Difficulties in emotion regulation and risky driving among Lithuanian drivers

Background: Risky driving is a common cause of traffic accidents and injuries. However, there is no clear evidence of how difficulties in emotion regulation contribute to risky driving behavior, particularly in small post-Soviet countries. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between difficulties in emotion regulation and self-reported risky driving behavior in a sample of Lithuanian drivers. Methods: A total of 246 nonprofessional Lithuanian drivers participated in a cross-sectional survey. Difficulties in emotion regulation were assessed using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz and Roemer 2004), and risky driving behavior was assessed using the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ; Lajunen et al. 2004). Results: Males scored higher than females in aggressive violations and ordinary violations. Females scored higher for the nonacceptance of emotional responses, whereas males had more difficulties with emotional awareness than females. More difficulties in emotion regulation were positively correlated with driving errors, lapses, aggressive violations, and ordinary violations for both males and females. Structural equation modeling showed that difficulties in emotion regulation explained aggressive and ordinary violations more clearly than lapses and errors. When controlling for interactions among the distinct regulation difficulties, difficulties with impulse control and difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior predicted risky driving. Furthermore, nonacceptance of emotional responses and limited access to emotion regulation strategies were related to less violations and more driving errors. Conclusion: Emotion regulation difficulties were associated with the self-reported risky driving behaviors of Lithuanian drivers. This provides useful hints for improving driver training programs in order to prevent traffic injuries

Skirtingų grupių vairuotojų savižina vertinamo rizikingo vairavimo ir asmenybės bruožų sąsajos

Researchers agree that risky driving is one of the most important contributors to traffic accidents, and it is influenced by personality traits. While past research has revealed contradictory findings as to the value of personality in different driving contexts, the prediction of self-reported risky driving using personality traits is complicated. The lack of consistent findings might be due to the underestimation of the drivers’ sample, type, or driving context. The present study aimed to analyse the relationships between Big Five personality traits and self-reported risky driving in four different samples of drivers. The volunteer participants of the study were 143 novice drivers (with the driving experience no longer than one year, 67 males and 76 females); 231 young drivers (130 males, 104 females); 239 experienced drivers (134 males, 149 females); 165 professional drivers (males). They completed the Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ, Parker et al., 1995) that assessed two self-reported risky driving factors (driving errors and intentional violations) and the Big Five Inventory (BFI, Benet-Martinez and John, 1998) that measured the drivers’ extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness to experience. Also, data about age, gender, driving experience and exposure were gathered. The results indicated that young drivers were most prone to risky driving (both errors and violations), whereas professional drivers might be described by the safest self-reported driving style. The structural equation modeling revealed different relations between personality traits and risky driving taking into account a driver’s gender and group (novice, young, experienced, or professional). It was found that in all tested drivers’ samples personality traits might be the proximal predictors of driving errors or distal predictors of driving errors with the mediation of intentional violations. More frequent self-reported intentional violations significantly predicted more frequent driving errors (β ranged from 0.18 to 0.53). The results of the study revealed no significant associations between personality traits and risky driving among novice drivers. SEM revealed a consistent predictive power of extraversion (β ranged from 0.16 to 0.37) and conscientiousness (β ranged from 0.17 to 0.31) for different drivers’ risky driving. These traits predicted self-reported risky driving of young male drivers, experienced drivers, and professional drivers. The predictive power of neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness was inconsistent in different samples. The higher neuroticism of young drivers (β = 0.22; 0.28) and experienced female drivers (β = 0.27) predicted more frequent self-reported driving errors but did not predict the risky driving of experienced male drivers and professional drivers. Higher openness predicted less frequent violations among young male drivers (β = –0.18), but more frequent errors in professional drivers (β = 0.16). Higher agreeableness predicted significantly less frequent self-reported violations of young male drivers (β = –0.32) and less frequent errors of professional drivers (β = –0.29). The findings suggest that personality traits might be useful predictors of risky driving, but the driving context and multiple aspects of a driver’s personality simultaneously should be taken into account.Mokslininkai sutinka, kad rizikingas vairavimas yra vienas svarbiausių veiksnių, nulemiančių avaringumą keliuose, o asmenybės bruožai gali padėti tokį vairavimą numatyti. Vis dėlto asmenybės bruožų svarba rizikingam skirtingų grupių vairuotojų vairavimui yra nevienoda. Šio tyrimo tikslas – nustatyti penkių didžiųjų asmenybės bruožų ir savižina vertinamo rizikingo vairavimo sąsajas skirtingose vairuotojų grupėse. Tyrime dalyvavo 143 pradedantys vairuoti asmenys, 231 jaunas vairuotojas, 239 patyrę vairuotojai ir 165 profesionalūs vairuotojai. Visi jie pildė Vairuotojų elgesio klausimyną bei Penkių didžiųjų asmenybės bruožų klausimyną. Pradedančių vairuoti asmenų grupėje sąsajų tarp asmenybės bruožų ir rizikingo vairavimo nenustatyta. Ekstraversijos ir sąmoningumo bruožų svarba beveik nepriklauso nuo vairuotojų imties, jie paaiškina jaunų vairuotojų vyrų, patyrusių vairuotojų ir profesionalių vairuotojų subjektyviai vertinamą rizikingą vairavimą. Neurotiškumo, sutariamumo bei atvirumo patirčiai bruožų ir polinkio rizikingai vairuoti sąsajos skiriasi jaunų, patyrusių bei profesionalių vairuotojų grupėse. Tyrimo rezultatai atskleidė, jog subjektyviai vertinamo polinkio rizikingai vairuoti ir asmenybės bruožų sąsajoms svarbios sociodemografinės vairuotojo charakteristikos, nurodančios, kad skirtingų grupių vairuotojai rizikingai vairuoja dėl skirtingų priežasčių

