Transportation Research Part F 18 (2013) 148–158

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

Theory of planned behaviour and road violations:

The moderating influence of perceived behavioural control
Carole Castanier a,⇑, Thomas Deroche a, Tim Woodman b
a
CIAMS, UFR STAPS, Paris-Sud University, France
b
School of Sport, Health, and Exercise Scicences, Bangor University, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Understanding the motivation behind unsafe driving practices is of paramount importance
Received 12 March 2011 with a view to preventing road violations and crashes. Although the vast majority of pre-
Received in revised form 25 October 2012 vious studies have reported the predictive utility of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB),
Accepted 16 December 2012
these studies have been conducted within an additive framework. The present study aimed
to better understand the role of the TPB constructs in predicting drivers’ road violation
intentions and behaviours by investigating the interaction between differentiated Per-
Keywords:
ceived Behavioural Control (PBC) components (i.e. perceived capacity and autonomy)
Road safety
Risky driving behaviours
and the other TPB factors on intention and road violations. We hypothesised that attitudes
Theory of planned behaviour or subjective norms would affect intention, and that intention would affect behaviour, only
Interaction framework to the degree that they are accompanied by high perceived capacity or high perceived
autonomy. Participants (n = 280) completed two surveys 6 months apart: the first survey
(Time 1) assessed the TPB components (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, perceived behav-
ioural control and intention); the second survey (Time 2) reported road violation behav-
iours. The moderator effect of differentiated PBC components was inconsistent across
road violation behaviours. Drink-driving was the road violation that was best predicted
by the interactive TPB components, such as both perceived capacity and autonomy moder-
ate the contribution of subjective norms on intention formation and perceived capacity
moderate the prediction of behaviour by intention. Globally, TPB was a predictor of road
violation intentions and behaviours, with both additive and interactive effects. From a
practical standpoint, contemporary theories of attitudes and beliefs should consider the
possibility of the interactive framework for a more precise prediction of road safety
behaviour.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Road crashes are a prominent cause of injury and death. It is estimated that every year 1.2 million people die in road
crashes worldwide and that 20–50 million people are injured or permanently disabled (WHO, 2004). With a 60% projected
increase in road traffic injuries over the next 20 years (WHO, 2004), road traffic injuries are expected to become the third
leading cause of disability-adjusted life years lost worldwide by the year 2020 (Peden et al., 2001). As a consequence, policy
makers have highlighted the need for road safety campaigns, including an increased interest in a more complete understand-
ing of the cause of road crashes.

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Université Paris-Sud 11, UFR STAPS, Bât 335, F-91405 Orsay Cedex, France. Tel.: +33 (0)1 69 15 43 15; fax: +33 (0)1 69
15 62 22.
E-mail address: carole.castanier@u-psud.fr (C. Castanier).

1369-8478/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.014
 C. Castanier et al. / Transportation Research Part F 18 (2013) 148–158 149

1.1. Road violations

It is now well recognised that human factors are a major contributor to road crashes and, in the majority of cases, crashes
occur in situations where one or more driving rules have been violated (Gras, Cunill, Sullman, Planes, & Aymerich, 2004; Sull-
man, Meadows, & Pajo, 2002). For example, excessive and inappropriate speed is a major contributing factor in road crash
fatalities and serious injuries (CISR, 2002; NHTSA, 2002). Drink-driving is also associated with an increased rate of risky driv-
ing behaviour, motor vehicle crashes and mortality (Evans, 1991). Finally, although less-studied, other violations have been
related to traffic crashes, including following a car too closely, using a phone while driving, and disobeying road signs
(ONISR, 2009).
Despite the increased risk of a crash, drivers often violate road regulations (Gras et al., 2004; Stradling, Manstead, & Par-
ker, 1992). Violations are different from errors or lapses because they represent deliberate deviations from rules that are be-
lieved necessary for road safety (Malta, 2004; Reason, Manstead, Stradling, Baxter, & Campbell, 1990). As such, road
violations can be conceptualised in terms of a motivational factor and understanding the motivation behind unsafe driving
practices has become increasingly important in an effort to prevent crashes. The purpose of the current study is to identify
the extent to which social cognitive factors involved in the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) can contribute to this moti-
vational process and help to explain the incidence of road violations.

1.2. The theory of planned behaviour

The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is a parsimonious model of behaviour-specific cognitive determinants (Ajzen,
1988, 1991). Central to the TPB is the idea that any behaviour is determined by behavioural intentions, which are a function
of three independent constructs: attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control. Attitude refers to the evalu-
ative reactions of a person, favourable or unfavourable, towards engaging in the target behaviour. Subjective norm reflects
individuals’ perceived expectation that significant others (e.g., peers) want them to approach or avoid the given behaviour
(approval or disapproval of the behaviour). Perceived behavioural control (PBC) was added to the initial theories of reasoned
action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and pertains to the extent to which a person perceives personal
capacities and perceives constraints regarding the target behaviour. According to Ajzen (1991), beyond its influence on
intention, PBC is also held to determine behaviour directly.
The TPB has typically been well supported across a wide range of behaviours (see Albarracin, Johnson, Fishbein, &
Muellerleile, 2001; Armitage & Conner, 2001). Studies have also specifically demonstrated its predictive utility for under-
standing the decision making processes that lead people to violate traffic rules (e.g., Forward, 2009; Iversen, 2004; Turner
& McClure, 2004; Zhou, Wu, Rau, & Zhang, 2009). Although some authors have conceded that individuals could differ in
the relative weight placed on attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC (e.g., Zhou et al., 2009) and that the weights of the
TPB predictors could differ across drivers’ behaviours (e.g., Parker, Manstead, Stradling, & Reason, 1992), these road traffic
studies have limited their investigations to those independent effects postulated 20 years ago (Ajzen, 1991). That is, in these
studies, attitudes, subjective norms and PBC are considered as independent predictors of road violation behaviour.

1.3. Moderator effects of PBC

However, in other domains, there is evidence that these social cognitive constructs likely interact (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993;
McMillan & Conner, 2003; Umeh & Patel, 2004; Yzer, 2007). In their comprehensive review of the literature on attitudes,
Eagly and Chaiken (1993) identified several potential interactions of the TPB components that necessitate further scrutiny.
They pointed out that people who assess the behaviour positively are more or less inclined to enact behaviour to the extent
that they respectively have strong or weak perceptions of behavioural control, which suggests that PBC will moderate the
effect of attitudes on behaviour. More recent studies (e.g., Umeh & Patel, 2004) have suggested that PBC may also moderate
the effect of subjective norm. Subjective norms may encourage performance of behaviour provided people have control. But
if the perception of control is low then subjective norms may have little or no effect on behaviour (Umeh & Patel, 2004).
Then, according to Yzer (2007), perceived control over behavioural performance might function as a precondition for attitude
and subjective norm to predict intention. Finally, Ajzen (1991) conceded in the original formulation of the TPB that the rela-
tionship between intention and behaviour varies as a function of levels of PBC: A lack of control over performing behaviour
leads to a weakening of the relationship between intentions and behaviour (see Armitage & Conner, 2001, for meta-analysis).
Although a number of studies have tested the moderator effects of PBC on the TPB (e.g., Conner & McMillan, 1999; McMil-
lan & Conner, 2003; Umeh & Patel, 2004), no study has specifically tested the moderation model for drivers’ behaviour. The
primary purpose of the present study is to identify whether this interactive advancement provides additional insights to the
original additive formulation of the TPB in the context of road violation.

