Content uploaded by Rubén Daniel Ledesma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rubén Daniel Ledesma on Mar 28, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Traffic Injury Prevention (2013) 14, 346–352
Copyright C
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1538-9588 print / 1538-957X online
DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2012.717729
A Study on the Relationship Between Personality
and Driving Styles
FERNANDO MART´
IN PO ´
O1and RUBEN DANIEL LEDESMA2
1Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient´
ıficas y T´
ecnicas, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Psicolog´
ıa,
Mar del Plata, Argentina
2CONICET–Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Mar del Plata, Argentina
Received 2 April 2012, Accepted 30 July 2012
Objective: Research on driving behavior and personality traits is a key factor in the development of driver-oriented safety interventions.
However, research is fragmented and a multidimensional perspective is lacking. The primary aim of this study is to assess the multiple
relationships between driving styles and personality traits using the alternative 5-factor model. A secondary goal is to determine
whether these relationships vary by gender and age.
Methods: Data were collected from a sample of 908 Argentine drivers. Driving styles were assessed using the Multidimensional
Driving Style Inventory. Personality was assessed with the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ-50-CC; Aluja
et al. 2006) questionnaire.
Results: Different patterns of personality are associated with different driving styles. These relationships appear to be robust with
respect to gender and age; however, in some cases these variables did influence the observed relationships.
Conclusion: The results provide researchers with a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships between personality
traits and driving styles. Practical prevention measures are discussed.
Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher’s online edition of Traffic Injury Prevention to view the
supplemental file.
Keywords: driving style, personality, gender, age, multidimensional
Introduction
How a person’s personality affects his or her driving style
is an issue of interest in psychology and is also relevant to
road safety (see, for example, Lajunen 2001; Ulleberg and
Rundmo 2003). The ability to identify different driving styles
(e.g., risky, anxious, or aggressive) based on personality traits
(e.g., neuroticism, extroversion, sensation seeking) has impor-
tant practical applications. For instance, it could help predict
risky driving behavior and make it possible to better segment
the driver population and design interventions that take vary-
ing personality types into account.
Although there already exists a wealth of literature about
driving and personality traits, it is incomplete and fragmented.
This is largely due to the (1) diversity of variables that influence
driving behavior (e.g., personal characteristics, road environ-
ment, cultural context, etc.); (2) prevailing use of models and
measures that assess isolated aspects of driving style instead
Address correspondence to Fernando Mart´
ın Po´
o, Facultad de
Psicolog´
ıa, Complejo Universitario, Funes 3250, Cuerpo V, Nivel
III, Alberti 4439 Dto 2, Mar del Plata, 7600 Argentina. E-mail:
poo.fernando@gmail.com
of multidimensional approaches; and (3) lack of studies that
address personality from a unified theoretical perspective (i.e.,
the big 5 model, McCrae and John [1992]; or the alternative
5-factor model, Zuckerman [2005]). Consequently, it is diffi-
cult to ascertain a clear relationship between personality and
driving style and, therefore, to base preventive practices on
such a relationship.
In this context, the purpose of this study is to analyze the
relationships between multiple driving behaviors and multiple
personality traits. This study differs from previous research
in that it approaches both driving behaviors and personal-
ity traits using comprehensive, multidimensional models. It
is expected that the present study will provide a more ac-
curate description of the relationship between personality
and driving and offer a clearer basis on which to design
interventions.
Driving Style: A Multidimensional Definition and
Measure
Driving is a complex activity that develops in a dynamic con-
text. It involves not only cognitive processes (e.g., attention
and perception) but also motivational, emotional, and so-
cial interaction processes. Driving style refers to the personal
Personality and Driving Styles 347
manner in which a subject performs this activity. Thus, driving
style is, by definition, a complex and multidimensional con-
struct. It includes dimensions related to driving performance,
such as emotions and feelings while driving, and attitudes and
values regarding road traffic and other factors (Taubman-Ben-
Ari et al. 2004). Because driving style is a manifold concept, it
is difficult to completely encompass and evaluate it. This diffi-
culty manifests itself in the existence of diverse measurement
instruments designed for this purpose, including, among oth-
ers the Driving Behavior Questionnaire (Parker et al. 1995),
the Driving Behavior Inventory (Glendon et al. 1993), and the
Driving Style Questionnaire (French et al. 1993).
