Journal of Korean Society of Transportation (대한교통학회지)

Korean Society of Transportation (대한교통학회)
권호 표지

The Analysis of the Differences of Driving Behaviors According to Drivers' Personal Characteristics and the Causal Relationship between Personal Characteristics and the Number of Traffic Violations

운전자의 개인적 특성에 따른 운전행동의 차이 및 법규위반횟수에 대한 인과관계 분석

  • 이현주 (배재대학교 교양교육지원센터)
  • Published : 2007.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigated how drivers' cognitive characteristics, such as perception-motor skills and safety-seeking motivation; personal characteristics, such as sensation-seeking disposition coping with physical and social dangers; their self-perceived driving ability; and their normal driving behaviors influence the number of driving violations. 352 drivers participated in the study. MANOVA was performed in order to test the differences in their driving behaviors according to their level of sensation-seeking disposition and driving ability, and Structural Equation Modeling was used to examine the causal relationships among their demographic characteristics, sensation-seeking dispositions, driving ability, driving behaviors and the number of violations. The results indicated that drivers who had higher perception-motor skills seemed to be careful with pedestrians. From the results, drivers who had somewhat higher safety-seeking motivation tended to violate fewer traffic regulations intentionally or accidentally and showed more positive driving behaviors. Furthermore, drivers who had higher perception-motor skills, higher sensation-seeking disposition, and lower safety-seeking motivation had a tendency to violate intentionally more traffic regulations. The older drivers showed driving behaviors that were careful of pedestrians. The drivers who had higher sensation-seeking disposition and longer driving careers violated more traffic regulations, both intentionally and accidentally. Results from LISREL indicated that the predictive variables directly or indirectly influenced on drivers' violation numbers ($x^2$=341.62(p=.00), GFI=.94. RMR=.10).

본 연구는 운전자의 지각-운동기술과 안전지향동기와 같은 인지적 특성과 신체적 사회적인 위험을 무릅쓰게 하는 감각추구성향과 같은 인성적 특성, 자신이 지각하는 운전능력과 평상시의 운전행동이 법규위반횟수와 어떤 관계를 맺고 영향을 끼치는지를 밝히고자 하였다. 연구대상은 총 352명이며 연구방법으로는 감각추구성향 정도, 운전능력에 따른 운전행동에 대한 차이 검증을 위하여 다변량분석을 실시하고, 구조방정식모형을 통해 인구통계학적 특성(연령, 운전경력), 감각추구성향, 운전능력 운전행동, 법규위반횟수의 인과관계를 분석한다. 연구 결과 운전자가 지각-동작기술이 뛰어나면 다른 도로이용자를 배려하는 긍정적인 운전행동을 많이 하고 안전지향동기가 높을수록 고의적이든 실수로 인한 것이든 법규위반행동은 적게 하고 긍정적인 운전행동을 많이 하는 것으로 분석되었다. 그리고 지각-운동기술이 뛰어나고, 감각추구성향이 높으며 안전지향동기가 낮을수록 고의적인 법규위반행동을 많이 하고, 연령이 높을수록 타인을 배려하는 운전행동을 많이 하고 있었다. 운전능력이 우수하고 실수행동과 위반행동을 많이 하고 긍정적인 운전행동을 적게 하는 운전자가 법규위반횟수가 많은 것으로 나타났다. LISREL분석결과, 연구변인들 간 인과관계가 검증되었다(적합도 지수 : $x^2$=341.62(p=.00), GFI=.94, RMR=.10)

