A

otapfd©

K

1

c1dstfiaif

suTr

r

0d

Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (2007) 1296–1301

Success on a practical driver’s license test with andwithout the presence of another testee

Tova Rosenbloom ∗, Amit Shahar, Amotz Perlman,Dov Estreich, Eyal Kirzner

The Interdisciplinary Department of Social Sciences, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel

Received 8 January 2007; received in revised form 12 March 2007; accepted 21 March 2007

bstract

The present study examined whether performance in practical driving tests differed when individuals were tested with and without the presencef another testee. In addition, this study examined whether such differences were dependent on the sex of the tested person, on that of the observerestee, and on the order of tests. It was found that for both males and females, a greater proportion of drivers who were tested alone passed the tests compared to drivers who were tested in pairs. Additionally, proportionately more males than females passed the driving test. Only for males was

erformance also dependent on the gender of the other tested individual. A greater proportion of males who were tested with an accompanyingemale passed the test than males who were tested with an accompanying male. These results are discussed in relation to social facilitation, genderifferences in driving performance, and differences in testing procedures.

2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ing te

t2F(fF4btltcc

ft

eywords: Social facilitation; Driving skills; Gender differences; Practical driv

. Introduction

Driving a car is a complex activity that entails psychophysi-al, cognitive, and normative aspects (Groeger and Rothengatter,998). In modern societies, it can be assumed that the permit torive (i.e., receiving a driving license) is conditioned on passingome form of practical driving test. Such a test is also one ofhe first tools that authorities have and which directly affect traf-c accidents and road safety. As such, it is not surprising thatchieving acceptable levels of safety and competence in driv-ng a car have been identified as two of the main objectives andunctions of the practical driving test (Baughan, 2000).

The main goal of the present study was to examine whetheruccess in practical driving tests depended on whether individ-als were tested with or without the presence of another testee.he secondary goal was to study this research question with the

elation to the gender of the testees.As can be expected, among the various issues which are

elated to road safety, there has also been research concerning

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 3 5741011; fax: +972 3 5741959.E-mail address: rosenbt1@mail.biu.ac.il (T. Rosenbloom).

t(eFai(

001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.aap.2007.03.015

st

he performance of persons on a driver’s license test (Baughan,000; Baughan and Sexton, 2002; Fairclough et al., 2006;orsyth, 1992; Maycock and Forsyth, 1997). Briefly, Forsyth1992) has identified gender, age and hours of practice as threeactors that predicted failure rate on a driver’s license test.emales, persons over 27 years of age, and persons with over0 h of practice were more likely to fail than males, personselow 27 and persons with less than 40 h of practice, respec-ively. The finding that persons over 40 h of practice were moreikely to fail may seem counter-intuitive, unless one expectshat individuals who are more likely to fail due to, for example,oordination problems or driving anxiety, also would require toomplete much more practice in order to pass.

In relation to a distinction between minor and major drivingaults in the standardized observation sheet that is used to assesshe performance of the candidate in the British practical drivingest (the DL25A Driving Test Report), Maycock and Forsyth1997) and Baughan and Sexton (2002) both found that minorrrors predict accident liability of novice drivers. In addition,

airclough et al. (2006) were concerned with the influence of testnxiety on driving performance during the practical driving testn Britain. Anxiety was measured using both psychophysiologyheart rate) and a self-report (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory).

ysis an

Tas

dsppiaiic2

taaAarTnrmtmtHmfd

hotpmctaiide

ta(aco

toTf

opsrdpyfmbtptet

etiLtaMdtdehda(wwtahetdito(itm

id(t(t

T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Anal

he results indicated greater increases in heart rate and statenxiety among those who failed the driving test than among theuccessful candidates.

Social facilitation (SF) is the change in one’s performanceue to the presence of another person (SF; Zajonc, 1965). SFtudies have examined whether and how people modify theirerformance in the presence of others. This is done by studyingerformance when persons are alone as compared to conditionsn which others are present. This influence of one’s presence onnother’s performance is differential. It depends on the complex-ty and the familiarity of the task. More specifically, performances improved with simple or familiar tasks and deteriorates withomplex or new tasks (Cottrell, 1972; Geen, 1980, 1991; Strauss,002; Zajonc, 1980).

