**5. Offender drivers profile**

An important advance in Road Safe would be to establish differential profiles between those drivers who behave in a risky or challenging way and those who conduct themselves prudently. In Spain, drivers can lose points on their driver's license, when they commit offenses such as speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol, etc. The withdrawal of points depends on the severity of the infraction. In such a way that, the Spain's Directorate General for Traffic [DGT – Dirección General de Tráfico] can suspend your driver's license. With this, we want to point out that the withdrawal of the license is not due to minor penalties for lack of information or circumstantial infractions. The withdrawal of the license is due to a series of serious infractions or various penalties that can be repeated and accumulate over time, which can lead to the total loss of points. Offender drivers have the chance

**83**

perception of risk [82, 83].

*Cognitive Profile of Optimistic Offender Drivers Affected by Psychological Interventions…*

lost any of the points (i.e., partial lost) or all points (i.e., total loss).

to recover their driving license points by attending rehabilitation courses. These courses are referred to as "Intervention, awareness and road re-education courses in the licence points system of Spain's DGT". These differ if the offender drivers have

In Spain, different studies have been carried out with drivers, who have lost their driving licences [68–71]. Del Valle et al. in different studies [72–74], have compared the profiles of offender drivers with non-offender drivers. This last group of drivers has not had any points deducted from their licenses. They are drivers who attend refresher courses. In addition, they are trained to know those personal and situational factors that lead them to perfect their driving in different situations. In our studies, we focus on a group of optimistic offender drivers and on the analysis of the role of causal attributions in prefactual and counterfactual thinking and emotions under conditions of induced control. The study of thoughts of this nature focuses on the subjective perception of control that drivers think they have. In turn, it could explain why individuals drive dangerously in a more or less voluntary manner. Awareness of how this cognitive process works and its impact on driving could

We have conducted different studies to analyze this type of thoughts under different conditions of induce control. In Del Valle, [72] we set ourselves the objective was to analyze to what extent optimistic offender drivers differ from dispositional pessimists in their prefactual thoughts generated under different conditions of induced control. We found that drivers believe that they have a certain ability to influence events, and these types of thoughts we can identify intentions about future action. When analyzing the type of prefactual thoughts that optimistic offender drivers show, we have observed that they do not consider that the errors committed are due to personal failures, they usually make an external attribution of the causes of the errors. In the event, that these drivers generate thoughts about how they could achieve better results, they consider that if certain external factors come into play they could achieve a better result. This leads us to consider that these drivers show great confidence in their abilities. If they considered possible alternatives, in this case unwanted, they would attribute their cause to external factors, such as bad luck, for example.

As is derived from the above, a direct reference is being made to the perceived controllability or illusion of control that these drivers believe they have. These types of drivers may have greater problems to identify difficult or impossible targets [75]. We think that, at these moments they maintain an unjustified optimism, based on an illusion of control, where they believe they control the uncontrollable [76–78]. We especially see this fact, when drivers drink alcohol. In the study Del Valle and Sucha [73], we found the drivers showed greater confidence in their abilities, and they believe that they have greater abilities than others [79]. There are several reasons that may justify these biases in the perception of control. Among these reasons are those reported by drivers who have previous experience of driving under the influence of alcohol and have experienced no negative consequences (e.g. a citation, arrest, crash, etc.). In this case, these drivers experience success in their illegal behavior, since they avoid punishment, and this acts as reinforcement in the perpetuation of their behavior [80]. Obviously, this fact generates expectations of self-efficacy in the driver under the influence of alcohol [81] and explains the lower

But, it is not only the great confidence in their abilities, but in a comparative processes with other drivers, they think they are more skilled than other people [84–88]. It is difficult to find a driver who recognizes that he drives very badly. In fact, drivers have a higher opinion of their skills, and they have a low perception of the risk of having an accident [40]. These drivers do not consider the possibility of an accident happening to them, if they can demonstrate their capacity and skills [89, 90].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96249*

foster a change in dangerous driving habits.