1.4. Differentiated components of PBC

A secondary interest of the present study is the characterisation of PBC component that could predict both intention and
behaviour. Indeed, Chan and Fishbein (1993) pointed out in their study on condom use that perceptions of ‘under my con-
trol/not under my control’ and ‘easy/difficult’ are not necessarily the same concepts (pp. 1457–1458). Researchers have since
150 C. Castanier et al. / Transportation Research Part F 18 (2013) 148–158

proposed a distinction between ‘perceived control or controllability’ and ‘perceived difficulty’ as components of PBC (e.g.,
Armitage & Conner, 1999a, 1999b; Armitage, Conner, Loach, & Willetts, 1999; Povey, Conner, Sparks, James, & Shepherd,
1999, 2000; Trafimow & Trafimow, 1998). These studies have further shown that perceived control and perceived difficulty
each predict intention independently (Trafimow & Trafimow, 1998) – this is also true for behaviour (Povey et al., 2000) –
with perceived difficulty as a better predictor of most behavioural intentions and behaviours than perceived control (see
Trafimow, Sheeran, Conner, & Finlay, 2002, for a meta-analysis). Trafimow et al. (2002) concluded that perceived control
and perceived difficulty should be treated as two separate constructs.
Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) have recently corroborated this view of two components for characterising the PBC: Judgment
of the perceived ease or difficulty of performing a behaviour characterised a first factor that they labelled perceived capacity
(close to the label perceived difficulty mentioned in previous studies, e.g., Trafimow et al., 2002). The second factor, which
they labelled perceived autonomy, is the degree of control over performing a behaviour and is thus similar to the perceived
control in previous studies (e.g. Trafimow et al., 2002). Further, although Ajzen (2002) argued that the distinction between
the two components of PBC does not negate the unitary nature of the level of control over volitional behaviour (higher-order
factor) as proposed by the original theory, he acknowledges the interest in differentiating between PBC components in cer-
tain behavioural domains (see also Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2005). In the present study, perceived capacity and perceived
autonomy were expected to have a slightly different pattern of influence across road violation behaviours. For example, driv-
ers could think that they are able to exceed the speed limit because of their ability and thus intend to do it. However, they
may also consider that this behaviour depends on the volume of traffic, which is not under their control; this creates a dis-
crepancy between intention and related behaviour. Thus, a secondary aim of the present study was to test the contribution of
perceived capacity and perceived autonomy as two separate moderators within the TPB framework in the specific domain of
road violations.

1.5. Background variables

It is well established that dangerous driving is associated with variables such as sex, age and driving frequency. For exam-
ple, younger men tend to drive more dangerously compared to older women drivers (Blows, Ameratunga, Ivers, Lo, & Norton,
2005). Also, frequent exposure to driving is linked with more frequent manifestations of dangerous on-road violations
(Wells-Parker et al., 2002). Finally, it is also well established that a person is prone to enact a behaviour in the future partly
to the extent that they have performed this behaviour in the past (Sutton, 1994). Overall, the salience of the TPB constructs,
including potential interactions, may be attenuated somewhat when juxtaposed against these background variables, espe-
cially past behaviour (Ajzen, 2000; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Consequently, these variables were treated as control variables.

1.6. Aim and hypotheses

In summary, whereas previous road safety studies have tested the predictive utility of the TPB within an additive
framework, we aim to test whether the interaction between differentiated PBC components (i.e., perceived capacity
and autonomy) and the other TPB factors add an incremental portion of variance in predicting road violations intention
and behaviours. We expected attitudes or subjective norms to affect intention, and intention to affect behaviour, only to
the degree that they are accompanied by high perceived capacity or high perceived autonomy. Because the relative
importance of the TPB components is likely to vary from one behaviour to another (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2004), we tested
these interactions on five road violations (excessive speeding, drink-driving, following a car too closely, using a phone
while driving, and disobeying road signs). Finally, as road safety research has been limited by the heavy reliance on
cross-sectional data (Iversen, 2004), we conducted a prospective study whereby behaviours were measured after TPB
constructs and intentions.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedure

Two surveys were administered by mail: the first survey (T1) assessed the TPB components (i.e., attitude, subjective
norm, perceived behavioural control and intention); the second survey (T2) measured behaviours 6-month later. One
thousand adult drivers were contacted by mail and were informed of the purpose of the study. Four hundred and five
of these drivers agreed to participate in the study, provided written informed consent, and provided complete data at
Time 1. The response rate of 40.5% is normal for road safety studies conducted by mail (e.g., Rundmo, Nordfjærn, Iversen,
Oltedal, & Jørgensen, 2011). Finally, 280 participants (153 women, 127 men) provided data at Time 2 (Mage = 39.7 years,
SD = 13.6), corresponding to a rate of attrition of 31%. MANOVA and univariate F tests revealed no differences in age, sex,
driving frequency, past driving violations or any of the cognitive variables between respondents who completed the sur-
veys at both time points (N = 280) and respondents who completed the survey only at Time 1 (N = 125), F(38, 366) = 0.32,
p > .05.
 C. Castanier et al. / Transportation Research Part F 18 (2013) 148–158 151