Of the many theoretical accounts for SF, only activation-heories (e.g., Zajonc, 1965, 1980; Guerin and Innes, 1982), andttention-theories (Sanders et al., 1978; Baron, 1986; Carvernd Scheier, 1981; Manstead and Semin, 1980) are introduced.ctivation-theories postulate that SF is mediated by increased

rousal, which is an innate reaction that enables preparation toeact to possible unexpected actions by others (Zajonc, 1965).he increased arousal should enhance the execution of domi-ant reactions. In well learned and simple tasks, the dominanteactions are suitable (correct solutions), leading to perfor-ance increments, whereas in less learned and complex tasks,

he dominant reaction (false solution) tend to lead to perfor-ance decrements (Strauss, 2002). While Zajonc emphasized

he effects of audience on arousal and drive, Cottrell (1972) andenchy and Glass (1968) have maintained that SF effects areediated by fear of estimation. Presence of others raises the

ear of being critiqued and therefore raises anxiety to levels thateteriorate performance rather than improve it.

Among the attention-theories, the distraction–conflictypothesis by Sanders et al. (1978) suggests that by the presencef others, persons are distracted and no longer focus their atten-ion completely on the task. This leads to both deterioration oferformance as well as an increment in activation (in terms ofotivating someone to action), both arising from the attentional

onflict of wanting to concentrate on task and audience simul-aneously. Baron’s (1986) overload hypothesis suggests that thettention conflict between the audience and the task leads to anncreased cognitive overload (as opposed to increased activationn the distraction–conflict hypothesis), resulting in performanceecrements on difficult tasks. For more details on these and otherxplanations for SF, see Strauss (2002).

The SF effect depends on a variety of variables, such asask-type (Strauss, 2002), personality (Grant and Dajee, 2003)nd gender (Corston and Colman, 1996). Corston and Colman1996), for example, found a significant gender × audience inter-ction, with females performing much better on a computerompetence task in the presence of a female audience than aloner with a male audience.

In regard to SF, gender and driving, Chen et al. (2000) found

hat particularly with male drivers, the risk of fatal injury for a 16-r 17-year-old driver increases with the number of passengers.he McKenna et al. (1998) study that was mentioned earlier

ocused particularly on the dependence of driving performance

(lls

d Prevention 39 (2007) 1296–1301 1297

n the interaction between the sex of the driver and that of theassenger (i.e., SF in a driving task as a function of the driver’sex × passenger’s sex interaction). The following patterns wereeported. In the absence of passengers, young males drove moreangerously than young females. The presence of young maleassengers was associated with more dangerous driving for bothoung male and female drivers. However, the presence of youngemale passengers was associated with safer driving for youngale drivers but was not associated with any difference in the

ehavior of young female drivers. The Chen et al. (2000) andhe McKenna et al. (1998) studies are especially relevant for theresent study, because in addition to the main goal of studyinghe effect of the SF on success in driving test, this study alsoxamined how such success was dependent on the gender of theested driver.

During the past decades, research regarding gender differ-nces in driving-related aspects has become quite popular. Ofhe many studies on the subject, there have been studies relat-ng self-evaluation of driving skills (Groeger and Brown, 1989;aapotti et al., 2003), self-report compliance with traffic regula-

ions (Bergdahl, 2005; Shinar et al., 2001), dangerous incidentsnd accident involvements (Leonard, 1959; Lourens et al., 1999;cKenna et al., 1998), and the influence of passengers on safe

riving (Chen et al., 2000; McKenna et al., 1998). However, onhe basis of these studies, definite conclusions concerning gen-er differences in driving and in accident involvements cannot beasily obtained. Thus, Li et al. (1998) and Lourens et al. (1999)ave reported on a lack of difference between male and femalerivers in accident involvement (per mile driven). Althoughmong the earlier studies about driving performance, Leonard1959) reported that dangerous incidents were usually associatedith females, in the Laapotti et al. (2003) study, female driversere less involved in accidents. Complex patterns, showing that

