کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
587333 | 1453304 | 2016 | 7 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
• The effects of peer riders performing a risky behavior on bicyclists' intention to engage in that behavior were examined.
• Bicyclists evaluated different situations as more or less risky depending on whether they were riding alone/with peers.
• The presence of peer riders inhibited the intention to go straight and facilitated the intention to turn left.
• The risk perception intervenes as a moderator between co-presence and the intention to adopt risky behaviors.
• The study provides new insights concerning the relation between peer-pressure and risk taking.
IntroductionThis study investigated the relation between co-presence and bicyclists' riding behavior. We assumed that the presence of peer riders would either facilitate or inhibit risky behaviors depending on bicyclists' perceptions of three traffic contexts conducive to risk taking (i.e., red-light, go straight, and turn to left).MethodYoung bicyclists (N = 207) were randomly assigned to two experimental conditions (alone vs. with peers). They filled in a scenario-based questionnaire about their intentions to adopt risky behaviors in three specific traffic situations as well as their risk perception of these situations and their general self-perceived efficacy as a bicyclist. We hypothesized that the presence of peer riders engaged in a risky behavior will facilitate the intention to adopt risky behaviors in situations where group risk is evaluated as lower than individual risk. In opposition, the presence of peer riders engaged in a risky behavior will inhibit the intention to adopt risky behaviors in situations where group risk is evaluated as higher than individual risk.ResultsThe results confirmed the hypotheses.Practical ApplicationsThe findings offer insights for developing new effective education and intervention programs in order to reduce the frequency of dangerous behavior among bicyclists.
Journal: Journal of Safety Research - Volume 56, February 2016, Pages 97–103