T0 In LATIONSHI-P I E ITS .D' STERN {PA {T‘O‘ rug R 3.1:! & :6?th ET??? S .Vf-OH; .83 STATE UNNER mi ‘mcmcm ~ a . I. ...2.“..w—.... _ 3.4“}. . If .:.,....:2. , u... 3.3.". 3,5312...” r. . 1.; , . . . 5. .. .2. 17...? r L. — r 1.. r... Y! r W by; «M u a. {[151 $45.41! .{7‘ Its: V 11...; hwy—nub . 3 1 ..if. 5.: r . .1 Iii/Ii. . r ...Hunu!!lo4.v!t:.1 97,579.. .7 ,5“ ..111 1.1.3»... ..¢1.:4.Au11114 a. 'gfiESl. 1‘413' , ,5. 2391'? This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANN INVENTORY IN CLASSIFYING ADULT DRIVERS INTO ACCIDENT- VIOLATION EXPERIENCE CATEGORIES AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PAST DRIVER PERFORMANCE presented by Adelbert Fred Thompson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD degree in Mn (34% mi 7 / / ’1'9/ 1 I Date 0-169 . . ' ”s .'.'=:".O~ 35M THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANN INVENTORY IN CLASSIFYING ADULT DRIVERS INTO ACCIDENT-VIOLATION EXPERIENCE CATEGORIES AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PAST DRIVER PERFORMANCE BY Adelbert Fred Thompson Much concern has been expressed as to the factors con- tributing to the many accidents occurring on the nation's highways. A wide variety of investigations have taken place in the following so-called predictor variables: physiological, sensory, psychomotor, visual, fatigue, age, alcohol, and mental and emotional measures, and combinations of these. From these studies, it appears that the greatest tool for classifying drivers rests in the investigation of factors of emotional stability and personality traits. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the Mann Inventory and past driving records adults and to determine which items included in the Mann Inventory identify an attitude profile of an adult operator within one of four accident and violation experi— ence categories. The secondary purpose was to determine which of the six behavioral categories, as identified by Kenel in his Adelbert Fred Thompson study "The Effectiveness of the Mann Inventory in Classi— fying Young Drivers Into Behavioral Categories and Its Relationship to Subsequent Driver Performance," were preva- lent in each of the four accident—violation categories. The sample population of this study consisted of 331 subjects, 190 males and 141 females, who came into the Lansing Driver License Bureau, 414 North Larch Street, Lansing, Michigan, for the purpose of renewing their licenses. The sample was gathered between April 2, 1970, and April 17, 1970. The subjects ranged from 21 to 64 years of age. All lived in Ingham County, Michigan and were representative of the socio—economic, ethnic, and cultural groups found in that area, an area which has many large industries, the state capitol, many governmental agencies, Michigan State University, and Lansing Community College. While in the licensing office, the subjects were asked to volunteer to take the test. The Mann Inventory and the reason for administering it were explained. They were assured that the test results would be kept confiden— tial and that there would be no repercussions from their participation in the study. They were then provided with a desk, pencil, test and answer sheets and were asked to answer all items as honestly as possible. Upon completion of the test, each subject's driving record was obtained. Each subject was then classified into one The one Adelbert Fred Thompson of the four accident-violation experience categories. tests were then scored and each subject was placed in of the six behavioral categories. The hypotheses Were tested by means of Chi Square, The Cell Square Contingency Method. Statistical analysis of the data revealed: 1. When the combined male and female population of this study were analyzed by accident-violation experience categories, chi square values for 13 of the 63 items were found to be significant at or above the .10 level. Employing chi square analysis with the accident- violation experience categories divided according to sex, 10 items for the female population of this study and eight items for the male popula- tion of this study were identified that were significant at or above the .10 level. Using the cell square contingency matrix, two items were found to be significantly related to an accident-violation experience category. Chi square analysis showed there was no signifi— cant relationship between the four accident— violation experience categories and the six behavioral categories. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANN INVENTORY IN CLASSIFYING ADULT DRIVERS INTO ACCIDENT-VIOLATION EXPERIENCE CATEGORIES AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PAST DRIVER PERFORMANCE BY Adelbert Fred Thompson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education: Curriculum 1970 d7} #7 AC KNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. Robert Nolan, my major advisor and chairman of my guidance committee, for his advice and encouragement. To other members of my guidance committee, Dr. Charles Blackman, Dr. Robert Gustafson, and Dr. William Mann for their helpful suggestions. A special note of thanks to Dr. William Mann for the use of the test instrument and Dr. Francis Kenel for the use of the scoring procedures. To Dr. William Laurance Quane for his assistance in programming the data for computer analysis. To my wife, Mary Lou and my children, Adelbert F., Jr., and Ruth Anne for their many sacrifices. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . II. III. IV. Statement of the Problem . Importance of the Problem . The Hypotheses . . . . Basic Assumptions . . . Definitions . Organization of the Study . REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT TO ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT . . Summary . . . . . . . DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . The Test Instrument . . . The Sample . . . . . . The Data . . Procedure of Analysis . . Null Hypotheses . . . Summary . . . . . . . STATISTICAL ANALYSIS . . Differences by Accident and Violation Experience Categories Relationship Between Accident— Violation Experience Categories and Behavioral Categories . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . Page ii vi |_l mmUlUlhb 41 48 51 Chapter Page V. SUMMARY , CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 55 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 58 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Composition of Sample Population by Accident- Violation Experience Categories . . . . 35 2. Composition of the Accident—Violation Experience Categories by Behavioral Categories for Total Population . . . . 36 3. Frequency Distribution of Total Population Classified According to Sex and Age . . . 37 4. Correlation Coefficients for Each of the Items in the Mann Inventory with Levels of Significance Indicated Where the Significance was at or beyond the .10 Level . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5. Composition of the Accident—Violation Experience Categories by Behavioral Categories for Female Population . . . . 52 6. Composition of the Accident—Violation Experience Categories by Behavioral Categories for Male POpulation . . . . 53 LI ST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. The Mann Inventory and Response Sheet used by Kenel in His Study . . . . . . . 67 B. The Personal Attitude Survey and Response Sheet used in This Study . . . . . . 75 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The United States has become highly dependent upon its highway transportation system. There are at present, more than 100 million vehicles and operators, traveling in excess of 1,000 billion miles a year on 3.5 million miles of roadway.1 The great number of accidents occurring on the nation's highways has become a major problem. Each year with the production of better and faster automobiles, more automo— biles on the highways, the rapidly increasing mileage of expressway systems, and higher speed limits being posted, the number of accidents has increased. In a paper presented to the National Extension Home— makers' Council Leadership Conference in 1969, Howard Pyle, President of the National Safety Council, noted that the total national economic cost for traffic accidents would exceed twenty—two billion dollars in waste in 1968.2 But lAutomotive Safety Foundation, A Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education (Washington, D.C.: Automotive Safety Foundation, January, 1970), p. 2. 2Howard Pyle, "Is Safety Now All Washington?" (A Paper Presented at the National Extension Homemakers" Coun- cil Leadership Conference on Highway Safety, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan), February, 1969, p. 7. worse still, was the report of the National Safety Council for the year 1969, concerning the estimated toll that motor— vehicle deaths reached an estimated total of 56,400 for the highest annual toll on record.3 It is becoming increasingly important that something must be done to reduce these figures. Much concern has been expressed as to the factors contributing to these accidents. Since there is little likelihood that any one approach would be successful in and of itself, many investigations have been made in the last 20 years to try to ascertain the causes of these accidents. There has been much research attempting to identify the characteristics of problem drivers. A wide variety of investigations have taken place in the following so-called predictor variables: physiological, sensory, psychomotor, visual, fatigue, age, alcohol, and mental and emotional measures, and combinations of these.4 These investigations have shown that the driver presents the greatest challenge in predicting accident involvement. But a great number of studies have shown evidence to support a definite relationship between per— sonality and behavior patterns and accident involvement. 3J. L. Recht, "The 1969 Traffic Story," Traffic Safety Research Review, LXX, 3 (March, 1970), p. 17. 