2.2. Measures

Following Ajzen’s (1988) principle of compatibility, predictors (attitude, subjective norm and PBC components) and cri-
teria (intention and behaviours) should be measured at the same level of specificity in order to maximise the predictive
power of the TPB. This methodological recommendation was observed in the current study.
Attitude toward behaviour was assessed on seven semantic differential scales for each of the five road violations. The
statement ‘‘[Committing this road violation] would be. . .’’ was completed with the seven-point semantic differential choices
of bad/good, foolish/wise, unpleasant/pleasant, useless/useful, negative/positive, unsatisfactory/satisfactory, and harmful/beneficial.
A higher score indicates a more positive attitude toward the road violation. This type of scale is widely used as an indicator of
attitude (e.g., Kidwell & Jewell, 2003). Separate principal component analyses for each road violation revealed that the seven
attitude items loaded on a single factor for each of the five violations. The solution explained between 63% and 78% of the
variance depending on the target violation. Item scores were then averaged, giving overall mean attitude scores toward each
road violation (a = .90–.95).
Subjective norms were measured with three items for each road violation: ‘‘People important to me think that I should
[commit this road violation]’’; ‘‘People important to me would be disappointed if I did not [commit this road violation]’’;
‘‘People important to me would [commit this road violation]’’. The items were rated on seven-point Likert-type scales rang-
ing from 1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree with a higher score reflecting greater peer approval of the related road
violation. Principal component analyses for each road violation revealed that the three subjective norms items loaded on a
single factor for each of the five road violations. The solution explained between 56% and 68% of the variance depending on
the target violation. Item scores were then averaged, giving an overall mean peer approval score toward each road violation
(a = .88–.94).
Perceived autonomy was measured with one item for each road violation: ‘‘[Committing this road violation] is completely
under my control’’. The item was rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 7 = com-
pletely agree with a higher score shows greater perceived autonomy over the road violation.
Perceived capacity was assessed with two items for each road violation using a seven-point Likert-type scale: ‘‘For me
[Committing this road violation] would be. . ., difficult/easy’’; ‘‘If I decide to I can easily [commit this road violation]’’ very un-
likely/very likely. A higher score shows greater perceived capacity for the road violation. Principal component analyses run
separately for each road violation revealed that the two perceived capacity items loaded on a single factor. The solution ex-
plained between 64% and 77% of the variance depending on the target violation. Item scores were then averaged, giving an
overall mean perceived capacity score for each road violation (rs from .28 to .54, ps < .001).
Road violation intentions. The intention to violate road traffic rules was measured via four items for each road violation:
‘‘Within the next six months, I intend to [commit this road violation]’’; ‘‘How likely is it that you will [commit this road vio-
lation] within the next six months’’; ‘‘Within the next six months, I would like to [commit this road violation]’’; ‘‘I expect to
[commit this road violation] within the next six months’’. The items were rated on 7-point Likert-type scales ranging from
1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely a higher score reflects stronger intent to commit the road violation. Principal components
analyses run for each road violation revealed that the four intentions items loaded on a single factor for each of the five vio-
lations. The solution explained between 75% and 88% of the variance depending on the target violation. Item scores were
then averaged, giving an overall mean intention scores toward each road violation (a = .88–.96).
Road violations behaviours. The five road violations (i.e., excessive speeding, drink-driving, following a car too closely,
using a phone while driving, and disobeying road signs) were measured via self-report. Drivers were asked to indicate
how often they had carried out each of the behaviours during the previous 6 months (between Time 1 and Time 2) on a
7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = never to 7 = very often.
Background variables. Participants also reported their age, gender, driving frequency (‘‘How often have you driven your car
over the last six months?’’ rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 = never to 7 = very often), and past road violations (‘‘In
the past twelve months have you [committed road violation]’’ rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 = never to 7 = very
often).

2.3. Statistical analysis

Moderated regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses. The mean-centred attitude, subjective norm, per-
ceived autonomy and perceived capacity variables were used to create the interaction terms. An important advantage of
mean-centring is the reduction of multicollinearity between independent variables and the interaction term (Aiken & West,
1991; Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). One implication of this method is that for appropriate interpretation of the results
unstandardised b-coefficients and not standardised b-coefficients should be reported (Aiken & West, 1991). These recom-
mendations were followed for each of the analyses.
Intention was the criterion variable on the first set of analyses. In this set, we entered attitude, subjective norms, and PBC
components (i.e., perceived autonomy and perceived capacity) in the first step of analysis. In the second step we tested the
moderator effects of PBC components by adding the product terms (attitude  autonomy, SN  autonomy, attitude  capac-
ity and SN  capacity). Finally, the third step was used to test the strength of these interactions after introducing background
variables (age, sex, driving frequency and past driving violations).
152 C. Castanier et al. / Transportation Research Part F 18 (2013) 148–158

Road violation was the criterion variable on the second set of analyses. In the first step we entered intentions and PBC
components (i.e., perceived autonomy and perceived capacity). The moderator effects of PBC components were tested in
the second step by adding the product terms (intentions  autonomy, intentions  capacity). In the last step we tested
the strength of these interactions after introducing background variables (age, sex, driving frequency and past driving
violations).
We considered both the statistical and the substantive significance of the increase in explained variance resulting from
the addition of the interactions in order to determine the adequacy of the additive versus the interactive models. We fol-
lowed the recommendation of Aiken and West (1991) for testing moderation effects: The regression coefficients and their
associated significance tests determined if the interactions were significant. Simple slopes analyses determined the nature
of the interactions, with the significance of the regression slope examined at two levels of the hypothesised moderator: low
(one standard deviation below the mean) and high (one standard deviation above the mean).

3. Results

Tables 1–3 show the descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations.

Table 1
Correlations among measured variables and descriptive statistics: drink-driving, excessive speeding.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M SD Variance Skew Kurtosis

(SE = .15) (SE = .29)
1. Age – .14c .24a .15c .12 .15c .09 .09 .16b .15c 39.75 13.67 186.86 0.45 1.04
2. Gender .14c – .13c .12c .16b .01 .03 .26a .14c .08 – – – – –
3. Driving frequency .24a .13c – .10 .05 .02 .04 .09 .07 .11 5.63 1.75 3.07 0.99 0.44
4. Past behaviour .25a .16b .20b – .68a .47a .06 .54a .85a .61a 1.74 1.25 1.57 2.00 3.63
5. Attitude .30a .12c .13c .59a .54a .19b .62a .72a .47a 1.45 0.76 0.58 2.00 3.65
6. Subjective norms .32a .05 .02 .42a .61a – .20b .33a .54a .31a 1.97 1.00 1.00 1.14 0.98
7. Autonomy .04 .01 .06 .10 .10 .14c – .01 .11 .05 6.36 1.30 1.68 2.57 6.40
8. Capacity .23a .14c .11 .49a .50a .38a .06 – .54a .38a 2.76 1.73 2.98 0.65 0.55
9. Intention .27a .15c .19b .78a .78a .57a .07 .58a – .57a 1.72 1.38 1.91 2.24 4.11
10. Behaviour .31a .02 .16b .65a .57a .41a .09 .49a .63a – 1.44 0.77 0.60 2.16 5.26
M 39.75 – 5.63 3.82 2.89 3.60 5.92 5.24 3.75 3.29
SD 13.67 – 1.75 1.81 1.36 1.44 1.62 1.65 2.00 1.60
Variance 186.86 – 3.07 3.28 1.85 2.07 2.63 2.73 4.00 2.55
Skew (SE = .15) 0.45 – 0.99 0.40 0.29 0.03 1.57 0.81 0.28 0.76
Kurtosis (SE = .29) 1.04 – 0.44 1.06 0.66 0.56 1.44 0.26 1.24 0.36

Note. Drink-driving appears above the diagonal; excessive speeding appears below the diagonal.
a
p < .001.
b
p < .01.
c
p < .05.