Correlations among self-report, static image, and video-based hazard perception assessments: the validity of a new Lithuanian hazard prediction test

Scholars suggest that improving hazard perception (HP) skills among different road users can lead to safer driving. To this end, a small number of countries have developed a national hazard perception test for their licensing procedures. The purpose of the current research is to develop and validate a new video-based hazard prediction test for the Lithuanian driving context. Eighty-eight drivers participated in the study. Initially, 25 naturalistic clips were included and edited into a hazard prediction test following the “what happens next?” paradigm. The overall score of the test was higher for experienced drivers when compared with novices. On further inspection the overall group difference was driven by 12 clips. The Lithuanian Hazard Perception test HPT-LIT featuring static images (Tūskė et al., 2019) and Hazard Perception Questionnaire developed by White et al. (2011) were used to validate the new test. This new version of the test (12 clips, LHP12) showed acceptable psychometric properties. Drivers with less driving experience demonstrated poorer hazard prediction skills than experienced drivers. The results revealed a negative correlation between hazard prediction scores on LHP12 and crash involvement in the novice driver group, as well as a positive correlation between prediction scores and self-reported hazard prediction skills. It was concluded that the new Lithuanian hazard test shows potential for future research

The self-reported driving behaviour of young drivers in Lithuania: An application of the behaviour of young novice drivers scale – Lithuania (BYNDS-Li)

Background: With just one year left in the Decade of Action for Road Safety, it is timely nations reflect on their progress in the realm of improving road safety more generally, and in young driver road safety specifically given the pernicious problem that is young driver risky driving behaviour and road crashes. Effective intervention requires a fundamental foundation of understanding the nature of the problem. Therefore the current study explored the self-reported risky driving behaviour of young drivers in Lithuania, a nation classified as a developed country as recently as 2015. Method: The self-report Behaviour of Young Novice Drivers Scale (BYNDS, 1) was applied in a sample of 457 Lithuanian young drivers aged 18–24 years, after a rigorous forward-backward translation process. Results: Seven factors (risky exposure, transient rule violations, driver misjudgements, driver mood, vehicle overcrowding, personal seatbelt use, substance consumption) explained 65.2% of the variance in self-reported risky driving behaviour as measured by the BYNDS-Li. The most common risky driving behaviours included driving in excess of posted speed limits, and driving at high risk times such as at night and on weekends. Discussion and implications: The seven-factor structure of the BYNDS-Li supports arguments that culturally-valid measures should be operationalised in jurisdictions other than those in which they were developed (in the case of the BYNDS, Queensland, Australia). Moreover, systems thinking argues that interventions and efforts must be multi-sectoral and collaborative interventions. In the case of young driver road safety, these should be framed within the 4E's of education, engineering, enforcement, and engagement.</p