Report 2:
My Understanding of Driving Psychology
By: Leanna Bergeron
Instructions for this report are at:
www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy22/409a-g22-report2.htm
I am answering Questions: 1, 3, 4, 5, & 7
The Question I am answering is Question
#1:
(a) Consider Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the
Lecture Notes, in the Section on Driving Psychology Theory and Charts at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy22/409a-g22-lecture-notes.htm#Charts
Consult the article from which the Tables were taken. (b) Using your own words,
describe the three behavioral domains and levels of a driver (nine cells). (c)
Illustrate each domain with your own driving behavior skills and errors, or
that of another driver you know well, or a driver in a particular movie. (d)
Make up a "driving personality makeover" plan for yourself (or
another driver you know well), relating specifically to negative thoughts
you have about other road users. (e) Discuss the problems you anticipate in
carrying out such a plan successfully. (f) Any other comments you wish to make.
(a) Table 1
Driver Behavior as Skills and Errors in Three Domains
|
SKILLS (+) |
||
|
AFFECTIVE (+A) |
COGNITIVE (+C) |
SENSORIMOTOR (+S) |
|
I've got to be careful here. Don't want to cut anybody off. |
This person looks like he's in a hurry to get in. I better let him in. |
(Waving and smiling:) Go ahead. |
|
ERRORS (-) |
||
|
AFFECTIVE (-A) |
COGNITIVE (-C) |
SENSORIMOTOR (S) |
|
I wish I could give that guy a piece of my mind. |
I don't think people like that should be allowed on the road |
(Yelling:) "You stupid idiot, why don't you watch where you're going!" |
Table 2
Behavioral Zones of Driving
|
Affective Responsibility |
|
Sensorimotor
Responsibility |
|
(7) altruism and morality vs. |
(8
)positive dramatizations and mental health (17) negative dramatizations and insanity |
(9)
enjoyment and satisfaction
|
|
Affective Safety |
Cognitive Safety |
Sensorimotor Safety |
|
(4)
defensive driving and equity |
(5)
objective attributions |
(6)
polite exchanges and calmness |
|
Affective Proficiency |
Cognitive Proficiency |
Sensorimotor Proficiency |
|
(1)
respect for regulations and self-control |
(2)
knowledge and awareness |
(3)
correct actions and alertness |
Table 3
Two Stages of a Driving Personality Makeover Plan
|
|
|||
|
|
Cognitive Level |
Sensorimotor Level |
|
|
· reasoning against my attribution errors (It's always their fault. It's never my fault) · counteracting my self-serving bias in how I view incidents · acquiring more socialized self-regulatory sentences I can say to myself |
· waving, smiling, signaling · not crowding, not rushing in, not swearing · not aggressing against passengers · pretending that I'm in a good mood even when not
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Affective Level
|
Cognitive Level |
Sensorimotor Level |
|
|
· feeling responsible for errors and seeking opportunities to make reparations · feeling regret at my unfriendly behaviors and impulses · feeling good about behaving with civility or kindness · feeling appreciation when being given advice by passenger · being forgiving of others' mistakes and weaknesses |
· acknowledging and knowing my driving errors · planning and rehearsing the modification of those habits · analyzing other drivers' behaviors objectively or impartially
|
· anticipating the needs of other drivers and being helpful to them · verbalizing nice sentiments · enjoying the ride and relaxing
|
|
Table 4. Two Stages of a Driving Personality Makeover
Plan
|
Stage 1--Avoiding Being an
Aggressive Driver |
|||
|
Affective Level |
Cognitive Level |
Sensorimotor Level |
|
|
·
committing myself to inhibit or mitigate states of anger and
retaliation ·
making it acceptable for passenger to complain or make
suggestions ·
making it unacceptable for myself to ridicule or demean other
drivers ·
activating higher motives within myself such as love of order
and fair play, public spiritedness, charity, kindness to strangers |
·
reasoning against my attribution errors (It's always their
fault. It's never my fault) ·
counteracting my self-serving bias in how I view incidents ·
acquiring more socialized self-regulatory sentences I can say to
myself |
·
waving, smiling, signaling ·
not crowding, not rushing in, not swearing ·
not aggressing against passengers ·
pretending that I'm in a good mood even when not |
|
|
Stage 2--Becoming a Supportive
Driver |
|||
|
Affective Level |
Cognitive Level |
Sensorimotor Level |
|
|
·
feeling responsible for errors and seeking opportunities to make
reparations ·
feeling regret at my unfriendly behaviors and impulses ·
feeling good about behaving with civility or kindness ·
feeling appreciation when being given advice by passenger ·
being forgiving of others' mistakes and weaknesses |
·
acknowledging and knowing my driving errors ·
planning and rehearsing the modification of those habits ·
analyzing other drivers' behaviors objectively or impartially |
·
anticipating the needs of other drivers and being helpful to
them ·
verbalizing nice sentiments ·
enjoying the ride and relaxing |
|
(b)
Just as in any other aspect
of life, while driving the three-fold self is constantly at work. The
affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor selves guide, unconsciously for the most
part, physical and mental actions that occur behind the wheel. If we are
unaware of our “selves,” we may begin to perform actions that are undesirable
and harmful to our physical and mental health. By becoming aware of our
three-fold driving self we can ultimately become better, safer drivers.