In an effort to overcome the widespread use of numer-
ous measurement tools for the evaluation of driving behav-
ior, Taubman-Ben-Ari et al. (2004) proposed a multidimen-
sional conceptualization of driving style and an instrument
for its assessment: the Multidimensional Driving Style In-
ventory (MDSI). Basically, the MDSI evaluates the following
driving style dimensions: (1) reckless and careless driving style,
which refers to seeking sensations and thrills from driving and
is characterized by a tendency to drive at high speeds and
gives the appearance of being in a rush; (2) anxious driving
style, which implies feelings of anxiety, fear, and discomfort
while driving and a tendency to engage in relaxing activities
to reduce these feelings; (3) angry and hostile driving style,
which reflects hostile and aggressive behaviors toward other
drivers and intense feelings of anger behind the wheel; (4) pa-
tient and careful driving style, which manifests a tendency to
be polite toward other drivers and behave in a rational way
on the road; and (5) dissociative driving style, which describes
a tendency to be distracted while driving, to show cognitive
gaps and dissociations, and to commit driving errors as a re-
sult. Taubman-Ben-Ari et al. (2004) have provided evidence
of reliability and validity for MDSI as applied to the popu-
lation of Israel. Psychometric results also proved satisfactory
with the Argentine population (Po ´
o 2013). In summary, the
MDSI offers a valid, comprehensive (nonfragmented) mea-
sure of driving style that allows for the more thorough study
of the multiple relationships that may exist with personality
variables.
Driving Behavior, Personality Traits, and the Alternative
5-Factor Model
As mentioned earlier, although there is a good deal of literature
on personality and different driving styles, its fragmented na-
ture makes it difficult to develop a coherent picture of the rela-
tionships that exist. Prior studies predominantly assessed iso-
lated driving behaviors and personality traits. Further, some
driving styles (e.g., risky and aggressive) and personality traits
(e.g., sensation seeking) have been studied more than others;
for instance, the dissociative driving style and other personal-
ity traits have not received much attention from researchers.
On occasion, we have also found studies that assess various
personality traits but using different theoretical models. Col-
lectively, these issues make it difficult to compare and integrate
results.
One way to avoid these limitations is by using a compre-
hensive personality model to assess personality traits. The use
of a common model can yield a more comprehensive perspec-
tive on the problem and a clearer picture as to the relative
contributions of different personality factors on the various
driving styles. In this respect, the alternative 5-factor model
(Zuckerman 2005) is worth considering, given that it is com-
prised of traits that maintain a certain correspondence with
driving style dimensions. The personality traits that com-
prise this model are (1) impulsive sensation seeking, (2)
aggression–hostility, (3) neuroticism–anxiety, (4) activity, and
(5) sociability. These traits are considered basic personality di-
mensions and it is generally accepted that they are grounded
in a psychobiological basis (Zuckerman 2005).
The impulsive sensation seeking trait includes 2 compo-
nents, the first of which is impulsivity (referring to a lack of
planning, carelessness, and hasty decision making) and the
second of which is sensation seeking (defined as seeking novel
and varied experiences and a propensity for taking physical,
social, legal, or financial risks just for the thrill of it). Due to
these characteristics, this trait is clearly associated with a risky
driving style. In fact, previous studies have suggested that both
sensation seeking and impulsivity are related to risky driving
(Dahlen et al. 2005; Iversen and Rundmo 2002; Jonah et al.
2001; Ryb et al. 2006). It is also to be expected that this trait
would be negatively correlated with a careful driving style, but
there is no evidence to this effect. There is evidence, though,
to suggest that both the impulsive and sensation seeking traits
contribute to an aggressive driving style (Dahlen et al. 2005).
