Sd

DKA

a

ARRA

KSHDEPG

1

r(esaoAtifhpocttds

Uf

0h

Accident Analysis and Prevention 54 (2013) 39– 45

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

j ourna l h o mepage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /aap

tereotype threat and hazard perception among provisional licenserivers

aniel P. Skorich ∗, Hugh Webb, Lisa Stewart, Maria Kostyanaya, Tegan Cruwys,athy McNeill, Andrew J. Frain, Li Lim, Benjamin M. Jones, Lillian Smyth, Kerry J. O’Brien

ustralian National University, Australia

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 22 November 2012eceived in revised form 25 January 2013ccepted 1 February 2013

eywords:

a b s t r a c t

Stereotype threat refers to the negative impact a stereotype about one’s group can have on one’s per-formance in domains relevant to the stereotype. In the current paper, we explore whether the negativestereotype of provisional license drivers (PLDs) might produce stereotype threat in a driving-relatedhazard perception task. We manipulate threat by asking participants to self-identify as PLDs in a cate-gorization condition, or by reminding PLD participants explicitly of the stereotype of PLDs in an explicit

tereotype threatazard perceptionrivingffortrovisional license driversraduated driver licensing

stereotype condition. Results reveal increments in hazard perception in the categorization condition,and decrements in hazard perception in the explicit stereotype condition. Mediation analysis revealsthat hazard perception performance is fully mediated by increased effort in the categorization conditionand by decreased effort in the explicit stereotype condition. We discuss these findings in terms of theirimplications for stereotype threat and its mediators, and for public policy that explicitly discriminatesbetween PLDs and other driver groups.

. Introduction

In many jurisdictions around the world, novice drivers areequired to go through a provisional or probationary license stagee.g., in most US states, in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australiatc.), before being granted an unrestricted license. These provi-ional license drivers (PLDs) are often considered by legislatorsnd the wider community to be particularly unskilled and danger-us drivers. Indeed, the evidence generally supports this view. Inustralia, for example, PLDs are two and a half times more likely

o be involved in a traffic accident, and two times more likely to benvolved in a fatal traffic accident than other drivers (NSW Centreor Road Safety, 2010). Media discussions and legislative debates onow to deal with traffic accidents among PLDs often emphasize theoor driving skills of this group and contrast these with the skills ofther driver groups (Blows et al., 2005; Hinchcliff et al., 2010). In theurrent paper, we discuss the implications of this negative stereo-ype of PLDs for their driving performance in light of stereotypehreat theory’s (STT; Steele and Aronson, 1995; Steele, 1997) pre-

ictions of performance decrements under conditions of negativetereotype threat.

∗ Corresponding author at: Research School of Psychology, Australian Nationalniversity, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Tel.: +61 2 6125 6298;

ax: +61 2 6125 0499.E-mail address: Daniel.Skorich@anu.edu.au (D.P. Skorich).

001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.02.002

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.1. Background

Young drivers in general, and PLDs in particular, are over-represented in motor vehicle accidents, including fatal accidents(Lam, 2003a). In the Australian state of Queensland, for example,PLDs represent 5.3% of the licensed driving population, but 8.6% ofdrivers involved in fatal accidents (DTMR, 2011). There are manyfactors associated with vehicle accidents among young drivers, andby extension among PLDs. There is evidence that the type of vehicledriven by young drivers (i.e., older, smaller, less road-worthy vehi-cles, Williams et al., 2006), the time of day when young driversare likely to drive (i.e., at night), and the style in which youngdrivers more commonly drive (i.e., above the speed limit or underthe influence of alcohol, Keall et al., 2004) are all implicated in thehigher accident and fatality rates. A variety of psychosocial and atti-tudinal factors are also known to contribute to the accident rateamong young drivers, including impaired risk perception (Clarkeet al., 2005), risk-taking attitudes (Ulleberg and Rundmo, 2003,2008), lower self-control and heightened levels of aggression (Beggand Langley, 2004), higher levels of anxiety, reward-sensitivity andsensation-seeking (Scott-Parker et al., 2012b), higher susceptibilityto peer pressure (Lin and Fearn, 2003; Scott-Parker et al., 2012a),and an optimism bias (White et al., 2011), such that young drivers

generally believe they will be less likely to have a traffic accidentthan their peers.

The factor most widely thought to be associated with theincreased accident risk among young drivers and PLDs is, however,

4 alysis

tiHfhtfriwcad

mwpwsotgaicgdtGddcstlfynawdo2Pe

irbIeeiastassaesaoae

0 D.P. Skorich et al. / Accident An

heir relative inexperience, and their consequent lack of driv-ng skill compared to other driver groups (Ginsburg et al., 2008;artos et al., 2001; Wong et al., 1990). Lam (2003b) has shown,

or example, that learner drivers with less experience have notablyigher crash rates than those with more experience, suggestinghat there is a linear or asymptotic increase in driving skill as aunction of time behind the wheel. Similarly, Mayhew et al. (2003)eveal that crash rates among teenage drivers decrease dramat-cally during the first six months of driving – a period during

hich novice drivers are learning the basic operations of the vehi-le – and then continue to decrease at a slower pace thereafters novice drivers hone their skills in the more complex aspects ofriving.

