Effect of driving experience on drivers' decoding process of roadway interpersonal communication

Abstract

Sixty-three participants (32 novice, 31 experienced drivers) evaluated meanings of road users' signals in 24 traffic situations such as blinkers, headlights, hazard lamps and hand gestures. The traffic scenes were projected with a slide projector in a laboratory. Confidence in answers was also evaluated by using a five-point scale. The signals were classified into three categories: Formal Device-based Signal (Formal Signal), Informal Device-based Signal (Informal Signal), and Informal Gesture-based Signal (Everyday Signal). The total comprehension scores demonstrated that experienced drivers could understand the signals better than novice drivers. There was a large difference in the comprehension scores for Informal Signal between experienced and novice drivers. Novice drivers could understand Formal Signal and Everyday Signal better than Informal Signal. Similar results were also obtained in the confidence scores. Experienced drivers were more confident in their answers than novice drivers. An effect of gender was found in the scores of confidence. The discussion focuses on how driver's skill in interpersonal communication on roads develops in real traffic situations.

The effect of communicational signals on drivers' subjective appraisal and visual attention during interactive driving scenarios

“…Compared to the previous studies of meaning decoding (Renge 1986(Renge , 2000, where participants were required to choose a single exclusive meaning for a particular signal, decoded meanings in this study were evaluated using a multidimensional scale, illustrating various potential implications of the perceived signals. Compared to the previous studies of meaning decoding (Renge 1986(Renge , 2000, where participants were required to choose a single exclusive meaning for a particular signal, decoded meanings in this study were evaluated using a multidimensional scale, illustrating various potential implications of the perceived signals.…”

“…These signals indicate the intention of drivers' actions, warn other road users about hazards, and even express drivers' emotions (Renge 2000). turn signals, hazard lights, horns, etc.)…”

“…More specifically, what is the difference between perceiving the behaviours of others without any signals and perceiving the identical behaviours accompanied with signals? In this case, it might provoke a negative appraisal and start a chain of unfortunate reactions, which might in turn spread irritation and aggression from one driver to another driver (Renge 2000). More specifically, how do drivers correctly decode and understand the meanings of the signals from other drivers?…”

Effects of Non-Verbal Communication Cues on Decisions and Confidence of Drivers at an Uncontrolled Intersection

“…The subject rated yielding frequency (YF) on a 5-point scale with 1 for "never yield" and 5 for "always yield" which was defined as frequency of yielding in similar situations in subject's driving experience (Björklund and Åberg, 2005). The subject also rated confidence level (CL) about his/her inferred intention of the other driver on a 5-point scale with 1 for "not confident at all" and 5 for "perfectly confident" based on the method used by Renge (2000). A total of 65 subjects with the age of 30 and older (mean age of 57 years) were recruited from the general population of Iowa City.…”

“…The cues include signaling devices such as blinkers and brake lights, vehicle behaviors such as position, speed, and acceleration /deceleration, and driver's behaviors such as eye contact and hand gestures. However, meanings of such communication cues are also uncertain and vary depending on the situation (Chauvin and Saad, 2000, Renge, 2000, Björklund and Åberg, 2005, Houtenbos, 2009). Effects of communication on driver's decisions have not been understood.…”