Lastly, there is no evidence associating the impulsive sensation
seeking trait with other maladaptive driving styles, such as the
anxious and dissociative styles.
The aggression–hostility trait refers to a propensity for be-
having in an aggressive, thoughtless, and rude manner and
demonstrating antisocial, vengeful, and malevolent behavior.
This trait is clearly associated with an aggressive driving style.
In fact, prior studies have suggested that general aggression
and anger are related to aggressive and angry driving (e.g.,
Krah´
e 2005; Stephens and Groeger 2009). This trait may also
contribute to a risky driving style. Many risky driving behav-
iors can be interpreted as manifestations of aggressiveness or
anger; for instance, tailgating and driving faster than others.
Lastly, it is also to be expected that the aggression–hostility
trait would be negatively correlated with the careful driving
style, but there is no evidence to this effect.
The neuroticism–anxiety trait includes negative affective
states, feelings of anxiety, emotional distress, hostility, exces-
sive worrying, a lack of self-confidence, and sensitivity to crit-
icism. By definition, this trait is associated with the anxious
driving style and, indeed, previous research bears this out (e.g.,
Dorn and Matthews 1992; Mesken et al. 2007; Stephens and
Groeger 2009). We believe that it may also be associated with
the dissociative driving style. Shahar (2009) provided prelimi-
nary evidence of this relationship, having observed that drivers
with high anxiety trait values commit a greater number of driv-
ing errors and have more lapses while driving.
The activity trait describes people who are continuously
active and involved in challenging activities that require ef-
fort and dedication. It also reflects an inability to relax and
348 Po ´
o and Ledesma
high levels of energy. Prior research shows that some typical
characteristics of this trait are associated with the aggressive
driving style. For example, the type A behavior pattern that is
characterized by, among other things, impatience and a feeling
that time is running out was associated with aggressive driving
(Miles and Johnson 2003). For this reason, one might suppose
that the activity trait is associated with the aggressive and risky
driving styles and negatively correlated with the careful driv-
ing style, but such relationships have not been established in
previous studies.
Lastly, the sociability trait describes individuals who are
predisposed to spend time with friends and become involved
with others in recreational activities and who also demon-
strate an aversion to being alone. This trait is similar to the
big 5’s extroversion trait (Zukerman 2005). We consider that
the relationship between this trait and the various driving
styles is less evident, although some researchers have found
that extroversion is associated with the anxious driving style.
For example, Taubman-Ben-Ari et al. (2004) found a neg-
ative correlation between anxious driving and extroversion.
In addition, Matthews et al. (1991) showed that extroverted
people are more likely to feel distress in low-stimulation con-
ditions. Beyond these results, the relationships appear capri-
cious and are probably due to the fact that extroversion is
negatively correlated with traits such as aggression–hostility
and neuroticism–anxiety.
Aims and Hypotheses
The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationships
between driving styles and personality traits as defined in the
alternative 5-factor model. We expect that personality traits
(personal variables that generally characterize an individual)
will manifest themselves in the various driving styles. Thus,
we predict that each driving style can be explained in part
by a combination of specific personality traits. Based on the
literature and the definitions of the alternative 5 factors, we
hypothesize that the (1) risky driving style will be predicted
by the impulsive sensation seeking, aggression–hostility, and
activity personality traits; (2) angry driving style will be
predicted by the aggression–hostility personality trait and, to
a lesser degree, the impulsive sensation seeking and activity
personality traits and negatively predicted by the sociability
personality trait; (3) anxious and dissociative driving styles
will be predicted by the neuroticism–anxiety personality
trait; and (4) careful driving style will be negatively predicted
by the impulsive sensation seeking and aggression–hostility
personality traits and positively predicted by the sociability
personality trait.
Further, we expect these relationships to be globally robust
with respect to the different age and gender subgroups.
Nonetheless, differences might present themselves because it
is known that certain traits are more pronounced in certain
groups (e.g., impulsive sensation seeking in younger people
and neuroticism–anxiety in women). Therefore, our second
objective is to explore whether the relationships between
personality traits and driving styles vary according to gender
and age.