The finding that young drivers’ inexperience and lack of skillay be contributing significantly to their increased risk of accidentsas one of the main motivating factors behind the introduction ofrovisional licensing provisions in many jurisdictions around theorld, often as part of a broader graduated driver licensing (GDL)

ystem. During the provisional license stage, the novice driver isften subject to restrictions not imposed on other drivers, such ashe time of day they are allowed to drive, the number of passen-ers they are allowed to transport, the speed at which they arellowed to travel, and the permissible blood alcohol level. Theres some evidence that these measures have a positive impact onrash rates. Shope (2002) reviewed 21 studies assessing GDL pro-rams in 14 jurisdictions across the US and Canada, and found aecrease in crash rates among PLDs following implementation ofhe GDL. Ulmer et al. (2000) have shown that the introduction of aDL in Florida led to a decrease of 9% in the crash rate among youngrivers, and that no such reduction was observed across the bor-er in Alabama where no GDL had been introduced. Jones (1990)ompared those drivers in Oregon who had been through a provi-ional licensing stage to those who had received their license prioro implementation of GDL in the state, and found that PLDs tookonger to prepare for their driving tests and did not fail them asrequently as non-PLDs. He also found that accident rates amongoung males fell by 16% post-implementation, while there waso difference in accident rates among females. In a recent meta-nalysis, Zhu et al. (2012) found that GDL programs were associatedith a 22% decrease in crash rates among 16 year old drivers, a 6%ecrease among 17 year old drivers, and no decrease among 18 yearld drivers (see also Cooper et al., 2005; Hedland and Compton,005; Masten and Hagge, 2004; McCartt et al., 2010; McKnight andeck, 2003; Simpson, 2003; Williams and Shults, 2010; Williamst al., 2012).

Despite some evidence that GDL programs have a positivempact on accident and fatality rates among young drivers, itemains unclear which of the GDL and PLD provisions are responsi-le for the positive outcomes (Hedland et al., 2006; Simpson, 2003).t is important to understand which components are the mostffective – and the processes by which those components becomeffective – in order to maximize the benefits of PLD provisions, andn order to review those aspects that may be detrimental. Mastennd Hagge (2004) have shown that at least some of the effect of pas-enger restrictions on the fatality rate can be attributed simply tohe decrease in the number of passengers present in a vehicle when

crash occurs, rather than to decreases in the rate of crashes pere. Despite this outcome being a positive one, it does suggests thatome of the provisions may not be having their intended effects,nd it is not unreasonable to suggest that some of the unintendedffects may not be as positive as those in the cited example. Oneuch unintended negative effect – which is the focus of this paper

nd the experiment we report – may arise from the simple processf making an explicit distinction between the driving skill of PLDsnd other drivers, and the negative stereotype threat that PLDs mayxperience as a result.

and Prevention 54 (2013) 39– 45

1.2. Stereotype threat

Steele and Aronson (1995) proposed that negative stereo-types about one’s group could lead to decrements in performancealong dimensions relevant to the negative stereotype; a phe-nomenon they termed stereotype threat. Across 4 experiments,these researchers demonstrated that African-American college stu-dents’ performance on a test of verbal abilities suffered when thetest was said to be diagnostic of intellectual ability, and/or whenthe negative stereotype of African-American intellectual abilitywas made salient to participants (see also, Aronson et al., 2002;Blascovich et al., 2001). This stereotype threat effect has been repli-cated with various groups across a variety of domains including:Latinos’ mathematical and spatial performance relative to whites(Gonzales et al., 2002), women’s mathematical performance rel-ative to men (Spencer et al., 1999), white men’s mathematicalperformance relative to Asian men (Aronson et al., 1999), theacademic performance of students from low socio-economic back-grounds (Croizet and Claire, 2001), white men’s athletic abilityrelative to African-American men (Stone et al., 1999), and whites’performance on the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al.,1998) when the IAT is said to be diagnostic of racism (Frantz et al.,2004).

Of particular interest to the current paper is the research ofYeung and Von Hippel (2008), which implicates stereotype threatin driving performance. These researchers recruited female partici-pants to complete a driving task in a driving simulator. Participantswere allocated to either a control condition – where they weretold the purpose of the study was to assess the mental pro-cesses involved in driving – or to a stereotype threat condition –where participants were told that the purpose of the study was toinvestigate the reason why men are better drivers than women.Following the manipulation of threat, all participants completedan 8.8 km simulated drive around a rural dual-carriageway envi-ronment, in which an unexpected jaywalking incident occurred.Results showed that women who were reminded of the negativestereotype of female drivers were more than twice as likely to col-lide with the jaywalker than women who were not reminded of thestereotype. These results reveal the power of negative stereotypesto impact on driving performance, and potentially on crash rates.

