International Journal of

Traffic and Transportation Psychology

Volume 1, ISSUE 2 – www.ijttp.ro

CORRELATIVE STUDY BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS

AND AGGRESSION AT YOUNG DRIVER-A PILOT STUDY

MIHAI ANITEI a , ANDRA DUMITRACHE b

a,b
University of Bucharest,
Department of Psychology

Abstract

The aim of this study was to test the relationship between big five personality
factors and aggressive driving behavior. Starting from the literature review we assumed
that there will be a negative relationship between emotional stability, openness,
agreeableness, conscientiousness and aggressive driving behavior and a negative
relationship between extraversion and aggressive driving. A number of 38 participants
completed the IPIP Big Five Markers and Aggressive driving behavior test (AVIS) from
Vienna Test System. Study hypotheses were partial sustained by the data. There was a
significant negative correlation between conscientiousness and aggressive driving
behavior, whilst between extraversion, openness, agreeableness and emotional stability
was no relationship. Regarding the influence of personality in aggressive driving, only
conscientiousness was a significant predictor of aggressive driving behavior. In conclusion,
this study reached its purpose by showing the link between the big five factors of
personality and aggressive driving behavior. This pilot study may be the starting point of
new research in traffic psychology.

Keywords: aggressive driving behavior, personality, traffic psychology, traffic safety

Cuvinte cheie: comportament agresiv în şofat, personalitate, psihologia traficului,

siguranţa în trafic


Corresponding author: Mihai Anitei
Email: mihai.anitei@unibuc.ro
5
 1. INTRODUCTION/THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK

The concept of personality is one of the most comprehensive concepts and

lacks a common definition. Different theories describe different ways. Personality
traits were defined as a dynamic organization within the individual his / hers and
characteristic model of thinking, emotion and behavior which makes a person
(Carver & Scheiner, 2000; Chamorro-Premuzic, 2008). Burger (2006) defines
personality as consisting of substantial behavioral patterns of the individual and
intra-personal processes. The consistent behavior model means that a person
performs the same actions at any time, in any situation, while the intra-personal
processes means that all emotional, cognitive and motivational processes that have
an influence on our acts and feelings.

1.1. THE BIG FIVE MODEL OF PERSONALITY

The BFM five personality factors is a model based on those personality traits
found in natural language, guided by the assumption that the most important areas
of personality would have the largest number of terms in the common vocabulary
(Goldberg, 1992). By applying the factor analysis methods to the lexical data it
was revealed that there are five major personality factors. The result was a robust,
comprehensive, and meaningful taxonomy that describes normal personality traits
(Hough and Schneider, 1996), which explains the variance in a wide range of
human behaviors (Vodanovich Wallace, 2003).
Specifically, evidence suggests that some factors are significant predictors of
job performance, attitudes towards traffic safety and crash involvement (Arthur și
Graziano, 1996, Wallace și Vodanovich, 2003). But, taking into account the
dynamic nature of the driving situation, there are many other variables involved
which are likely to influence the results of management and would tend to weaken
the predictive validity predictors. One such variable is aggressive driving.
According to Atkinson's, Smith’s, Bem’s, and Nolen-Hoeksema’s views
(1996), personality is represented by the distinctive and specific patterns of
thoughts, feelings and behaviors that identifies the interaction with the physical and
social environment. A large number of ideas and theories were discussed in terms
of personality and, by using different data, the researchers concluded that there are
five dimensions of personality.
Each dimension has in itself inter-related characteristics and personal
differences which remain constant for many years. People can be defined generally

6
in these five basic dimensions: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Openness to
experiences / culture; Courtesy; Conscientiousness.