he gender differences (in accident rate) depend on other vari-bles, such as age, time of day, and road characteristics, alsoave been reported (Akerstedt and Kecklund, 2001; McKennat al., 1998). Specifically, Akerstedt and Kecklund (2001) foundhat men had twice as high a risk of being involved in acci-ents as women during the late night hours. However, femalesn the youngest age group (18–24) showed a higher such riskhan males during the early night and during most other timesf the day but a lower risk in higher age groups. McKenna et al.1998) reported that males were more likely than females to benvolved in fatal accidents and in accidents on bends while over-aking and during the hours of darkness whereas females were

ore likely than males to be involved in accidents at junctions.More or less consistent patterns have been shown by stud-

es which investigated gender differences regarding attitudes toriving and compliance with traffic laws. In the Laapotti et al.2003) study, female drivers evaluated their driving skill lowerhan males, they committed fewer traffic offenses than malesper kilometers driven), and they showed a more positive attitudeowards traffic safety and rules than males. In both the Bergdahl

2005) and the Shinar et al. (2001) studies, women were moreikely than men to report compliance with some traffic regu-ations, such as using turn signals (Bergdahl, 2005), obeyingpeed limits (Bergdahl, 2005; Shinar et al., 2001), seat belt use

1 ysis a

aBfi

dia

tdiiiaffdwads

fwwto

ptcn–de(rtwai

2

2

5cAmdpdo(

boosw

2

tsfdstmihTTdrijiawdta

3

tmsn(tpcco

ttwpafa

298 T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Anal

nd refraining from drinking and driving (Shinar et al., 2001).ergdahl (2005) also reported that males expressed more com-

ort than women for driving at night, in unfamiliar territory andn bad weather.

In sum, it seems that females feel less confident with theirriving skills, and although they are less involved in violat-ng traffic rules, they are not necessarily less involved in roadccidents, only in fatal ones.

The present study used a unique authentic situation to studyhe effects of social facilitation and gender on performance in ariving test. In Israel, particularly for economical reasons, driv-ng tests usually are conducted with two individuals being testedn the vehicle. In a typical test, one person is tested while the otherndividual sits in the back seat after which they switch placesnd the other individual is tested. Since these tests consist of allour combinations: male-driver, male-passenger; male-driver,emale-passenger; female-driver, male-passenger; and female-river, female-passenger, and since some tests are conductedith only one testee in the vehicle (for technical reasons), this

uthentic situation creates a unique opportunity to study howriving performance is related to the interaction between theex of the driver and that of the passenger.

The present study, then, specifically examined whether per-ormance in practical driving tests (either pass or fail) differedhen drivers were tested alone as compared to in pairs, andhether such differences were dependent on the gender of the

ested person, on that of the observer testee (i.e., audience), andn the order of tests.

The prediction was based on the SF literature (particularlyerformance decrements in less learned and complex tasks inhe presence of others), and on that driving a car – which isonsidered a complex activity that entails psychophysical, cog-itive, and normative aspects (Groeger and Rothengatter, 1998)is a complex activity for non-experienced drivers particularly

uring their license test. These individuals are considered non-xperienced drivers because there are only very few exceptionsexperienced drivers), such as persons who due to their offenceecord must (if they wish to legally drive) successfully completehe practical driving test again. Based on the above, then, itas predicted that a greater proportion of people who are tested

lone would pass the test as compared to people who are testedn pairs.

. Methodology

.1. Sample

The study made use of the archival data of 1151 individuals,26 females and 625 males, whose practical driving tests werearried out in Jerusalem in the second half of the year 2004.ll of the individuals had previously accumulated, at least theinimum amount of 28 lessons (50 min each) with an authorized

riving instructor (law prerequisite to getting tested) and had

assed the medical and theoretical tests. Although there was noetailed age data, all of the individuals were at least 17 yearsf age (age restriction by law) and 77% of them were below 25Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2002–2003). Finally, to the

owat

nd Prevention 39 (2007) 1296–1301

est of our knowledge, all of the testers were male and there is nother information in the driver test form that may indicate whyne was tested alone rather than in pairs. As far as we know, theelection of testees to either alone or in-pairs was random andas due to administrative considerations only.