1.3. Stereotype threat mechanisms

Despite a wealth of empirical research into the stereotype threatphenomenon, the mechanisms by which negative stereotypesimpact on performance remain unclear. A number of mediatorshave been proposed, including arousal (Ben-Zeev et al., 2005), anx-iety (Spencer et al., 1999), self-doubt (Steele and Aronson, 1995),and working memory efficiency (Schmader et al., 2008). A fur-ther suggested mediator is the threatened individual’s achievementfocus and resultant effort expended on the task, where an individ-ual can both increase and decrease effort, depending on the wayin which the stereotype threat is elicited. Stone and McWhinnie(2008) have shown that a blatant stereotype (i.e., one where theparticipant is reminded explicitly of his or her group’s poor per-formance relative to another group) will lead to a conservativeapproach where effort is withdrawn, while a subtle stereotype(i.e., one where the participant perceives him or herself in termsof the stereotyped group, but where the negative content of thestereotype is not explicitly invoked) will lead to a more pro-activeapproach where effort is increased. These researchers asked femaleparticipants to complete a golf task, prior to which threat was

manipulated by reminding female participants of their group’s poorathletic performance relative to men – in the blatant stereotypecondition – or by having a male experimenter introduce partic-ipants to the task – in the subtle stereotype condition. These

alysis

rdnittrcbtttia

ne(iKetmfm2pIrwrp

pspistititptto

SHietem

1

aPbersc

D.P. Skorich et al. / Accident An

esearchers found that participants in the blatant stereotype con-ition required more strokes to complete the course, but wereo less accurate on the last putt of each hole than participants

n the control condition – suggesting that participants in the bla-ant stereotype condition took a more conservative approach tohe task in order not to fail, and in so doing withdrew effort. Theseesearchers also found that participants in the subtle stereotypeondition performed less accurately on the last putt of each hole,ut did not require more strokes to complete the course than par-icipants in the control condition – suggesting that participants inhe subtle stereotype condition took a more pro-active approach tohe task in an attempt to disprove the stereotype, and in so doingncreased effort, but also performed more poorly when precisionnd accuracy were required.

This dual-process effort mediation hypothesis is supported by aumber of other studies in the area. Corroborating the idea thatffort will be withdrawn when the stereotype is blatant, Stone2002) has shown that white athletes practice less in an athlet-cs test if the test is framed as a test of “natural ability”. Similarly,eller and Dauenheimer (2003) have found that women experi-nce feelings of dejection and loss of motivation when subjectedo a mathematics test that is said to uncover gender differences; a

anipulation that emphasizes the participants’ group’s poor per-ormance. Corroborating the idea that increased effort can also

ediate stereotype threat effects, Jamieson and Harkins (2007,009) have shown that threatened individuals will attempt to dis-rove the negative stereotype, thereby expending additional effort.

t appears likely, therefore, that a blatant or explicit stereotypeeminder will cause participants to decrease the effort they expend,hile a subtle reminder of the stereotype – including a simple

eminder of the participant’s category membership – will causearticipants to increase the effort they expend.

Jamieson and Harkins (2007, 2009) have also shown the specificrocess by which effort will lead to effects on performance, and, ino doing, they have discovered that the relative difficulty or sim-licity of the task undertaken by participants is an important factor

n the performance outcome. Specifically, these researchers havehown that increased effort will lead to performance decrements ifhe task is difficult, but also potentially to performance incrementsf the task is simple. Jamieson and Harkins (2007, 2009) suggesthat when attempting to disprove the stereotype, participants willncrease their emphasis on prepotent or dominant responses. If theask is a difficult one, then decrements will be evident, because therepotent responses will often be incorrect. If the task is simple,hen increased performance will be evident, because the prepo-ent response will either be correct or participants will have anpportunity to correct their responses.

Taken together, the results of Stone and McWhinnie (2008),tone (2002), Keller and Dauenheimer (2003) and Jamieson andarkins (2007, 2009) suggest that stereotype threat can lead to

ncreased or decreased effort. An increase in effort can then leadither to performance decrements – when the task is difficult – oro performance increments – when the task is simple. Decreasedffort, on the other hand, will invariably lead to decreased perfor-ance, irrespective of the difficulty of the task.

.4. The current experiment

In the current experiment, we test this dual-process effort medi-tion hypothesis in the context of a hazard perception task amongLDs. Hazard perception is a relatively simple task that is a closeut abridged analogue of real-world driving (Deery, 1999; Isler

t al., 2009). This task, therefore, allows us to test whether beingeminded of one’s status as a PLD or being explicitly reminded of thetereotype of PLDs will have an impact on driving. The hazard per-eption task also allows us to test whether threatened participants

and Prevention 54 (2013) 39– 45 41

are withdrawing effort or expending additional effort, becausewithdrawal of effort should lead to decrements in performance in asimple task such as this, while increased effort should lead to incre-ments in performance. We manipulate stereotype threat by askingPLDs to indicate whether they are PLDs (in the categorization con-dition), or by reminding them explicitly of the stereotype of PLDs(in the explicit stereotype condition). We then measure their per-formance on the hazard perception task, and the effort they expendin completing the task. Performance is measured by the numberof times participants fail to respond when there is in fact a haz-ard (a false negative, which, in the real-world, could lead to trafficaccidents), and effort is measured by the number of times partici-pants respond incorrectly that there is a hazard when in fact thereis none (a false positive, which demonstrates that participants arehyper-vigilant to hazards, and therefore that they are expendingadditional effort). We hypothesize that PLDs will show increasedhazard perception in the categorization condition (H1), because thetask is an easy one that increased effort will facilitate. In contrast,we hypothesize that PLDs will show decreased hazard perceptionin the explicit stereotype condition relative to the categorizationcondition (H2), because being reminded explicitly of the stereo-type is likely to lead participants to withdraw effort. For this reason,we also hypothesize that participants will expend less effort in theexplicit stereotype condition than in the categorization condition(H3). In fact, we predict that the relationship between stereotypethreat and hazard perception will be mediated by effort (H4).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

One hundred and thirty-three participants were recruited froman undergraduate student pool. In order to avoid priming thestereotype of PLDs for those participants in the control condition,the posters used for recruitment did not indicate that the exper-iment was concerned with PLDs. As a result of this recruitmentstrategy, forty-nine participants were not PLDs and therefore hadto be excluded. The final sample thus consisted of 84 participants,45 females and 39 males. Males and females were approximatelyequally distributed across the three conditions. The mean age was18.84 years, with a standard deviation of 1.36. Participants receivedeither AUS$5 or 30 min course credit for an introductory psychologycourse as compensation for their participation. A typical experi-mental session lasted between 10 and 20 min. Ethics clearance wasobtained from the Australian National University Human ResearchEthics Committee.