Method
Sample
Data were gathered from a nonprobabilistic sample of 908
drivers from the general population of the City of Mar del
Plata, Argentina. The following inclusion criteria were used:
(1) must be older than 18 years of age, (2) must have a valid
driver’s license, and (3) must have driven at least once a week
during the past month. The age range of the sample was 18 to
87 years old (M =36.20; SD =13.95). The sample had slightly
more males (57.7%) than females. Most participants (72%)
drove regularly (most days of the week). The sample included
38.1 percent public and private employees; 35.8 percent busi-
ness owners, independent contractors, and professionals; and
8.1 percent students, with the remainder mostly homemakers
and retirees. Most participants (80.6%) had an education level
of at least high school.
The sample was subdivided into groups by age and gender.
There were 2 age groups: young (under 30 years of age; n=
389) and adult (over 30 years of age; n=518). The cutoff
age is based on evidence that indicates that the structure of
one’s personality reaches maturity at the age of 30; afterwards,
only small and modest changes in personality traits take place
(Costa and McCrae 2006; McCrae and Costa 1999).
Variables and Measures
Driving style was assessed by a Spanish-language version of
the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory (MDSI-S; Po ´
o,
2013). The Spanish-language version and the original MDSI
do not have any significant structural differences. The instru-
ment requires study participants to report how often they
exhibit certain driving behaviors and experience certain emo-
tions while driving. Responses are recorded on a 6-point Likert
scale (ranging from 1 =never to 6 =always). Factor analysis
revealed the same 5 main dimensions: (1) risky driving style
(example item: Enjoy the excitement of dangerous driving);
(2) angry driving style (example item: Arguing with other
drivers or pedestrians); (3) dissociative driving style (example
item: I am often distracted or preoccupied and suddenly have
to slam on the brakes to avoid a collision); (4) anxious driving
style (example item: Driving makes me feel frustrated); and
(5) careful driving style (example item: Tend to drive cau-
tiously).
Personality traits were evaluated with the short form of the
Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire, the ZQPQ-
50-CC (Aluja et al. 2006). The ZKPQ-50-CC is composed
of 50 binary items (true–false) that assess the 5 dimensions
of the alternative 5-factor model. In the present study, an
exploratory factor analysis revealed 5 factors in accordance
with this model.
Procedure
Data were collected anonymously during the autumn and win-
ter of 2009. Two procedures were used. Firstly, researchers
contacted participants individually through a snowball strat-
egy and invited them to complete the surveys at our research
Personality and Driving Styles 349
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, mean differences and effect size for personality and driving style scales
Total sample
Male sample
(N=524)
Female sample
(N=381)
Variables Cronbach’s alpha M SD M SD M SD td
Personality traits Impulsive sensation
seeking
.73 8.24.78.90 4.59 7.36 4.69 −4.89∗.33
Aggression–hostility .70 4.32.44.65 2.49 3.82 2.37 −5.01∗.34
Neuroticism–anxiety .70 2.52.12.26 1.87 2.87 2.22 4.46∗−.29
Activity .73 4.82.64.85 2.59 4.93 2.68 0.44 ns
Sociability .72 4.92.54.66 2.51 5.43 2.62 4.44∗−.30
Driving styles Risky .85 13.75.217.48 8.45 13.24 5.60 −8.51∗.59
Angry .75 19.66.414.53 5.34 12.58 4.80 −5.62∗.38
Dissociative .76 19.66.418.98 6.24 20.64 6.55 3.84∗−.26
Anxious .69 9.01 3.78.53 3.46 9.63 3.90 4.47∗−.29
Careful .75 40.97.139.93 7.29 42.41 6.53 5.24∗−.36
∗P<.001.
facilities. Secondly, participants were contacted at several
public venues, such as while standing on bank queues and
while waiting to renew their driver’s license. In the latter case,
potential participants were informed that the surveys were
strictly for research purposes and were unrelated to the li-
cense renewal process. Participants who met eligibility cri-
teria and provided informed consent were handed the self-
administered questionnaire. Researchers were present while
the subjects completed the questionnaire to assist them in the
case of questions and to assure that all fields were completed.