.2. Driving tests

Of the total, 802 persons (349 females and 453 males) wereested in pairs (i.e., one of the drivers was tested while the otherat in the back seat, after which they switched) and 349 (177emales and 172 males) were tested alone. For the pairs, theecision upon who would be tested first and who would be testedecond depended on agreement between the two individuals athe beginning of the session. Each driving test lasts approxi-

ately 25 min during which driving performance is assessedn a number of driving situations, such as in the city and onighways. Each driving test has four parts (Israel Ministry ofransport, 2004). The first part deals with operating the vehicle.he particular performance that is assessed includes slowingown, stopping, operating the clutch and the gear, and driving ineverse. The second part deals with road-use, including observ-ng behavior, interpretation of road lines, parking, crossing at aunction, turning and stopping. The third part assesses motion,ncluding driving speed, keeping distance, passing, right of way,nd performance near pedestrian crossings. The fourth part dealsith special driving tasks, particularly, driving on highways andriving at a higher speed, accelerating and slowing down, get-ing on and off road shoulders and driving along mountainousnd winding roads.

. Results

The results of the driving tests (either pass or fail) were giveno us by the Ministry of Transport. In order to check if perfor-

ances differed as a function of the different conditions, Chiquare tests were performed. Primarily, performance was sig-ificantly different when tested alone as compared to in pairsχ2

(1) = 23.36, p < 0.001). Nearly 49% of the drivers who wereested alone but only 34% of those tested in pairs succeededassing the test. Across the test mode (data of alone and in pairsollapsed), the performance of males and females was signifi-antly different (χ2

(1) = 21.86, p < 0.001). Approximately 45%f the males but only 31% of the females passed the test.

For both females (χ2(1) = 14.05) and males (χ2

(1) = 13.27),he performance was significantly different in pairs as comparedo alone (ps < 0.001). Approximately 42% of the females whoere tested alone, and 26% of those who were tested in pairs,assed the test, and approximately 56% of the males tested alonend 40% of those tested in pairs passed the test. However, whileemales’ performance depended only on the test mode (eitherlone or in pairs) but was not dependent on the gender of the

ther tested individual (the difference between 30% [femalesho passed among females who were tested in the presence of

nother male], and 24% [females who passed among femalesested in the presence of another female] was not significant

T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Analysis an

Table 1Absolute numbers and (in parentheses) percentages of passing and failing testees(pass/fail ratios), and χ2 values for the comparisons between variable-levels, formales and females, for the different test-modes (alone and in pairs) across genderand separately for males and females, and for tests conducted in the presence ofa companion from the same-, or from the opposite-gender (separately for malesand females)

Levels of variables Count pass/fail (%) χ2(1)

Alone 171/178 (49/51)23.36**

Pairs 272/530 (34/66)Females 164/362 (31/69)

21.86**Males 279/346 (45/55)

FemalesAlone 74/103 (42/58)

14.05**Pairs 90/259 (26/74)

MalesAlone 97/75 (56/44)

13.27**Pairs 182/271 (40/60)

FemalesFemales 53/171 (24/76)

1.48Males 37/88 (30/70)

MalesFemales 62/63 (50/50)

6.38*Males 120/208 (37/63)

[

omfpT

gta

f(pfit

4

ftiti(siro

ttadMg(ooaita

abwctt

timwa

dcctCtbaa

wmtststonatiftt

* Significant at 0.01.** Significant at 0.001.

χ2(1) = 1.48, p > 0.10]), males’ performance was also dependent

n the gender of the audience (χ2(1) = 6.38, p = 0.01). Approxi-

ately 50% of the males who were tested in presence of anotheremale and 37% of the males tested in presence of another maleassed the test. The abovementioned results are summarized inable 1.

Among individuals tested in pairs, the interaction between theender of the testees and the gender of the companions (eitherhe same or different) was assessed using logistic regressionnalysis, and was not significant (Wald’s χ2 = 0.61 [p > 0.10]).