#### *Cognitive Profile of Optimistic Offender Drivers Affected by Psychological Interventions… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96249*

to recover their driving license points by attending rehabilitation courses. These courses are referred to as "Intervention, awareness and road re-education courses in the licence points system of Spain's DGT". These differ if the offender drivers have lost any of the points (i.e., partial lost) or all points (i.e., total loss).

In Spain, different studies have been carried out with drivers, who have lost their driving licences [68–71]. Del Valle et al. in different studies [72–74], have compared the profiles of offender drivers with non-offender drivers. This last group of drivers has not had any points deducted from their licenses. They are drivers who attend refresher courses. In addition, they are trained to know those personal and situational factors that lead them to perfect their driving in different situations. In our studies, we focus on a group of optimistic offender drivers and on the analysis of the role of causal attributions in prefactual and counterfactual thinking and emotions under conditions of induced control. The study of thoughts of this nature focuses on the subjective perception of control that drivers think they have. In turn, it could explain why individuals drive dangerously in a more or less voluntary manner. Awareness of how this cognitive process works and its impact on driving could foster a change in dangerous driving habits.

We have conducted different studies to analyze this type of thoughts under different conditions of induce control. In Del Valle, [72] we set ourselves the objective was to analyze to what extent optimistic offender drivers differ from dispositional pessimists in their prefactual thoughts generated under different conditions of induced control. We found that drivers believe that they have a certain ability to influence events, and these types of thoughts we can identify intentions about future action. When analyzing the type of prefactual thoughts that optimistic offender drivers show, we have observed that they do not consider that the errors committed are due to personal failures, they usually make an external attribution of the causes of the errors. In the event, that these drivers generate thoughts about how they could achieve better results, they consider that if certain external factors come into play they could achieve a better result. This leads us to consider that these drivers show great confidence in their abilities. If they considered possible alternatives, in this case unwanted, they would attribute their cause to external factors, such as bad luck, for example.

As is derived from the above, a direct reference is being made to the perceived controllability or illusion of control that these drivers believe they have. These types of drivers may have greater problems to identify difficult or impossible targets [75]. We think that, at these moments they maintain an unjustified optimism, based on an illusion of control, where they believe they control the uncontrollable [76–78].

We especially see this fact, when drivers drink alcohol. In the study Del Valle and Sucha [73], we found the drivers showed greater confidence in their abilities, and they believe that they have greater abilities than others [79]. There are several reasons that may justify these biases in the perception of control. Among these reasons are those reported by drivers who have previous experience of driving under the influence of alcohol and have experienced no negative consequences (e.g. a citation, arrest, crash, etc.). In this case, these drivers experience success in their illegal behavior, since they avoid punishment, and this acts as reinforcement in the perpetuation of their behavior [80]. Obviously, this fact generates expectations of self-efficacy in the driver under the influence of alcohol [81] and explains the lower perception of risk [82, 83].

But, it is not only the great confidence in their abilities, but in a comparative processes with other drivers, they think they are more skilled than other people [84–88]. It is difficult to find a driver who recognizes that he drives very badly. In fact, drivers have a higher opinion of their skills, and they have a low perception of the risk of having an accident [40]. These drivers do not consider the possibility of an accident happening to them, if they can demonstrate their capacity and skills [89, 90].

*Models and Technologies for Smart, Sustainable and Safe Transportation Systems*

future [56, 61, 65, 66].

the beginning of the chapter.

**5. Offender drivers profile**

carry out.

proposition ("If …, then …"), a causal relationship is established between an action and a result that, currently is not occurring, but that may (or may not) occur in the

