**4. Prefactual and counterfactual thoughts**

The ultimate goal of any study focused on the human factor within Road Safety, is to be able to explain or predict what a driver could do in the future. As in previous sections, we continue to focus on intention as a predictor of action. At this moment, we incorporate thinking as an explanatory variable. We believe, like Malle and Tate [54], that the best way to explain a future event is based on reasoned explanations of intentional behavior. In our daily life, we continuously anticipate and predict what possible results we could obtain, and with this we plan what we must do to achieve our objectives [8, 9]. Similarly, thoughts about what could have been or what could have been done are frequent, especially after disappointing results [55]. The thoughts that we simulate before the event are called "prefactual", and those alternative thoughts that appear after the event has occurred or that the results have already been obtained, are known as "counterfactual" [56–60].

On the one hand, prefactual thoughts focus on predicting behavior and have to do with intentions to take future action. These types of thoughts appear before taking an action and, the subject can generate various alternatives to achieve the objective (eg, "If it were at the established speed, then it would avoid a fine"). It is important to note that, at the time the thought is generated, neither the alternatives nor the results have been carried out, and may or may not be carried out in the future [61]. On the other hand, counterfactual thoughts are important because they imagine changing aspects of the mental representation of reality. In this cognitive process, different alternatives are generated and compared with the results obtained [55]. Therefore, counterfactual thinking focuses on those thoughts about what might have been, if other actions had been different [62–64].

In these types of thoughts, the subject's intentionality is reflected in the subjective perception of control it shows, in the choice of alternatives and the probability of achieving the proposed objectives. Under the structure of a conditional

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

driver's cognitive effort in manipulating the vehicle.

of Homeostasis of the Risk [33].

a task in a given situation.

influence of external factors [19, 45].

On the other hand the results of some studies show reveal that the possession of smart car technologies influences on drivers' perception of control and attachment. While the previous studies have dealt with perceived control as a predictor of the traffic safety behavior, new studies [27] examines it as one of the 'effects' of smart car technology. This is because the extent to which a driver feels easy or difficult to perform the function of driving will vary depending on the degree of possession and use of smart car technology. Recent studies show contradictory results on this issue. For example, Alliani et al. [28] have found that parking becomes easier under a smart parking system based on vehicle-to-vehicle communication. Birrell and Fowkes [29] have verified that the use of smartphone applications during vehicle operation is very informative rather than visually distractive. It has also been shown that context-based or simulation technologies such as head- 6 up displays and in-vehicle information systems contribute to driving space recognition and information acceptance [30, 31]. These studies support that smart car technology helps drivers feel easier to control the vehicle than before. As many advertisements claim, smart car technologies enhance driving pleasure and control by reducing the

The motivational cognitive theoretical models within the Traffic Psychology model have focused especially on the study of risk perception and decision-making. Ajzen [24] incorporated the construct of perceived control over the performance of the behavior, to the Theory of Planned Action, to explain the risks assumed by the driver. In some cases, perceived control may be linked to situations of assumed risk, in which the driver behaves prudently, safely, etc., as predicted by the Zero Risk Model. This model incorporates motivational factors in driver's decisions making [32]. In other cases, when they face risky situations, they drive showing mastery, skill, technique, etc. These skills are determined by the driver's subjective perception of the risk of suffering a road accident (i.e., perceived risk) and by the level of risk willing to accept or tolerate (i.e., perceived risk level), as detailed in the Theory

We previously noted that, cognitive biases in optimism and risk perception. Now, we have contemplated how perceived control can be understood as a generalized belief (i.e., illusion of control) related to one's own person. From the theory of self-regulation of behavior proposed by Scheier and Carver [11], commented previously. The conception of perceived controllability is also integrated. Either the intention or/and behavior would show a direct relation with the feedback control. Where the perceived control would be a generalized belief more related to oneself than to a specific situation. In contrast to the expectations of self-efficacy [34], which would be related to specific beliefs about one's ability to successfully perform

In the context of driving, perceived high control can overstate your own ability. This leads us to consider that both optimism and the perceived controllability of the event are closely related [35, 36]. In fact, people manifest their optimistic biases in their perception of personal risk [37, 38], and when they have an accident, they tend to attribute it to external factors (eg, rain, a blowout, etc.), and not to internal factors related to driving [39, 40]. This is because drivers show a tendency to think that they are more skilled than other drivers [41–43]. In addition, they think that they are more likely to obtain the desired results, regardless of the tasks they have to perform [44]. McKenna [22] pointed out how drivers believe they are less likely, in relation to others, to suffer a traffic accident, if they are the ones who drive (i.e, personal control). But if they were passengers, the chances of suffering an accident would be equal to those of the rest of the people. It is the illusion of control that leads them to attribute the successes of driving to their own ability and not to the

**80**

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 future [56, 61, 65, 66].

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 the beginning of the chapter.

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 carry out.