4Leon G. Goldstein, "Human Variables in Traffic Accidents," Highway Research Board (Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1962), pp. 1-5. N\\\_ McFarland and Moore studied the characteristics of drivers in relation to accidents. They found that the following characteristics were clearly related to repeated accidents or high accident rates: (1) low intelligence, (2) youthfulness, and (3) a personality make-up featured by egocentricity, aggressiveness, antisocial trends, and social irresponsibility.5 In a digest of studies of predictor variables, Goldstein stated that as far as human variables are concerned, acci- dents are largely a function of age, alcohol, and attitudes.6- Kenel studied the behavioral patterns of high school driver education students. He found that individuals who have poor driving records could be identified on the basis of their observed behavior and/or a personality inventory.7 This was supported by a study conducted by Greenshields and Platt. They found that ordinary driving reveals behavior patterns that lead to safety or probability of mishaps on the highway.8 5Ross A. McFarland, Roland C. Moore, and A. Bertrand Warren, Human Variables in Motor Vehicle Accidents (Boston: Harvard School of Public Health, l955), p. 43. 6 Goldstein, pp. 332., p. 6. 7Francis C. Kenel, ”The Effectiveness of the Mann Inventory in Classifying Young Drivers Into Behavioral Cate— gories and Its Relationship to Subsequent Driver Perform~ ances" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967). 8Bruce D. Greenshields and Fletcher N. Platt, "Develop— ment of a Method of Predicting High-accident and High- violation Drivers," Journal of Applied Psychology, LI (1967), p. 209. From these studies, it appears that the greatest tool for classifying drivers rests in the investigations of factors of emotional stability and personality traits. Statement of the Problem The primary purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the Mann Inventory and past driving records of adults and to determine which items included in the Manannventory identify an attitude profile of an adult operator within one of four accident and violation experi— ence categories. The secondary purpose was to determine which of the six behavioral categories, as identified by Kenel in his study "The Effectiveness of the Mann Inventory in Classify— ing Young Drivers Into Behavioral Categories and Its Rela— tionship to Subsequent Driver Performance," were prevalent in each of the four accident—Violation categories. Importance of the Problem With the traffic death rate increasing by alarming numbers each year, every possible method of prevention should be tried to curtail the rate. Traffic accidents are far more common than any other type of accident.9 The necessity for the development and improvement of preventa- tive measures is imperative. If the potential traffic 9Caroline B. Preston and Stanley Harris, "Psychology of Drivers in Traffic Accidents," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLIX (1965), p. 284. violator, accident involvee or accident repeater can be identified, it should be done. The Hol: The following 1. The Hypotheses hypotheses to be tested in this study are: There is a significant relationship between the response of adults to questions on the Mann Inventory and their accident and violation experi- ences as represented by the following categories: Category 1. Violation free-—accident free drivers Category 2. Convicted violator-—accident free drivers Category 3. Violation free-—accident involved drivers Category 4. Convicted violator——accident in— volved drivers. There is a significant relationship between the behavioral categories as identified by Kenel in his study "The Effectiveness of the Mann Inventory in Classifying Young Drivers Into Behavioral Categories and Its Relationship to Subsequent Driver Performance" and the past driving records of adults. Basic Assumptions investigation of this problem is based on the assumptions: Attitudes influence adult driving behavior as measured by violations and accidents. Attitudes can be employed to predict the involve— ment of adults in violations and accidents. The Lansing Driver License Bureau, 414 North Larch Street, Lansing, Michigan, provides an adequate sample of adult drivers coming in for renewal of their licenses to test the hypotheses proposed in this study. 4. The Driver License Bureau office provides facili- ties for testing which will not be detrimental to the validity of the test to be given. 5. The Mann Inventory is a valid instrument to be used for testing adults in the driving population. Definitions Accident.——For the purposes of this investigation, an accident referred only to those accidents involving a motor vehicle in motion that resulted in death, injury or pro— perty damage.10 Violation.—-For the purposes of this investigation, a violation is an infringement or breach of a traffic law by a person while operating a moving vehicle. Attitude Profile.—-A cluster of responses to items in the Mann Inventory which collectively identifies adult drivers in one of four violation—accident categories. Adult Driver.——For the purposes of this investigation, a person (male or female) who holds a valid Michigan driver's license and is between the ages of 21 and 64. Mann Inventory.——A personal attitude survey consist— ing of 63 items that appear to reflect an individual's lOJ. Stannard Baker, and William R. Stebbins, Jr., Dictionary of Highway Traffic (Evanston, Illinois: Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, 1964), p. 134. feelings toward himself, others and established social customs.ll Violation Free-—Accident Free Drivers.--For the pur- poses of this investigation, a violation free-~accident free driver is a person who had not been convicted of two or more violations nor had been involved in an accident while operating a motor vehicle during the three year period prior to this study. Convicted Violator--Accident Free Drivers.——For the purposes of this investigation, a convicted violator—- accident free driver is a person who had been convicted of two or more moving violations but was not involved in an accident during the three year period prior to this study. Violation Free——Accident Involved Drivers.--For the purposes of this investigation, a Violation free—-accident involved driver is a person who had not been convicted of two or more violations but was involved in one or more accidents during the three year period prior to this study. Convicted Violatorv-Accident Involved Drivers.——For the purposes of this investigation, a convicted Violator-- accident involved driver is a person who had been convicted of two or more moving violations and was involved in one or more accidents during the three year period prior to this study. llKenel, 9p. cit., p. 29. Organization of the Study The general plan of this study is to present in Chapter Two, a review of the literature pertinent to the relationship of personality and personal or social adjust— ment to driving performance. Chapter Three contains a description of the test instrument used, an account of the methods used in collecting, organizing and tabulating the data. and the statistical techniques applied in analyzing it. The fourth chapter is an account of the results of the analysis and the summary, conclusions and implications for further study appear in Chapter Five. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT TO ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT A review of the literature revealed that numerous investigations have been made concerning the relationship of human factors and the great number of accidents which occur daily. Even before the invention of the automobile and highway traffic accidents had become a problem, the theory that certain people were unusually susceptible to acci- dents had developed. Much research has been done to sub— stantiate this theory and to find characteristics which might distinguish individuals who are more susceptible to accidents than their accident-free fellow workers.12 The theory of accident proneness developed from the observation that some people seemed to have more accidents than others. This concept led to the early investigation of the manner in which industrial accidents were dis— tributed among members of groups of workers. These studies l2William J. Hadden, Edward H. Suchman, and David Klein, Accident Research Methods and Approaches (New York: Harper and Row, 1964). 10 were conservatively presented but later researchers seeking to prove accident prone characteristics failed to note this.13 One of the very first studies was done by Greenwood and Woods among workers in a British munitions factory during World War I. They found that a relatively small number of workers had most of the accidents. In conclu— sion, they felt that these workers were more susceptible to accidents than others and should be removed to other areas when practical.l4 Pursuing this theory, Newbold, studied the accident records of a large group of workers in 13 factories and largely substantiated the work of Greenwood and Woods. Newbold's study has been used as definite proof of the existence of people who are "psychologically" prone to accidents. In her conclusions, she stated: The indications of individual differences seem to be definite enough to justify the further more detailed investigation on the lines of individual study and experimental psychology. . . . The present results show that it is clearly necessary in such study to take age and health into consideration. l3McFarland, Moore, and Warren, pp. cit., p. 19. 14Major Greenwood and Hilda Woods, ”The Incidence of Industrial Accidents with Special Reference to Multiple Acci- dents," as reprinted in Accident Research Methods and Approaches, Hadden, pp. 389-397. Medical Research Committee, Industrial Fatigue Research Board, Report No. 4, 1919. 