Table 2
Correlations among measured variables and descriptive statistics: following a car too closely, using a phone while driving.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M SD Variance Skew Kurtosis

(SE = .15) (SE = .29)
1. Age – .14c .24a .14c .14c .27a .14c .03 .19b .28a 39.75 13.67 186.86 0.45 1.04
2. Gender .14c – .13c .11 .02 .05 .03 .07 .01 .05 – – – – –
3. Driving frequency .24a .13c – .10 .18b .02 .06 .11 .15c .01 5.63 1.75 3.07 0.99 0.44
4. Past behaviour .26a .11 .24a – .49a .32a .13c .43a .70a .47a 2.80 1.52 2.31 0.87 0.11
5. Attitude .28a .01 .15c .74a – .44a .15c .40a .70a .35a 1.75 0.85 0.72 1.07 0.17
6. Subjective norms .27a .03 .11 .59a .66a – .23a .24a .42a .20b 3.14 1.28 1.63 0.05 0.93
7. Autonomy .09 .03 .01 .12c .16b .16b – .09 .09 .07 5.45 1.91 3.65 1.02 0.20
8. Capacity .17b .06 .19b .62a .70a .46a .03 – .43a .26a 4.09 1.67 2.78 0.27 0.58
9. Intention .23a .04 .24a .88a .82a .65a .16b .70a – .45a 2.33 1.46 2.12 1.10 0.28
10. Behaviour .29a .05 .20b .79a .70a .50a .07 .57a .76a – 2.48 1.25 1.56 1.12 1.14
M 39.75 – 5.63 2.69 2.28 3.16 6.36 3.77 2.90 2.29
SD 13.67 – 1.75 1.95 1.39 1.48 1.27 1.94 2.07 1.62
Variance 186.86 – 3.07 3.81 1.93 2.18 1.60 3.76 4.30 2.63
Skew (SE = .15) 0.45 – 0.99 1.04 0.95 0.22 2.46 0.05 0.69 1.41
Kurtosis (SE = .29) 1.04 – 0.44 0.21 0.21 0.73 5.86 1.12 0.99 1.21

Note. Following a car too closely appears above the diagonal; using a phone while driving appears below the diagonal.
a
p < .001.
b
p < .01.
c
p < .05.
 C. Castanier et al. / Transportation Research Part F 18 (2013) 148–158 153

Table 3
Correlations among measured variables and descriptive statistics: disobeying road signs.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 M SD Variance Skew Kurtosis

(SE = .15) (SE = .29)
1. Age – 39.75 13.67 186.86 0.45 1.04
2. Gender .14c – – – – – –
3. Driving .24a .13c – 5.63 1.75 3.07 0.99 0.44
frequency
b
4. Past .16 .09 .01 – 1.66 1.10 1.21 2.27 5.34
behaviour
5. Attitude .22a .11 .04 .57a – 1.41 0.77 0.59 2.25 10.40
6. Subjective .22a .05 .03 .43a .56a – 1.71 0.96 0.92 1.47 1.56
norms
7. Autonomy .05 .02 .11 .11 .08 .16b – 6.39 1.33 1.76 2.69 6.96
8. Capacity .07 .11 .07 .35a .40a .29a .04 – 3.06 1.74 3.01 0.48 0.63
9. Intention .20b .07 .07 .75a .75a .43a .09 .39a – 1.51 1.03 1.05 3.14 11.47
10. Behaviour .14c .04 .11 .50a .49a .26a .11 .30a .61a 1.45 0.89 0.79 2.86 9.69
a
p < .001.
b
p < .01.
c
p < .05.

3.1. Predicting the intention to commit a road violation

3.1.1. Additive effects in the TPB

In the first step of the analysis, attitude, subjective norms and PBC components (i.e., perceived autonomy and perceived
capacity) explained 56.2% of the variance in the intentions for drink-driving, F(4, 275) = 88.37, p < .001; 68% for excessive
speeding, F(4, 275) = 146.28, p < .001; 53.6% for following a car too closely, F(4, 275) = 79.45, p < .001; 72.7% for phoning and
driving, F(4, 275) = 183.08, p < .001; and 57% for disobeying road signs, F(4, 275) = 91.16, p < .001.
Attitude was a significant positive predictor of intentions for each road violation (bs from .71 to 1.19, ps < .001). Subjective
norms (SN) was a significant positive predictor of intentions for drink-driving (b = .30, p < .001), excessive speeding (b = .29,
p < .01), following a car too closely (b = .19, p < .01) and phoning and driving (b = .37, p < .001). Perceived autonomy was a sig-
nificant positive predictor of intentions only for excessive speeding (b = .28, p < .001). Perceived capacity was a significant po-
sitive predictor of intentions for each road violation (bs from .12 to .52, ps < .01).

3.1.2. Moderator effects in the TPB

Entered in Step 2, the attitude  autonomy, attitude  capacity, SN  autonomy, and SN  capacity interactions signifi-
cantly increased the amount of variance explained in intentions for drink-driving, DR2 = .03, F(4, 271) = 5.40, p < .001; follow-
ing a car too closely, DR2 = .02, F(4, 271) = 3.09, p < .05; and disobeying road signs, DR2 = .04, F(4, 271) = 6.66, p < .001.
The attitude  autonomy interaction had a significant positive coefficient weight in the regression equation only for
drink-driving, (b = .17, p < .01). Furthermore, the SN  autonomy interaction had a significant negative coefficient weight
in the regression equation for drink-driving, (b = .15, p < .01) and a significant positive coefficient weight in the regression
equation for disobeying road signs, (b = .09, p < .05).
The attitude  capacity interaction has a significant negative coefficient weight in the regression equation for drink-driv-
ing, (b = .18, p < .05) and a positive coefficient weight in the regression equation for following a car too closely, (b = .20,
p < .01) and disobeying road signs, (b = .13, p < .05). Finally, The SN  capacity interaction has a significant positive coefficient
weight in the regression equation only for drink-driving, (b = .22, p < .001).

3.1.3. Strength of the moderator effects

After introduction of background variables (age, sex, driving frequency and past driving violations) at the third step,
among the seven previous interaction effects on road violation intention two effects concerning intention to drink-driving
(attitude  autonomy and attitude  capacity) disappeared. At this step, the extended interactive model explained 78.7%
of the variance in the intentions for drink-driving, F(12, 267) = 82.24, p < .001; 79.5% for excessive speeding,
F(12, 267) = 86.37, p < .001; 69% for following a car too closely, F(12, 267) = 49.47, p < .001; 85.4% for phoning and driving,
F(12, 267) = 129.93, p < .001; and 75.5% for disobeying road signs, F(12, 267) = 68.49, p < .001.