We can differentiate two components in the structure of this type of thinking. One, showing the different action alternatives (i.e., antecedents); another, the achievements of possible outcomes (i.e., consequent). In the example, "If I were cautious, then could avoid having an accident", we can establish a contingency between "cautious" and "avoid an accident". Petrocelli et al. [65] point out that the concept of "Prefactual Potency" contemplates the relationship between antecedents and consequents in this type of thinking. They point out that there is a possibility of the antecedent occurring (i.e., cautions) and that the probable outcome (i.e., avoid an accident) is due to the antecedent indicated. There is also the possibility that the antecedent is perceived as probable, but not the desired result, since whether to have an accident does not depend entirely on me. However, as a general norm, when an individual considers a specific antecedent probable, they consider that the alternative outcome may occur [67]. In such a way that, the fact of establishing a causal relationship can be the basis for activating the behavioral intention "I to be careful, to avoid accidents". As we are commenting, these types of thoughts help us to know how the driver selects the significant information and establishes the implicit causal

relationships, which for him have a high adaptive value in the environment. In a more detailed analysis of the structure of this type of thinking, we can analyze the subject's perception of control. Thus, we can identify the alternatives or actions that the subject uses to achieve the results. Thus, the perception of control, both in prefactual and counterfactual thoughts, can be explained by external factors (e.g., opportunity for action, obstacles, time, cooperation, etc.) or internal (e.g., perception of ability or skills to perform the task) that facilitate or hinder execution. In such a way that, when a person believes they have the opportunities or resources to carry out a certain behavior, it is more likely that they also have the intention of carrying it out [24]. On the contrary, if the person does not believe they have these opportunities or resources, it is highly unlikely that the intention to carry out the behavior will arise. This approach includes the central concept of the theory of behavioral self-regulation [11], which we have been developing. Therefore, we return to contemplate the personality traits (i.e., optimism, pessimism) indicated at

As we have commented, the analysis of this type of thinking facilitates access to the causal relationships that the subject contemplates. it also informs us of how the subject searches for and selects information to make decisions about what actions to

An important advance in Road Safe would be to establish differential profiles between those drivers who behave in a risky or challenging way and those who conduct themselves prudently. In Spain, drivers can lose points on their driver's license, when they commit offenses such as speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol, etc. The withdrawal of points depends on the severity of the infraction. In such a way that, the Spain's Directorate General for Traffic [DGT – Dirección General de Tráfico] can suspend your driver's license. With this, we want to point out that the withdrawal of the license is not due to minor penalties for lack of information or circumstantial infractions. The withdrawal of the license is due to a series of serious infractions or various penalties that can be repeated and accumulate over time, which can lead to the total loss of points. Offender drivers have the chance

**82**

In a current study, del Valle [74] analyzed whether there are differences between optimistic offender drivers and non-offender drivers in counterfactual thoughts and emotions, under induced control conditions. The functionality of counterfactual thoughts and negative emotions appears under situations with unfavourable outcomes, where more causal reasoning appears [91]. When optimistic offender drivers generate counterfactual thinking to explain the mistakes made. They may overestimate their abilities and seek different excuses, focusing on external aspects of the situation ("If it hadn't snowed, then I could have avoided the accident") to justify their unwanted results [65, 92]. With this justification, it would be possible to reduce the size of the problem, instead of considering other possibilities (i.e., lack of knowledge for driving in snow) [93]. Overestimating their abilities leads them to ignore, or at least underestimate, the negative feedback provided by the environment [65, 94].

In the study del Valle [74] optimistic offenders drivers recorded the lowest values of negative emotions (i.e., guilt and shame). When a person experiences shame, what they create is a desire to flee and disappear. Whereas, in guilt, the person tends to carry out an action that amends the generated result [95, 96]. Our interest is focused on the emotion of guilt. Echeburúa, Corral and Amor [97] point out that guilt is not an end in itself, but is a regulatory emotion that, in general, leads to repair and the avoidance of future damage. In investigations carried out by Tangney's team [98–100] have commented that emotions such as guilt depend on the person's negative judgement of their action. This emotion tends to appear in situations in which a failure is perceived, there is a perception of controllability in their actions and, therefore, the driver is attributed internal responsibility for it (e.g., "If I had not drunk, I would have avoided the accident"). Some authors [96] have commented that guilt can encourage actions to amend the result generated: on the one hand, these drivers do not feel guilt, and on the other, they attribute responsibility for the result to external aspects (e.g., "If the pedestrian had not crossed, I would have avoided the accident). Although we cannot reach a causal implication because we do not use a causal model, we do think these two separate sets of findings could be related.