One hundred and twenty-four people refused to participate.
All interviews were conducted on weekdays. No monetary or
other kind of reward was given to study participants.
Data Analysis
Pearson’s rcorrelations were analyzed between the personality
trait and the driving style variables for the sample as a whole,
as well as for the different age and gender subgroups. Sta-
tistical significance of the observed differences in correlation
coefficients was analyzed using Fisher’s r-to-ztransformation.
Additionally, different multiple linear regression analyses were
carried out to assess the effect of personality traits (predictor
variables) on each driving style dimension (dependent vari-
ables). These analyses were performed for the general sample
and for the subsamples defined by gender and age. Addition-
ally, the difference of means for the measures of personality
traits and driving styles was calculated for the gender and age
groups.
Results
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show descriptive statistics and mean dif-
ferences for gender and age groups for personality trait and
driving style measures. Table A1 (see Appendix, online sup-
plement) shows the Pearson’s correlations between personal-
ity traits and driving styles in the different groups. The most
relevant results include (1) positive correlations between the
impulsive sensation seeking personality trait and the risky,
angry, and dissociative driving styles; (2) positive correlations
between the aggression–hostility personality trait and the risky
and angry driving styles; (3) positive correlations between the
neuroticism–anxiety personality trait and the anxious and dis-
sociative driving styles; (4) negative correlations between the
careful driving style and the impulsive sensation seeking and
aggression–hostility personality traits; and (5) the absence of
correlations or very low correlations among driving styles and
the activity and sociability personality traits.
Small variations in correlation patterns were observed with
respect to the different subgroups. Significant differences were
Table 2. Descriptive statistics, mean differences, and effect sizes for personality and driving style scales for young subsamples
Young male
(N=224)
Young female
(N=167)
Var iabl e s M SD M M td
Personality traits Impulsive sensation seeking 10.32 4.57 8.53 4.06 −3.56∗∗∗ .41
Aggression–hostility 4.83 2.44 4.04 2.51 −3.09∗∗ .32
Neuroticism–anxiety 2.18 1.87 2.76 2.22 2.76∗∗∗ −.28
Activity 4.67 2.53 4.30 2.51 −1.36 ns
Sociability 5.35 2.47 5.86 2.55 1.94 ns
Driving styles Risky 18.58 8.78 14.61 4.65 −4.92∗∗ .56
Angry 15.18 5.23 13.01 4.51 −4.07 ns
Dissociative 20.12 6.97 20.84 6.30 1.00 ns
Anxious 8.73 3.35 10.20 3.66 3.85∗∗ −.42
Careful 39.31 6.99 41.04 6.74 2.53∗−.25
∗P<.05. ∗∗P<.01. ∗∗∗P<.001.
350 Po ´
o and Ledesma
Table 3. Descriptive statistics, mean differences, and effect sizes for personality and driving style scales for adult subsamples
Adult male
(N=299)
Adult female
(N=218)
Variables M SD M SD td
Personality traits Impulsive sensation seeking 6.46 4.32 7.83 5.19 3.62∗∗ −.28
Aggression–hostility 4.53 2.53 3.64 2.49 −4.05∗∗ .35
Neuroticism–anxiety 2.32 1.88 2.97 2.22 3.56∗∗ −.31
Activity 4.98 2.62 5.41 2.76 1.88 ns
Sociability 4.15 2.42 5.11 2.66 4.29∗∗ −.37
Driving styles Risky 16.59 8.03 12.21 6.39 −7.16∗∗ .60
Angry 14.03 5.36 12.27 5.13 −3.90∗∗ .33
Dissociative 18.12 5.47 20.45 6.88 4.45∗∗ −.37
Anxious 8.41 3.54 9.19 4.14 2.41∗−.20
Careful 40.36 7.51 43.52 5.97 4.88∗∗ −.46
∗P<.05. ∗∗P<.001.
observed between the young subgroups in the correlations be-
tween impulsive sensation seeking and risky driving (z=2.51,
P<.05), impulsive sensation seeking and angry driving (z=
2.81, P<.01), and impulsive sensation seeking and careful
driving (z=−2.46, P<.05). For the adult subgroups, sig-
nificant differences were observed in the correlations between
aggression–hostility and risky driving (z=2.09, P<.05) and
aggression–hostility and careful driving (z=−2.28 P<.05).