Finally, females were more likely than males (34% of theemales as compared to 28% of the males) to be tested aloneχ2

(1) = 5.08, p < 0.05); among the couples in which one driverassed and one driver failed the test (186 couples), in 84% therst tested individual failed; of the 125 mixed-sex pairs, the first

ested individual was a male in 124 (!) cases.

. Discussion

The prediction that greater proportions of both males andemales who were tested alone (as compared to in pairs) passedhe test was supported. However, due to the nature of this study,t cannot be determined whether SF in the driving task (i.e.,he deterioration of driving performance during a driving testn the presence of audience) or in the testing task were assessedpossibly both). Specifically, although the findings of the present

tudy might indeed reflect the effects of the presence of anotherndividual on the tested driver’s performance, they alternativelyeflect the effects of two tested drivers on the tester’s judgment,r both.

dtit

d Prevention 39 (2007) 1296–1301 1299

The former interpretation (SF in the driving task) suggestshat for non-experienced drivers, for which driving is a rela-ively complex and unfamiliar task, driving deteriorates duringdriver’s license test. This is in line with findings of performanceecrements in the presence of others (e.g., Landers et al., 1978;artens, 1968), as well as with findings that carrying passen-

ers, particularly with novice drivers is a risk factor for crashese.g., Chen et al., 2000; McKenna et al., 1998). Assuming thatur present findings indeed reflect the effects of the passengern the driver, an advantage of conducting driving tests in pairss compared to alone is that it provides an assessment of drivingn a more skill-demanding situation, which also resembles morehe situations in which these novice drivers would engage soonfter they receive their license.

According to the latter interpretation (SF in the testing task),lthough the presence of the passenger had no effect on the drivereing tested, the testers were more likely to fail an individual thatas tested in a pair than one who was tested alone. Such influence

ould possibly reflect a more conservative mindset adopted byhe tester (perhaps subconsciously) with pairs as compared toesting one individual.

In both cases (the former and the latter interpretations), nei-her differentiating between the many explanations for SF (i.e.,nappropriate dominant reactions, fear of estimation, distraction,

ental load [for references see Section 1]), nor determining tohat extent the results are biased by the absence of female testers

re possible.Only for males was performance dependent also on the gen-

er of the other tested individual within the pair—showing betterhances of passing the test when tested with another female asompared to being in the presence of another male. Althoughhe general finding of a sex × audience interaction is in line withorston and Colman (1996) who reported a similar interaction,

heir data showed different patterns, with females performingetter in the presence of a female audience than alone or withmale audience. These differences possibly reflect complexity

nd familiarity (of the task) differences.The finding that males have better chances of passing the test

hen tested with a female rather than in the presence of anotherale is partially in line with McKenna et al. (1998) who found

hat for young male drivers, the presence of young male pas-engers was associated with more dangerous driving whereashe presence of young female passengers was associated withafer driving. Yet, although our results (Chi square tests) seemo show that males perform better on driving tests in the presencef another female than with another male (whereas females areot influenced differently by males and by females), these datalternatively reflect the effects of gender on the judgment of theester: the testers might have been more likely to fail a male drivern the presence of another male than in the presence of anotheremale. This interpretation should be considered with respecto the fact that all of the testers were male. Perhaps, the testershemselves were influenced by a stereotype that women are bad

rivers or by solidarity with male tested drivers. Indeed, the facthat all of the testers were male might explain some of these find-ngs, as, for example, the finding that females were more likelyhan males to be tested alone (34% of the females as compared

1 ysis a

teptlo

pva(rwipgOpswgfoc

ttttwrdtcoif

hoselrttsitttasapfc

A

v

R

A

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

F

F

F

G

GG

G

G

G

H

I

I

L

L

L

300 T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Anal

o 28% of the males). Importantly, the abovementioned differ-nce between males and females (in the dependency of theirerformance on the gender of their companion, as indicated byhe difference in the chi squared tests), was not supported by theogistic regression test for this interaction (between the genderf the testee and that of the companion).