The theory of the five personality factors appears to have united all the
different views under one title and therefore resulted in a model of five universal
factors.
Neuroticism includes anxieties, worries, anger issues, uncontrolled actions,
insecurities and depression. People with neurotic tendencies, complain of at least
one of many psychosomatic indications, such as chronic fatigue, headaches,
insomnia, vision disability or anorexia. For this reason, neurotics can be described
as leaning towards negative emotions, especially anxiety, depression and anger.
People with high levels of emotional stability tend to be very temperate, relaxed,
and resistant even under stress conditions. Low emotional stability, sometimes
called neurosis (meaning high level of neuroticism), and often affects personality
adversely. Those with a low emotional stability are more likely to experience
psychological distress (ex, depression, anxiety, anger, and insecurity), unrealistic
beliefs, and poor coping strategy.
Although empirical evidence in favor of the relation between emotional
stability and driving results are mixed (Arthur and Doverspike, 2001; Lajunen,
2001), there are theoretical grounds demonstrating that this dimension should be
related to aggressive driving. Research shows that people with a low level of
emotional stability tend to evaluate situations as more stressful than those with
greater emotional stability. Thus, drivers who have a higher score on the
neuroticism scale are easily angered and insecure and should, in theory, have an
increased risk of aggressively acting while driving.
Extrovert people on the other hand, tend to engage in frequency activities,
positive emotions, entrepreneurship and social behaviors. They are adventurous,
active, talkative, cheerful, optimistic and energetic, enjoy fun and action.
Extraversion is characterized by sociability, assertiveness, impulsivity, and activity.
There is evidence that extraversion is positively associated with traffic accidents
(Lajunen, 2001), road errors (Verwey and Zaidel, 2000), and violations of traffic
rules. Theoretically, extraversion should be related to aggressive driving because it
is marked by active and sometimes impulsive behaviors. Given that aggressive
driving behaviors appear to be impulsive by nature, we expect that drivers with a
high level of extraversion to be more prone to aggressive behavior while driving.
Openness to experience is a trait of people characterized by creativity,
imagination, liberalism in thoughts and acts who embrace new perspectives and
multi-dimensional ways of thinking and mental curiosity. The opening is marked
by traits such as imagination, culture, curiosity, originality, open mindedness,
intelligence, and artistic sensibility. Although this factor has received the least
attention of the Big Five in literature, there is some evidence that might be relevant
7
to driving behavior. It postulates that an egocentric mentality often associated with
aggression in traffic is lower among more sensitive, broad-minded, and tolerant
people (ex, those with a large opening). Therefore, openness to experience may
increase the likelihood that drivers will make more realistic assumptions and relies
more on situational factors. Assignment of situational "apologies" to other drivers
implies that errors are caused by circumstances that are, at least partially, beyond
their control, which in turn is less likely to rely on hostile reactions.
An agreeable appearance represents a friendly, respectful and modest
behavior, which means agreeableness includes basic features such as honesty,
sacrifice, harmony, modesty, high emotions, trust and friendship. It is associated
with physical and emotional care and inclination towards care. Therefore,
agreeable people can be described as sincere, intimate, friendly and tolerant.
Agreeableness is associated with being courteous, flexible, reliable, kind,
cooperate, forgiving and tolerant. This is the dimension of the BFM associated with
maintaining positive interpersonal relations. It should be linked to aggressive
driving as extremely pleasant individuals would be less likely to behave in a hostile
manner, even when challenged, as they seek to enhance cooperation and avoid
negative emotions.
The construct Conscientiousness covers efficiency, conscientiousness and
self-discipline. These include personnel management, self-discipline, debate and
basic characteristics of competence. Features most commonly associated with
conscientiousness include reliability, care, thoroughness, responsibility,
organization, planning, hard work, guidance, achievement. Conscientiousness is
positively related to safety at work (Wallace and Vodanovich, 2003) and inversely
related to accidents (Arthur and Graziano, 1996). Similar results were reported for
thoroughness, a secondary variable that is also part of the conscientiousness
spectrum. Moreover, they are more likely to comply with driving rules, do not
engage in risky situations, avoid dangerous situations and adhere to standards of
performance (Arthur and Graziano, 1996) through self-regulating behavior.
Traffic behavior theories predict that behaviors related to aggressive driving
(ex, excessive lane changes, speeding) are associated with outcomes such as near
misses, physical injuries, stress, and violations of rules. In addition, aggressive
driving is usually associated with negative emotional states such as anger, which
can also interfere with judgment, attention, perception, information processing
speed and coordination engines, all of which are relevant to driving performance
(Deffenbacher et al., 1994).
Personality traits can affect behavior and can be associated with many
aspects.
Given the elements of literature linked to the current study, there were significant
correlations between psychological signs and anger. Previous research relevant to
the current study shows that personality traits are in a significant relation with work
8
stress locus of control, attachment styles, and job satisfaction. On the other hand,
the literature shows that there are positive correlations between personality traits
and the trait anger with the anger expression styles.

