Table 5:

Outcome on the relationship between descriptive norm and risky driving behavior

No	Study	Country	Sample size	Behavioural outcome	Results
1.	Cestac et al (16)	France	3002 young drivers	Intention to speed	r= 0.30, P < 0.01
2.	Cestac et al (17)	France	2428 young drivers	Intention to speed:- a) Injunctive norm (mother) b) Injunctive norm (father) c) Injunctive norm (male friends) d) Injunctive norm (female friends)	a) r= 0.19, P < 0.01 b) r= 0.21, P < 0.01 c) r= 0.30, P < 0.01 d) r= 0.26, P < 0.01
3.	Coogan et al (9)	US	990 residents	a) Speeding behaviour b) Aberrant driving	a) r=0.44, P < 0.01 b) r=0.42, P < 0.01
4.	Elliott and Thomson (20)	England, UK	1403 traffic offenders	Subsequent speeding behaviour	r= 0.37, P < 0.02
5.	Forward (25)	Sweden	275 drivers	a) Intention to speed b) Intention to dangerous overtake	a) r=0.49, P < 0.01 b) r=0.51, P < 0.01
6.	Mawanga and Ntayi (32)	Kampala	370 drivers	Compliance toward traffic rules	r=0.545, P < 0.01
7.	Moan (6)	Norway	1025 drivers	Intention not to ride with an intoxicated driver	r= 0.19, P < 0.001
8.	Moan and Rise (7)	Norway	1025 drivers	Intention not to drink and drive	r= - 0.18, P < 0.001
9.	Tabibi and Pfeffer (11)	Iran	699 drivers	Intention to comply with traffic rules and regulation	r= 0.42, P < 0.001