ICAP2010 Presentation on 14.07.10 (Tony Machin)
-
Upload
tony-machin -
Category
Documents
-
view
194 -
download
2
description
Transcript of ICAP2010 Presentation on 14.07.10 (Tony Machin)
Department of Psychology
Examining the validity of driver Examining the validity of driver prototypes using driving-specific prototypes using driving-specific measures of personality and copingmeasures of personality and coping
M. Anthony Machin
Associate Professor
University of Southern Queensland
Department of Psychology
Basis for considering driver prototypes Basis for considering driver prototypes
Are all drivers the same? No! There are a range of individual factors
that influence safe driving behaviours. Researchers have attempted to identify
specific subtypes of young problem drivers.
Department of Psychology
Driver prototypesDriver prototypes
Deery et al (1998) classified young drivers into five subtypes using self-report measures of personality traits and driving-related attitudes and behaviours. The technique they used was k-means cluster analysis.
Department of Psychology
Two clusters were regarded as representing high-risk subgroups with greater levels of driving-related aggression, competitive speed, driving to reduce tension, sensation seeking and hostility.
One of these clusters also reported being more depressed, aggressive, resentful, and irritable than the other.
Department of Psychology
Wundersitz and Burns (2005) also examined the personality characteristics that defined high-risk young drivers using a similar procedure.
They identified four subtypes of young drivers with one cluster of young drivers much more likely to represent a road safety risk than the other clusters.
Department of Psychology
Herzberg (2009) used cluster analysis of Five-Factor Model (FFM) scales and found three prototypes in a community sample of drivers. These were labeled Resilient, Overcontrolled, and Undercontrolled. The most problematic drivers were the Undercontrolled followed by the Resilients. The Overcontollers had the lowest rate of accident involvement.
Department of Psychology
Generalizable personality typologyGeneralizable personality typology
The three prototypes identified by Herzberg (2009) are described in detail in John and Srivastava (2001). This chapter summarises a number of research studies that converge on the three basic prototypes.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (2001). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Department of Psychology
Examples of the three prototypesExamples of the three prototypes
Department of Psychology
Transactional model of stress and copingTransactional model of stress and coping
The transactional model proposed by Matthews (2001) includes dispositional characteristics and coping strategies reflecting the various factors that combine to influence the appraisal of risk when driving.
In this model, maladaptive coping styles are associated with more negative outcomes.
Department of Psychology
PERFORMANCEe.g., loss of attention
impairment of controlrisk-taking
PERSONALITY/SELF-KNOWLEDGE
e.g., Dislike of driving/-ve self-beliefs
Aggressiveness/-ve other-beliefs
SUBJECTIVESTRESSSYMPTOMSe.g., tiredness, apathy
tension, insecurityworry, self-preoccupation
STRESSORSFACTORSe.g., bad weather traffic jams
ENVIRONMENTAL COGNITIVE STRESS PROCESSES
e.g., appraisal of external demands and personal competence
choice and regulation of coping
Figure 1 from Matthews (2001) Figure 1 from Matthews (2001)
Matthews, G. (2001). A transactional model of driver stress. In P. Hancock, & P. Desmond (Eds.), Human factors in transportation: Stress, workload, and fatigue (pp. 133-163). Majwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Department of Psychology
Aim of the current studyAim of the current study
This study used the driver-specific personality and coping measures developed by Matthews, et al. (1997) as the basis for a cluster analysis of drivers.
A number of outcome measures were collected in order to compare how these clusters differed in their driving behaviour.
Department of Psychology
MethodMethod
N = 402 Australians over 17 years of age, were invited to participate through an email providing a link to a web-based survey.
Males = 20% 20.8% of the participants were young
drivers, aged between 17 and 19. 73.8% drove every day
Department of Psychology
Study VariablesStudy Variables
Driver Coping Questionnaire (DCQ; Matthews, et al., 1997) assessed Task-Focused Coping, Reappraisal, Avoidance Coping, Confrontive Coping and Emotion-Focused Coping (α’s = .83, .79, .70, .84 and .79).
Driver Stress Inventory (DSI; Matthews, et al., 1997) assessed Aggression, Hazard Monitoring, Thrill Seeking, Dislike of Driving, and Fatigue Proneness (α’s = .85, .78, .89, .85 and .80).
Department of Psychology
Speeding was assessed using Ulleberg and Rundmo’s (2003) scale (α = .84).
Number of near misses in the last six months
Number of accidents (crashes) in the last six months
Department of Psychology
ResultsResults
3 clusters were found: Cluster 1 (N = 152) was defined by more
maladaptive coping (higher confrontive, lower task-focused and lower reappraisal) and greater aggression and thrill-seeking.
These are similar to the Undercontrolled who have higher levels of externalising problems.
Department of Psychology
Cluster 2 (N = 150) was defined by more adaptive coping (lower confrontive, higher task-focused and higher reappraisal), lower aggression and greater hazard monitoring.
These are similar to the Resilients who have better levels of adjustment.
Department of Psychology
Cluster 3 (N = 98) was defined by more moderate scores on the coping scales (apart from a much greater level of emotion-focused coping), higher dislike of driving, and higher fatigue proneness.
These are similar to the Overcontrollers who have higher levels of internalising problems.
Department of Psychology
The 3 clusters differed in their scores on the three outcome measures: Cluster 2 reported significantly less self-
reported speeding than cluster 3 which was significantly less than cluster 1.
Cluster 2 also reported significantly smaller number of near misses than clusters 1 and 3.
Cluster 2 reported significantly fewer accidents than cluster 3.
Department of Psychology
ConclusionsConclusions
Three subtypes of drivers can be identified from driver-specific measures of personality and coping.
One cluster was linked with better driving outcomes (cluster 2) while clusters 3 and 1 were most at risk of adverse outcomes.
These clusters may also respond differently to road safety messages particularly as cluster 3 expressed a strong dislike of driving and greater emotional exhaustion from driving.
Department of Psychology
A warning and a promise!A warning and a promise!
Costa et al. (2001) concluded that “while the types do not refer to distinct, homogeneous classes of persons, they do have utility as convenient labels summarizing combinations of traits that relate to important outcomes”.
Department of Psychology
Contact me if you have any questionsContact me if you have any questions
Associate Professor Tony Machin, Department of Psychology, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, 4350. Australia. Telephone +61 7 46312587. Fax +61 7 46312721. Email: [email protected]