3.1.4. Nature of the significant interactions

At the last step of analysis, results provided support for a moderator effect of perceived autonomy in the prediction of
intention to drink-driving and disobeying road signs by subjective norms (bs = .10 and .10 respectively, ps < .05). The slopes
of the pairs of regression lines differed significantly from one another (t(267) = 2.42 and 3.07 respectively, ps < .01) such that
the predictive power of SN was weaker when autonomy was high (bs = .03 and .05 respectively, ns) than when autonomy
was low (bs = .18 and -.15 respectively, ps < .01).
The analyses also revealed a moderator effect of perceived capacity in the prediction of intention to following a car too
closely and disobeying road signs by attitudes (bs = .21 and .15 respectively, ps < .01). The slopes of the pairs of regression lines
154 C. Castanier et al. / Transportation Research Part F 18 (2013) 148–158

differed significantly from one another (t(267) = 3.32 and 3.96 respectively, ps < .01) such that the predictive power of atti-
tudes was stronger when capacity was high (bs = .50 and .46 respectively, ps < .001) than when capacity was low (bs = .21,
p < .01 and .16, ns respectively).
Lastly, results showed a moderator effect of perceived capacity in the prediction of intention to drink-driving by subjective
norms (b = .15, p < .001). The slopes of the pair of regression lines differed significantly from one another (t(267) = 3.42,
p < .001) such that the predictive power of SN was stronger when capacity was high (b = .21, p < .001) than when capacity
was low (b < .01, ns).

3.2. Predicting road violations

3.2.1. Additive effect in the TPB

In the first step of the analysis, intentions and PBC components (i.e., perceived autonomy and perceived capacity) ex-
plained 32.6% of the variance in the intentions for drink-driving, F(3, 276) = 44.55, p < .001; 42.2% for excessive speeding,
F(3, 276) = 67.24, p < .001; 21.2% for following a car too closely, F(3, 276) = 24.80, p < .001; 57.6% for phoning and driving,
F(3, 276) = 124.99, p < .001; and 37.7% for disobeying road signs, F(3, 276) = 55.57, p < .001.
Intention was a significant positive predictor for each road violation (bs from .40 to 1.16, ps < .001). Perceived capacity
was a significant positive predictor of excessive speeding only (b = .29, p < .001).

3.2.2. Moderator effects in the TPB

Entered in Step 2, the intentions  autonomy and intentions  capacity interactions significantly increased the amount of
variance explained for drink-driving, DR2 = .026, F(2, 274) = 5.43, p < .01; phoning and driving, DR2 = .018, F(2, 274) = 6.06,
p < .01; and disobeying road signs, DR2 = .039, F(2, 274) = 9.11, p < .001.
The intentions  autonomy interaction has a significant positive coefficient weight in the regression equation for drink-
driving, (b = .06, p < .05).
The intentions  capacity interaction has a significant negative coefficient weight in the regression equation for drink-
driving, (b = .10, p < .05) and a significant positive coefficient weight in the regression equation for phoning and driving,
(b = .27, p < .001) and disobeying road signs, (b = .16, p < .001).

3.2.3. Strength of the moderator effects

After introduction of background variables (age, sex, driving frequency and past driving violations) at the third step,
among the four previous interaction effects on road violation only the intentions  autonomy interaction effect on drink-
driving disappeared.
Furthermore, at this step, the extended interactive model explained 41.1% of the variance for drink-driving,
F(9, 270) = 20.98, p < .001; 51% for excessive speeding, F(9, 270) = 31.18, p < .001; 29.9% for following a car too closely,
F(9, 270) = 12.82, p < .001; 66.6% for phoning and driving, F(9, 270) = 59.73, p < .001; and 42.4% for disobeying road signs,
F(9, 270) = 22.11, p < .001.

3.2.4. Nature of the significant interactions

At the last step of analysis, results revealed a moderator effect of perceived capacity in the prediction of drink-driving, phoning and
driving, and disobeying road signs by intentions (bs = .10, .25 and .16 respectively, ps < .05). The slopes of the pairs of regression lines
differed significantly from one another (t(270) = 2.38, 3.45 and 3.40 respectively, ps < .05) such that for drink-driving the predictive
power of intention was weaker when capacity was high (b = .14, ns) than when capacity was low (b = .34, p < .01). Conversely, for
phoning and driving, and disobeying road signs the predictive power of intention was stronger when capacity was high (bs = .48 and
.37 respectively, ps < .001) than when capacity was low (bs = .01 and .05 respectively, ns).

4. Discussion

The aim of the present research was to examine whether the interaction between differentiated PBC components (i.e. per-
ceived capacity and autonomy) and the other TPB factors add an incremental portion of the variance to the original additive
formulation of the theory for predicting road violations intention and behaviours. Such interaction effects were of interest
because they might indicate boundary conditions for the relationships between variables in the TPB. The results revealed
that the TPB had a strong utility for predicting road violation intentions and behaviours, with both additive and interactive
functions.
The additive TPB model explains between 53.6% and 72.7% of the variance in intention and between 21.2% and 57.6% of
the variance in behaviour, depending on the target road violation. Beyond the relative parsimony of this additive formulation
of the TPB, the present study also supported the usefulness of the interactive advancement by showing that the relationships
between attitude or subjective norms and road violation intentions, and intention and behaviour as well, may vary as a func-
tion of differentiated PBC components (i.e. perceived capacity or perceived autonomy). This result thus extends previous re-
search that has found moderation between the TPB components for predicting drug-taking intention and behaviour (e.g.,
McMillan & Conner, 2003; Umeh & Patel, 2004). Nevertheless, although it was not the aim of the present study to consider
 C. Castanier et al. / Transportation Research Part F 18 (2013) 148–158 155

