves considering the severity of the threat and the likelihood of it happening to oneself (vulnerability). For example, in the case of drink-driving, the person may think that driving after drinking is not really that dangerous if only slightly drunk. Or an older person may believe that only young, inexperienced drivers have serious accidents when driving while drunk. Therefore, they think that they are not susceptible to such threats and are very reluctant to stop drinking and driving. Therefore, when promoting traffic safety, it is necessary to emphasize that the threat (e.g., having an accident while driving while drunk) can happen to everyone, even experienced drivers, because, when faced with a dangerous situation, due to the influence of alcohol, the driver will react more slowly, thereby increasing the risk of an accident. At the same time, it is necessary to show drivers that the consequences of driving while drunk are really serious.

Figure 1.1 also shows that coping appraisal is also a factor that determines the level of protective motivation. Components of coping appraisal are appraisals of self-efficacy and response efficacy. Self-efficacy is the individual's belief that he or she is capable of performing adaptive and effective responses, believing that the recommended behaviors will in fact prevent threats from occurring (Rogers, 1983) [149].

Reaction costs are part of the evaluation of response and therefore influence the level of protection motivation. If the cost of performing a behavior to prevent threats is significantly higher than the perceived benefits, the subject will not want to perform that behavior. For example, if using an alternative means of transport such as a taxi costs money and time to call a car (especially in rural areas where there are often not many taxis), the person may choose to drive a motorbike home after drinking alcohol. Or if friends tease the person about not daring to drive after drinking alcohol, the person may choose to drive drunk to protect his self-esteem. Therefore, when promoting traffic safety, it is necessary to take into account the nature of reaction costs.

However, although the use of this model can predict protective motivation, it is still considered a model with many limitations in changing the behavior of traffic participants. Because the motivation to promote risky behavior, traffic risks are very complex, related to many factors, especially the individual's perception and attitude towards the level of risk, the risk is very different, it needs to be correctly identified and put in relation to each other in specific traffic situations.

* Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT):

This theory refers to the motivation of behavior, proposed by Wilde - honorary professor, Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Canada since 1976 and continued to edit, supplement, and perfect in the following years. The risk homeostasis theory argues that individuals have a certain level of desire for risk. If the subjective level of risk is higher or lower than the desired level, the individual will try to reduce this difference (Wilde, 1982) [182]. Therefore, if a driver believes that the car they are driving is safer than another car, this theory predicts that the driver will increase his or her own level of desire for risk to match the perceived safety of the car he or she is driving.

The risk homeostasis theory suggests that the sole determinant of accident rates is the subject’s “risk target level” (or “risk tolerance”). Hence, the risk homeostasis theory states that the risk target level corresponds to the observed accident rate. Wilde (1982) cites a study conducted by Taylor (1964) to support his theory. Subjects were asked to drive on various roads and their skin reflectance was measured. A positive, fairly strong correlation (r = 0.61) between skin reflectance and accident rates was previously reported for the roads he studied [166].

In practice, the risk homeostasis theory is considered insufficient to explain accident rates, because in practice, safety measures are often effective in reducing traffic accidents. Many studies have examined speed limits and measures to reduce speed and have shown positive results. One study found that drivers tend to increase their speed on long, straight roads because their perception of speed is distorted (Schmidt and Tiffin, 1969) [158]. To verify this, Denton (1980) painted increasingly dense horizontal yellow lines on the road, thereby creating the illusion of increasing speed in drivers [83]. These horizontal lines

help drivers become more aware of their speed and have been shown to reduce speeding and accidents at similarly painted intersections (Helliar-Symons, 1981) [97]. This study demonstrates that traffic safety measures are effective.

However, the risk homeostasis theory fails to take into account the complexity of risk perception and the variety of factors that determine individual perception (e.g., perceived control, perceived risk of accident, situational skills, etc.). These shortcomings render the theory inadequate to explain the occurrence of accidents.

* The Zero Risk Model (ZRM):

The zero-risk model proposed by Näätänen and Summala in 1976, is often classified as a motivational approach. It is a threshold risk model, operating within a margin of safety, i.e. the driver does not perceive risk if he feels he is still within the margin of safety; risk compensation is only triggered when the risk level exceeds the threshold (Ranney, 1994; Summala, 1988) [143], [164].