1.2. AGGRESSIVE DRIVING

Aggressiveness is a component of the human condition, but many people are
oppressed by the feeling that the world is becoming, with each passing year more
and more violent. Although the term "aggressiveness" is very common in everyday
language being present in daily life and in the media, psychologists have difficulty
in providing a precise definition of this concept.
It can be argued that there is a real inflation of psycho-sociological definitions
of aggressiveness. In 1983, Harre and Lamb accounted for over 250 different
definitions of aggressiveness in the psycho-sociological literature. Here are some
examples (cited Hogg, Vaughan, 1998, p 402):

• a behavior that results in injuries to persons or damage to property;

• a behavior that seeks to harm an individual of the same species;
•a conduct committed with the purpose to injure or do harm to another living
being motivated to avoid such treatment;
• any form of intentional infliction of suffering of others.

To be distinguished from somehow rather harmless behaviors, extreme acts of

aggression are called violent behaviors. Other terms belonging to aggressiveness
language refers to emotions and attitudes. Anger is a mixture of unpleasant feelings
aroused by the perception of damage caused by someone, the exact nature of these
feelings (ex, resentment, hatred or irritation) depending on the situation.
Hostility is a resentful attitude towards certain people or groups. Anger and
hostility are often associated with aggression, but not always. One can be upset on
some people and we can regard them with great hostility, without meaning to hurt
them. On the other hand, bullying can occur without a trace of anger or hostility
(ex, a hit-man who kills only for money).
An assassination committed by a professional killer is an example of
instrumental aggression, the wrong done to someone is a means to achieve a
particular purpose. Aggressions committed to achieve some gains, privileges,
advantages or for attention and self-defense belong to this category. If the abuser
would find that there are other ways to achieve their goals, bullying would not
occur. (www.scrigrup.ro).
The fundamental biological theories postulate that aggression is an innate
tendency. While accepting that it is possible to change behavior through education,
biological determinism followers do not give up the idea that our original instincts
9
or impulses are invariably aggressive. In other words, aggression is an instinct –
meaning a reaction model (pattern) to foreshadowed genetic stimuli. Every instinct
has the following distinguishing features:
• has a specific purpose and arises specific behaviors (attack, escape,
abandonment, simulation, cloaking etc.).
• it is beneficial for the individual and the specie;
• is adapted to a normal environment (but not abnormal situations);
• it is common to most members of a species (even though its manifestations
may know individual variation);
• knows a development (a sequence of evolutionary steps) that is covered by
all normal individuals as it matures;
• it is not taught or learned through personal experience (although it may
become manifest in connection with certain learned contextual elements).
(www.scigrup.com)