The Three
Behavioral Domains lay in the affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor selves.
Table 1 shows how driving skills and errors fall into the domains. In the
affective domain the driver is feeling positive, negative, cautious, etc.
emotions. In the cognitive domain the driver is actively thinking about the situation
he/she is in. In the sensorimotor domain the driver is physically reacting
(positively or negatively) to a situation. These domains are considered skills
(+) when the actions performed are positive, and errors (-) when the actions
performed are negative.
Next we move on
to the different levels of driver behavior and how the levels are classified in
accordance with the behavioral domains. Here I will briefly summarize each
level and will go into further detail later. Level 1, driver proficiency, centers
mainly on knowledge and actions. Level 2, driver safety, is concerned with how
safe the driver is behind the wheel. Level 3, driver responsibility, deals with
the responsibility of the driver when it comes to his/her actions and the
actions of others. The text makes claim that a driver begins at level 1 and
must build to reach level 3.
When combined
with the skills (+) and errors (-) of the three-fold self the levels of driver
behavior turn into 18 Behavioral Zones of Driving that are set in pairs of two
to form 9 cells. Each level of driving, 1-3, is rated either as a skill (+) or
as an error (-) in terms of the three-fold self. The skills (+) are numbered
1-9 and the errors (-) are numbered 10-18.I will begin my explanations of the 9
cells with Level 1, Proficiency.
Under Affective
Proficiency, A1 (+ or -), the comparison is made between the driver’s respect
and control (1) vs. his/her disrespect and lack of control (10). Cognitive
Proficiency compares the driver’s overall awareness and knowledge (2) vs. the
driver’s faulty thinking (11). Sensorimotor Proficiency compares the driver’s
correct actions (3) vs. the driver’s wrong actions(12).
Level 2 deals
with safety and the three-fold self. Affective Safety compares the driver’s
defensive/supportive driving (4) vs. his/her aggressiveness (13). Cognitive
Safety deals with objective attributions (5) vs. biased attributions (14).
Sensorimotor Safety compares the driver’s calmness (6) vs. the driver’s
rudeness (15).
Level 3 is said
to be the last to be reached as the first two must be conquered before a driver
can be considered responsible. Affective Responsibility compares the driver’s
morality (7) vs. the driver’s lack of conscience (16). Cognitive Responsibility
compares the driver’s positive mental health (8) vs. the driver’s insanity
(17). Sensorimotor Responsibility compares the driver’s enjoyment and
satisfaction (9) vs. the driver’s stress and depression (18).
(c) My husband can be at times a very aggressive driver. He is known
for “shooting the bird” at people. He is passive aggressive in that he will not
verbally yell at another driver, he uses physical gestures or uses his vehicle;
i.e. tailgating, pulling directly in front and slowing, etc. Lately I have been
trying to get him to become more supportive by telling him what I have been
learning in my driving psychology class. He is a perfect candidate to use as my
example of driver behavior in the domains.
Skills:
+A: In bad weather my husband is more cautious particularly if our
infant daughter is in the car.
-A: My husband becomes easily frustrated when people ahead of him
in traffic start letting others in.
+C:
-C: He doesn’t believe old people should be allowed to drive.