specific differences across different road violations, it is important to note that this moderator effect was not consistent
across road violations. This difference across road violations highlights that the relative importance of the TPB factors
(and PBC components) is likely to vary from one behaviour to another. For example, social factors have been shown to play
a strong role in alcohol consumption (e.g., Simons, Correia, & Carey, 2000). As such, it is not surprising in our study that PBC
components interact with subjective norm, rather than with attitude, to form intention to drink-driving. Although the cur-
rent study revealed that the weight of the TPB predictors could differ across drivers’ behaviours (Hagger & Chatzisarantis,
2005; Parker, Manstead, Stradling, & Reason, 1992), further research is needed to typify and compare road behaviour for
understanding different operationalisations of TPB.
Drink-driving was the road violation that best supported the multiplicative advancement of the TPB components, even
when background variables were entered in the model. When age, sex, driving experience and past driving violations were
taken into account, both perceived capacity and autonomy moderate the contribution of subjective norms on intention for-
mation and perceived capacity moderate the prediction of behaviour by intention. Disobeying road signs also provided sup-
port of the interactional advancement in the TPB. When the contributions of age, sex, driving experience and past driving
violations are controlled, perceived autonomy moderate the influence of subjective norms on intention formation and per-
ceived capacity both moderate the prediction of intention by attitude and the prediction of behaviour by intention. Perceived
capacity also moderate the contribution of attitude on intention formation of following a car too closely and moderate the
contribution of intention on phoning and driving behaviour. As a whole, results consistently show that perceived autonomy
has, in comparison with perceived capacity, few moderator effects within the TPB framework. Thus, the differentiated com-
ponents model of PBC has value in that it enables to identify the specific components that account for changes in intention
and behaviour (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2005). This may be important both for focusing on the underlying mechanisms
responsible for intention and behaviour change in the TPB, but also for targeting specific interventions.
According to this first set of results, and with road violation prevention in mind, the present study also examines how PBC
components moderate the contribution of the TPB factors. In line with previous studies (e.g., Umeh & Patel, 2004), it was
expected that positive attitudes and peer approval of road violation would contribute more to intention formation, and that
these intentions would predict road violation, when the perceived autonomy and/or perceived capacity are high. This expec-
tation was partially supported by the analysis.
Globally, when perceived capacity was high, positive attitudes (towards following a car too closely and disobeying road
signs) or peers’ approval (towards drinking and driving) exerted a stronger influence on the intention formation of the target
behaviour. Further, when perceived capacity was high, behavioural intention (to phoning and driving and disobeying road
signs) exerted a stronger influence on the volitional behaviour. Beyond this global trend, it is particularly interesting to note
that the case of drink and driving is a little bit more complex. As originally expected, when perceived capacity increase, the
predictive power of subjective norms increases, suggesting that the more it could be easy for individual to drink and drive,
the more peer’s approval about this behaviour influence the intention to adopt it. Perceived capacity also moderates the rela-
tionship between intention and drink and driving behaviour, with however low perceived capacity strengthening the rela-
tionship between intention and behaviour. This unexpected finding might be explained by the specificity of the behaviour in
question. Drinking motives are indeed widely associated with the loss of self-control (i.e., disinhibition; Jonah, 1997). That is,
the more people think that they loss their driving skills when they drink, the more they drive after drinking because of their
will to take risk to seek sensations (Zuckerman, 2007). It evidences that it is important to consider the specificity of each
behaviour studied, in regard to the clusters of motives that could operate when people ask themselves about their intention
to behave.
Moreover, the results show that the more people feel control over performing drink and driving or disobeying to road
signs (i.e., high perceived autonomy), the less they follow the peer’s pressure to form their intention to behave. Although
this result was unexpected, there are reasons to consider that it is realistic. Indeed, regarding the self determination theory
(SDT) framework (Deci & Ryan, 1985), perceived autonomy could be related to individual self-regulation of behaviour. High
perceived autonomy could emanate from one’s sense of volition, self-satisfaction, or intrinsic values; and then all the exter-
nal constraints (such peer’s pressure) should be less relevant in the intention to adopt a particular behaviour. Conversely, as
observed for drink and driving in the present study, decrease in perceived autonomy, that could emerge from the experience
of pressure and external demands, is related to the influence of peer (norms) in the decision making process. There are now
strong supports for an integrative view between the TPB and the SDT, demonstrating that autonomous/controlled motivation
contribute to the intention formation as antecedents of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control (see
Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Biddle, 2002 for a meta-analysis). Then the present study asks to clarify their potential influence
as moderators, rather than as antecedents, of TPB components.
These contributions notwithstanding, the current study has several limitations that should be considered when interpret-
ing the results. Although the present study involved a prospective design and respected some fundamental principles for
predict intentions and behaviours (Sutton, 1998), caution should be exercised in interpreting the data. Of particular note,
statistical power limitations of studies using observational data in interaction tests have been well documented (e.g., Aiken
& West, 1991; Cohen et al., 2003; Jaccard & Turrisi, 2003; McClelland & Judd, 1993). Several factors can explain the weak
statistical power for interaction tests in the present study. Firstly, greater measurement error, which is magnified when cre-
ating product terms, increases noise and reduces statistical power. A second threat to statistical power for interaction tests in
moderated regression analysis, concerns the distribution of the predictor and moderator variables (McClelland & Judd, 1993).
As a general rule, the smaller the variance of a variable, the more difficult it is to detect the variable’s effect on another
156 C. Castanier et al. / Transportation Research Part F 18 (2013) 148–158

variable. Optimal power requires maximum variance in the interaction term (Yzer, 2007). Factors that reduce variance are
restricted range of observations and clustering of observations. When this occurs, reduced variances of the predictor and
moderator variables are magnified in the variance of the interaction, thereby decreasing statistical power for the interaction
test exponentially (Yzer, 2007). As is probably true for various risky health behaviours, globally in the present study, the var-
iable distributions are skewed and cluster around one of the scale end points notably for attitude, perceived autonomy,
behavioural intention and volitional behaviour and to a lesser extent for subjective norms and perceived capacity, and as
a result variances in these data are not very large (cf. Tables 1–3). This situation is particularly true for two road violations
studied (i.e., drinking and driving and disobeying road signs). Overall, the dispersion and distribution results may explain the
weak statistical power for interaction tests in the present study and may be the unexpected results for the two behaviours
mentioned above. Moreover, the overall mean scores in relation to participants’ intentions to commit the violations were all
relatively low considering that intentions were measured on a seven-point scale with higher scores indicating more inten-
tions. Of all of the behaviours examined, only excessive speeding was associated with a mean score above the mid-point of
the scale (i.e., M = 3.75). The same applies in relation to behaviour. Although these low mean scores are common across stud-
ies on risk-taking behaviours or law violations (e.g., ecstasy use, Umeh & Patel, 2004), future research is needed to extend the
results of the present study; for example, by focusing on drivers that have had their driver’s license withdrawn.
Furthermore, in line with earlier research the present study confirmed that perceived capacity (i.e., perceived difficulty)
and perceived autonomy (i.e., perceived control) are distinct constructs (e.g., Sparks, Guthrie, & Shepherd, 1997; Yzer, Hen-
nessy, & Fishbein, 2004) that relate differently to intention and behaviour such as perceived capacity is a better predictor of
intention and behaviour than is perceived autonomy (Trafimow et al., 2002). Nevertheless, this apparent distinction between
perceived capacity and perceived autonomy do not allow to clarify whether perceived capacity is a measure tapping into PBC
(e.g., Rhodes & Courneya, 2003; Trafimow & Duran, 1998), or perhaps a measure of a different TPB components such as atti-
tude (e.g., Chan & Fishbein, 1993; Montano, Kasprzyk, Von Haeften, & Fishbein, 2001). Indeed, in line with previous research
(Fishbein, 1997; Leach, Hennessy, & Fishbein, 2001; Yzer et al., 2004), results of the present study show that easy – difficult
perceptions (i.e., perceived capacity) are correlated strongly with attitude measures (rs between .40 and .70, ps < .001
depending on the target behaviour). Reasonable as this contention may seem, it is at odds with present results (cf. Tables
4 and 5) that highlight perceived capacity to explain variance in intention over and above variance explained by attitude
(Craig, Goldberg, & Dietz, 1996; Devellis, Blalock, & Sandler, 1990; Evans & Norman, 1998; Hillhouse, Turrisi, & Kastner,
2000). Thus, some questions about the conceptualisation of perceived capacity remain. Notably, it is possible that perceived
difficulty measures different constructs under different circumstances. Depending on the particular behaviour being consid-
ered, perceived difficulty may be a measure of perceived behavioural control, a measure of attitude, or an independent factor
(Yzer et al., 2004).
As a whole, the present results can be interpreted as support for both additive and interactive advancement in the TPB.
Contemporary theories of attitudes and beliefs should then consider the possibility of this interaction (e.g., Kidwell & Jewell,
2003; McMillan & Conner, 2003; Umeh & Patel, 2004). From a theoretical standpoint, an interaction framework may help us
to understand more clearly how belief systems are organised and how each beliefs influence each other and affect behaviour.
The present study is a first step to provide evidence of the interest of this interactive advancement for predicting road vio-
lation intentions and behaviours. Although such advancements are bought at the price of the parsimony of the original the-
ory (Ajzen, 2002), they have practical value in attempting to modify drivers’ behaviours that have important health
consequences (ONISR, 2009).

