The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males
Abstract
Risk-taking behaviour has been identified as a possible explanation for the high incidence of motor vehicle crashes involving young male drivers. This study examines the extent to which differences in risk-taking behaviour explain the differential crash rates by age and gender. A random sample of 689 adults aged 17-88 were selected from motor vehicle license holders within randomly selected geographical areas across Queensland. Participants completed a questionnaire covering their attitudes towards driving behaviour and general risk-taking behaviour, selected demographic characteristics and self-reported history of road crashes as a driver. Univariate analysis showed that males scored higher means than females in driver aggression and thrill seeking and in their general risk acceptance. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that males were twice as likely (OR 2.46, CI 1.59-3.83) to have reported at least one crash as a driver compared to females and nearly three times as likely (OR 2.88, CI 1.84-4.49) to have reported two or more crashes. Drivers aged 17-29 were also twice as likely (OR 2.31, CI 1.10-4.19) to have reported at least one crash when compared to those aged over 50 years. When risk-taking behaviours were introduced into the logistic model the odds of males (OR 1.70, CI 1.29-3.30) or 17-29 year olds (OR 1.30, CI 0.93-3.91) being involved in at least one crash substantially reduced. An increased risk of a crash as a driver can, in part, be explained by the age and gender differential in risk-taking behaviour. The challenge for public health professionals is to determine suitable strategies to modify risk-taking behaviour in young or male drivers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x · Cited by 1,244
Figner, B., Mackinlay, R. J., Wilkening, F., & Weber, E. U. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0014983 · Cited by 625
Jerome, L., Habinski, L., & Segal, A. (2006) · Current Psychiatry Reports · doi:10.1007/s11920-006-0045-8 · Cited by 130
Brockett, P. L., & Golden, L. L. (2007) · Journal of Risk and Insurance · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6975.2007.00201.x · Cited by 56
Gendered Analysis of Fatal Crashes among Young Drivers in Alabama, USA
Adanu, E. K., Penmetsa, P., Jones, S., & Smith, R. (2018) · Safety · doi:10.3390/safety4030029 · Cited by 15
Masculine Identity and Traumatic Brain Injury
MacQueen, R., & Fisher, P. (2019) · The Palgrave Handbook of Male Psychology and Mental Health · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04384-1_29 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Turner, C., & McClure, R.
- Venue
- Injury Control and Safety Promotion
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 123-130
- ISSN
- 1566-0974 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2091780607
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.