The apparent randomness of traffic accidents effectively guarantees that traffic researchers will never witness more than a handful of collisions. Thus the nature of accidents demands a retrospective method of enquiry, and interviewing procedures have traditionally provided the primary tools in this regard. Potential pitfalls associated wilh the use ofinterview procedures in accident research have rarely been elucidated. It is suggested here that the use of interviews in accident investigation are problematic at both the technical and theoretical level. At the technical level demands for accuracy, reliability and consistency in accident reports may promote bias in the accounts offered by witnesses. At the theoretical level retrospective methods generally tend to lead the researcher to infer causal connections between accident antecedents and consequents whereas correlational associations would be more appropriate. Some factors contributing to this sort of erroneous inference are identified, It is shown th...
[1]
D. A. Kenny,et al.
Correlational bias: Not gone and not to be forgotten.
,
1977
.
[2]
L. Foley,et al.
The psychology of eyewitness testimony
,
1981
.
[3]
D. Norman.
Categorization of action slips.
,
1981
.
[4]
Charles F. Stafford.
The Child as a Witness
,
1992,
Pediatrics.
[5]
United Kingdom. Welsh Office.
Road accidents Great Britain
,
1982
.
[6]
D. Campbell,et al.
Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences
,
1966
.
[7]
Elizabeth F Loftus,et al.
Leading questions and the eyewitness report
,
1975,
Cognitive Psychology.
[8]
William T Baker,et al.
AN EVALUATION OF THE TRAFFIC CONFLICTS TECHNIQUE
,
1972
.
[9]
J D Havard,et al.
EPIDEMIOLOGY OF ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
,
1978
.
[10]
The Social Environment
,
1959
.
[11]
S. John Older,et al.
Traffic Conflicts—A Development in Accident Research
,
1976
.