+S: My husband pays attention and moves out of the fast lane when
someone comes up behind him.
-S: He “shoots the bird” at drivers who do something that he deems
not right.
(d) I again decide to use my husband for the Driving Personality
Makeover. By becoming a supportive driver he could increase his safety as well
as the safety of his passengers (namely me and my daughter!) and those on the
road with him.
Stage
1: Avoid being Aggressive (Passive or Not!!)
At the affective
level Beau (my husband) needs to first realize that he is an aggressive driver.
He should learn to control his anger and frustration behind the wheel by simply
not allowing himself to feel anger or rage against other drivers. He can also
become more accepting of constructive criticism from others in the vehicle. He
needs to tell himself that becoming angry gets him nowhere fast.
At the cognitive
level Beau needs to logically think out situations. Before criticizing the
actions of others, he should first analyze his own driving. He should become
conscious of how actions he makes affect others. He will hopefully become more
aware of the fact that many actions are not intentional. Then he will not take
direct offense from the actions of other drivers.
At the
sensorimotor level Beau should physically calm himself in stressful situations
by taking deep breaths or talking to himself. He should avoid using profane
gestures while on the highway. He should also avoid hitting the gas too much
when he is angry.
Stage
2: Become Supportive
At the affective
stage Beau needs to develop a sense of compassion on the highway. He needs to
feel responsible for his actions and feel regret at negative behaviors towards
others. He should also learn to enjoy his time in the vehicle and see it as
time to himself.
At the cognitive
stage Beau should actively think about improving his bad driving habits. In
every situation that could turn negative, Beau should think about not
performing his old bad habits, rather he should think about being courteous and
supportive.
At the sensorimotor
level Beau should perform nice gestures to other motorists. He should be sure
to wave when someone performs a nice gesture towards him. By simply relaxing
while he is behind the wheel, he will be able to more easily reduce any rising
tension or frustration.
(e) I actually don’t see myself having many problems executing my
driving makeover on my husband. I have already begun talking to him about his
aggressiveness on the road and he seems to be taking what I say to heart
because he makes comments to me when he does “good” things such as not “giving
the finger” to someone who cuts him off. I believe my husband realizes that he
is not a perfect driver and will be more than willing to work on changing his
bad habits.
(f) I found this exercise to be really interesting as it goes in depth
into the mind and actions of drivers. I believe it can be very useful to
someone who is looking to improve upon their driving.
The Question I am Answering is Question #3:
(a)
Discuss these two Web sites: www.drivers.com
vs. www.drdriving.org by first
describing their overall appearance and purpose. (b) What are their main
differences? Be sure to consider at least these areas: (i) articles (ii)
newsletters (iii) style (iv) probable audience (v) public relations or policy
(vi) advertising (vii) size (viii) Other sites that link to each. (c) Any other
comments you wish to make.
(a) The main
purpose of the drdriving.org site was to educate people about road rage and
aggressive driving. It was filled with stories, interviews, and other facts and
figures about the road. The drivers.com site also had information on traffic
safety, different types of drivers, and traffic law enforcement. Overall I
found the drdriving.org site to be more attractive as well as more explanatory
in the homepage. The drivers.com site was somewhat plain and it was not
immediately evident what information could be found on the site.
(b) Although they contain similar information, the
two websites do have significant differences in the following areas:
(i)
I guess the main difference I noticed in the articles was that in the
drivers.com site the articles were written by different people. In the
drdriving.org site they were all written by Dr. James and Dr. Nahl. Also the
articles in driving.com were written more along the lines of magazine articles
while the articles on drdriving.org looked more like books excerpts.
(ii) As far as
newsletters go the drdriving.org site did not appear to have any newsletters to
go along with it. In comparison driving.com advertised its monthly e-mail
newsletter on their site.
(iii) By far
drdriving.org was more stylish. It had a broader use of color as well as
graphics to go along with the information. The information in driving.com was
very valid, however the plainness did not call my attention to the material as
much as drdriving.org did.
(iv) I would
guess- judging from the appearances of the sites- that the probable audience
for driving.com is middle-age to older adults….while the probable audience for
drdriving.org is teens to young adults. Although drdriving.org would also be
considered attractive for older adults, I think they are just as likely to find
drivers.com interesting. Teens and young adults, on the other hand, would be
more attracted to the display and ease of navigation of drdriving.org.
