Here's a package of correlational and experimental research that illustrates the importance of spotting hazards while driving. This summary, from the Association for Psychological Science website, introduces the issue like this:
[H]azard perception...involves visually scanning the road ahead for clues that a dangerous situation may be developing, such as a pedestrian getting ready to cross the street or cars up ahead starting to brake. This sounds simple enough, but research suggests that a knack for this kind of visual scanning actually takes years – even decades – to learn.
Here's a research finding quoted in the article:
[N]ovice drivers, particularly teens, are so much more accident prone compared to older, more experienced drivers. Eye-tracking studies have shown that less experienced drivers tend to look at the road right in front of them, while more experienced drivers tend to automatically look far ahead, scanning all around the road for signs of trouble.
a) Is the finding above from a correlational or experimental study? What are the two main variables in the result? If it's an experimental study, what is its design?
Here is a second research finding quoted in the article:
...research has also demonstrated that even very short interventions can lead to major improvements in driving safety.
In one California study, drivers who had just passed an on-road driving test were randomly assigned to either receive a 17-minute hazard perception training or to receive no additional training. Over the course of the following year, male drivers who received the training had a rate that was nearly 25% lower than the group of untrained males. However, there was no such drop in accident for female drivers who had received the training.
b) Is the finding above from a correlational or experimental study? What are the two main variables in the result? If it's an experimental study, what is its design?
Here's a final research result:
However, unlike other driving skills, hazard perception has been empirically linked to crash risk.
c) Is the finding above from a correlational or experimental study? What are the two main variables in the result? If it's an experimental study, what is its design?
To read more, visit:
Horswill, M. S. (2016). Hazard Perception in Driving. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 425-430. doi: 10.1177/0963721416663186
a) This is a correlational study, and the two measured variables are driver experience (or driver age) and how far ahead drivers train their eyes while driving.
b) This is an experimental study. It appears to be a post-test only design. The independent variable is whether drivers received the 17 minute training or whether they received no training. The dependent variable is accident rate. This study had a participant variable, gender. You read that the training affected males but not females. Therefore, you could also consider this a factorial design (IVxPV) design with an interaction.
c) This is a correlational study, and the two measured variables are skill at hazard perception and crash risk.