2.2. Design

The experiment employed a single factor (threat condition:control/categorization/explicit stereotype) between-participantsdesign. The dependent variables were false negative (performance)and false positive (effort) responses in the hazard perception task.

2.3. Procedure

The experiment was conducted as a computer-based study in alaboratory setting. Millisecond Inquisit v. 3 was used to present allstimuli and collect all data.

Phase 1: baseline hazard perception. The first hazard percep-tion task was used to ascertain participants’ baseline abilities athazard perception. Participants watched a video of 78 s in length,

taken from the point of view of a driver negotiating an urbanenvironment. Participants were asked to identify any hazards theyperceived while watching the video, where hazards were definedas “(1) any moving vehicle that could potentially pose a danger to

42 D.P. Skorich et al. / Accident Analysis

Fe

ybapittchtptcT

mgttgeti

(

(

(

(

twtt

y

ig. 1. Screen capture of hazard perception task, showing vehicle hazard, in thexplicit stereotype condition.

ou if you hadn’t seen it”, “(2) any vehicle which indicates with itslinkers, its brake or its reverse lights that it might begin movingnd potentially pose a danger to you if you hadn’t seen it”, “(3) anyedestrians in your field of vision”, or “(4) any pedestrian cross-

ngs (where there is always the potential for an unseen pedestriano step out suddenly onto the street)”. Participants were then toldhat the two former types of hazards could be classified as “vehi-le hazards” while the two latter could be classified as “pedestrianazards”. Participants were asked to spot hazards and to identifyhem as quickly and as accurately as possible as either vehicle oredestrian hazards. Participants used the ‘f’ and ‘j’ keys to indicateheir responses, which were recorded. The type of hazard asso-iated with these keys was counterbalanced across participants.here were a total of 18 events in the video deemed to be hazards.

Phase 2: threat manipulation. Following phase 1, threat wasanipulated. In the control condition, participants were simply

iven instructions for the second hazard perception task and askedo proceed. In the categorization condition, participants were askedo indicate with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response if they were PLDs, theniven the instructions for the second hazard perception task. In thexplicit stereotype condition, participants were asked to indicate ifhey were PLDs, after which they were provided with the followingnformation about PLDs:

“Some facts about P-platers (Roads and Traffic Authority, 2010):

1) P-platers (i.e., provisional licence drivers) are two and a halftimes more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than otherdrivers.

2) P-platers are two times more likely to be involved in a fataltraffic accident than other drivers.

3) Governments require P-platers to display P-plates1 on their carsin order to alert other drivers that a less skilled driver is behindthe wheel.

4) In community-wide surveys, people regularly state that theyview P-platers as bad drivers who lack many of the requiredskills for proficient driving.”

Phase 3: hazard perception task. The second hazard perceptionask was identical to the first, except that a different video of 95 s

as used. In the categorization and explicit stereotype conditions,

he video was surrounded by four identical “P-plates” (see Fig. 1). Inhe control condition, the video was surrounded by four identical,

1 In Australia, PLDs are required to display “P-plates” on their vehicles for up to 3ears, to indicate to other drivers that they are PLDs.

and Prevention 54 (2013) 39– 45

grayscale graphical depictions of a vehicle. There were a total of 19events in the video deemed to be hazards.

Phase 4: demographic and other questions. Following the hazardperception task, participants were asked to indicate their age, theirgender, and their agreement on a 7-point scale from (1) stronglydisagree to (7) strongly agree, with a series of questions relating totheir driving experience and their perception of other PLDs.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of analyses

Two measures were calculated from participants’ responses:(1) a false negative measure, which represents the primary the-oretical dependent variable, on which we expect performance inhazard perception to be evident (where a high score reflects per-formance decrements), and (2) a false positive measure, whichrepresents the proposed effort mechanism through which weexpect decrements in performance to be mediated (where a highscore reflects increased effort). False negatives were calculated byadding together all those instances where hazards appeared butparticipants failed to respond. False positives were calculated byadding together all those instances where participants respondedin the absence of obvious hazards.

3.2. Stereotype of PLDs

In order for stereotype threat to be experienced by partici-pants, it is essential that they be aware of the stereotype of PLDs(Wheeler and Petty, 2001). Both the measure of the community’sstereotype of PLDs and the measure of the participant’s own atti-tude toward PLDs showed that participants were aware of thestereotype. For example, when presented with the statement “thestereotype of (i.e., the community’s attitude toward) P-plate driversis generally positive”, the mean level of agreement was 2.42, whichis significantly below the mid-point of the scale, t(83) = −12.15,p < .001, suggesting that participants thought the community’s atti-tude toward PLDs was generally negative.

