Skip to main content
Log in

Psychological influences on drivers’ yielding behavior at the crosswalk of intersections

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pedestrian safety is vital, especially when it comes to crossing at intersections. Setting pedestrian safety facilities is one of the solutions to provide a safer environment for pedestrians to cross at intersections. And most studies have focused on the influence of pedestrian safety facilities on drivers’ yielding behavior. Meanwhile, psychological factors underlying drivers’ decisions to yield to pedestrians have received little attention. The current study explored the relationship between drivers’ yielding behavior and psychological factors using a questionnaire mainly designed based on the extended theory of planned behavior (TPB). Measures of the questionnaire included elements of the theory of planned behavior model, risk perception part, new countermeasure, and traditional countermeasure. Pearson correlation test revealed that young drivers or highly educated drivers were more likely not to yield to pedestrians. Factors analysis proved the extended TPB questionnaire to be valid and reliable. Structural equation modeling showed that attitude (0.23), subjective norm (0.58), perceived behavioral control (0.21), and risk perception (0.38) significantly and directly influenced drivers’ yielding intentions. Traditional countermeasure (0.66) and new countermeasure (0.44) significantly influenced drivers’ risk perception and then influenced drivers’ yielding intentions indirectly. According to these findings, promotion and education on yielding behavior and on the functions of pedestrian safety facility were proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aberg L (1993) Drinking and driving: intentions, attitudes, and social norms of Swedish male drivers. Accid Anal Prev 25(3):289–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Ai G et al (2016) Analysis on yielding behavior and its influencing factors of motor vehicle at pedestrian crosswalk in Guangzhou. J Saf Sci Technol 12(12):133–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (2002) Constructing a TpB Questionnaire: conceptual and methodological considerations. https://chuang.epage.au.edu.tw/ezfiles/168/1168/attach/20/pta_41176_7688352_57138.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2018

  • Atombo C et al (2016) Investigating the motivational factors influencing drivers intentions to unsafe driving behaviours: speeding and overtaking violations. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 43:104–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16(1):74–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Bella F, Silvestri M (2015) Effects of safety measures on driver’s speed behavior at pedestrian crossings. Accid Anal Prev 83:111–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler PM, Bonett DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 88(3):588

    Google Scholar 

  • Cambridge NM (2012) Effects of symbol prompts and 3D pavement illusions on motorist yielding at crosswalks https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/48/. Accessed 21 May 2018

  • Castanier C et al (2013) Theory of planned behavior and road violations: the moderating influence of perceived behavioural control. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 18(5):148–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen SY (2007) The structural equation model. Psychology Press Ltd, Hove

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu HC (2003) The theory, technology, and application of the structural equation model-LISREL. Yeh Yeh Book Gallery, Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  • Duan WT, Jiang GR (2008) A review of the theory of planned behavior. Adv Psychol Sci 16(2):315–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott MA et al (2003) Drivers’ compliance with speed limits: an application of the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Psychol 88(5):964

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard T et al (2015) Racial bias in driver yielding behavior at crosswalks. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 33(1):1–6

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear S (2014) The Swedish approach to road safety: ‘The Accident Is Not the Major Problem’. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/11/the-swedish-approach-to-road-safety-the-accident-is-not-the-major-problem/382995/. Accessed 13 June 2018

  • Harbeck EL, Glendon AI (2013) How reinforcement sensitivity and perceived risk influence young drivers’ reported engagement in risky driving behaviors. Accid Anal Prev 54:73–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbeck EL et al (2018) Young driver perceived risk and risky driving: a theoretical approach to the “fatal five”. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 58:392–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan HM, Abdel-Aty MA (2011) Analysis of drivers’ behavior under reduced visibility conditions using a structural equation modeling approach. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 14(6):614–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirun W (2016) Factors affecting driver yielding behavior at a mid-block zebra crossing. Int J Eng Technol 8(2):906–912

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu IY et al (2012) Analysis of business safety performance by structural equation models. Saf Sci 50(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang C et al (2016) The effects of the self and social identity on the intention to microblog: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Comput Hum Behav 64:754–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang K et al (2017) Psychological predictors of mobile phone use while crossing the street among college students: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Traffic Inj Prev 18(2):118–123