Keywords

References

  1. 김명언.김정오.권석만.김청택.이재식(1998), 운전정밀검사의 개발 및 표준화, 서울대학교 심리 과학연구소, 심리과학, 7(2), p.56
  2. 김병석.이병일(2002), 감각추구성향 및 도덕적 요인과 음주운전과의 관계, 청소년상담연구, 10(2), p.61
  3. 도로교통안전관리공단(2005), 교통사고 요인분석: 보행자 교통사고를 중심으로, p.112
  4. 배영철(2004), 법규위반 운전행동의 원인분석과 교통안전교육의 개선방안 연구, 고려대학교 정책대 학원 석사학위논문, p.73
  5. 안병준(2003), 교통사고 원인행동 분석, 교통안전 공단. p.64
  6. 양병화(2000), 다변량 자료분석의 이해와 활용, 학지사, pp.337-394
  7. 오미경(1997), 감각추구성향과 사회화 요인이 남 녀 청소년의 위험행동에 미치는 영향, 이화여자대 학교 박사학위논문, p.35
  8. 유완석.이재식(1999), 운전자의 운전수행과 관련 된 지각적, 인지적 특성분석 및 그 특성이 운전에 미치는 영향분석, KRF 연구결과논문, p.4
  9. 이순묵(1990), 공변량구조분석, 성원사, pp.73-89
  10. 홍왕희(2004), 교통사고유형과 사고운전자의 운 전결함요인의 상관성에 관한 연구, 동아대학교 산 업대학원 석사학위논문, p.16
  11. Aberg, L., & Rimmo, P.-A. (1998), Dimensions of aberrant driver behaviour, Ergonomics, 41(1), pp.39-56 https://doi.org/10.1080/001401398187314
  12. Ozkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2005), A new addition to DBQ: Positive driver behaviors scale, Transportation Research Part F 8, pp.355-368 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.018
  13. Arnett, J. (1994), Sensation seeking: a new conceptualization and a new scale, Personality and Individual Difference, 16(2), pp.289-296 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90165-1
  14. Beirness, D. J. (1993), Do we really drive as we live? The role of personality factors in road crashes, Alcohol, Drugs and Driving. UCLA Brain Information Service/Brain Research Institute, 9 (3-4):pp.129-143
  15. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980), Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88, pp.588- 606 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
  16. DfT(1999), Childhood accidents and their relationship with problem behavior(No.07), In Vulnerable Road Users. pp.3-7
  17. Elander, J., West, R., & French, D. (1993), Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: An examination of methods and findings. Psychological Bulletin, 113, pp.279-294 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.2.279
  18. Evans, L. (1991). Traffic safety and the driver, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
  19. Heino, A., Molen, H. H., & Wilde, G. J. S. (1992), Risk-homeostatic processes in carfollowing behavior: Individual differences in carfollowing and perceived risk(Report No. VK 90-02), Haren: Traffic Research Centre, University of Groningen
  20. Iversen, H., & Rundmo, T. (2002), Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers, Personality and Individual Differences, 33, pp.1251-1263 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00010-7
  21. Jonah, B. A. (1997), Sensation seeking and risky driving: a review and synthesis of the literature, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, pp.651-665 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(97)00017-1
  22. Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (1995), Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers' self-assessments, Personality and Individual Differences, 19(3), pp.307-318 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00068-H
  23. Lajunen, T., Corry, A., Summala, H. and Hartley, L. (1998), Cross-cultural differences in drivers' self-assessments of their perceptualmotor and safety skills: Australians and Finns, Personality and Individual Differences, 24, pp.539-550 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00202-X
  24. Lawton, R., and Parker, D. (1998), Individual differences in accident liability: A review and integrative approach, Human Factors, 40, pp.655-671 https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779649292
  25. Limmo, P.-A., & Aberg, L. (1999), On the distinction between violations and errors: sensation seeking associations, Transportation Research Part F2, pp.151-166 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(99)00013-3
  26. McGuire, F. L. (1976), Personality factor in highway accidents, Human Factors, 18(5), pp.433-442 https://doi.org/10.1177/001872087601800502
  27. McKenna, F. P. (1983), Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. Accident Analysis and prevention, 15(1), pp.65-71 https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(83)90008-8
  28. McKenna, F. P., Waylen, A. E., & Burkes, M. E. (1998), Male and female drivers: how different are they? Hampshire, England : AA Foundation for Road Safety Research, The University of Reading
  29. Owsley, C., McGwin Jr., G., & McNeal, S. F. (2003), Impact of impulsiveness, venturesomeness, and empathy on driving by older adults, Journal of Safety Research, 34, pp.353-359 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2003.09.013
  30. Parker, D., Reason, J. T., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G.(1995), Driving errors, driving violations and accident involvement, Ergonomics, 38, pp.1036-1048 https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139508925170
  31. Reason, J. T., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990), Errors and violations on the roads, Ergonomics, 33, pp.1315-1332 https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139008925335
  32. Rimmo, P., & Aberg, L. (1999), On the distinction between violation and errors: sensation seeking associations, Transport. Res. Part F 2, pp.151- 166 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(99)00013-3
  33. Rumar, K. (1985), The role of perceptual and cognitive filters in observed behavior, in L. Evans and R. C. Schwing (eds.), Human Behavior and Traffic Safety, (Plenum Press, New York), pp.151-165
  34. Sivak, M. (1983), Society's aggression level as a predictor of traffic fatality rate, Journal of Safety Research, 14, pp.93-99 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4375(83)90019-1
  35. Smith, D. L., & Heckert, T. M. (1998), Personality characteristics and traffic accidents of college students, Journal of Safety Research, 29(3), pp.163-169 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(98)00012-7
  36. Sullman, M. J. M., Meadow, M. L., & Pajo, K. (2002), Abberrant driving behaviors amongst New Zealand truck drivers, Transportation Research Part F, 5(3), pp.217-232 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(02)00019-0
  37. Sumer, N. (2003), Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, pp.949-964 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00103-3
  38. Sumer, N., Ozkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2006), Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, pp.703-711 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.12.016
  39. Treat, J. R., Tumbas, N. S., McDonald, S. T., Shinar, D., Hume, R. D., Mayer, R. E., Stanisfer, R. L. and Castellan, N. J. (1977), Tri-level study of the causes of traffic accidents, Report No. DOT-HS-034-3-535-77 (TAC)
  40. Ulleberg, P. (2002), Personality subtypes of young drivers, Relationship to risk-taking preferences, accident involvement, and response to a traffic safety campaign. Transportation Research Part F, 4, pp.279-297
  41. West, R., Elander, J. & French, D. (1993), Mild social deviance, Type-A personality and decision making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk, British Journal of Psychology, 84(2), pp.207-219 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1993.tb02474.x