3.3. Hazard perception performance

In order to test our primary hypothesis that inducing stereotypethreat among PLDs will impact on hazard perception, a one-waybetween-participants ANOVA was conducted on the false neg-ative dependent variable, with baseline false negatives enteredas a covariate. A significant effect of threat was uncovered, F(2,79) = 4.55, p = .013 (see Fig. 2). Simple effects analyses revealed thatthe mean number of false negatives was significantly higher inthe control condition (M = 9.42, SD = 3.1) than in the categoriza-tion condition (M = 8.39, SD = 3.19), t(81) = 2.1, p = .039, d = .33, andsignificantly higher in the explicit stereotype condition (M = 10.81,SD = 3.92) than in the categorization condition (M = 8.39, SD = 3.19),t(81) = 2.88, p = .005, d = .68. No significant difference was foundbetween the control condition and the explicit stereotype condi-tion, t(81) = .73, p = .47.

Given that gender stereotypes have been shown to impact ondriving performance (e.g., Yeung and Von Hippel, 2008), it is pos-sible that gender might also be implicated here. In the absenceof a gender stereotype manipulation, however, we expect nosuch effects to emerge. In order to test the effect of gender, a 2

(gender: male/female) × 3 (threat: control/categorization/explicitstereotype) between-participants ANOVA was conducted on thefalse negative dependent variable, with baseline false negativesentered as a covariate. As expected, no significant main effect of

D.P. Skorich et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 54 (2013) 39– 45 43

g7

3

acltetStrcnt

eian

Fig. 2. The impact of threat condition on mean number of false negatives.

ender, F(1, 79) = .082, p = .775, or gender by threat interaction, F(2,9) = .11, p = .896, was uncovered.

.4. Effort

In order to test whether the stereotype threat manipulation hadny effect on effort, a one-way between-participants ANOVA wasonducted on the false positive dependent variable, with base-ine false positives entered as a covariate. A significant effect ofhreat was uncovered, F(2, 79) = 4.45, p = .015 (see Fig. 3). Simpleffects analyses revealed that the mean number of false posi-ives was significantly higher in the control condition (M = 3.5,D = 1.92) than the explicit stereotype condition (M = 2.19, SD = 1.3),(81) = 2.19, p = .031, d = .79, and significantly higher in the catego-ization condition (M = 4.1, SD = 2.5) than in the explicit stereotypeondition (M = 2.19, SD = 1.3), t(81) = 2.87, p = .005, d = 1.47. No sig-ificant difference was found between the control condition andhe categorization condition, t(81) = .64, p = .527.

Given that gender stereotypes have been shown to impact on

ffort in a driving-related task (e.g., Yeung and Von Hippel, 2008),t is possible that gender might also be implicated here. In thebsence of a gender stereotype manipulation, however, we expecto such effects to emerge. In order to test the effect of gender, a 2

Fig. 3. The impact of threat condition on mean number of false positives.

Fig. 4. Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between threat con-dition and false negatives, as mediated by effort. *p < .05, **p < .01 and ***p < .001.

(gender: male/female) × 3 (threat: control/categorization/explicitstereotype) between-participants ANOVA was conducted on thefalse positive dependent variable, with baseline false positivesentered as a covariate. As expected, no significant main effect ofgender, F(1, 79) = .524, p = .471, or gender by threat interaction, F(2,79) = .064, p = .938, was uncovered.

3.5. Mediation analysis

A mediation analysis was conducted in order to test whether therelationship between threat and hazard perception performancewas mediated by effort. As predicted, the relationship betweenthreat and hazard perception performance was fully mediated byeffort. As Fig. 4 illustrates, the standardized regression coefficientbetween threat and hazard perception performance decreased sig-nificantly when effort was controlled for.

4. Discussion

As predicted, participants showed an increase in hazard per-ception performance in the categorization condition (H1), and adecrease in performance in the explicit stereotype condition rela-tive to the categorization condition (H2). Analysis of the number offalse positives revealed that stereotype threat also had an impacton the effort participants expended in completing the task, withmore effort expended in the categorization condition than in theexplicit stereotype condition (H3). This effort effect was found tofully mediate the relationship between threat and performance inhazard perception (H4). These results have important implicationsfor debates about the mechanisms underlying stereotype threat,and for policy decisions with regard to discriminating betweenPLDs and other drivers. We discuss these implications in turn.

4.1. Stereotype threat and effort among PLDs

These results suggest that inducing stereotype threat can leadto increased effort, and that this increased effort can lead to per-formance increments when, as here, the task is relatively simple(Jamieson and Harkins, 2007, 2009). These results also suggest thatmaking a stereotype explicit can lead participants to decrease efforton the task (Stone, 2002; Stone and McWhinnie, 2008) and thatthis decreased effort will lead to performance decrements. Thesefindings shed light on the potential mediators of stereotype threat,and support Stone and McWhinnie’s (2008) dual-process hypoth-esis. Specifically, our results suggest that a subtle stereotype threatmanipulation – in this case mere self-identification as a PLD – willlead to increased effort as the participant attempts to disprove the

stereotype, while a blatant stereotype threat manipulation – in thiscase an explicit reminder of the statistics with regard to PLD’s driv-ing skills, and the community’s attitudes toward PLDs – will leadto decreased effort as the participant self-handicaps.