(v) In their
disclaimer statement drivers.com went into a little more detail. They cited
their material as being on a “best intentions” basis. The drdriving.org
disclaimer was more cut and dry, simply stating they are not liable for any
damages that result from the use of any material on the site.
(vi) In terms
of advertising drivers.com was offering advertisement spots for sale on its
site. Drdriving.org offered no advertisements for sale, however the book Road
Rage and Aggressive Driving was offered for purchase through the site and
amazon.com.
(vii) Size wise I believe
drdriving.org was larger in that it contained more material. The articles in
drdriving.org were much larger than the articles in drivers.com Drdriving.com
also took up the whole page whereas the graphics on drivers.com encompassed
only about 2/3 of the page.
(viii) I
was a little confused by the question of ranking. As I see it I would rank
drivers.com higher than drdriving.org simply because I think there is more of a
variety of information from a variety of sources to be found on that site. I believe
the lack of different authors on the drdriving.org site lends itself to the
possibility of biased information and I also believe many internet users would
appreciate more of a variety on information.
(c) I am not sure exactly what
the point of this exercise was. Dr. James….were you just trying to get input on
your site compared to another driving site? (just to clarify, that is a joke)
The Question I am Answering is Question #4:
(a) Select six student reports on driving psychology from Generation
20, as listed in the Readings Section of the Lecture Notes www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy22/409a-g22-lecture-notes.htm#g20-reports.
You must select any two students from
Report 1, two different students from Report 2, and two still different
students from Report 3. So there will be a total of six different students, two
students from each report. (b) Summarize each of the six reports. Be sure you
put a link to the report you are referring to. (c) Add a General Conclusion
Section in which you discuss your reactions to what they did- (i) their ideas,
(ii) their method, (iii) their explanations. (d) What did they gain from doing
their reports? (e) How do their ideas influence what you yourself think about
these issues? (f) Any other comments you wish to make.
1. Shari Arakawa-Longboy, Report 1 http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/arakawa-longboy/report1.htm
(b) Summary: In Report 1,
General
Conclusion:
(i) I tend
to agree with
(ii)
(iii)
As far as her explanations go I was a
little surprised to read that she believed her traffic psychology class made
her think she might need anger management counseling.
(d)
(e) I definitely agree with
2. Jenny
Arakaki, Report 1 http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/arakaki/report1.htm
(b) Summary: Jenny opens up her report by
stating “Driving psychology
is a course on how to manage your thoughts and emotions while driving on the
road.” She also gives
a brief outline of the course and goes on to define a few terms that were key
to understanding driving psychology. Jenny talks about what she thinks
influences young drivers such as parents and the media. Jenny felt the course
was beneficial because she was able to learn about and work on correcting some
of her own bad habits while on the highway.
General
Conclusion:
(i)
Upon comparing Jenny’s writings to
others, I did not see that Jenny got as much from the class as previous
students. Her writing seemed somewhat dry at times.
(ii)
Jenny’s method was organized,
although somewhat haste at times
(iii) For the
most part I found that Jenny’s explanations were clear and easy to understand. One
thing I did notice was that she tended to place more blame on others for her
own driving bad habits.
(d) Overall it seems that Jenny
gained more basic road knowledge and courtesy
(e) Jenny’s ideas did not have
much influence on me
(f) It appeared as if Jenny was not too interested in her
report. She lacked the depth of other reports I have reviewed.
3. Ikue
Fukushima, Report 2 http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/fukushima/report2.htm
(b) Summary: Ikue summarized her own report
by stating that his Report 2 is a follow up to her Report 1 in that it “examines how road
rage happens in this society.” Ikue
performed a monitored “self-assessment” on her boyfriend (since she did not
have a license or a permit). She then mapped out a driver self-modification
plan using tips from previous generations.
