International Journal Advances in Social Science and Humanities
Available online at: www.ijassh.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Personality Traits and Risk Taking Practices among Heavy Transport
Vehicle Drivers in India
Chakrabarty Neelima 1*, Velmurugan S1, Rikku Reetesh 2, Gupta Kamini 2, Shriya Shatakshi 2
1Traffic Engineering and Safety Division, Central Road Research Institute, Mathura Road, New-Delhi,India.
2IDAC- The Training & Assessment Institute, PCTI Group, Delhi, India.
*Corresponding Author: Email: E-mail:[email protected], [email protected]
Abstract
This study was carried out jointly by the Traffic Engineering and Safety Division of CSIR-CRRI and PCTI Education Society (Road Safety Division) to examine the personality correlates of risk taking practices of heavy motor drivers in the Indian city of Delhi, India.
Methodology: 535 HTV male drivers with their past driving records were selected and were segregated according to their type of duties i.e. Long distance route drivers and Short Distance Route Drivers. Then Computerized Inventory of Driving related Personality Traits (IVPE) was administered uniformly to all the sample population.
Findings: The study showed that young drivers had shown better performed in Emotional Stability scale, Honesty scale, Self Control, Adventurousness and need for excitement as compared to the older group of drivers. Moreover, Short Distance Route Drivers performed comparatively better than Long Distance Route Drivers. The study emphasizes urgent requirement of the screening of the driver’s personality traits and driving history before driving license renewal.
Keywords:Personality Traits, Emotional Stability, Honesty, Self Control, Adventurousness and need for excitement
Introduction
Driving is a complex task which needs multiple manoeuvring and mental activities which sometimes accompanied with stress may be due to work which is a relatively new phenomenon of modern lifestyles. Driving related stress poses a threat to physical health. Traffic Environment at present scenario is nothing but lots of congestion, conflicts and mixer of road rage cases. Generally, a driver who belongs to a middle or poor economic status gets physical and mental assault on the road. Due to all these unavoidable circumstances lots of untrained or novice drivers and/or cleaners driving on the road lots of stress and strain on the drivers. Driving in complex urban environment carries an increased risk of accidents, physical ailments, physical workload and psychosocial stress related factors [1].
Personality characteristics such as impulsivity, aggressiveness, poor self-control and guilt-proneness play an important role in day today life of any driver in conflicting urban environment which leads to poor driving attitudes, poor self
control, competitiveness, bullying, high risk-taking behaviour, socially deviated behaviour, and tendency also to be assertive lead to higher accident-proneness [2, 3].
Review of related literature highlights that driving aggression, violations, and risk taking practices have been linked to many personality characteristics. The precipitating cause behind all risk taking driving and traffic violation practices some drivers have been found as high stress [4] and problematic behavioural state which have been generated due to some lifestyle malpractices such as low parental involvement, negative peer and parental influence [5].
Pokorny [7] Valentine [8] stated that "self destructive trends are expressed through increased risk taking behaviour, faulty vehicle maintenance, driving while intoxicated, driving while under emotional stress and so forth”. Schmidt et al [9] found after the event that the victims of both the fatal and non-fatal crashes were rated by their friends and relatives as having above average levels of psychopathology and social aggressiveness.
Methodology
Sample Size and Characteristics of Subjects
The sample size considered in this pilot study was ranging around 535 goods vehicle drivers who are referred as 'subjects' in this study. However, during the conduct of some of the tests, like INSSV, Glare Recovery Test and Vision Screening Test, data was collected on random sampling basis without subjecting all the drivers i.e. selected subjects undergone these tests due to paucity of time and resources. Table-1 presents the profile of the drivers who are engaged either on 'long distance route' or on 'short distance route' i.e. driving within the range of around 300 Kilometres (Figure 1, Table 1).
Figure 1: Commercial Drivers are getting tested Inventory of Driving related Personality Traits by Vienna Test System
Table 1: Number of Subjects considered in the Study S.
No. Type of Route Driving Number of Drivers
Long Distance Route 282
Short Distance Route 255
Total Samples 537
The study further analysed the performance differences among drivers commuting over “Short distances destination i.e. short route” versus “Long distances destination i.e. Long Route”. Thus this research study revealed that proper scanning of personality traits along is required for all categories of drivers for getting license renewal or for the new applicant licences.
Tool: Inventory of Driving related
Personality Traits (IVPE)
The inventory is a computerized personality test measuring personality traits that are relevant to traffic psychology: sense of social responsibility, self-control, emotional stability and readiness to take risks. It is a multidimensional personality inventory, through which the legally stipulated personal characteristics to check the readiness for the adjustment to traffic can be captured fairly and reliably. Inventory of Driving related Personality Traits is one of the tools which have been used in the present study. IVPE is a test for assessing personality test of drivers’. Total assessment duration for this IVPE Test is around
psychological assessment: readiness to take risks, sense of social responsibility, self-control and emotional stability. It includes an honesty scale for monitoring any tendency to faking.