Table 4
Unstandardised b-values for each of the hierarchical regression analyses predicting road violation intentions.

Variables Drinking and driving Excessive speeding Following too closely Phoning and driving Disobeying road signs
Step Step Step 3 Step Step Step Step Step Step 3 Step Step Step Step Step Step 3
1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2
Constant 1.72a 1.76a 10.54 3.75a 1.12a 6.74 2.33a 2.23a 8.85 2.90a 2.82a 6.72 1.51a 1.45a 8.48
Attitudes .71a .82a .30a 1.19a .31a .75a .85a .73a .52a 1.08a .95a .48a .71a .52a .32a
Subjective norms .30a .28a .14a .29b .27a .24b .19b .21b .12c .37a .40a .21b <.01 .01 .05
Autonomy .04 .09 .04 .28a .52a .14c .06 .04 .07 .09 .13 .09 .04 .09c .05
Capacity .22b .18c .02 .44a <.01 .30a .25a .29a .13c .52a .58a .30a .12b .14b .07c
Attitude  Autonomy .17b .05 .03 .04 .05 .02 .01 <.01 .02 .08
SN  Autonomy .15b .10c .16 .02 .10 .09 .02 .02 .09c .10b
Attitude  Capacity .18c .09 .02 .13 .20b .21b .02 <.01 .13c .15b
SN  Capacity .22a .15a 1.12a <.01 .02 .01 .21c .09 .07 .01
Age <.01 <.01 .01 <.01 <.01
Gender .10 .05 .10 .06 .09
Driving frequency .01 .04 .01 .05 .02
Past behaviour .69a .47a .42a .57a .45a
R2 .56a .60a .79a .68a .68a .80a .54a .56a .69a .73a .73a .85a .57a .61a .76a
DR2 – .04a .19a – <.01 .12a – .02c .13a – <.01 .12a – .04a .15a
a
p < .001.
b
p < .01.
c
p < .05.
 C. Castanier et al. / Transportation Research Part F 18 (2013) 148–158 157

Table 5
Unstandardised b-values for each of the hierarchical regression analyses predicting road violation behaviours.

Variables Drinking and driving Excessive speeding Following too closely Phoning and driving Disobeying road signs
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Constant 1.44a 1.50a .96 3.29a 3.19a 20.72 2.48a 2.51a 11.95 2.29a 2.11a 12.41 1.45a 1.40a 2.37
Intentions .40a .52a .24b .84a .74a .26c .52a .54a .26c 1.16a .99a .24 .50a .30a .21c
Autonomy <.01 .01 .02 .06 .06 .04 .04 .04 .01 .07 .03 .04 .05 .09c .08c
Capacity .08 .07 .03 .29b .40a .35a .10 .08 .05 .11 .17 .14 .07 .09c .09c
Intentions  Autonomy .06c .05 .10 .09 .13 .08 .04 .02 .06 .05
Intentions  Capacity .10c .10c .16 .17 .04 <.01 .27a .25a .16a .16a
Age <.01 .01c .02a .01c <.01
Gender <.01 .23 .09 .11 .04
Driving frequency .03 .05 <.01 .03 .03
Past behaviour .27a .33a .22a .43a .10
R2 .33a .35a .41a .42a .43a .51a .21a .22a .30a .58a .60a .67a .38a .42a .42a
DR2 – .02b .06a – .01 .08a – .01 .08a – .02b .07a – .04a <.01
a
p < .001.
b
p < .01.
c
p < .05.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2000). Theory of reasoned action. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 61–63). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32,
665–683.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2004). Questions raised by a reasoned action approach: comment on Ogden (2003). Health Psychology, 23, 431–434.
Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour as models of condom use: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 142–161.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999a). Distinguishing perceptions of control from self-efficacy: Predicting consumption of a low fat diet using the theory of
planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 72–90.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999b). The theory of planned behavior: Assessment of predictive validity and perceived control. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 38, 35–54.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.
Armitage, C. J., Conner, M., Loach, J., & Willetts, D. (1999). Different perceptions of control: Applying an extended theory of planned behavior to legal and
illegal drug use. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 301–316.
Blows, S., Ameratunga, S., Ivers, R. Q., Lo, S. K., & Norton, R. (2005). Risky driving habits and motor vehicle driver injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37,
619–624.
Chan, D. K. S., & Fishbein, M. (1993). Determinants of college women’s intentions to tell their partners to use condoms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
23, 1455–1470.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Comité Interministériel de la Sécurité Routière (2002). Communiqué de presse. <http://www.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr/>.
Conner, M., & McMillan, B. (1999). Interaction effects in the theory of planned behaviour: Studying cannabis use. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38,
195–222.
Craig, S., Goldberg, J., & Dietz, W. H. (1996). Psychosocial correlates of physical activity among fifth and eighth graders. Preventive Medicine, 25, 506–614.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Devellis, B. M., Blalock, S. J., & Sandler, R. S. (1990). Predicting participation in cancer screening: The role of perceived behavioral control. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 20, 639–660.
Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). Psychology of attitudes. NY: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
Evans, L. (1991). Traffic safety and the driver. New York: van Nostrand Reinhold.
Evans, D., & Norman, P. (1998). Understanding pedestrians’ road crossing decisions: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Health Education
Research, 13, 481–489.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Fishbein, M. (1997). Predicting, understanding, and changing socially relevant behaviors: Lessons learnt. In C. McGarty & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The message of
social psychology (pp. 177–191). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Forward, S. E. (2009). The theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive norms and past behaviour in the prediction of drivers’ intention to violate.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12, 198–207.
Gras, M. E., Cunill, M., Sullman, J. M., Planes, M., & Aymerich, M. (2004, September). Self-reported aberrant driving behaviour in a sample of Spanish drivers.
In Paper presented at the international conference on traffic and transport psychology, Nottingham, UK.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2005). First- and higher-order models of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control in the Theory
of Planned Behavior and their invariance across two health behaviors. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 513–535.
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical
activity: Predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 3–32.
Hillhouse, J. J., Turrisi, R., & Kastner, M. (2000). Modeling tanning salon behavioral tendencies using appearance motivation, self-monitoring and the Theory
of Planned Behavior. Health Education Research, 15, 405–414.
Iversen, H. (2004). Risk-taking attitudes and risky driving behaviour. Transportation Research Part F, 7, 135–150.
Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jonah, B. A. (1997). Sensation seeking and risky driving: A review and synthesis of the literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 651–665.
158 C. Castanier et al. / Transportation Research Part F 18 (2013) 148–158