4 alysis

i2i(srFtftThp(st(bwiwo

4

stotWihrtHhmohIsilfitmeagp

snmtabobeppmt

4 D.P. Skorich et al. / Accident An

Our results also allow for the dual-process hypothesis to bentegrated with the arguments of Jamieson and Harkins (2007,009). First, we show that increased effort can be an outcome of

nducing stereotype threat, but, in line with Stone and McWhinnie2008), our results reveal the bounds of this effect. Second, wehow that increased effort can lead to increments in performance,ather than decrements when, as here, the task is relatively simple.inally, our results show that inducing stereotype threat can leado decreased effort, and, that performance decrements will resultrom this decreased effort, even in a relatively simple task such ashe hazard perception task employed in the current experiment.his finding brings together the simplicity/difficulty distinction,ighlighted by Jamieson and Harkins (2007, 2009), and the dual-rocess effort distinction, highlighted by Stone and McWhinnie2008), within a single model. When integrated with the existingtereotype threat literature, our results suggest that: (1) stereo-ype threat will lead to increased effort when the threat is subtle,2) stereotype threat will lead to decreased effort when the threat islatant, (3) increased effort will lead to increments in performancehen the task is simple, (4) increased effort will lead to decrements

n performance when the task is difficult, and (5) decreased effortill lead to decrements in performance irrespective of the difficulty

f the task.

.2. Policy implications

In addition to the implications of these results for understandingtereotype threat and its mediators, these results also demonstratehat stereotype threat effects could be operating among a previ-usly unstudied but negatively stereotyped group: PLDs. It is clearhat the stereotype of PLDs can impact on driving performance.

hile the current experiment revealed performance incrementsn the categorization condition – apparently an improvement inazard perception – it is important to interpret these results witheference to the simplicity of the hazard perception task rela-ive to real-world driving, and with reference to Jamieson andarkins (2007, 2009) mere effort hypothesis. These researchersave shown that increased effort can lead to performance incre-ents, but, importantly, that these performance increments will

nly be evident for simple tasks. For complex tasks, on the otherand, performance decrements will more than likely be evident.

n the complex task of real-world driving, in contrast to theimple task of hazard perception, it is therefore likely that thencreased effort induced by the subtle stereotype reminder wouldead to performance decrements, as Yeung and Von Hippel’s (2008)ndings demonstrate for female drivers. Our results show thathere are two opposing mechanisms by which stereotype threat

ight have its effect on driving: increased effort and decreasedffort. When taken in the context of the mere effort hypothesisnd the broader stereotype threat literature, these results sug-est that both mechanisms will likely be detrimental to drivingerformance.

In light of these ideas and of the current results, it is rea-onable to suggest that PLDs might be more prone to accidentsot only because they are novice drivers who lack the skills ofore advanced drivers, but also because they experience nega-

ive stereotype threat while driving. As such, these results provide preliminary indication that policy that explicitly discriminatesetween PLDs and other drivers (in some jurisdictions with obvi-us displays such as “P-plates”) might need to be revisited. It coulde that this discrimination is one of the causes of the poor drivingxhibited by PLDs, alongside other known factors such as inex-

erience, impaired risk perception, higher susceptibility to peerressure, etc. Follow-up studies in driving simulators – in whichore nuanced measures of driving performance than those used in

he current experiment could be included, in a more realistic setting

and Prevention 54 (2013) 39– 45

than that of the current experiment – need to be conducted. Thecosts of identifying PLDs as different from other drivers (in termsof driving performance) relative to the benefits derived from alert-ing other road users to the presence of PLDs (in terms of increasedvigilance and safety) also need to be explored in detail.

If it were found that young drivers remained relatively poordrivers despite the removal of explicit discrimination betweenthem and other drivers – a plausible result, given what is alreadyknown about driving among PLDs – these results suggest that thebenefits of GDL programs could still be enhanced by changing theway in which discussions about PLDs are framed. A positive impactmight be achieved by shifting the focus away from the negative per-formance of PLDs as a group relative to other drivers, to a focus onthe high number of PLDs who are in fact very safe and skilled drivers(Kleisen, 2012). By adopting a different comparative frame, and bymodifying the media and legislative discussions around PLD behav-ior, it should be possible to change the stereotype of PLDs from anegative one to a positive one (Haslam and Turner, 1992), therebydecreasing or removing the threat of the stereotype, which mightthen result in decreased crash rates and overall safer driving. Thesepreliminary suggestions should, of course, be taken with caution,as further research assessing the extent of the impact of stereotypethreat on driving performance among PLDs relative to the impactof other known risk factors needs to be conducted before strongconclusions can be drawn.

These results also have implications for parents of PLDs, many ofwhom will be the first, and in some cases only, driving instructorsfor many young drivers. In light of these results, it is importantfor parents of PLDs not to reinforce the stereotype of PLDs aspoor drivers, but rather to focus on the ability of young driversto improve their performance over time. When discussions appearon the radio or in the print media about the poor driving of PLDs, itis contingent on parents to discuss the stereotype, debunk it wherenecessary, and assure the young driver that they can overcome thestereotype, because, with appropriate guidance and instruction, itneed not apply to them. As above, shifting the focus onto the pos-itive aspects of PLDs’ driving, rather than their mistakes, may helpto remove the threat of the negative stereotype.