General
Conclusion:
(i)
I believe the tasks that Ikue
performed could be very beneficial to help one monitor and correct their own
driving behaviors
(ii)
She seems to have a good method in
which she followed basic protocol for the experiment
(iii) I found
her conclusions and results interesting in that she determined that long-term
testing was best to successfully evaluate driving behavior because the
behaviors change as time passes
(d) Ikue believed the
experiment was useful to help modify behavior
(e) Her ideas influence me
because they made me think more about monitoring my own behavior more often
over a longer period of time
4. Chris
Concepcion, Report 2 http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/concep/report%202.htm
(b) Summary: Chris’ main purpose of Report
two was to “test myself with various questionnaires from the book Road Rage and
Aggressive Driving.” He
wanted to use the questionnaires to gauge the acts he performs while behind the
wheel. Some of the tests he took included Your Range of Hostility, Your Passive
Aggressive Road Tendency, and Are You a Rushing Maniac. Chris then performed a
driver self-modification act to help him correct his bad behavior.
General
Conclusion:
(i)
Chris seemed to have good ideas, I
got the feeling that he was really serious about working on his driving.
(ii)
I think his method was a good one.
He knew he had to identify the problem before he could begin working on a
solution.
(iii)
Through his explanations it was evident
that he knew his behavior behind the wheel was also a reflection of his
behavior in various other areas
(d) Through doing his report
Chris gained the knowledge that it is very important to be a supportive driver
(e) Again I agree with Chris
that we should all identify our driving shortcomings and then work to improve
on them
5. Jesse
Chang, Report 3 http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/chang/report%203.htm
(b) Summary: In his report Jesse researched
chapter 9 of Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. He did this so that he
might better be able to recognize his own driving problems. Jesse gave a brief
summary of chapter 9. He wrote that it was “mainly about adolescent drivers and how they
are the most accident prone drivers on the road.” According to Jesse the chapter also covered some
causes for aggressive driving and some solutions. Next Jesse discussed some
topics that had been talked about in class. He briefly summarized some of his
classmates’ oral presentations. Jesse then gave his own proposal for lifelong
driver’s education- something he believed was very important for road safety.
General
Conclusion:
(i)
In my opinion Jesse had some great
ideas. He seemed to really think about the logistics of his plans and wanted to
find workable solutions to the problem of road rage
(ii)
His method was concise and
organized.
(iii)
Jesse’s explanations of his topics
were also very in depth. He thoroughly covered every aspect of his paper.
(d) Through his work Jesse learned just who road ragers
are. He learned that the way a person drives is in some form or fashion a
reflection of their personality.
(e) I agree
with Jesse on a lot of issues. I believe life-long education is vital and that
through correcting our problems on the highway we can correct problems in other
areas of our lives.
6. Jeremy
Kubo, Report 3 http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/kubo/report3.htm
(b) Summary: The purpose of Jeremy’s Report
3 was to “understand
the importance of lifelong driver education and how to help implement a
solution to continue this type of education.” Jeremy briefly gave an overview of the chapter on lifelong driver
education found in Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. He then went on to write about class
discussion on the topic of lifelong driver education. He discussed some class
presentations and gave some of his own thoughts and opinions.
General
Conclusion:
(i)
I agree with Jeremy’s idea that
much of our driving attitudes and personalities are culturally based.
(ii)
His method was ok…although it seemed
a little rushed. He could have taken a bit more time to elaborate on some of
his opinions and findings.
(iii)
His explanations were pretty clear-
thought not as clear as the previous student I reported on.
(d) Jeremy gained an awareness
of just how we can end road rage.
(e) I like Jeremy’s ambition, although
I don’t know if it will ever be possible to have “calmness” on the roads….it is
a wonderful goal to aim for.
(f) I thought Jeremy’s Report was great! He seemed to put
in a lot of effort and had many statistics and facts to back up his claims. I
enjoyed reading his report.
The Question I am Answering is Question #5:
(a) Consider Table 5 in the
Lecture Notes, in the Section on Driving Psychology Theory and Charts at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy21/409a-g21-lecture-notes.htm#Charts.
(b) Consult the article from which the Table was taken. (c) Copy and paste the
table into your file. Now delete the examples in each cell and replace them with
your own examples that you make up. (d) Discuss why driving is such a big
problem in all societies and why no effective solutions have yet been found for
them. (e) Discuss the solutions offered by Dr. Leon James (www.DrDriving.org). What likelihood is
there that his approach will be adopted? Explain. (f) Any other comments you
wish to make.
(a) (b) (c)
|
Table
5 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|