15E. M. Newbold, "A Contribution to the Study of the Human Factor in the Causation of Accidents," as reprinted in Accident Research Methods and Approaches, pp. 397—410, Medical Research Committee, Industrial Research Board, Report No. 34, 1926. 11 By 1939, when Farmer and Chambers conducted their study of accidents among automobile drivers, the idea of accident proneness was well established. They concluded that accident proneness could be measured and was a factor in the causation of accidents among motor drivers.l6 From these studies arose the concept of accident proneness which was readily accepted by the general public. Many studies have been devoted to the search for the acci— dent prone in one form or another. But after examination of human psychological, physiological, and sociological characteristics and combinations of these, nothing has been found to detect those persons overly susceptible to acci— dents. Yet, the accident prone concept is so facinating that some still continue in this area of accident research. Many researchers felt that the concept of accident proneness had very little value in understanding the majority of traffic accidents and began to research else- where. They found that there was a group of people who had poor attitudes, trouble adjusting socially, ignorance of safe practices and Were emotionally unstable.l8 l6E. Farmer and E. G. Chambers, A Study of Accident Proneness Among Motor Drivers, Medical Research Council, Industrial Health Research Board, Report No. 84, 1939, p. 37. l7Anthony Peranio, "Logic and Road Safety Research," Traffic Quarterly, XXIII (January, 1969), p. 124. l8Herbert Stack and J. Duke Elkow, Education for Safe Living (Englewood Clifts, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957), P. 49. 17 12 The Eno Foundation at the Center for Safety Education conducted a study in which 193 drivers with high accident records were compared with a similar number of accident— free drivers. Those chosen were matched as to age, driving experience, mileage, and the type of vehicle driven. The accident—free group were found to have better attitudes and knowledge of safe driving practices. They also showed better motor control under normal conditions as well as under conditions of frustration and annoyance.19 One of the most notable studies on accident proneness was conducted by Tillman and Hobbs20 in which they concluded that "a man drives as he lives." They made a study of Canadian taxi drivers with high and low accident rates in terms of their personality characteristics. Taxi—cab drivers were classified into high, low and average accident frequence groups from information gathered from the following: the insurance company for the taxi firm, the management, the various drivers as to their own experiences and that of other drivers. Except for that of the insurance company, this information was dependent upon memory. 19Ibid. 20W. A. Tillman and G. E. Hobbs, "The Accident Prone Automobile Driver, A Study of Psychiatric and Social Back— ground, American Journal of Psychiatry, CVI, 5 (1949), pp. 13 Forty drivers were personally interviewed on the job for a period of more than three months. During this time, the adjustment of the driver to his fellow workers, and the esteem in which he was held by them was observed. From these observations, the parental background, childhood, adolescent history and subsequent adult adjustment were obtained. The results of the comparisons between the high acci- dent group and the low accident group showed a remarkable difference in their personality characteristics. The drivers in the high accident group were aggressive, impul- sive, and disrespectful of authority, while the drivers in the low accident group were well—adjusted, stable individu— als. The following characteristics best described the high accident group: 1. Poor home life, with one or both parents being excessively strict. The father was often a poor provider with a record of excessive drinking. A high rate of divorced parents prevailed. 2. Unstable childhood traits of the aggressive type: temper tantrums, frequent fights, bullying, leader of a gang, and frequent appearances at the Juvenile Court; as well as the non—aggressive type: enure- sis, fears of fights, dark, deep water, excessive daydreaming, etc. l4 3. In school, they were average academically, but with frequent records of truancy and disciplinary infractions. 4. Poor social adjustment, few friends, superficial emotional attachments, and short—time employments, were noted. 5. Behavior patterns were usually immature, foul language used frequently, tried to impress others with their importance.21 In a follow—up study, 96 male drivers who had been involved in four or more automobile accidents and 100 accident—free drivers of the same age and sex were selected from the general driving population. The names of those in both groups were submitted to the Juvenile Court, the Adult Court, to the public health agencies, and venereal disease clinics, three social service agencies, and the local credit bureau. Of the high accident group, 66 per cent were known to one or more agencies. There were only nine of the accident-free drivers who were known to any agencies and not a single person was known to more than one. Upon examination of the replies of the inquiries it was apparent that social maladjustment was just as frequent among the general driving population with a high accident record as among the high accident taxi drivers. In this group, two persons were known to all sources, three were 211bid., pp. 324—326. 15 known to four sources, nine to three sources, 16 to two sources, and 32 to one source. In the low accident group, the credit bureau knew six drivers, while the social agen- cies, Adult Court, and Juvenile Court each had had contact with only one individual.22 "‘ There are many exponents of the concept that "a man 23 24 works or drives as he lives." Ribicoff, Bishop and McFarland25 feel that personality and behavioral patterns do not change when an individual is driving. Research indicates that chronic offenders are characterized by social maladjustments such as antisocial attitudes, record of contact with courts and credit agencies, and these traits affect their ability to handle a moving vehicle. ‘\ In a study comparing accident repeaters and accident- free senior high students, Rommel26 employed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personalipnynventory. Of the 257 items in this inventory, there were eight items on which the accident 22Ibid., pp. 327-329. 23Abraham Ribicoff, "You Drive As You Live," Analogy (Winter, 1966-1967), pp. 16-18. 24Richard W. Bishop, "A Theory of Driving Behavior," Unpublished material, Michigan State Universtiy, Highway Traffic Safety Center. 25Ross A. McFarland, "The Role of Preventive Medicine in Highway Safety," American Journal of Public Health, XLVII, 3 (March, 1957), pp. 288—296. 26R. C. S. Rommel, "Personality Characteristics and Attitudes of Youthful Accident—Repeating Drivers," Traffic Safety Research Review, III, 1 (March, 1959), pp. 13-14. 16 repeating group scored high while the accident—free group scored low. It is debatable as to whether the items indicate personality characteristics or attitudes but they seemingly isolated factors in the experience of the individual which might lead to accident producing behavior. These experiences were: 1. A desire to leave home. 2. An urge to do something harmful or shocking. 3. A tendency to be influenced by people about them. 4. Association with peers to whom parents object. 5. A desire to frighten other individuals for the fun of it. 6. A tendency to become readily impatient with people. 7. A tendency to become somewhat suspicious of overfriendly people. 8. A possibility of having been in trouble with the law. In a related study, Beamish and Malfettizj compared violator and non—violator automobile drivers in the 16 to 19 year age group in the greater Cleveland area. They conducted the study for the following purposes: (1) to determine whether, in adolescents, certain psycho- logical characteristics of traffic violators differ from those of non—violators, (2) to see if these characteristics affect the violator's responsiveness to pedagogic/therapeutic retraining, and (3) to see if these characteristics are con- nected with the quality of his attitude and his relationships with his family and society. 27Jerone J. Beamish and James L. Malfetti, "A Psycho- logical Comparison of Violator and Non—Violator Automobile Drivers in the 16 to 19 Year Age Group," Traffic Safety Research Review, VI, 1 (March, 1962), pp. 12-14. 17 The violator group was composed of 84 males who had been referred to the Juvenile Court and had incurred two or more traffic violations. The non-violators were 186 males who had held an Ohio driver's license for at least one year and had not received a moving violation. Psychological tests and a personal history form were administered. The results of these tests showed a differ- ence between the traffic violators and non-violators, in such personality traits as emotional stability, objectivity, conformity and mood. The violator group rated lower on all variables. Biographically, there was a difference in the two groups. The parents of the non-violators were more active politically. Rainey28 conducted a series of studies of airmen selected for their accident repeating and accident-free records to determine whether there were specific personal characteristics and/or patterns of such characteristics which would distinguish between the two groups. No signifi- cant differences were found between the two groups involving physiological reactions to stress or psychomotor functions, such as simple and complex reaction times, coordination and discrimination. When administered the Allport, Vernon and Lindzey Study of Values, however, the accident repeater group did show an over—emphasis of self-determination and 28Robert V. Rainey, et. al., "An Investigation of the Psychological Factors in Motor Vehicle Accidents," Bulletin 212, Highway Research Bulletin, 1959, pp. 11-12. l8 self—sufficiency. This may reflect a rejection of con- formity standards, conventional modes of behavior, and to be very emotional in certain situations. The accident group reflected a tendency to conform behaviorally and to accept conventional standards and practices. Brody expressed the belief that some drivers have problems of which they are not aware. He attributes the following characteristics as being significant among chronic violators and accident repeaters: (l) aggressive and intolerant of others, (2) tend to resent authority, (3) inclined to have an exaggerated opinion of their importance, (4) lacking in responsibility, and often (5) act impul- sively.29 .