Table A2 shows the results of the regression analysis be-
tween the dimensions of driving styles (response variables)
and personality traits (predictors) for groups defined by gen-
der and age. As stated in the first hypothesis, the main predic-
tors for the risky driving style were impulsive sensation seeking
and aggression–hostility. These predictors are most accurate
for young men. For women, neuroticism–anxiety emerges as
a good predictor of the risky driving style. Contrary to what
we had expected, no correlation was found with activity.
As anticipated in our second hypothesis, aggression–
hostility was the main predictor for the angry driving style
in the sample overall, followed by impulsive sensation seek-
ing. There was no evidence of a relationship to activity and
sociability. With respect to the subgroups, the impulsive sen-
sation seeking personality trait proved to be a predictor of the
angry driving style only among men.
As expected, for the dissociative driving style,
neuroticism–anxiety was the main predictor for the sample
as a whole and in the subgroups as well. The relationship
was most pronounced for young women. Impulsive sensation
seeking might also help predict the dissociative driving style
among young drivers of both genders. With regards to the
anxious driving style, the principal predictor for the sample
as a whole was neuroticism–anxiety, but in the subgroups this
correlation held only for the adult subgroups.
As anticipated in hypothesis number 4, the careful driving
style was negatively predicted by impulsive sensation seeking
and aggression–hostility. We also expected to find sociability
as a predictor, but we failed to find this association. Instead,
careful driving was predicted, to a small degree, by activity.
For this driving style, the patterns of relationships varied a
bit for the age subgroups. Though aggression–hostility was a
better negative predictor for the young subgroups, impulsive
sensation seeking was a better negative predictor for the adult
subgroups.
Discussion
The use of a unified personality model together with a mul-
tidimensional driving style assessment allowed us to analyze
relationships across variables; in previous studies, the variables
were analyzed separately or in a fragmented manner. The re-
sults obtained coincide in part with existing knowledge in this
area and contribute a more comprehensive perspective and
new evidence on personality traits and driving styles that have
not received much attention in the literature.
As anticipated by our general hypothesis, the results in-
dicate that individual differences in driving styles can be
explained by the different alternative 5-factor model traits.
In the case of the most studied driving styles—risky and
aggressive—our findings coincide with those of other re-
searchers who concluded that they are related to sensation
seeking and aggression (Jonah et al. 2001; Schwebel et al.
2006; Stephens and Groeger 2009). But our findings go even
further, identifying which trait is the most influential for
each driving style and estimating the relative weight of each
one. Additionally, the results indicate some variations with
respect to our sample’s subgroups. Among young women,
the neuroticism–anxiety personality trait appears to predict
a risky driving style. This finding partially coincides with
Ulleberg (2002), who, via cluster analysis, identified a group
characterized by elevated anxiety scores and low sensation
seeking scores. The percentage of women in this group was
higher than in the sample overall. Among men, the impulsive
sensation seeking trait contributes to the aggressive driving
style, especially among young men, reinforcing previous find-
ings linking impulsivity and experiences of anger in young
drivers (Dahlen et al. 2005).