Kidwell, B. L., & Jewell, R. D. (2003). An examination of perceived behavioural control: Internal and external influences on intention. Psychology & Marketing,
20, 625–642.
Leach, M., Hennessy, M., & Fishbein, M. (2001). Perceptions of easy-difficult: Attitude or self-efficacy? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1–20.
Malta, L. S. (2004). Predictors of aggressive driving in young adults. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and, Engineering, 65(3-B), 1554.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.
McMillan, B., & Conner, M. (2003). Applying an extended version of the theory of planned behavior to illicit drug use among students. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 33, 1662–1683.
Montano, D., Kasprzyk, D., Von Haeften, I., & Fishbein, M. (2001). Toward an understanding of condom use behaviours: A theoretical and methodological
overview of Project SAFER. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 6, 139–150.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2002). National survey of speeding and unsafe driving attitudes and behavior, Washington, DC. <http://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/speed_volII_finding/SpeedVolumeIIFindingsFinal.pdf>.
Observatoire National Interministériel de Sécurité Routière (2009). La sécurité routière en France. <http://www2.securiteroutiere.gouv.fr/ressources/bilan/
2009/sources/index.htm>.
Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, S. G., & Reason, J. T. (1992). Determinants of intention to commit driving violations. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
24, 117–131.
Peden, M. M., Krug, E., Mohan, D., Hyder, A., Norton, R., MacKay, M., et al (2001). A five-year WHO strategy for road traffic injury prevention. Geneva: World
Health Organization.
Povey, R., Conner, M., Sparks, P., James, R., & Shepherd, R. (1999). A critical examination of the application of the transtheoretical model’s stages of change to
dietary behaviours. Health Education Research, 14, 641–652.
Povey, R., Conner, M., Sparks, P., James, R., & Shepherd, R. (2000). Application of the theory of planned behaviour to two dietary behaviours: Roles of
perceived control and self-efficacy. British Journal of Health Psychology, 5, 121–139.
Reason, J. T., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and violations on the roads. Ergonomics, 33, 1315–1332.
Rhodes, R. E., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). Modelling the theory of planned behaviour and past behaviour. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 8, 58–69.
Rundmo, T., Nordfjærn, T., Iversen, H. H., Oltedal, S., & Jørgensen, S. H. (2011). The role of risk perception and other risk-related judgements in transportation
mode use. Safety Science, 49, 226–235.
Simons, J., Correia, C. J., & Carey, K. B. (2000). A comparison of motives for marijuana and alcohol use among experienced users. Addictive Behaviors, 25,
153–160.
Sparks, P., Guthrie, C. A., & Shepherd, R. (1997). The dimensional structure of the perceived behavioral control construct. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
27, 418–438.
Stradling, S. G., Manstead, A. S. R., & Parker, D. (1992) Motivational correlates of violations and errors on the road. In G. B.Grayson (Ed.), Behavioural research
in road safety II. Crowthorne: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
Sullman, M. J. M., Meadows, M. L., & Pajo, K. B. (2002). Aberrant driving behaviours amongst New Zealand truck drivers. Transportation Research Part F, 5,
217–232.
Sutton, S. (1998). Explaining and predicting intentions and behavior: How well are we doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1318–1339.
Sutton, S. (1994). The past predicts the future: Interpreting behaviour–behaviour relationships in social-psychological models of health behaviours. In D. R.
Rutter & L. Quine (Eds.), Social psychology and health: European perspectives (pp. 71–88). Aldershot, England: Avesbury.
Trafimow, D., & Duran, A. (1998). Some tests of the distinction between attitudes and perceived behavioral control. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37,
1–14.
Trafimow, D., Sheeran, P., Conner, M., & Finlay, K. A. (2002). Evidence that perceived behavioural control is a multidimensional construct: Perceived control
and perceived difficulty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 101–121.
Trafimow, D., & Trafimow, J. H. (1998). Predicting back pain sufferer’s intentions to exercise. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 581–592.
Turner, C., & McClure, R. (2004). Quantifying the role of risk-taking behaviour in causation of serious road crash-related injury. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 36, 383–389.
Umeh, K., & Patel, R. (2004). Theory of planned behaviour and ecstasy use: An analysis of moderator-interactions. British Journal of Health Psychology, 9,
25–38.
Wells-Parker, E., Ceminsky, J., Hallberg, V., Snow, R. W., Dunaway, G., Guiling, S., et al (2002). An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and
crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 271–278.
World Health Organization (2004). Road safety: A public health issue. <http://www.who.int/features/2004/road_safety/en/>.
Yzer, M. C. (2007). Does perceived control moderate attitudinal and normative effects on intention? A review of conceptual and methodological issues. In I.
Ajzen, D. Albarracin, & R. Hornik (Eds.), Prediction and change of health behavior: Applying the reasoned action approach (pp. 107–123). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yzer, M. C., Hennessy, M., & Fishbein, M. (2004). The usefulness of perceived difficulty for health research. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 9, 149–162.
Zhou, R., Wu, C., Rau, P.-L. P., & Zhang, W. (2009). Young driving learners’ intention to use a handheld or hands-free mobile phone when driving.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 12, 208–217.
Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation seeking and risky behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.