— In a paper describing the problem driver, Mann30 pointed out that drivers get into trouble because of a lack of knowledge, poor attention and perception, or as a result of a projection of their personality characteristics. The average person has no real concern about safety. He is lacking in personal and social responsibility in the 29Leon Brody, ”The Psychology of Problem Drivers," Unpublished material, Michigan State University, Highway Traffic Safety Center, 1965. 30William A. Mann, ”The Nature of the Problem Driver," Unpublished material, Driver Improvement School Conference, Michigan State University, Highway Traffic Safety Center, 1965. 19 area of safety. Brody31 cited the following data from a survey to support this: 82 per cent of drivers involVed in auto accidents blame the other motorist. 80 per cent consider themselves good or excellent drivers; only one in 100 admits he is a poor driver. Only five per cent think their driving could be improved through a refresher course. 53 per cent feel there is nothing they can do to avoid another accident. A driver's personality has been found to be of signi— ficant importance to his driving performance. Pelz32 reported that the dangerous years from 16 to 24 are very frustrating to the young driver. It is during this period that they are striving for adult status, without being granted that privilege by society. This sometimes leads to aggressive or rebellious tendencies. Health33 conducted an investigation to find out what personality characteristics and biographical data distin— tuish traffic offenders from non-offenders in the State of New Jersey. The two groups were equal in terms of estimated 31Leon Brody, "Accidents and Attitudes," as reprinted in Basic Aspects and Applications of the Psychology of Safety, Center for Safety Education, pp. 6—24, 1959. 32Donald C. Pelz, "Who Are the Dangerous Drivers?" Analogy (Spring, 1968), pp. 13-15. 33Earl D. Heath, "Relationships Between Driving Records, Selected Personality Characteristics, and Bio- graphical Data of Traffic Offenders and Non—Offenders," Bulletin 212, High Research Board, 1959, pp. 16-20. 20 annual mileage driven. The traffic offenders scored higher on the impulsive and sociable scale while the non—offender group scored low. On the reflective scale, just the reverse occurred, the non—offender group scored higher and the offenders scored low. The biographical data obtained by interviews found significant differences in the following categories: 1. Age 2. Marital status 3. Education 4. Driver education indicated 5. Annual salary 6. Present occupation 7. Job turnover The group with traffic offenses were younger and the majority were unmarried. Many had failed to complete high school or college and few were engaged in professional occupations. They reported a higher job turnover. Also, very few in this group had had a driver education course in school. Schuster and Guilford34 carried on extensive studies of the behavior traits of accident repeater and chronic violator drivers. In a study conducted in the State of California, they tested better-than—average drivers, chronic 34D. H. Schuster and J. P. Guilford, "An Analysis of Accident Repeater and Chronic Violator Drivers," National Safety Council Transactions, XXIV (October, 1958), PP. 136— 129. 21 violators and accident repeaters. There was a significant difference in age and annual mileage between the better drivers and the accident repeaters or Chronic violators. In the better-than—average group, selected drivers who were younger and who had driven more miles per year were con- trasted with the other drivers of the same group and there were no significant differences in the personality or attitude traits. Finally, the selected better drivers were compared with the accident repeater drivers and the chronic violator drivers. The accident repeater group in contrast with the better-than—average group were: more self-assertive, more active, more adventuresome, more sociable, more ambitious, younger, and self-reliant. The chronic violator drivers in comparison with the better—than-average drivers were less tolerant of others and less self-reliant. They were more emotionally unstable and adventuresome. In a later study of problem drivers in California, Schuster and Guilford35 attempted to predict the behavior of problem drivers by using a Driver Attitude Survey and a multiple-regression scale. It was found, by cross- validation, that accident repeating drivers and violator drivers in contrast with better—than—average drivers could 35D. H. Schuster and J. P. Guilford, "The Psychometric Prediction of Problem Drivers," Traffic Safety Research Review, VI (December, 1962), pp. 16—20. 22 be predicted to the extent of 64 per cent and 75 per cent respectively. Biographical data items were relatively more important for predictive purpose. The attitude survey was only slightly predictable. In a follow-up study of the same drivers to determine the effectiveness of the procedures for predicting future driving behavior, Schuster36 reported that attitude scales could be used to predict significantly follow-up accidents and moving violations. He indicated that when attitude scales were combined with the previous driving record of moving violations and accidents an even better prediction could be made. Similar studies dealing with the prediction of future driving performance based their actions on personal and psychological data. Levonian37 reported that problem drivers could be identified at a significant level on the basis of four variables: driving exposure, age, sex, and marital status. Kenel38 in his study of youthful drivers found that they could be categorized by personality types which were highly correlated with subsequent driving behavior. 36D. H. Schuster, "Prediction of Follow-up Driving Accidents and Violations," Traffic Safety Research Review, XII, 2 (March, 1968), pp. 17-21. 37Edward Levonian, "Prediction of Accidents and Convictions," Traffic Safety Research Review, XI, 3 (September, 1967), pp. 75—79. 38 Kenel, pp. cit., pp. 49-51. 23 In Kingman, Arizona, Municipal Judge J. F. Gehres pointed out that repeaters who had been cited two or more times in a short period of time had personalities char- acterized by some hostility toward authority. This was supported by research of Dr. Richard Tossel when he con— ducted a study of 200 male traffic violators and found that between 68 per cent and 80 per cent were hostile toward law enforcement.39 Haner40 directed an underwriting program for an insurance company involving young male drivers. A personal history form and an inventory were developed. The personal history form was found to make adequate predictions of accidents but the best predictions were made when both devices were used. The inventory was able to relate the frequency of serious and moderately serious injury acci- dents in which the driver was at fault to the risk group. One of the most extensive projects undertaken to determine the value of using personality tests for pre— dicting accident liability was the ten year study conducted 39Chris Imhoff, "DDC for Violator Schools," Traffic Safety Research Review, LXIX (March, 1969), p. 11. 40Charles F. Haner, "Use of Psychological Inventory in Writing Insurance for Youthful Male Drivers," Traffic Safety Research Review, VII, 1 (March, 1963), pp. 5—9; Charles F. Haner, "Use of Personal Data in Underwriting Setting, Traffic Safety Research Review, VII, 3 (September, 1963), PP. 19—22. 24 by Shaw41 in Johannesburg, South Africa. This comprehensive psychological and statistical research study of road acci— dents involving bus drivers was directed towards improving the standard of the drivers for the Public Utility Transport Corporation (PUTCO). Tests were used which revealed, not only undesirable traits, but also such factors as maturity of outlook, motivation, attitudes and personality integration. Two projection tests were chosen, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and the Social Relations Test (SRT). The two tests were administered to prospective bus drivers for the PUTCO. The results indicated a very strong relationship between the driving records of the drivers and their responses to the testing instruments. The relationship between the total personality pattern and driving behavior and history were also shown. This study had a very marked effect on the company's accident rate. The company became more accident conscious, which led to a policy of more strict driver control. The group of drivers with unsatisfactory accident records was reduced from 22 per cent in 1958 to seven per cent in 1963. 