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Li P et al (2016) The theory of planned behavior and competitive driving in China. Procedia Eng 137:362–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Mckenna FP et al (2006) Does anticipation training affect drivers’ risk taking? J Exp Psychol Appl 12(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Moan IS, Rise J (2011) Predicting intentions not to “drink and drive” using an extended version of the theory of planned behaviour. Accid Anal Prev 43(4):1378–1384

    Google Scholar 

  • Nation Bureau of Statistics of China (2018) China statistical yearbook—2017. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2017/indexch.htm. Accessed 9 May 2018

  • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2017) Pedestrians: 2016 data (traffic safety facts). http://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812493. Accessed 23 May 2018

  • Nelson E et al (2009) The effects of perception of risk and importance of answering and initiating a cellular phone call while driving. Accid Anal Prev 41(3):438–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker D et al (1992) Intention to commit driving violations: an application of the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Psychol 77(1):94–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker D et al (1998) Attitudinal predictors of interpersonally aggressive violations on the road. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 1(1):11–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollatsek A et al (2006) Identifying and remedying failures of selective attention in younger drivers. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 15(5):255–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts IB et al (2015) Effect of beacon activation and traffic volume on driver yielding behavior at rapid flashing beacons. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2492:78–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Przepiorka AM et al (2018) Factors influencing intentions to text while driving among Polish drivers. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 55:306–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulugurtha SS et al (2012) Evaluating effectiveness of infrastructure-based countermeasures for pedestrian safety. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2299(1):100–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe R et al (2016) Identifying beliefs underlying pre-drivers’ intentions to take risks: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. Accid Anal Prev 89:49–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutter D, Quine L (2002) Changing health behavior. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermelleh-Engel K et al (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res Online 8(2):23–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Şimşekoğlu Ö, Lajunen T (2008) Social psychology of seat belt use: a comparison of theory of planned behavior and health belief model. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 11(3):181–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (2017) Road traffic safety law of the People’s Republic of China. http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/zfjc/zfjcelys/2016-12/13/content_2003512.htm. Accessed 10 June 2018

  • Steiger JH (1990) Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivar Behav Res 25(2):173–180

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tavafian SS et al (2011) Predictors of speeding behavior among a sample of Iranian commercial automobile drivers: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Traffic Inj Prev 12(3):274–278

    Google Scholar 

  • U. S. Department of Transportation (2016). U.S. Dot, National Safety Council launch road to zero coalition to end roadway fatalities. http://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-dot-national-safety-council-launch-road-zero-coalition-end-roadway-fatalities. Accessed 10 June 2018

  • Useche SA et al (2017) Stress-related psychosocial factors at work, fatigue, and risky driving behavior in bus rapid transport (BRT) drivers. Accid Anal Prev 104:106–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hengle D (2013) Build it and they will yield: effects of median and curb extension installations on motorist yield compliance. Presented at 92nd annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington DC, 2013

  • Waddell LP, Wiener KKK (2014) What’s driving illegal mobile phone use? Psychosocial influences on drivers’ intentions to use hand-held mobile phones. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 22:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • White KM et al (2010) Mobile phone use while driving: an investigation of the beliefs influencing drivers’ hands-free and hand-held mobile phone use. Transp Res Part F Psychol Behav 13(1):9–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilde GJS (2010) A theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Risk Anal 2(4):209–225

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (2016) Global status report on road safety 2015. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015/GSRRS2015_Summary_EN_final2.pdf. Accessed 9 Feb 2018

  • Wu ML (2006) The application of the structural equation model SIMPLIS. Wunan Book Co., Ltd., Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W et al (2018) Investigating factors influencing drivers’ speed selection behavior under reduced visibility conditions. Traffic Inj Prev 19(5):488–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou R et al (2009) Young driving learners’ intention to use a handheld or hands-free mobile phone when driving. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 12(3):208–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou H et al (2016) An extension of the theory of planned behavior to predict pedestrians’ violating crossing behavior using structural equation modeling. Accid Anal Prev 95(Pt B):417–424

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (No. KZ201710005005).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaohua Zhao.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: The entire questionnaire in the research

Appendix A: The entire questionnaire in the research

1.1 Part 1: Demographic measures

  1. 1.