Other facts that are less clear are the finding that among theairs in which one passed and one failed, the first tested indi-idual failed in 84% of those pairs, as well as the finding thatmong the mixed-sex pairs, the first tested individual was alwaysexcept for once) a male. The latter finding is astonishing (aeplication may be necessary) because the decision upon whoould be tested first depended on agreement between the two

ndividuals at the beginning of the session. Assuming that theractical driving test enhances stress, this finding might reflectender differences in stress coping strategies (e.g., Washburn-rmachea et al., 2004). Accordingly, it is possible that malesrefer releasing tension by dealing with stressors as soon as pos-ible, oppositely from females, who prefer to postpone handlingith such stressors. Examining the latter explanation, or moreenerally, examining why males prefer to be tested first whereasemales prefer to be tested second, or perhaps why either femalesr males waive the right to be tested first or second (respectively)ould be a topic for a future qualitative study.

Noteworthy, although testers tended to fail the first morehan the second-tested individual, and in mixed pairs the firstestee was almost always a male, males passed the test morehan females. In spite of the above and although the findinghat a greater proportion of males passed the test is consistentith previous findings (Forsyth, 1992), conclusions that our data

eflect better driving skills among male rather than female novicerivers are not warranted. Specifically, in addition to the factshat all of the testers were male and that many studies show aomplex picture regarding gender and driving skills, at least onether issue should be considered. The gender-related differencesn success in the driving tests may reflect more test anxiety inemales (Furst et al., 1985; Zeidner and Safir, 1989).

In sum, the present study found that both males and femalesave a better chance to pass a driver’s license test if tested with-ut the presence of another testee. Although it may seem thatometimes perhaps too much credence was given to alternativexplanations of the findings of this study, it was thought that theack of baseline information about the testees (possible lack ofandomization and selection bias), and the general limitations ofhis study’s design, provided good reasons for being more cau-ious in interpreting the results. Nevertheless, the major effects,howing that regardless of the sex of the testee, those examinedn pairs are less likely to pass than those examined alone seemso be reliable. Success in the test also depended on the sex ofhe testee (and for males also dependent on that of the otherestee), and on the order of tests. This study, then, shows howstandard routine for obtaining a driving license, is affected by

mall differences in testing procedures, raising some concerns

bout differences in testing procedures and perhaps also aboutrocedural justice. In the future, monitoring the effects of dif-erences in testing procedures on the outcome hopefully wouldontribute to refine those procedures when necessary.

L

L

nd Prevention 39 (2007) 1296–1301

cknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for theiraluable comments.

eferences

kerstedt, T., Kecklund, G., 2001. Age, gender and early morning highwayaccidents. J. Sleep Res. 10, 105–110.

aron, R.S., 1986. Distraction–conflict theory. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advancesin Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 1–39.

aughan, C., 2000. Review of the practical driving test. Paper presented at theDETR Novice Drivers Conference, Bristol, UK.

aughan, C., Sexton, B., 2002. Do driving test errors predict accidents? Yes andno. Paper presented at the Behaviour Research in Road Safety: 11th Seminar.

ergdahl, J., 2005. Sex differences in attitudes toward driving: a survey. Soc.Sci. J. 42, 595–601.

arver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., 1981. The self-attention-induced feedback loop andsocial facilitation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 17, 545–568.

hen, L.H., Baker, S.P., Braver, E.R., Li, G., 2000. Carrying passengers as a riskfactor for crashes fatal to 16- and 17-year-old drivers. J. Am. Med. Assoc.283, 1578–1582.

orston, R., Colman, A.M., 1996. Gender and social facilitation effects on com-puter competence and attitudes toward computers. J. Educ. Comput. Res.14, 171–183.

ottrell, N.B., 1972. Social facilitation. In: McClintock, C.G. (Ed.), Experimen-tal Social Psychology. Holt, New York, pp. 185–236.

airclough, S.H., Tattersall, A.J., Houston, K., 2006. Anxiety and performancein the British driving test. Transport. Res. F 9, 43–52.

orsyth, E., 1992. Cohort study of learner and novice drivers. Part 1. Learningto drive and performance in the driving test, No. RR338. TRL, Crowthorne,UK.

urst, D., Tenenbaum, G., Weingarten, G., 1985. Test anxiety, sex, and examtype. Psychol. Rep. 56, 663–668.