41Lynette Shaw and Herbert S. Sichel, "The Reduction of Accidents in a Transport Company by the Determination of the Accident Liability of Individual Drivers," Traffic Safety Research Review, V, 4 (December, 1961), pp. 1-12, 18; Lynette Shaw, "The Practical Use of Projective Personality Tests as Accident Predictors," Traffic Safety Research Review, IX, 2 (June, 1965), pp. 34-72. r‘ 25 With knowledge of the relationship between personality and accidents to guide them, the quality of selection of new drivers was progressively improved. From the studies made, Shaw established a general description of accident risks. She felt that a person who fell into one of these accident risk groups has one or more of the characteristics found in the following partial listing: THE POTENTIALLY BAD ACCIDENT RISK Disorganized, disoriented, or badly disturbed Badly integrated or maladjusted A distorted apperception of life and a distorted sense of values Emotionally unstable and extremistic Lacks control, and particularly exhibits uncontrolled aggression Pronounced anti—social attitudes or criminal tendencies Selfish and self-centered Highly ambitious and competitive Over-confident and self-assertive Harbors grudges, grievances and resentments Blame-avoidant and is always ready with excuses Intolerant and impatient Has a marked antagonism to, and resistance against authority Very inadequate, has a driving need to prove himself Extremely anxious, tension-ridden and panicky Unduly sensitive to criticism Helpless and inadequate-—constantly in need of guidance and support Chronically indecisive Has difficulty in concentrating Careless and frivolous Lacking in personal insight and an appreciation of his own limitations Fatalistic—-makes no attempt to control his own destiny Exhibits undue signs of aging 26 Exhibits the personality characteristics commonly associated with immaturity, such as: foolhardy, impetuousity, irresponsibility, exhibitionism, inability to appreciate the consequences of his actions, hypersensitivity, easily aroused emotion— alism, unrealistic goals and a general lack of self—discipline, personal insight, worldly wisdom and common sense. THE POTENTIALLY POOR ACCIDENT RISK Displays little energy, stamina or interest Exhibits the personality faults of the bad accident risk, but in a less pronounced manner Also included in this group is the person whose faults or weaknesses are such that they could possibly improve in time, but the learning process is likely to be so expensive that he is really a poor risk——especially as a professional driver. THE POTENTIALLY BORDERLINE ACCIDENT RISK Character structure relatively unformed Weak——could be easily influenced Has unresolved conflicts, but who gives evidence of a constructive, but as yet unsuccessful, effort to make adequate adjustments to these conflicts a not—too—pronounced anxiety neurosis (may make him ultracautious at the moment but he must be regarded as a doubtful risk, as he may deteriorate) THE POTENTIALLY FAIR ACCIDENT RISK Has good points and bad points, with the bias in favor of the good Intentions are good, even if capabilities are not Has always commensurate with intentions certain weaknesses or unresolved conflicts which, although they will not unduly upset the balance of his personality, will nevertheless always impose a certain strain on him and slightly impair his efficiency Highly intelligent, with a tendency to abstract thought, aesthetic interests and mental preoccupation Also included in this group is the person whose faults and weaknesses are such that they will probably 27 improve in time but who at the moment cannot rise above them and who is currently therefore only a fair risk. THE POTENTIALLY GOOD ACCIDENT RISK Balanced, mature, and well-controlled, with a healthy Not and realistic outlook, satisfactory interpersonal relations, a kindly and tolerant attitude to others, a well developed social and civic conscience and an ingrained sense of responsibility quite mature, but motivations are sound and demon— strates an ability to learn quickly by experience and profit by his mistakes (will undoubtedly have a learning period before his record stabilizes itself at a good level) Contented--in no way outstanding but friendly, cheerful, adaptable and accepting provided he is reasonably intelligent, realistic and mature Rather withdrawn introvert--provided he is not too maladjusted Positive—-not easily discouraged, able to make decisions Has and to play his future, provided his motivations are correct and he is not too aggressive weaknesses and limitations but is realistically aware of them and who is careful and cautious and moderates his behavior according to his limita— tions.42 Shaw stated that the above outline was merely a guide for determining accident risks and that it was the total personality pattern that matters, particularly the balance and integration of the pattern. If there was a pronounced imbalance of any kind then the predictability for accident liability was poor. 43 42 43 Ibid., pp. 64—65. Ibid., p. 65. 28 McFarland44 in a review of research findings on the psychological and behavioral aspects of automobile acci— dents, stated that accidents result from interactions between the characteristics of the driver, those of the vehicle and those of the environment. He concluded that attempts to predict accident behavior on the basis of tests has been difficult because attitudes and basic personality tests are hard to measure, but that the major findings of these studies can be summarized as follows: (1) The most significant biographical predictors appear to be a history of previous accidents, which suggests the presence of an accident syndrome or habit, and the general instability of relations with institutions and society as a whole. (2) The personality structure of the accident repeater might be described as accentric, impul- sive or mildly psychopathic. Summary The theory of accident proneness developed from the observation that some peOple seemed to have more accidents than others. But as time progressed many researchers felt that this theory had little value and began looking at the psychological, personal and social adjustment of individuals. A great number of studies have reported evidence in support of a definite relationship between personality and behavior patterns and accident involvement. 44Ross A. McFarland, "Psychological and Behavioral Aspects of Automobile Accidents," Traffic Safety Research Review, XII, 3 (September, 1968), pp. 71-78. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The Test Instrument The Mann Inventory is a personal attitude survey con— sisting of 63 items that appear to reflect an individual's feelings toward himself, others and established social customs. Reaction to items in the "Inventory" were expressed by checking one of five choices-—always, usually, sometimes, rarely, or never. The "Inventory" originally contained 100 items selected on the basis of face validity by Dr. William A. Mann of the Highway Traffic Safety Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. The 100 items represented a com— pilation of the feelings expressed by 100 Michigan high school students toward the police, school, cars, family, peers, personal expectations, desires and habits. These 100 students had been identified by their driver education teachers as the worst drivers in their classes. Case studies and personal interviews were also conducted.45 Twenty driver education teachers in central Michigan were then asked to evaluate students enrolled in their 45Kenel, 2p. cit., pp. 29-30. 29 30 classes. The teachers used the following criteria for classifying the students: 1. Very Aggressive--Any student who displayed behavior that was exceedingly aggressive, a show-off, and extremely egotistical or tempermental. 2. Very Reserved--Any student who displayed behavior that was exceedingly cautious and timid. 3. Average-—The students who did not fall into either of the other two classifications.46 The "Inventory" was then administered to a sample population of 451 students. The responses identified 80 students as very aggressive, 86 as very reserved, and 285 as average. Thirty-seven items were deleted from the inventory since a majority of the students gave identical responses, leaving 63 items. An adjustment scale was then developed by studying the responses of 85 per cent of the average group to the remaining 63 items. This revealed a deviation of 7--19 points.47 Kenel administered this form of the "Inventory" (see Appendix A) to 43 individuals who had been referred to the Ingham County Driver Safety School, Lansing, 46Ibid. 47Ibid., p. 31. 31 Michigan. Using the criteria previously established, he found: Fifteen were very reserved, 21 were very aggressive, and four were average. The remaining two scored four and five of six lie items incorrectly and deviated by 46 points each on the adjustment scale. Their response to significant items vacillated from marked aggression to very reserved. Kenel stated that the Mann Inventory appeared to be helpful in identifying basic behavior patterns and in predicting driving behavior but he felt that there should be a greater discrimination of behavior than that utilized by the behavioral categories, very aggressive, very reserved, and average. In his study of a large number of high school driver education students, Kenel used the following six categories of behavior as the means of classification: 1. Behavior characterized by well adjusted interaction with persons and consistent with the norms of the society in which the individual lives. 2. Behavior generally characterized by satisfactory interaction with persons and society, but with periodic withdrawal from contact with people. 3. Behavior generally characterized by satisfactory interaction with persons and society, but with periodic efforts toward assertive action. 4. Behavior characterized by forceful, outgoing action or vigorous efforts to assert oneself over others. 5. Behavior characterized by withdrawal from contact with other persons. 48Ibid., p. 32. 