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: machin@usq.edu.au