1.3. THEORETHICA APPROACH OF ANGER

Emotions can be defined as processes with identifiable periods, including
personal experience and capabilities of individuals with regard to personnel
management issues, such as to guide them into getting an action set, their
identification being a priority. In addition to happiness, sadness, fear and hatred,
anger is one of the five basic emotions of every person and is also a feeling that
most people experience in their everyday life. Contrary to common perception,
anger is a negative emotion much like aggression and hostility, but rather a normal
and universal feeling. In addition, anger is likely to act as a personality shield at
certain times. The feeling of anger can be evaluated as a healthy performance if
expressed in a positive way, but can also be harmful for the individual and his
social environment.
Fury manifests, just as affection and passion do during adolescence, may have
adverse effects on personality and it is likely for these impulses to convert into
emotions such as hatred, resentment, jealousy and hostility. Any individual with
such feelings has the potential to get angry more frequently and more violently
Behaviors of madness and anger can occur especially in situations perceived as
restrictive. Anger management does not mean the suppressing or hiding of feelings
but the identification of anger which means to be aware of the biological and
physiological changes that occur onset and throughout the duration of emotions.
The biological structure causes and affects the expression of anger, logical
and illogical beliefs, and environmental effects, such as family, culture and social
environment. Individuals should identify their anger in order to protect themselves
from the negative effects of anger and to be able to express anger in a more
positive way. Anger is described as an emotion that occurs when there is an
10
unforeseen situation or if there is a threat perception and varies depending on the
type of threat and manifests as a wide range of feelings such as dissatisfaction,
anger or violence as a response to the anxiety caused by helplessness, weakness,
inadequacy. Anger is a basic emotion, and when a person’s plans, requirements and
needs are limited injustice, inequality and threat appear. Anger is the emotion form
whereby a person demonstrates self-defense and warning. It is a strong sense that
aims to save one from the disturbing stimulus.
There are three dimensions, namely physiological, social, cognitive and
behavioral, that describe the experience of anger and its expression:
• the physiological dimension of anger is related to psychological and
physical changes that occur in the body when a person faces a situation perceived
as restrictive and annoying. Regarding the physiological perception of anger, a
kind of personal reaction is determined by their beliefs, both logical and illogical,
past experiences and associations of events.
Social and cognitive anger dimensions explain self-interpretation of perceived
anger. Anger is influenced by the knowledge of the person as much as by social
relations. Depending on the size of the behavior of anger, people show different
responses based on the types of stimuli and cognitive structures. Some people tend
to suppress, endure or control their anger, while some try to show in a variety of
ways the feeling of anger to him in the company.
Styles of expressing anger are analyzed in three dimensions: Anger-out
expression of anger; Anger-in - suppression of anger; Anger-control – control of
anger.
Expression of anger is the exposure to the created feelings of anger through
words or behaviors and is an adaptive reaction designed to face stress related
disorders. Suppression of anger is an alternative mechanism for personal adaptation
presented by hiding or keeping anger inside. Controlling anger is a situation that
defines how a person controls his/ her anger in association with others or to what
extent he/she is trying to calm down, these experiences expressing anger control
through personal reactions. It is important that individuals be supported in
controlling their anger. They should be taught to control, because these emotions
can be harmful to others and to themselves.
Overall, cases such as biological, cultural, environmental, interpersonal relations,
academic difficulties, working conditions and personality traits can, more or less,
bring out the feeling of anger. Anger while driving can be defined as the tendency
to become angry while driving. Research shows that driving anger is related to
risky driving behaviors such as driving fast, reckless maneuvers and violations of
traffic laws.

11
 2. OBJECTIVE AND HYPOTHESES

2.1. OBJECTIVE
Highlighting the possible correlations between personality factors measured
with the Big Five questionnaire, and aggression in traffic. It also aims to highlight
on a pilot sample of drivers that personality factors are predictors of aggressive
behavior in traffic.

2.1. HYPOTHESES
 There is a significantly negative relation between emotional stability
and aggressive driving behavior.
 There is a significant positive relation between extraversion and
aggressive driving behavior.
 There is a significantly negative relation between openness and
negative behavior in traffic.
 There is a significantly negative relation between agreeableness and
aggressive driving behavior
 There is a significantly negative relation between conscientiousness
and negative behavior in traffic.
 Personality factors are predictors of aggressive behavior in traffic.

3. METHOD

3.1. PARTICIPANTS
For this pilot study the group consists of 38 participants chosen randomly
from a population of young people who have driving licenses, 18 female and 20
male. Participants aged between 20 and 32 years and had obtained their driving
licenses at least 2 years prior to the test and got through an average of 17,000 miles
annually, both in the city and national roads or motorways. The participants are
Romanian, many of them students of the Faculty of Psychology of the University
of Bucharest.

3.2. INSTRUMENTS
 AVIS (Vienna Tests System, 2012). The questionnaire is used for
measuring aggression in traffic and aggression frequency. This test is
based on measuring the dimensions of aggression which derived from
scientific studies and have been confirmed by a factor analysis. The
standard form of the AVIS S1 questionnaire contains 130 items. The
first part of the test (namely the first 65 items) is conducted under
12
 normal conditions, while the second part (the following 65 items) is
conducted under stress conditions. The short form of the
questionnaire resumes in applying just the first part, which is what
was used in the present study. The responses given by the
participants, they vary on a scale of 1-8 (1 -very infrequently, 8 -very
often).
The dimensions of aggressiveness measured by the questionnaire are the
followings: Instrumental Aggression, Anger, Acting out and Enjoyment of Social
desirability. This test is very useful considering the huge role aggressiveness plays
in traffic accidents that result in victims, persons injured, property and physical
damages.
 The Big Five Markers used to measure the five major markers of
personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness,
conscientiousness. Neuroticism includes anxiety, worry, anger
issues, uncontrolled actions, insecurity and depression. People with
neurotic tendencies complain of at least one of many psychosomatic
indications such as chronic fatigue, headaches, insomnia, vision
disability, anorexia. For this reason, neurotics can be described as
leaning towards negative emotions, especially anxiety, depression and
anger. People with high levels of emotional stability tend to be very
temperate, relaxed, and resistant under stress. Low emotional
stability, sometimes called neurosis (meaning high level of
neuroticism), and often adversely affects personality. Those with a
low emotional stability are more likely to experience psychological
distress (ex, depression, anxiety, anger, and insecurity), unrealistic
beliefs, and poor coping strategy. Extraversion. Extrovert people on
the other hand, tend to engage in frequency activities, positive
emotions, entrepreneurship and social behaviors. They are
adventurous, active, talkative, cheerful, optimistic and energetic,
enjoy fun and action. Extraversion is characterized by sociability,
assertiveness, impulsivity, and activity. Openness to experience is a
trait of people characterized by creativity, imagination, thoughts and
liberalism, new perspectives, multi-dimensional ways of thinking and
mental curiosity. This is marked by traits such as imagination,
culture, curiosity, originality, open mindedness, intelligence, and
artistic sensibility.
Agreeable appearance represents friendly, respectful and modest behaviors,
which means that good agreeability includes basic features such as honesty,
sacrifice, harmony, modesty, high emotions, trust and friendship. It is associated
with physical and emotional care and inclination towards care.