32 6. Behavior characterized by a pendulum effect, vacillating between extremes of aggression and withdrawal.4 Kenel concluded that there was a significant relation— ship between observed behavior and responses to the "Inven— tory" and also subsequent driving performance. He continued: The reliability of the M. I. was determined by applica— tion of product moment coefficient of correlation to two separate administrations of the instrument. Cor- relation values of .697—-.986 were derived. with 63 degrees of freedom, these values indicate a high to very high correlation with marked or dependable rela- tionships. The relationship between the behavioral categories and driving records was of the same direction and magnitude as was the relationship between the M. I. and observed behavior. As the individual's behavior deviated from category 1 toward category 6 his driving record of convictions and/or collisions increased.50 The instrument used in this study was a modification of the one used by Kenel (see Appendix B). Certain items had to be restated as they were not applicable for adults. Thus the validity and reliability established for the Mann Inventory by Kenel does not apply to this study. 1 The Sample The sample population of this study originally con- sisted of 391 subjects, but because of improper identifica- tion, making it impossible to obtain the subject's driving 49Ibid., pp. 32—33. 50Ibid., p. 72. 33 record or failure to complete all the items in "The Inven- tory,‘ 60 persons had to be deleted from the study. Thus, the study consisted of 331 subjects, 190 males and 141 females, who came into the Lansing Driver License Bureau, 414 North Larch Street, Lansing, Michigan, for the purpose of renewing their licenses. The sample was gathered between April 2, 1970, and April 17, 1970. Only persons between the ages of 21 to 64 years of age were asked to participate in the study. All lived in Ingham County, Michigan and were representative of the socio-economic, ethnic, and cultural groups found in that area, an area which has many large industries, the state capitol, many governmental agencies, Michigan State Uni— versity, and Lansing Community College. While in the licensing office, people were asked to volunteer to take the test. Approximately 95 per cent of those asked consented. The Mann Inventory and the reason for administering it were explained. They were assured that the test results would be kept confidential and that there would be no repercussions from their participation in the study. They were then provided with a desk, pencil, test and answer sheets and were asked to answer all items as honestly as possible. The Data Two types of data were gathered: the responses of each subject to the items in the Mann Inventory, and their indi— vidual driving record. 34 Upon completion of the test, each subject's driving record was obtained. This was done by using the data com- munication terminal located at the North Larch Street Licensing Office, which has direct access to the Department of State Burroughs 5500 Computer Disk Storage System. This system provides the most accurate and up-to—date records available for research of this nature. Each subject was then classified into one of the four accident—violation experience categories. The tests were then scored and each subject was placed in one of the six behavioral categories. Table 1 shows the number of subjects by sex in each of the four accident-violation experience categories. Table 2 shows the composition of the accident-violation experience categories by behavioral categories for the total population of this study. Table 3 shows the frequency distribution of the total population of this study classified according to sex and age. Procedure of Analysis The chi square test of significance51 was the pro- cedure used to analyze the data. It was employed to 51Paul A. Games and George R. Klare, Elementary Statistics (New York: McGraw~Hill Book Company, 1967), pp. 491—504; N. M. Downie and R. W. Heath, Basic Sta- tistical Methods (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), pp. IB6-212. 35 Hmm HvH omH mm m me po>HO>CH pcopflooc :IHODMHOH> pou0H>sou .w om Hm mm po>ao>cfl ucmpeoom limosw coeucaofl> .m mm ma ow coup pampeooc Inpoucmoe> popoflbcoo .m BGH no on ompm pcopfloom Isoopm :oHucHoH> .H HmDOB mamsom can: wuomopco .mcfluomopco cocoflpmmxo coflpmfiofl>lpsopflooc mm coflpcasmom oHQEMm no zoflufim0dsoolu.a mamas I. 36 Hm.mm n Hm>oa OH. pm evacuewflsmflm AOL cocoon mpcsgm HQU oa.mfl n ppmsam Ago m w m ma ma HH po>fio>cfl psopflooc IIMODMHOH> poucw>sou .w v m H OH Hm ma po>Ho>cH pcopwoom aloomw coflpcmoe> .m m n m MH ma SH ompw pcopflooc :ghOpmHoH> popoe>cou .m m ma m mm mm mm coup psocflooc 9166mm coepmHOH> .H mpomoumu I moepomoumo o m w m N a HMHOH>MQ®m .coHchsmom HBDOD pom moeuomoumo a now>mzon wn mceuomopco cocoeuomxm uoflumHoH>apcopevoc .cp wo coflpflm0d£0015.m mqmme 37 .HGIHG n H .opupm n H .mmle H o .omumH n m .mHtHH n m .oHumm u o .mMIHm n o .omupm u m .mNuHN u H "mdsouw 6mm .meEmm H m .OHMZ n 2 m o o o H N H H H N m pw>Ho>cH pcocHoow mH H H N H H m s HH NH 2 IIHOHBHOH> pcpoH>coo .H HN o H H N m N H H m m cw>Ho>cH pcmcHoom mm m m H N m N m m H 2 unwoum noprHoH> .m mH o H H H N N N N H m scum HQOUHOOM OH N N m N N m H H SH 2 IIHOHHH0H> p6u0H>noo .N no N m m NH HN 0H mH s mH m comm unocHoom on n m H m N a m m HH 2 uloonw coHumHoH> .H mHMHOB H m O m m Q 0 m d me muommpmo .mmw can xom Op mchnoooc ponHmmmHo coHumHsmom HMHOH mo coHpanmume Homoswmumln.m mquB 38 determine if there was a significant difference between the four accident—violation experience categories and their responses to the Mann Inventory. The cell square contingency52 was then employed to determine which response or responses, by accident—violation experience category, contributed most significantly to the total chi square value for each of the items which were found to show significance. The chi square test of significance was also employed to determine if there was a significant difference in the four accident—violation experience categories and the behavioral categories as identified by Kenel. Null Hypotheses The following are restatements of the hypotheses in null form, i.e., stating that there is no true relationship between the responses of adults to items in the M223 Inventory and their past driving records nor is there a true relationship between the six different behavioral groups as identified by Kenel in his study and their past driving records. Hol: There is no significant relationship between the responses of adults to questions In the Mann Inventory and their accident and viola— tion experiences as represented by the following categories: 52J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psy— chology and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950), pp. 368-369. 39 Category 1. Violation free—-accident free drivers Category 2. Convicted violator—-accident free drivers Category 3. Violation free--accident involved drivers Category 4. Convicted violator—-accident involved drivers. H02: There is no significant relationship between the behavioral categories as identified by Kenel in his study "The Effectiveness of the Mann Inven- tory in Classifying Young Drivers Into Behavioral Categories and Its Relationship to Subsequent Driver Performance" and the past driver records of daults. Summary The sample population was drawn from adults who came into the Lansing Driver License Bureau, 414 North Larch Street, Lansing, Michigan for the purpose of renewing their licenses. The responses to items in the Mann Inventory were collected between April 2, 1970 and April 17, 1970. Driver license data for the sample was obtained from the computer outlet in the examiner's office. The subject was then classified into one of the four accident—violation experience categories, and also assigned to one of the six behavioral categories. The chi square test of significance was employed to determine the difference between the four accident—violation categories. The cell square contingency was employed to determine which response or responses, by behavioral category, 4O contributed most significantly to the total chi square value for each of the 63 items in the "Inventory." The chi square test of significance was again employed to determine the difference between the six behavioral categories and their past driving records. CHAPTER IV STATISTICAL ANALYSIS In this chapter are presented the analysis of: (l) The relationship between the classification of the subjects into accident—violation experience categories based on their driving records during the three years prior to January 1, 1970, and their responses to items in the Mann Inventory taken between April 2, 1970, and April 17, 1970. (2) The relationship between the classification of the subjects into accident-violation experience categories based on their driving records during the three years prior to January 1, 1970, and their classification into behavioral categories based on their responses to items in the Mgpp Inventory taken between April 2, 1970, and April 17, 1970. Differences by Accident and Violation Experience Categories: The null hypothesis tested for each item in the Mann Inventory was: Ho There is no significant relationship between the responses of adults to questions in the Mann Inventory and their accident and violation experiences as represented by the following categories: 1: 41 42 Category 1. Violation free——accident free drivers Category 2. Convicted violator—-accident free drivers Category 3. Violation free—-accident involved drivers Category 4. Convicted violator——accident involved drivers. When the responses of the combined male and female population of this study were analyzed by accident-Violation experience categories, chi square values for 13 of the 63 items were found to be significant at or above the .10 level. The remaining 50 items were not significantly dif— ferent than zero at the .10 level; therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant relationship between the responses of adults to questions in the Mann Inventory and their accident and violation experiences as represented by the following categories: Category 1. Violation free——accident free drivers Category 2. Convicted violator——accident free drivers Category 3. Violation free--accident involved drivers Category 4. Convicted violator—-accident involved drivers. must be accepted for these 50 items. For the remaining 13 items, the null hypothesis must be rejected since responses to the items were significantly different than zero at the following levels: 43 1. Responses by accident—violation experience cate- gories to items: (12) I enjoy being out late at night and sleeping mornings. (20) I like to get everything out of a car that it has in it. (26) There are times when it seems like everyone is against me. (42) I like to razz a team when it is losing. (45) I liked most of my school work. (53) My grades in school were a good indication of my ability. (60) I spend most week—day evenings at home, when I am not working. were significantly different at the .10 level. 