Our study also provides evidence of a relationship between
personality traits and other driving styles, such as the disso-
ciative, anxious, and careful driving styles. In the literature
on driving behavior and personality, these styles have not re-
ceived the attention that the risky and aggressive driving styles
have. In general terms, the results obtained were consistent
with our hypotheses and indicate some variations in the dif-
ferent subgroups. In terms of the dissociative driving style,
the neuroticism–anxiety trait proved the principal predictor
(Shahar 2009); additionally, the impulsive sensation seeking
trait could predispose one to this driving style. This pattern of
Personality and Driving Styles 351
association was observed in the sample overall, as well as in the
different age and gender subgroups, although with varying in-
tensity. The observed relationship is novel and we recommend
further research to confirm that this relationship is indeed sub-
stantive. In terms of the anxious driving style, the only pre-
dictor was the neuroticism–anxiety personality trait, a result
that coincides with previous research (e.g., Mesken et al. 2007;
Stephens and Groeger 2009). However, in the subgroups, this
effect manifests itself only among adults and not among young
drivers. Finally, the careful driving style is negatively correlated
with the impulsive sensation seeking and aggression–hostility
traits, which makes sense because this style is the antithesis of
the risky and angry styles. Here, as well, some variations were
observed in the subgroups. In general, the aggression–hostility
trait proved a better negative predictor for young drivers, es-
pecially for women, whereas the impulsive sensation seeking
trait proved a better negative predictor for adult drivers. The
negative relationship between impulsive sensation seeking and
careful driving for young men is an exception to this pattern.
As previously indicated, this relationship can be understood
as the polar opposite of the relationship to risky driving. In
this sense, sensation seeking is greatest among young men and
is clearly related to risky behaviors (Jonah et al. 2001).
In summary, the results provide a clearer picture of the mul-
tiple relationships between personality and driving style and
alert researchers to the potential role that other variables, such
as age and gender, may have in determining driving style. At
the practical level, the results show that it is incorrect to think
of drivers as a homogenous group with regards to driving be-
havior and psychological traits. Consequently, interventions
and prevention programs undertaken without clearly defin-
ing the target population may not be adequate. For example,
many campaigns directed at the general population use ratio-
nal arguments regarding the negative consequences of risky
behaviors. These campaigns, though, may have dubious or
even counterproductive results for certain subgroups. In this
case, sensation seekers (generally young men) may be attracted
to driving behaviors that are prohibited or generally consid-
ered dangerous (Ulleberg 2002). In the case of anxious drivers,
these messages may constitute a source of anxiety, increasing
their stress levels while driving.
We believe that the recognition of differences in driver sub-
groups can lead to more effective forms of social influence. A
personality test administered to driver’s license applicants may
serve to identify driver subgroups. Based on this evaluation,
education, orientation, and training programs can be geared
for different driver groups based on their personal characteris-
tics and the types of driving behaviors they are likely to exhibit.
For example, anxious drivers might receive more information
and training on controlling stress and managing anxiety while
driving; aggressive drivers might receive education on anger
management in traffic situations. Thus, knowledge of the re-
lationships between personality traits and driving behaviors
has the potential to more effectively guide the use of resources
dedicated to accident prevention and road safety.
Although the results are interesting and theoretically con-
sistent, it is important to note the limitations of this study.
First, the explanatory power of regression models tends to
be lower for some driving styles, such as the anxious style.
It is evident that there are other personal and situational
variables that we have not measured and that could explain
a person’s driving style. Another limitation is related to the
measurement instruments; we are aware of the problems that
may present themselves with self-reporting instruments (af
Whalberg 2010). However, it is also true that there is previous
evidence of validity for the instruments used. Nonetheless, it
would be desirable for future studies to use alternative meth-
ods, such as in-vehicle observations, together with self-reports.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a contribution from the World
Bank’s Global Road Safety Facility and the Global Forum for
Health Research through their grant facility to the Road Traf-
fic Injuries Research Network (Agreement Nos. RTIRNWB-
004d and RTIRNWB-005d). It also recived partial support
from the Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata and Con-
sejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient´
ıficas y T´
ecnicas (Ar-
gentina). We express our gratitude to these institutions for
their support.
References
Aluja A, Rossier J, Garcia F, Angleitner A, Kuhlman M, Zuckerman M.
A crosscultural shortened form of the ZKPQ (ZKPQ-50-CC) adapted
to English, French, German, and Spanish languages. Pers Individ Dif.