een, R.G., 1980. The effects of being observed on performance. In: Paulus, P.B.(Ed.), Psychology of Group Influence. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 61–97.

een, R.G., 1991. Social motivation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 42, 377–399.rant, T., Dajee, K., 2003. Types of task, types of audience, types of actor: inter-

actions between mere presence and personality type in a simple mathematicaltask. Pers. Individ. Dif. 35, 633–639.

roeger, J.A., Brown, I.D., 1989. Assessing one’s own and others’ driving abil-ity: influences of sex, age, and experience. Accid. Anal. Prev. 21, 155–168.

roeger, J.A., Rothengatter, J.A., 1998. Traffic psychology and behaviour.Transport. Res. F 1, 1–9.

uerin, B., Innes, J.M., 1982. Social facilitation and social monitoring. A newlook at Zajonc’s mere presence hypothesis. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 21, 7–18.

enchy, T., Glass, D.C., 1968. Evaluation apprehension and the social facil-itation of dominant and subordinate responses. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 10,446–454.

srael Central Bureau of Statistics, Retrieved August 21, 2006 from:http://www.cbs.gov.il/publications/drivers03/pdf/t04.pdf.

srael Ministry of Transport, Retrieved 2004 from: http://www.mot.gov.il/wps/portal/!ut/p/.

aapotti, S., Keskinen, E., Rajalin, S., 2003. Comparison of young male andfemale drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978and 2001. J. Saf. Res. 34, 579–587.

anders, D.M., Bauer, R.S., Feltz, D.L., 1978. Social facilitation during theinitial stage of motor learning: a re-examination of Martens’ audience study.J. Mot. Behav. 10, 325–337.

eonard, U., 1959. Sex as a determinant of driving skills: women drivers. J.Appl. Psychol. 43, 35.

i, G.H., Baker, S.P., Langlois, J.A., Kelen, G.D., 1998. Are female drivers safer?An application of the decomposition method. Epidemiology 9, 379–384.

ourens, P.F., Vissers, J.A.M.M., Jessurun, M., 1999. Annual mileage, drivingviolations, and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex, age, and levelof education. Accid. Anal. Prev. 31, 593–597.

ysis an

M

M

M

M

S

S

S

W

ZZajonc, R.B., 1980. Cornpresence. In: Paulus, P.B. (Ed.), Psychology of Group

T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Anal

anstead, A.S.R., Semin, G.R., 1980. Social facilitation effects: mere enhance-ment of dominant responses? Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 19, 119–136.

artens, R., 1968. Effects of an audience on learning and performance of a com-plex motor skill. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign.

aycock, G., Forsyth, E., 1997. Cohort study of learner and novice drivers. Part4. Novice driver accidents in relation to methods of learning to drive, per-formance in the driving test and self-assessed driving ability and behaviour,No. 275. TRL.

cKenna, A.P., Waylen, A.E., Burkes, M.E., 1998. Male and Female Drivers:

How Different are They? The University of Reading, Foundation for RoadSafety Research, Berkshire, UK.

anders, G.S., Baron, R.S., Moore, D.L., 1978. Distraction and social com-parison as mediators of social facilitation effects. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 14,291–303.

Z

d Prevention 39 (2007) 1296–1301 1301

hinar, D., Schechtman, E., Compton, R., 2001. Self-reports of safe drivingbehaviors in relationship to sex, age, education and income in the US adultdriving population. Accid. Anal. Prev. 33, 111–116.

trauss, B., 2002. Social facilitation in motor tasks: a review of research andtheory. Psychol. Sport. Exerc. 3, 237–256.

ashburn-Ormachea, J.M., Hillman, S.B., Sawilowsky, S.S., 2004. Gender andgender-role orientation differences on adolescents’ coping with peer stres-sors. J. Youth. Adolesc. 33, 31–40.

ajonc, R.B., 1965. Social facilitation. Science 149, 269–274.

Influence. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 35–60.eidner, M., Safir, M., 1989. Sex, ethnic, and social differences in

test anxiety among Israeli adolescents. J. Genet. Psychol. 150, 175–185.