2. Responses by accident—Violation experience categories to items: (24) I have been tempted to cheat on a test at school. (46) Our family spends a great deal of time together. (61) I am considered a reliable person. were significantly different than zero at the .05 level. 3. Responses by accident—violation experience cate— gories to items: ( 5) My community is a happy place to live. (39) I have as good table manners at home as when I eat out. were significantly different than zero at the .02 level. 4. Responses by accident—violation experience cate- gories to item: 44 (38) I get traffic tickets for moving violations. was significantly different than zero at the .001 level. Employing chi square analysis with the accident— violation experience categories divided according to sex, 10 items were identified that were significant at or above the .10 level for the female population. The remaining 53 items were not significantly different than zero at the .10 level for the female population; therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant relationship between responses of adults to questions in the Mann Inventory and their accident and violation experiences as represented by the following categories: Category 1. Violation free--accident free drivers Category 2. Convicted violator——accident free drivers Category 3. Violation free—~accident involved drivers Category 4. Convicted violator——accident involved drivers must be accepted for these items. For the remaining 10 items, the null hypothesis must be rejected since responses to items are significantly different than zero at the following levels: 1. Responses by accident—violation experience cate— gories to items: ( 9) I live in a home that is happy. 45 (10) If I see a police officer when I am driving I am more careful. (60) I spend most week—day evenings at home, when I am not working. are significantly different than zero at the .10 level. 2. Responses by accident—violation experience cate- gories to items: ( 7) I like to daydream while I am driving. (45) I liked most of my school work. are significantly different than zero at the .05 level. 3. Responses by accident—violation experience cate- gories to items: (37) My supervisors want to help me with my problems. (46) Our family spends a great deal of time together. are significantly different than zero at the .02 level. 4. Responses by accident-violation experience cate- gories to items: (13) I get a feeling of real power when driving a car. (47) Attitudes toward driving are more important than ability to handle the car. are significantly different than zero at the .01 level. 5. Responses by accident—violation experience cate- gories to item: (38) I get traffic tickets for moving violations. is significantly different than zero at the .001 level. An analysis of the 63 items for the male population using the chi square test, identified eight items signifi— cant at or above the .10 level. The remaining 55 items 46 were not significantly different than zero at the .10 level for the male population, therefore, the null hypothe- sis of no significant relationship between responses of adults to questions in the Mann Inventory and their acci— dent and violation experiences as represented by the following categories: Category 1. Violation free——accident free drivers Category 2. Convicted violator——accident free drivers Category 3. Violation free-—accident involved drivers Category 4. Convicted violator--accident involved drivers must be accepted for the 55 items. For the remaining eight items, the null hypothesis must be rejected since responses to items are significantly different than zero at the following levels: 1. Responses by accident—violation experience cate- gories to items: (12) I enjoy being out late at night and sleeping mornings. (26) There are times when it seems like everyone is against me. (46) Our family spends a great deal of time together. were significantly different than zero at the .10 level. 2. Responses by accident—violation experience cate- gories to items: 47 (40) I have been wrong in an argument but wouldn't admit it to my opponent. (55) I find that older people tend to be too bossy. were significantly different than zero at the .05 level. 3. Responses by accident-violation experience cate- gories to items: ( 5) My community is a happy place to live. (39) I have as good table manners at home as when I eat out. were significantly different than zero at the .02 level. 4. Responses by accident—violation experience cate- gories to item: (38) I get traffic tickets for moving violations. was significantly different than zero at the .001 level. Through the use of the cell square contingency matrix an attempt was made to identify a specific response or responses that contributed most significantly and positively to the total chi square value for each of the significant items in this study. Investigation revealed that two items were signifi- cantly related to accident—violation experience categories. Category 4, the convicted violator—accident involved drivers, for the total population of this study differ— entiated significantly at the .02 level of confidence in their responses to item 38 in the "Inventory." Category 1, the violation free—-accident free drivers, for the female population of this study differentiated significantly at 48 the .01 level of confidence in their reSponses to item 38 in the "Inventory." Investigation failed to reveal any other items which contributed to the total chi square value by any category at or beyond the .10 level of confidence. Table 4 shows the chi square values obtained, degrees of freedom, and correlation coefficients for each of the items in the "Inventory" for the males, females, and males and females combined. It also shows the level of signifi— cance for those items which had a chi square value which indicated significance at or beyond the .10 level. Relationship Between Accident-Violation Experience Categpries and Behavioral Categories The following is a restatement of the null hypothesis which was tested in this study: H02: There is no significant relationship between the behavioral categories as identified by Kenel in his study "The Effectiveness of the Mann Inventory in Classifying Young Drivers Into Behavioral Categories and Its Relation- ship to Subsequent Driver Performance" and the past driving records of adults. When the accident—violation experience categories were divided into behavioral categories, the chi square test of significance was administered to determine the relationship between the categories. A chi square value of 22.31 was needed to demonstrate significance at the .10 level; a value of 15.10 was the value for chi square obtained. On the basis of the obtained 49 NNN. NH NON.O ONH. NH NHH.OH NNH. NH HHN.O ON ONH. NH HNH.H ONH. NH OOH.O HNH. NH NON.N HN NHN. NH NHN.NH NNH. NH HOH.NH OON. NH ONN.NH NN OOH. NH OH0.0 HNN. NH HOH.NH HON. NH HON.OH NN NNN. NH NN0.0 OOH. NH NHH.NH NON. NH OON.HH HN HNH. NH NON.H NNH. NH HOO.N HON. NH ONN.O ON NHN. NH NNH.N OOH. NH OON.HH HON. NH NNN.HH NN NON. NH OON.HH NON. NH HNH.HH NNN. NH HNH.HH ON HHH. NH NNN.N NHN. NH ONO.NH NON. NH NNN.HH NN OH. NNN. NH HNN.OH NNN. NH NNH.NH OH. NON. NH HN0.0H ON NNH. NH ONH.OH NON. NH OOH.HH HHN. NH NNH.N ON NO. NON. NH OHO.NN OHN. NH ON0.0H ONN. NH OOO.HH HN NNH. NH NNO.NH HON. NH OON.OH NNN. NH NN0.0H NN ONH. NH ONN.NH NHN. NH ONN.OH NON. NH NNO.NH NN OOH. NH NOO.N NON. NH NON.HH NON. NH HNN.HH HN OH. NNN. NH NHN.OH NON. NH ONH.HH NON. NH OOH.HH ON NNH. NH NNH.NH OHN. NH NNN.O OHN. NH ONO.NH NH NNH. NH ONH.O NON. NH NNN.O ONN. NH OHN.HH NH NON. NH NNN.HH NNH. NH OHN.O NNN. NH HON.OH NH ONH. NH NNN.N OHN. NH NOO.N ONN. NH NON.HH OH HNN. NH ONO.NH ONH. NH OHO.N OON. NH NNN.HH OH NNN. NH HON.OH OHN. NH HNN.NH NON. NH HON.OH HH OHN. NH NHH.OH HO. NNH. NH OOH.HN HHN. NH ONH.N NH OH. NNN. NH HNO.NH NNN. NH NNN.HH OH. OON. NH HOO.NH NH OHH. NH HN0.0 NON. NH OON.HH OHN. NH NNN.N HH NON. NH NHN.HH OH. OHN. NH OON.NH HHN. NH OON.HH OH OOH. NH HHN.N OH. HON. NH HON.ON ONH. NH NNO.N N HHH. NH NNO.N OON. NH HHN.O ONH. NH NNN.N N OON. NH OON.HH NO. OON. NH HHO.HN NNN. NH OON.HH N HON. NH HNN.HH HHN. NH NNN.O NON. NH HNH.NH O NO. HON. NH OON.HN NOH. NH OOH.H NO. HHN. NH NOO.HN O HmH. NH ONN.N HNN. NH NNO.NH OON. NH NO0.0 H NNH. NH NN0.0H NNN. NH NN0.0H ONH. NH NNN.O N OOH. NH HON.O NON. NH NON.O OON. NH ONH.HH N ONH. NH HHN.N OHN. NH ONO.OH HON. NH NHN.NH H 0 ma mumsvm HBO m o no mumswm Hgo m 0 so mumswm Hro mmHmeh paw mchz mOHmEom mmHmz EouH .HO>®H 0H. esp pGONOQ HO HO OMB mocmonHcmHm mnu oHoLB poumoHch cosmonHcmHm mo ch>wH suHs wuouco>cH can: wcp CH mEouH on» mo sumo MOM mucmHonmooo COHumHoHHOOII.H MHmmH psmHOwawoo COHHOHOHHOO ll Q: N U EOOOOHH mo mmmnmoo n ma "NON NON. NH OOO.HH ONH. NH HNH.N OHN. NH NOH.O NO OOO. NH OOO.H OHH. NH OOO.N NOH. NH NNO.H NO OO. NON. NH OHO.NN HOH. NH ONO.H ONN. NH OH0.0H HO OH. OHN. NH OHN.ON OH. NHN. NH OO0.0H HNN. NH OHH.OH OO OHN. NH NON.OH NON. NH OON.O OON. NH OH0.0 OO OON. NH OOH.OH NNN. NH HON.N OON. NH HOH.HH OO OOH. NH OOO.HH ONH. NH HOO.H HON. NH NN0.0 NO OOH. NH OON.O OHN. NH HN0.0H NON. NH ON0.0 OO OHN. NH OO0.0H Nom. NH OOO.HH mo. HNN. NH OHH.NN mm OOH. NH