Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 29
29
Barnard (2003) found that driver personality traits such as hon- This explanation fits well within a behavioral framework,
esty, patience, reliability, self-discipline, and self-motivation which surmises that people are motivated to behave based on
were highly valued by fleets. The driver personality trait "socia- the expected consequences of their actions. Behavior can be
ble" was also valued by fleets, but to a lesser degree. The explained by its antecedents (events prior to behavior that
remainder of this section discusses some specific personality direct behavior) and consequences (events after behavior that
traits with possible relationships to driving safety. motivate behavior) of specified behavior(s). For example,
being late for a delivery (antecedent) may prime a commercial
driver to speed (behavior). The consequences of speeding may
4.7.1 Impulsivity and Risk-Taking be positive (deliver on time) or negative (receive a speeding
ticket, cause a crash). Behaviors followed by positive con-
Impulsivity is characterized by behavioral instability and an
sequences are more likely to be repeated in the future and
inability to control impulses, sometimes including threatening
those followed by negative consequences are less likely to be
behavior and violence. Impulsivity has been suggested to
repeated in the future. The immediate and reliable positive
be related to an increase in crash risk. Logically, it is easy to
consequence of making the delivery on time may outweigh
assume that if an individual reacts quickly and without ade-
the low probability of a negative consequence of getting a
quate forethought, he or she will be at higher risk for errors and
vehicle crashes. Schuman, Pelz, Ehrlich, and Seltzer (1967) ticket or being involved in a crash (Daniels 1989, Geller
assessed 288 unmarried male drivers and found that both 2001). A behavioral approach to commercial driver safety
a high-crash/other accident group and high-violation group management would emphasize the use of rewards (e.g.,
scored higher on a measure of impulsivity than those with a bonuses, positive recognition) for safe driving behaviors as a
low number of crashes/other accidents and violations. Crashes way of counteracting unsafe driving practices.
in this study were defined as vehicle incidents that caused prop-
erty damage or injuries (whether or not the respondent was at 4.7.2 Social Maladjustment and
fault). Traffic violations were defined by self-reported traffic Aggressive/Angry Personalities
violations over the prior year.
Risk-taking in driving obviously creates unsafe situations Social maladjustment is a set of behaviors and personality
and increases the probability of crash involvement. Dewer characteristics that have been found to be related to accident
(2002) makes a distinction between "high-level" and "low- rates in a variety of settings. People are often considered
level" risk-related decisions. In driving, a "high-level" deci- socially maladapted if they have a general tendency to disregard
sion might relate to the decision to drive or not drive under laws and rules. Behaviors may include law breaking, disregard
particular conditions, such as during adverse weather or after for other people, hostility or aggression, irresponsibility, self-
inadequate sleep. "Low-level" decisions refer to choices made centeredness, problem drinking, and authority problems. In the
while driving, such as decisions to speed or tailgate. Turns research project survey, the adjective "aggressive/anger" was
across a stream of traffic are a test of driver judgment and among the factors with the highest-rated association with crash
decision-making, and driver tendencies toward impulsivity risk. Dishonesty as a personality trait was considered by respon-
and risk-taking obviously increase crash risk. Dewer (2002) dents to have a relatively weak association with crash risk.
discusses sensation-seeking as a related individual charac- When comparing 20 taxi drivers with a poor crash record
teristic, and cites an analysis by Jonah (1997) documenting (more than four crashes in the past 15 years) with 20 taxi
correlations between sensation-seeking and risky driving drivers with low crash rates, Tillman and Hobbs (1949) found
behaviors such as speeding, frequent lane changes, alcohol that drivers in the high-crash group were significantly more
use, and failure to wear safety belts. Rimmo (2002) noted likely to be violent, to be delinquent, to have frequent job
that sensation-seeking is strongly associated with misbehaviors changes, to report themselves as being unfaithful, and to have
(violations of rules) but only weakly associated with driving a general lack of responsibility. In a more controlled study,
errors not associated with rule violations, for example, failure McGuire (1972) matched two groups of 67 non-commercial
to see another vehicle. drivers on age, driving experience, miles driven, and marital
As many vehicle crashes are the result of at-risk behaviors, status. One group had a crash in the previous 3 months, while
such as speeding, improper following distance, and driving drivers in the other group did not have a crash in the last
fatigued, it appears that drivers' subjective risk of their actions 3 months. Drivers in the crash group were described as less
determine the extent to which drivers engage in at-risk behav- mature, holding negative views toward laws and authority, and
iors. For example, few would doubt that speeding is more having poor social adjustment. When studying South African
risky than not doing so; yet, there are situations where the risk bus drivers with repeated crashes, Shaw and Sichel (1961,
of crash or injury while speeding is minimal. The accumulation 1971) described these individuals as being selfish, self-
of these instances may confound a driver's evaluation of crash centered, overconfident, resentful and bitter, intolerant, and
or injury potential because he or she may be basing individ- having antisocial attitudes and criminal tendencies. Sweeney
ual conclusions on prior outcomes (e.g., no crash) rather than (1998) correlated a number of "temperament" scales with the
on objective risk (Haight 1986). 3-year crash records of a group of U.S. Army soldiers and