    Frequency of driving

    ○ Never ○ Seldom ○ Sometimes ○ Often ○ Always

  2. 2.

    Gender

    ○ Male ○ Female

  3. 3.

    Age

    ○ < 25 ○ 25–35 ○ 36–45 ○ > 45

  4. 4.

    Education level

    ○ Middle school or less ○ High school ○ College/University ○ Masters or above

  5. 5.

    Year(s) of driving experience

    ○ < 3 ○ 3–5 ○ 6–10 ○ > 10

1.2 Part 2: The extended TPB model items

Item

Description

Self-reported yielding behavior (never to always from 1 to 5)

 1

I yielded to pedestrian when making a turn during the past 3 months

Intention to yielding to pedestrian when making a turn (IN) (strongly disagree to strongly agree from 1 to 5)

 1

I am willing to yield to pedestrian when making a turn

 2

I will encourage my family members and friends to yield to pedestrian when making a turn

 3

I will yield to pedestrian when making a turn in the future period of time

Attitude (ATT) (strongly disagree to strongly agree from 1 to 5)

 1

I think that rear-end collision by a sudden braking may happen if I yield to pedestrian when making a

 2

I think that yielding to pedestrian when making a turn will waste my time

 3

I think that yielding to pedestrian when making a turn will make my driving less smoothly turn

 4

I think refusing to yielding to pedestrian when making a turn is a retaliation to people who crossed roads without obeying traffic regulations

 5

Whether or not yielding to pedestrian when making a turn depend on my mood

Subjective norm (SN) (strongly disagree to strongly agree from 1 to 5)

 1

My family members think that I should yield to pedestrian when making a turn

 2

My friends/classmates/colleagues think that I should yield to pedestrian when making a turn

 3

News and media propagate that I should yield to pedestrian when making a turn

 4

Traffic laws require that I should yield to pedestrian when making a turn

Perceived behavioral control (PBC) (strongly disagree to strongly agree from 1 to 5)

 1

I can react quickly to emergencies when driving, so I am able to yield to pedestrian timely when making a turn

 2

I can maintain my attention when driving, so I am able to yield to pedestrian when making a turn

Risk perception (RP) (very unlikely to very likely from 1 to 5)

 1

The possibility of harming pedestrian safety if I do not yield to pedestrian when making a turn

 2

The possibility of making accident compensation to injured pedestrians if I do not yield to pedestrian when making a turn

 3

The possibility of being punished if I do not yield to pedestrian when making a turn

New countermeasure (NC) (very unlikely to very likely from 1 to 5)

View full size image

The example of new countermeasure

 1

The possibility of yielding to pedestrian when turning at an intersection with colored crosswalk markings

 2

The possibility of yielding to when turning at an intersection with specially patterned crosswalk markings

Traditional countermeasure (TC) (very unlikely to very likely from 1 to 5)

 1

The possibility of yielding to pedestrian when turning at an intersection with “YIELD TO PEDESTRIAN” marking behind stop line

 2

The possibility of yielding to pedestrian when turning at an intersection with traffic police or auxiliary police (TC2)

 3

The possibility of yielding to pedestrian when turning at an intersection with white crosswalk markings (TC3)

 4

The possibility of yielding to when turning at an intersection with continental markings (TC4)

1.3 Part 3: Addition

  1. 1.

    Have you ever crossed intersection with new crosswalk markings shown in the picture below?

    figure b

    ○ yes ○ no

  2. 2.

    What do you think the extent to which new crosswalk markings improve drivers’ yielding behavior compared to the continental marking? (did not improve to obviously improved from 1 to 5)

    ○ 1 ○ 2 ○ 3 ○ 4 ○ 5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, B., Liang, K., Zhao, X. et al. Psychological influences on drivers’ yielding behavior at the crosswalk of intersections. Cogn Tech Work 22, 501–516 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00589-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00589-w

Keywords

Navigation