The zero risk model assumes that drivers attempt to maintain a balance between subjective risk, objective risk, and risk perception. The Subjective Risk Monitor (SRM) is the core component of the model and is only activated when a specific threshold value is reached. Subjective risk monitoring influences subsequent driving behavior and future driving behavior, as drivers will try to stay below the threshold value. According to this model, behavior is directly related to the level of risk perception. Risk perception is generally zero and therefore drivers tend to drive as if there is no real risk (Näätänen and Summala, 1976; Ranney, 1994) [133], [143].

According to this model, in the process of participating in traffic, motivation is related to the driver's perception while performing a certain behavior, such as running a red light. If the driver wants to run a red light, he or she will perform that behavior, unless he or she perceives that the subjective risks exceed the threshold value of the subjective risk monitoring, and then he or she will consider whether to perform the desired behavior or not.

* Threat Avoidance Model (TAM):

This famous model was proposed by Fuller and refined in 1984 and 1988. The threat avoidance model assumes that driver behavior is driven by two responses:

response: avoiding threats and making progress towards the destination. This model focuses on avoiding threats and the probability that the individual will have an accident. It focuses on avoiding threats because the driver cannot drive in a straight line and reach the destination without having to avoid threats, hazards and obstacles on the road (Ranney, 1994) [143].

In any given situation, drivers are always aware that they have two options: either to engage in the behavior (non-avoidant response) or to continue driving without engaging in the behavior (avoidant response) to avoid dangerous situations, such as hitting another vehicle (Fuller, 1984) [92]. Rewards or punishments are the consequences of performing a particular behavior. Michon (1989) criticized Fuller's model for being only applicable to single situations and failing to handle "nested behavior", such as when drivers are faced with multiple problems at the same time (Ranney, 1994) [143].

* Hierarchical Risk Model (HRM):

This model was proposed by Molen and Botticher (1987) to emphasize the driver's motivational aspect of risk. This model breaks down the driving task into three levels of increasing specificity, including:

At the Strategic Level, decisions are made using internal representations of the physical environment, expectations (e.g., the likelihood of arriving at a destination on time or late), and motivations (e.g., the benefits of arriving at a destination on time or late). The driver compares these possibilities to make a decision. If one of the possibilities is deemed impossible, a new strategy is adopted.

At the Tactical Level there is a strategic planning motive, accident expectations and safety motives for alternatives. Risk assessment is a combination of accident expectations and safety motives.

At the Operational Level, specific actions are performed. One function of this level is the “emergency response” (Molen and Botticher, 1987) [174]. Normally, when participating in traffic, drivers pay attention to the driving itself as it seems to have become automatic. However, in an emergency, attention is diverted or transferred to the driving task by the “emergency response”.

so that decisions can be made and emergency actions taken.

This model can explain the dependence of traffic participation behavior on certain traffic conditions and situations, where the motivation of the behavior is expressed specifically, including the choice of action in emergency situations.

1.3.2. Practical research direction

Some studies acknowledge that sensation seeking is the driving motivation. Rothengatter (1988) suggested that drivers choose to drive at high speeds because they find pleasure in doing so [153].

Trimpop et al. (1997) extended Wilde's (1982) risk balance theory by considering emotional factors as drivers of road users' risky behavior [168].

Roysamb (1997) suggested that each individual sets his or her driving speed based on an optimal interface between emotions such as fear, calmness, excitement, boredom, etc. Roysamb (1997) put this conclusion into a study that found people who were afraid of driving at high speeds, tended to avoid speeding while driving because they considered it scary. They lacked positive emotional reasons for speeding [155].

Thus, although there are many theoretical models on the motivational aspect of road traffic participation behavior, in-depth practical research on this aspect is still quite modest, especially for motorcyclists. However, from the quite convincing theoretical models and reliable practical research results on the motivational aspect of road traffic participation behavior above, the author of the thesis can inherit the research on the motivational aspect of road traffic participation behavior of young people in the following contents:

- Safe engine, avoiding risks and dangers;

- Motive for benefits, avoiding disadvantages;

- Motivation to comply due to the ethical and legitimate aspects of the law;

- Emotional seeking engine.

1.4. Research direction on external action aspects of road traffic participation behavior

1.4.1. Theoretical research direction

One of the theories in this direction that many researchers mention is the Problem Behavior Theory (PBT).

This theory was developed to explain problem behavior, especially in adolescents (Jessor and Jessor, 1977; Jessor, 1991) [104], [105]. According to behavioral theory

Comment