4.3. Conclusion

The current experiment demonstrated that the negativestereotype of PLDs induced stereotype threat, which led to per-formance increments in hazard perception when participantsself-categorized as PLDs and performance decrements when par-ticipants were explicitly reminded of the stereotype of PLDs.Mediation analysis showed that this effect was due to increasedeffort in the categorization condition and decreased effort in theexplicit stereotype condition, a finding which supports Stone andMcWhinnie’s (2008) dual-process hypothesis. We hope that ourcontribution will add to discussions regarding stereotype threatand its mediators, and to public policy debate concerning PLDs andGDL programs.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Laura Wedd for planting the seed ofthe idea that became this research project, and Vincent Fogliati foradvice and feedback throughout the project.

References

Aronson, J., Fried, C.B., Good, C., 2002. Reducing the effects of stereotype threat onAfrican American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journalof Experimental Social Psychology 38, 113–125.

alysis

A

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

D

F

G

G

G

H

H

H

H

H

I

J

J

J

K

K

K

L

L

D.P. Skorich et al. / Accident An

ronson, J., Lustina, M.J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C.M., Brown, J., 1999. Whenwhite men can’t do math: necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35 (1), 29–46.

egg, D.J., Langley, J.D., 2004. Identifying predictors of persistent non-alcohol ordrug-related risky driving behaviours among a cohort of young adults. AccidentAnalysis and Prevention 36 (6), 1067–1071.

en-Zeev, T., Fein, S., Inzlicht, M., 2005. Arousal and stereotype threat. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology 41, 174–181.

lascovich, J., Spencer, S.J., Quinn, D., Steele, C., 2001. African Americans and highblood pressure: the role of stereotype threat. Psychological Science 12 (3),225–229.

lows, S., Ivers, R.Q., Chapman, S., 2005. “Banned from the streets I have paid to use”:an analysis of Australian print media coverage of proposals for passenger andnight driving restrictions for young drivers. Injury Prevention 11, 304–308.

larke, D.D., Ward, P., Truman, W., 2005. Voluntary risk taking and skill deficitsin young driver accidents in the UK. Accident Analysis and Prevention 37 (3),523–529.

ooper, D., Atkins, F., Gillen, D., 2005. Measuring the impact of passenger restrictionson new teenage drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 37, 19–23.

roizet, J.C., Claire, T., 2001. Extending the concept of stereotype threat to socialclass: the intellectual underperformance of students from low socio-economicbackgrounds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (6), 588–594.

eery, H.A., 1999. Hazard and risk perception among young novice drivers. Journalof Safety Research 30 (4), 225–236.

TMR, 2011. 2010 Queensland Road Toll in Review. Queensland Government.Department of Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane.

rantz, C.M., Cuddy, A.J.C., Burnett, M., Ray, H., Hart, A., 2004. A threat in thecomputer: the race implicit association test as a stereotype threat experience.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (12), 1611–1624.

insburg, K.R., Winston, F.K., Senserrick, T.M., Garcia-Espana, F., Kinsman, S.,Quistberg, A., Ross, J.G., Elliot, M.R., 2008. National young-driver survey: teenperspective and experience with factors that affect driving safety. Pediatrics121 (5), e1391–e1403.

onzales, P.M., Blanton, H., Williams, K.J., 2002. The effects of stereotype threat anddouble-minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (5), 659–670.

reenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E., Schwartz, J.L.K., 1998. Measuring individual differ-ences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 74 (6), 1464–1480.

artos, J.L., Eitel, P., Simons-Morton, B., 2001. Do parent-imposed delayed licen-sure and restricted driving reduce risky driving behaviors among newly licensedteens? Prevention Science 2 (2.), 113–122.

aslam, S.A., Turner, J.C., 1992. Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping2: the relationship between frame of reference, self-categorization, and accen-tuation. European Journal of Social Psychology 22 (3), 251–277.

edland, J., Compton, R., 2005. Graduated driver licensing research in 2004 and 2005.Journal of Safety Research 36, 109–119.

edland, J., Shults, R., Compton, R., 2006. Graduated driver licensing and teenagedriver research in 2006. Journal of Safety Research 37, 107–121.

inchcliff, R., Chapman, S., Ivers, R.Q., Senserrick, T., Du, W., 2010. Media fram-ing of graduated licencing policy debates. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42,1283–1287.

sler, R.B., Starkey, N.J., Williamson, A.R., 2009. Video-based road commentary train-ing improves hazard perception of young drivers in a dual task. Accident Analysisand Prevention 41 (3.), 445–452.

amieson, J.P., Harkins, S.G., 2007. Mere effort and stereotype threat performanceeffects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93 (4), 544–564.

amieson, J.P., Harkins, S.G., 2009. The effect of stereotype threat on the solving ofquantitative GRE problems: a mere effort interpretation. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin 35 (10), 1301–1314.

ones, B., 1990. The effectiveness of provisional licensing in Oregon: an analysis oftraffic safety benefits. Journal of Safety Research 25 (1), 33–46.

eller, J., Dauenheimer, D., 2003. Stereotype threat in the classroom: dejection medi-ates the disrupting threat effect on women’s math performance. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin 29 (3), 371–381.

eall, M.D., Frith, W.J., Patterson, T.L., 2004. The influence of alcohol, age, and num-ber of passengers on the night-time risk of driver fatal injury in New Zealand.Accident Analysis and Prevention 36, 49–61.

leisen, L.M.B., 2012. A positive view on road safety: can ‘car karma’contribute to safe driving styles? Accident Analysis and Prevention,doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.06.022.

am, L.T., 2003a. Factors associated with young drivers’ car crash injury: com-

parisons among learner, provisional and full licensees. Accident Analysis andPrevention 35, 913–920.

am, L.T., 2003b. Factors associated with fatal and injurious car crash among learnerdrivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35,333–340.

and Prevention 54 (2013) 39– 45 45

Lin, M.L., Fearn, K.T., 2003. The provisional license: night-time and passenger restric-tions – a literature review. Journal of Safety Research 34, 51–61.