13
 The construct conscientiousness covers efficiency, conscientiousness and self-
discipline. This factor includes personnel management, self-discipline, debate and
basic characteristics of competence.

3.3. PROCEDURE
After obtaining informed consent, participants were given the instructions
explaining how to complete the items, what each digit of each item represents and
what their values are. After being instructed each person completed both
questionnaires in about 10-15 minutes. The questionnaires were collected for
analysis and, after obtaining the results, participants that so wanted were informed
on the results and conclusions of the research.

3.4. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

To test the hypothesis that highlight possible correlations between personality
traits measured with the Big Five test and aggressive driving behavior the
dependent variables are: personality factors, neuroticism, extraversion, openness,
agreeableness, conscientiousness and aggressive behavior of test subjects measured
with AVIS.
For hypothesis testing regarding the regression model for which personality
traits are predictors of aggressive behavior in traffic, the variables for the present
research were:
 Independent variables: represented by personality factors,
neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness,
conscientiousness.
 Dependent variables: aggressive behavior of test subjects, measured
with AVIS.

14
 Table 1. Means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis for all study variables

Std.
N Mean Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Age 38 25.63 3.436 .103 .383 -1.029 .750
Stability 38 25.84 5.678 -.232 .383 -.291 .750
Extraversion 38 32.76 7.216 -.458 .383 -.219 .750
Openness 38 36.18 5.670 .092 .383 -.482 .750
Agreeability 38 37.13 5.561 -.094 .383 -.289 .750
Conscientiousness 38 37.92 6.436 -1.002 .383 1.073 .750
Instrumental 38 62.66 31.268 .341 .383 -1.245 .750
Aggression
Anger 38 52.21 15.743 -.072 .383 -.891 .750
Enjoyment 38 30.89 13.209 1.352 .383 1.333 .750
Acting-out 38 37.97 13.530 .110 .383 -1.265 .750
Negativism 38 24.21 11.131 .675 .383 -.570 .750
Total aggression 38 207.9474 64.33567 .346 .383 -1.029 .750

4. RESULTS

In Table 1 we observe means, standard deviations and distribution shape

indicators. Note that the indicator values symmetry distribution are in normal range
(-1, +1), which indicates a symmetrical distribution of the variables

Table 2. Test Kolomogorov - Smirnov for study variables

Instrum
ental Acti Total
Stabi Extrave Open Agreea Conscientio Aggressi Ang Enjoy ng- Negati aggres
lity rsion ness bility usness on er ment out vism sion
N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Normal Mean 25.84 32.76 36.18 37.13 37.92 62.66 52.2 30.89 37.9 24.21 207.94
Paramet 1 7 74
ersa,b
Std. 5.678 7.216 5.670 5.561 6.436 31.268 15.7 13.209 13.5 11.131 64.335
Devia 43 30 67
tion
Most Absol .133 .082 .111 .105 .179 .144 .124 .169 .144 .122 .106
Extreme ute
Differen
ces Positi .085 .060 .097 .105 .109 .144 .124 .169 .144 .122 .106
ve

Negat -.133 -.082 -.111 -.104 -.179 -.093 - -.112 -.116 -.086 -.094
ive .115
Kolmogorov- .822 .504 .686 .649 1.105 .886 .764 1.039 .889 .754 .652
Smirnov Z

Asymp. Sâg. .508 .961 .734 .793 .174 .412 .604 .230 .408 .621 .789
(2-tailed)

a. Test distribution is Normal.

b. Calculated from data.