The measurement of sense of social responsibility is based on the three-component model of the attitude to social values of Stahlberg and Frey [10]. The General Theory of Crime of Gottfredson and Hirschi [11, 12] provides the basis for the construction of the items on the self-control scale. Neuroticism, which is defined as the opposite of emotional stability, is measured by personality traits that Ostendorf has shown to be the best indicators of this latent personality dimension. The construct of sensation-seeking as a measure of readiness to take risks is assessed by a scale based on the “thrill and adventure-seeking” dimension postulated by Zuckermann [13]. The choice of this subscale is justified by its significance for safe driving behavior [14, 15]. Administration Process of IVPE Scale
stability, Sense of responsibility, Self control and adventurousnessandneed for excitement and Honesty. Reliability in the sense of internal
consistency is given on account of the validity of the Rasch model for the individual scales.
Table 2: Test of Personality Traits (IVPE)
No of
Driver Emotional Stability Responsibility Sense of Self Control Adventurousness and Need for Excitement
Honesty
Age s % Grading % Grading % Grading % Grading % Grading
Below
30 284
22.2 Good 7.75 Good 6.69 Good 8.10 Good 5.99 Good
0.35 Above
Average 4.23 Average Above 4.58 Average Above 2.82 Average Above 4.93 Average Above
0.35 Average 13.03 Average 14.08 Average 12.32 Average 11.62 Average
0.70 Below
Average 0 Average Below 0.70 Average Below 0.35 Average Below 1.06 Average Below
76.4 Poor 75 Poor 73.94 Poor 76.41 Poor 76.41 Poor
Above
30 253
18.6 Good 9.49 Good 7.51 Good 7.91 Good 6.32 Good
0.40 Above
Average 3.95 Average Above 4.35 Average Above 3.95 Average Above 5.53 Average Above
1.6 Average 8.70 Average 10.67 Average 8.30 Average 7.91 Average
0.40 Below
Average 0 Average Below 0.79 Average Below 0.79 Average Below 1.58 Average Below
79.1 Poor 77.87 Poor 76.68 Poor 79.05 Poor 78.66 Poor
Overall 537
20.9 Good 76.35 Good 7.08 Good 8.01 Good 6.15 Good
0.37 Above
Average 0 Average Above 4.47 Average Above 3.35 Average Above 5.21 Average Above
0.93 Average 10.99 Average 12.48 Average 10.43 Average 9.87 Average
0.56 Below
Average 4.10 Average Below 0.74 Average Below 0.56 Average Below 1.30 Average Below
77.7 Poor 8.57 Poor 75.23 Poor 77.65 Poor 77.47 Poor
Table 3: Test of Personality Traits (IVPE)
Emotional
Stability Responsibility Sense of Self Control Adventurousness and need for excitement
Honesty
Route No of
Drivers % Grading % Grading % Grading % Grading % Grading
Long Distance
Route
284
18.09 Good 7.45 Good 6.74 Good 7.80 Good 4.61 Good
0 Above
Average 4.96 Average Above 3.90 Average Above 2.84 Average Above 6.03 Average Above
0.71 Average 8.87 Average 10.64 Average 8.87 Average 7.45 Average
0.35 Below
Average
0 Below
Average
0.71 Below
Average
0.35 Below
Average
0.35 Below
Average
80.85 Poor 78.72 Poor 78.01 Poor 80.14 Poor 81.56 Poor
Short Distance
Route
253
23.14 Good 9.80 Good 7.45 Good 8.24 Good 7.84 Good
0.78 Above
Average 3.14 Average Above 5.10 Average Above 3.92 Average Above 4.31 Average Above
1.18 Average 13.33 Average 14.51 Average 12.16 Average 12.55 Average
0.78 Below
Average
0 Below
Average
0.78 Below
Average
0.78 Below
Average
2.35 Below
Average
74.12 Poor 73.73 Poor 72.16 Poor 74.90 Poor 72.94 Poor
Overall 537
20.48 Good 8.57 Good 7.08 Good 8.01 Good 6.15 Good
0.37 Above
Average 4.10 Average Above 4.47 Average Above 3.35 Average Above 5.21 Average Above
0.93 Average 10.99 Average 12.48 Average 10.43 Average 9.87 Average
0.56 Below
Average 0 Average Below 0.74 Average Below 0.56 Average Below 1.30 Average Below
Findings: The study has Following
Salient Findings
Scale for Emotional Stability: Emotional
stability is one of the most important parameter for being a defensive and safe driver .In the study 76.41% drivers of below 30 years age group had shown “Poor” in emotional stability as compared to 79.05 % drivers from older age group.