2006;41:619–628.
Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR. Age changes in personality and their ori-
gins: comment on Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer. Psychol Bull.
2006;132:26–28.
Dahlen ER, Martin RC, Ragan K, Kuhlman MM. Driving anger, sensa-
tion seeking, impulsiveness, and boredom proneness in the prediction
of unsafe driving. Accid Anal Prev. 2005;37:341–348.
Dorn L, Matthews G. Two further studies of personality correlates of
driver stress. Pers Individ Dif. 1992;13:949–951.
French DJ, West RJ, Elander J, Wilding JM. Decision-making style,
driving style, and self-reported involvement in road traffic accidents.
Ergonomics. 1993;36:627–644.
Glendon AI, Dorn L, Matthews G, Gulian E, Davies DR, Deb-
ney LM. Reliability of the Driving Behavior Inventory. Ergonomics.
1993;36:719–726.
Iversen H, Rundmo T. Personality, risky driving and accident involve-
ment among Norwegian drivers. Pers Individ Dif. 2002;33:1251–1263.
Jonah BA, Thiessen R, Au-Yeng E. Sensation seeking, risky driving and
behavioral adaptation. Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33:679–684.
Krah´
e B. Predictors of women’s aggressive driving behaviour. Aggress
Behav. 2005;31:537–546.
Lajunen T. Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroti-
cism, amd psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities.
Pers Individ Dif. 2001;31:1365–1373.
Matthews G, Dorn L, Glendon AI. Personality correlates of driver stress.
Pers Individ Dif. 1991;12:535–549.
McCrae RR, Costa PT. A five-factor theory of personality. In: Pervin
LA, John OP, eds. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. 2nd
ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1999:139–153.
McCrae RR, John O. An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. J Pers. 1992;60:174–214.
Mesken J, Hagenzieker MP, Rothengatter T, De Ward D. Frequency,
determinants, and consequences of different drivers’ emotions: an on-
352 Po ´
o and Ledesma
the-road study using self-reports, (observed) behavior, and physiology.
Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2007;10:458–475.
Miles D, Johnson G. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psycholog-
ical and attitudinal predictors? Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol and
Behav. 2003;6:147–161.
Parker D, Reason JT, Manstead ASR, Stradling SG. Driving er-
rors, driving violations and accident involvement. Ergonomics.
1995;38:1036–1048.
Po ´
o FM, Taubman-Ben-Ari O, Ledesma RD, D´
ıaz-L´
azaro CM. Relia-
bility and validity of a Spanish-language version of the multidimen-
sional driving style inventory. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav.
2013;17:75–87.
Ryb GE, Dischinger PC, Kufera JA, Read KM. Risk perception and
impulsivity: association with risky behaviors and substance abuse dis-
orders. Accid Anal Prev. 2006;38:567–573.
Schwebel DC, Severson J, Ball KK, Rizzo M. Individual differ-
ence factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility, consci-
entiousness, and sensation-seeking. Accid Anal Prev. 2006;38:801–
810.
Shahar A. Self-reported driving behaviors as a function of trait anxiety.
Accid Anal Prev. 2009;41:241–245.
Stephens AN, Groeger JA. Situational specificity of trait influences on
drivers’ evaluations and driving behaviour. Transp Res Part F Traffic
Psychol Behav. 2009;12:29–39.
Taubman-Ben-Ari O, Mikulincer M, Gillath O. The Multidimensional
Driving Style Inventory—scale construct and validation. Accid Anal
Prev. 2004;36:323–332.
Ulleberg P. Personality subtypes of young drivers: relationship to
risk taking preferences, accident involvement, and response to a
traffic safety campaign. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav.
2002;4:279–297.
Ulleberg P, Rundmo T. Personality, attitudes and risk perception as
predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Saf Sci.
2003;41:427–443.
af Whalberg AE. Social desirability effects in driver behaviour invento-
ries. J Safety Res. 2010;41:99–106.
Zuckerman M. Psychobiology of Personality. Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press; 2005.