15
 Table 2 shows the results of the nonparametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
This test was performed to test the normal distribution of variables. Thus, we can
see that the study variables are normally distributed (p> 0.05), which means we can
use parametric tests and linear correlation to test the hypotheses of the study.

Table 3. Pearson correlations inter-vabriabile

Instru
Extr Consci mental Enjo Nega
Stabi avers Open Agree entious Aggres Ang ymen Actin tivis Total
lity ion ness ability ness sion er t g-out m aggression
Stability Pearson 1
Correlation
Extraversion Pearson .169 1
Correlation
Openness Pearson .315 .606** 1
Correlation
** **
Agreeability Pearson .074 .496 .719 1
Correlation
Conscientiou Pearson .213 .140 .511** .583** 1
sness Correlation
**
Instrumental Pearson -.050 .188 .065 -.121 -.452 1
Aggression Correlation
Anger Pearson -.144 .108 -.046 -.088 -.233 .754** 1
Correlation
Enjoyment Pearson -.098 .163 .153 -.033 .052 .576** .618 1
**
Correlation
Acting-out Pearson -.010 .228 .125 .027 -.333* .858 **
.774 .661 **
1
**
Correlation
Negativism Pearson .006 .091 -.081 -.291 -.323* -.147 - -.284 -.163 1
Correlation .286
Total Pearson -.081 .215 .064 -.132 -.392* .944 ** ** **
.851 .726 .924 -.061 1
**
aggression Correlation
**. Correlation îs significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation îs significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

In table 3we can observe Pearson correlation between study variables. Thus,
we can see that the first hypothesis which assumes a significant negative relation
between emotional stability and aggressive driving behavior is ruled out as there is
no statistically significant correlation (r = -0.08, p> .05).
Also, the second hypothesis which assumes a significant positive relation
between extraversion and aggressive behavior in traffic is infirmed (r = 0.21, p>
.05). The third hypothesis which assumes a significant negative relation between
openness and aggressive behavior is infirmed (r = 0.06, p> .05).
The fourth hypothesis which assumes a significant negative relation between
agreeableness and aggressive driving behavior is ruled out, as there is no
statistically significant negative correlation (r = -0.13, p> .05). The fifth hypothesis
16
which assumes a significant negative relation between conscientiousness and
aggressive behavior in traffic is confirmed, there being a statistically significant
negative correlation (r = -0.39, p <.05).

Table 4 Simple linear regression for aggressive driving behavior

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .392a .154 .130 60.00610
a. Predictors: (Constant), Conscientiousness

1In table 4 the predictive model for aggressive driving behavior can be
observed, having as a independent variable conscientiousness. Note that the model
explained 13% of variance for aggressive driving behavior.

Table 5 ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p.

1 Regression 23519.558 1 23519.558 6.53 .015a
2
Residual 129626.337 36 3600.732
Total 153145.895 37

a. Predictors: (Constant), Conscientiousness

b. Dependent Variable: Total aggression

In Table 5 the Fischer coefficient for the model can be observed. It can be
observed that the model statistically significant with F (1,36) = 6.53, p = 0.015.

Table 6 Regression Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

Std.
Model B Error Beta t p.
1(Constant) 356.492 58.931 6.049 .000
Conscientiousness -3.917 1.533 -.392 -2.556 .015

a. Dependent Variable: Total aggression

In table 6 we can see that the personality factor conscientiousness is a

significant predictor of driving aggression (B = - .39; p <.05).