Masten, S.V., Hagge, R.A., 2004. Evaluation of California’s graduated driver licensingprogram. Journal of Safety Research 35, 523–535.

Mayhew, D.R., Simpson, H.M., Pak, A., 2003. Changes in collision rates among novicedrivers during the first month of driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35,683–691.

McCartt, A.T., Teoh, E.R., Fields, M., Braitman, K.A., Hellinga, L.A., 2010. Graduatedlicensing laws and fatal crashed of teenage drivers: a national study. TrafficInjury Prevention 11 (3), 240–248.

McKnight, A.J., Peck, R.C., 2003. Graduated driver licensing and safer driving. Journalof Safety Research 34, 85–89.

NSW Centre for Road Safety (2010). Road traffic crashes in New South Wales:statistical statement for the year ended 31 December 2010. Retrieved fromhttp://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/crashstats2010.pdf

Schmader, T., Johns, M., Forbes, C., 2008. An integrated process model of stereotypethreat effects on performance. Psychological Review 115 (2), 336–356.

Scott-Parker, B., Hyde, M.K., Watson, B., King, M.J., 2012a. Speeding byyoung novice drivers: What can personality characteristics and psychoso-cial theory add to our understanding? Accident Analysis and Prevention,doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.04.010.

Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., King, M.J., Hyde, M.K., 2012b. A further exploration ofsensation seeking propensity, reward sensitivity, depression, anxiety, and therisky behaviour of young novice drivers in a structural equation model. AccidentAnalysis and Prevention, doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.027.

Shope, J.T., 2002. Graduated driver licensing: review of evaluation results since 2002.Journal of Safety Research 38, 165–175.

Simpson, H.M., 2003. The evolution and effectiveness of graduated licensing. Journalof Safety Research 34, 25–34.

Spencer, S.J., Steele, C.M., Quinn, D.M., 1999. Stereotype threat and women’s mathperformance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35, 4–28.

Steele, C.M., 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes intellectual identity andperformance? American Psychologist 52, 613–629.

Steele, C.M., Aronson, J., 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test perfor-mance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(5), 797–811.

Stone, J., 2002. Battling doubt by avoiding practice: the effects of stereotype threat onself-handicapping in white athletes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin28 (12), 1667–1678.

Stone, J., Lynch, C.I., Sjomeling, M., Darley, J.M., 1999. Stereotype threat effects onblack and white athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 77 (6), 1213–1227.

Stone, J., McWhinnie, C., 2008. Evidence that blatant versus subtle stereotype threatcues impact performance through dual processes. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology 44, 445–452.

Ulleberg, P., Rundmo, T., 2003. Personality, attitudes and risk perception as pre-dictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety Science 41,427–443.

Ulleberg, P., Rundmo, T., 2008. Risk-taking attitudes among young drivers: the psy-chometric qualities and dimensionality of an instrument to measure youngdrivers’ risk-taking attitudes. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43 (3),227–237.

Ulmer, R.G., Preusser, D.F., Williams, A.F., Ferguson, S.A., Farmer, C.M., 2000. Effectof Florida’s graduated licensing program on the crash rate of teenage drivers.Accident Analysis and Prevention 32, 527–532.

Wheeler, S.C., Petty, R.E., 2001. The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: areview of possible mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin 127 (6), 797–826.

White, M.J., Cunningham, L., Titchener, K., 2011. Young drivers’ optimism bias foraccident risk and driving skill: accountability and insight experience manipula-tions. Accident Analysis and Prevention 43, 1309–1315.

Williams, A.F., Leaf, W.A., Simons-Morton, B.G., Hartos, J.L., 2006. Vehicles drivenby teenagers in their first year of licensure. Traffic Injury Prevention 7 (1),23–30.

Williams, A.F., Shults, R.A., 2010. Graduated driver licensing research, 2007-present:a review and commentary. Journal of Safety Research 41, 77–84.

Williams, A.F., Tefft, B.C., Grabowski, J.G., 2012. Graduated driver licensing research,2010-present. Journal of Safety Research 43 (3), 195–203.

Wong, T.W., Lee, J., Phoon, W.O., Yiu, P.C., Fung, K.P., McLean, J.A., 1990. Drivingexperience and the risk of traffic accident among motorcyclists. Social Scienceand Medicine 30 (5), 639–640.

Yeung, N.C.J., Von Hippel, C., 2008. Stereotype threat increases the likelihood thatfemale drivers in a simulator run over jaywalkers. Accident Analysis and Pre-

vention 40, 667–674.

Zhu, M., Cummings, P., Chu, H., Coben, J.H., Li, G., 2012. Graduated driver licens-ing and motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers: an exploratory,age-stratified meta-analysis. Injury Prevention, doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040474.