Scale for Sense of Responsibility: Taking risks
is a normal and common part of young drivers but sense of responsibility for his/her and other safety is a prominent trait of a safe driver. Through the drivers psudo- think that risk taking is needed to express their identities. In this study young drivers have shown more sense of responsibility as compared to the experienced and older drivers as 75% drivers of below 30 years and 77.87 % of experienced drivers of above 30 age group performed “Poor” in Sense of Responsibility.
Scale for Self Control: Similarly here also
young drivers have shown more sense of responsibility as compared to the experienced and older age group as 73.94% drivers of below 30 years and 76.68 % drivers of above 30 years age group performed “Poor” in their Self Control.
Scale for Adventurousness and Need for
Excitement: Interestingly young drivers have
shown less adventurousness and need for excitement as compared to the experienced and older age group as 76.41% drivers of below 30 years and 79.05 % drivers of above 30 years age group performed “Poor” in their Adventurousness and Need for Excitement.
Honesty Scale: 76.41% drivers of below 30 years
and 78.66% drivers of above 30 years age group performed “Poor” in the Honesty Scale.
Long Route vs. Short Route drivers: The
In summary, from this study it has been emerged that personality characteristics with lower scores of factors such as emotional stability, responsibility, self control and honesty were common in commercial drivers with high accident-proneness. The findings of the study is also supported by the findings of another study
done by Manglesh Kumar Manglam et al [16] which found that personality characteristics with lower scores of factors such as reasoning, rule consciousness, apprehension and emotional stability were common in commercial auto-rickshaw drivers with high accident-proneness.
References
1. Issever H, Onen L, Sabuncu HH, Altunkaynak O. Personality characteristics, psychological symptoms and anxiety levels of drivers in charge of urban transportation in Istanbul. Occup Med (Lond). 2002;52(6):297–
303. Retrieved April 15, 2013,
from:http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/ 52/6/297.long.
2. Tillmann WA, Hobbs GE. The accident-prone automobile driver; a study of the psychiatric and social background. Am J Psychiatry. 1949:106(5):321-31.
3. Hilakivi I, Veilahti J, Asplund P, Sinivuo J, Laitinen L, Koskenvuo K (1989) A sixteen-factor personality test for predicting automobile driving accidents of young drivers. Accid Anal Prev, 21(5):413-8.
4. Lagarde E, Chastang JF, Gueguen A, Coeuret-Pellicer M, Chiron M, Lafont S (2004) Emotional stress and traffic accidents:
the impact of separation and
divorce. Epidemiology, 15(6):762-766.
5. Shope JT, Waller PF, Raghunathan TE, Patil SM. Adolescent antecedents of high-risk driving behaviour into young adulthood:
substance use and parental
influences. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2001;33:649-658.
6. Blows S, Ameratunga S, Ivers RQ, Lo SK, Norton R (2005) Risky driving habits and motor vehicle driver injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(4):619-624.
7. Pokorny AD (1975) Self-Destruction and the Automobile, in A. R. Roberts (ed.) Se1f-Destructive Behaviour. Springfield, Illinois: C. C. Thomas, pp. 123-137.
8. Jeffrey Valentine, Ann Bettencourt, Amelia Talley (2006) Personality and Aggressive Behaviour Under Provoking and Neutral Conditions: A Meta-Analytic Review” Psychological Bulletin, 132 (5):751-777.
9. Schmidt CW, Shaffer JW, Zlotowitz HI, Fisher RS (1977) Suicide by vehicular crash. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134:175-178. 10. Stahlberg D, Frey D (1990) Einstellungen I:
Struktur, Messung und Funktionen. In: Stroebe W, Hewstone M, Codol JP, Stephenson GM (Eds.): Sozialpsychologie: Eine Einführung. Berlin: Springer, p. 144-170.
11. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi, T (2003) Self-control and opportunity. In C. L. Britt and M. Gottfredson (eds) Control theories of crime and delinquency. Advances in criminological theory 12. New Brunswick. Transaction Publishers.
13. Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM, Joireman J, Teta P, Kraft M (1993) A Comparison of Three Structural Models for Personality: The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65:757-768
14. Jonah BA (1997) Sensation seeking and risky driving: A review and synthesis of the literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29:651-665.
15. Jonah B.A, Thiessen R, Au-Yeung E (2001) Sensation seeking, risky driving and behavioral adaptation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 33(5):679-684.