17
 5. CONCLUSIONS

After the statistical interpretation of the study we conclude that there is a

relation between the personality factor "conscientiousness" and aggression in
traffic. Thus, we can see that the first hypothesis which assumes a significant
negative relation between emotional stability and aggressive driving behavior is not
confirmed as there is no statistically significant correlation (r = -0.08; p> .05).
Also, the second hypothesis which assumes a significant positive relation between
extraversion and aggressive driving behavior is not confirmed (r = 0.21, p> .05).
The third hypothesis which assumes a significant negative relation between
openness and aggressive behavior is not confirmed (r = 0.06, p> .05).
The fourth hypothesis which assumes a significant negative relation between
agreeableness and aggressive driving behavior is infirmed, as there is no
statistically significant negative correlation (r = -0.13, p> .05). The fifth hypothesis
which assumes a significant negative relation between conscientiousness and
aggressive driving behavior is confirmed, there being a statistically significant
negative correlation (r = -0.39, p <.05). The last research hypothesis was partially
confirmed as the only personality factor that negatively correlated with the
aggressive driving was conscientiousness, for the selected group of subjects.
Considering the relation between conscientiousness and aggression in traffic,
as the degree of conscientiousness is higher the risk of aggression in traffic is
lower. People with high levels of conscientiousness are more likely to follow rules,
to take things seriously and thus to address traffic more carefully. The factor
"conscientiousness" refers specifically to efficient self-discipline and personal
management which also represents the elements that influence aggressive driving.
People with a higher level of conscientiousness will have a better personal control
in stressful situations and a more rigorous discipline.
Care, good organization, effective planning and perseverance make
"conscientious" people responsible and careful road users and thus decrease the
risk of accidents caused by aggressive driving behavior.

Received at: 15.08. 2013, Accepted for publication on: 30.08.2013

18
 REFERENCES

Arthur, J.W., & Doverspike, D. (2001). Predicting motor vehicle crash

involvement from a personality Measure and a driving knowledge test. Journal of
Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 22 (1), 35-42.
Arthur, Jr., W., & Graziano, W., G., (1996). The Five -Factor Model,
Conscientiousness, and Driving Accident Involvement. Journal of Personality, 64,
593-618.
Atkinson, R., Atkinson, R., Smith, E., Bem, D. & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1996).
Hilgard’s Introduction to Psychology. 12th ed. FL: Harcourt Brace College Pub-
lishers.
Burger, J. M. (2006). Kişilik (çev. İ. D. Erguvan Sarıoğlu). İstanbul: Kaknüs
Yayıncılık.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Perspective on personality (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2008). Personality and individual differences. Blackwell
publishing.
Deffenbacher, K. A. (1994). Effects of arousal on everyday memory. Human
Performance, 7, 141–161.
Goldberg, L. R., (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 24-42;
Hogg, M.A. & Vaughan, G.M. (1998). Social Psychology. Great Britain: Prentice
Hall.
Hough, L.M. & Schneider, R.J. (1996), Personality traits, taxonomies, and
applications on organizations, in Murphy, K. (Ed.), Individual Differences on
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion,
neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities?. Personality
and Individual Differences, 31, 1365-1373.
Verwey, B.W., and Zaidel, D.M. (2000). Predicting drowsiness accidents from
personal attributes, eye blinks an ongoing driving behaviour. Personality and
Individual Differences, 28:1, 123-142.
Wallace, J. C. & Vodanovich, S. J. (2003). Can accidents and industrial mishaps
be predicted? Investigating workplace performance. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 17, 503-514.
Vienna Test System (2012) AVIS software

19
 REZUMAT

Scopul acestui studiu a fost de a testa relaţia dintre cei cinci factori de
personalitate şi condusul agresiv în traffic. Plecând de la literatura de specialitate
s-a presupus că va exista o relaţie semnificativ negativă între stabilitatea
emoţională, deschiderea spre experienţă, agreabilitate, conştiinciozitate şi
condusul agresiv şi o relaţie semnificativ pozitivă între extraversie şi condusul
agresiv. Un număr 38 de participanti au completat chestionarul IPIP “Big Five
Markers” şi “Aggressive driving behaviour test” (AVIS) din bateria de testare
computerizată Vienna Test System. Ipotezele studiului au fost parţial susţinute de
rezultatele cercetării. A existat o corelaţie semnificativ negativă între
conştiinciozitate şi condusul agresiv în timp ce între extraversie, deschidere,
agreabilitate şi condusul agresiv nu a existat nici o relaţie semnificativă statistic.
Cu privire la influenţa personalităţii asupra condusului agresiv, doar
constiinciozitatea a fost un predictor semnificativ al acestuia. In concluzie, această
cercetare şi-a atins scopul propus, evidenţiind legatura dintre factorii de
personalitate şi comportamentuagresivl în trafic.

20