NHN.O NON. NH OOO.HH ONN. NH OH0.0 HO OH. ONN. NH ON0.0H HNN. NH NOO.NH HNN. NH OOH.OH NO NNN. NH HN0.0H ONN. NH NNO.HH HNN. NH OMH.OH NO OOH. NH OH0.0 NON. NH NH0.0 NOH. NH OOO.N HO NOH. NH HOO.N NOH. NH ONN.N OOH. NH OON.O OO NHN. NH ON0.0H OOH. NH ON0.0 HHN. NH OON.HH OH OHN. NH HO0.0H ONN. NH HO0.0H OHN. NH OOH.NH OH ONN. NH OON.OH HO. OON. NH NHN.ON HOH. NH NHO.H NH OO. OHN. NH HHO.HN NO. NON. NH HOO.HN OH. OON. NH OH0.0H OH OH. NNN. NH NN0.0H OO. HON. NH ONN.ON OON. NH NO0.0 OH OOH. NH OON.N OOH. NH ON0.0 NOH. NH OON.N HH OOH. NH OOH.NH OHH. NH HOO.N NON. NH HNO.NH NH OH. ONN. NH NNH.OH OOH. NH HOO.H OON. NH NOO.HH NH NOH. NH OHN.HH ONN. NH ONN.O NON. NH NNO.HH HH OOH. NH OOO.NH HON. NH NON.NH OO. ONN. NH ONN.HN OH NO. HON. NH OHO.HN HOH. NH OON.H NO. OHN. NH HO0.0N ON HOO. .HOH. NH HHN.HO HOO. OOH. NH OOO.NN HOO. NNH. NH OHO.HH ON OHN. NH NN0.0H NO. OON. NH NNN.ON NNN. NH NH0.0 NN OHN. NH OOH.OH OOH. NH OON.NH OON. NH NN0.0 ON m 0 mm OHMDWm HLU m U mo OHMDUm HSU m 0 mo OHOSUm H30 mmHmEmm cam mmHmz mchscm mmHmz EmuH .UODCHHQOOII.H MHmNB 51 chi square value presented in Table 2, the null hypothesis of no significant relationship between categories must be retained. When the population was divided into male and female groups chi square was again administered. A chi square value of 22.31 was needed to demonstrate significance at the .10 level for the females; a value of 10.70 was the value of chi square obtained. On the basis of the obtained chi square value presented in Table 5, the null hypothesis of no significant relationship between the categories must be retained. A chi square value of 22.31 was needed to demonstrate significance at the .10 level for the males; a value of 11.60 was obtained. Having obtained the chi square value presented in Table 6, the null hypothesis of no significant relationship between the categories must be retained. Summary Statistical analysis of the data revealed: 1. When adult drivers between the ages of 21 and 64 were grouped according to their accident—violation experience during the three year period immediately prior to taking the Mann Inventory their responses to 13 of the 63 items in the "Inventory" were significant at or beyond the .10 level of con— fidence for the sample population. 52 HN.NN H Hw>wH OH. HO moQOOHmHQOHm How Umpmms mHmsvm HAD ON.OH n OHOOOO Hao O O O N H N p®>Ho>CH HampHoom IIHOHOHOH> pmuoH>soo .H H H H N N O p®>Ho>cH usmpHooc Ilwmhm HHOHHOHOH> .N O O O N O N mme uscwHoom IIHOHOHOH> Omp0H>cou .N H O H NH OH OH mwnw HampHoom Ilmwmm sOHHOHOHO. .H NHOOOHOU wwHHOOmqu O O H N N H HOHOH>m£wm .coHumHsmom OHOEOH How mmHHOOmpmo HOHOH>O£®Q Nb meHOOquo woscHHmmxw coHpmHoH>|ustHoom map mo COHHHOOQEOOII.O MHmNB 53 HN.NN n HO>OH OH. um OOQOOHOHQOHm Hem pmpmms mHmsvm Hno OO.HH n OHOOOO Hao N O N HH NH O pm>Ho>cH uchHoom IIHOHOHOH> cmuoH>soo .H N N O N HH O pm>Ho>sH HampHoom Ilmmmm sOHHOHoH> .N N N N OH O OH mew pcmvHoow IIHOHOHOH> Omp0H>coo .N O N N HH ON ON mmum usmpHoom Ilomum soHpmHoH> .H NHOOOHOU mmHHOOmme O O H N N H HcHoH>m£mm .COHHOHSQOQ mHOE How mcHHOOmHOo HOHOH>OSOQ >9 mmHHommumo mocmHHmdxm coHumHoH>Iucm©Hoom mgp mo QOHHHOOQEOUII.O mHmNB 54 Responses by the groups when divided by sex revealed 10 items that differentiated significantly for females and eight items for males at or beyond the .10 level of confidence. The cell square contingency matrix was applied to the total population, the female population, and the male population of this study. It was deter— mined that one item in the "Inventory" contributed at the .10 level of significance or beyond to identify one accident—violation category for the total population, one item for the female popula- tion, one item for the female population at the .10 level of significance or beyond, and zero for the male population at the .10 level of signifi- cance or beyond. The relationship between behavioral categories and accident-violation experience showed no significant difference at or beyond the .10 level of confidence. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The primary purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the Mann Inventory and past driving records of adults and to determine which items included in the Mann Inventory identify an attitude pro- file of an adult operator within one of four accident and violation experience categories. The secondary purpose was to determine which of the six behavioral categories, as identified by Kenel in his study "The Effectiveness of the Mann Inventory in Classify— ing Young Drivers Into Behavioral Categories and Its " were most Relationship to Subsequent Driver Performance, frequent in each of the four accident—violation categories. The sample population of this study consisted of 331 subjects, 190 males and 141 females, who came into the Lansing Driver License Bureau, 414 North Larch Street, Lansing, Michigan, for the purpose of renewing their licenses between April 2, 1970, and April 17, 1970. The subjects ranged from 21 to 64 years of age, all lived in Ingham County, Michigan and were representative 55 56 of the socio-economic, ethic, and cultural groups found in that area, an area which has many large industries, the state capitol, and many governmental agencies, Michigan State University, and Lansing Community College. While in the licensing office, the subjects were asked if they would volunteer to participate in the study. The Mann Inventory and the reason for administering it were explained. They were then provided with a desk, pencil, test and answer sheets and were asked to answer all items as honestly as possible. The hypotheses were tested by employing the chi square test of significance. Conclusions The following are the conclusions based upon the findings from this investigation: 1. No significant differences existed between cate- gories on 50 of the 63 items in the Mann Inventory and the past driving records of the total population of this study. The remaining 13 items were significant at or above the .10 level. Investigation of the 13 items which were signifi— cant appeared to reveal no cluster of questions which could be used to identify a profile for any one category. When the population was divided by sex, the female population showed a significant difference at or above the .10 level in 10 of the 63 items in the Mann Inventory. Upon investigation of these 10 items which were significant for 57 the female population there appeared to be no cluster of questions which could be used to identify a profile for the group. In the male population, eight of the 63 items in the "Inventory" were significant at or beyond the .10 level. An investigation of these eight items appeared to reveal no cluster of responses which could be used to identify a profile for any one category. 2. There was no significant difference between behavioral categories and accident—violation experience categories when chi square was administered to the total population or to the different sexes. Discussion The findings of this study appeared to disprove the usefulness of the Mann Inventory as an instrument in classifying past driving records of adults. However, it must be pointed out that the sample population was small and it included ages between 21 and 64. The "Inventory" has been very successful when used to predict future driving behavior of teenagers. This seemed to indicate that written tests can be used to predict driving behavior but different tests should be used for different ages. During a conversation concerning this study, Dr. Francis Kenel indicated that his experiences in the use of the Mann Inventory would seem to indicate that as the "Inventory" is presently constructed, it would be useful 58 only through age 28. This may preclude that certain items contained within the "Inventory" would have to be rewritten before further research is attempted using other drivers as subjects. The study also appeared to reveal that the behavioral categories of adults as identified by the "Inventory" cannot predict accident—violation experience. It appeared that adults regardless of their outlook on life get involved in accidents and are guilty of moving violations. It should be pointed out however, that persons get involved in accidents and are guilty of moving violations for reasons other than personality. The analysis of the data presented in this study was based on the past three years of the subjects' driving records. An analysis of their seven year driving records was made but showed even less significance than the three year records. Recommendations 1. A follow—up study of the 331 drivers included in this study should be undertaken to determine the value of the Mann Inventory in predicting the future driving record of adults. 2. A revision of the Mgpp_Inventory to make certain questions more applicable to adults. 59 3. A study using the Mann Inventory with an adult population broken down into age groups, i.e., ages 20 to 30, 30 to 40, etc. 4. The development of tests for different age groups to be used as predictive instruments for drivers. 5. A study to determine regional differences in attitude and driving behavior. BIBLIOGRAPHY 60 BIBLIOGRAPHY Automotive Safety Foundation. A Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education. Automotive Safety Foundation, Washington, D.C., January, 1970. Baker, J. Stannard, and Stebbins, William R., Jr. Dictionary of Highway Traffic. Evansville, Illinois: Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, 1964. Beamish, Jerome J., and Malfetti, James L. "A Psychological Comparison of Violator and Non-Violator Drivers in the 16 to 19 Year Age Group." Traffic Safety Research Review, VI, 1 (March, 1962), pp. 12—15. Bishop, Richard W. "A Theory of Driving Behavior." Unpub— lished material, Michigan State University, Highway Traffic Safety Center. Brazell, Robert E. A Comparison of Various Behind-the— Wheel Training Methods. Safety and Traffic Division, Automobile Club of Michigan, 1962. Brody, Leon, and Stack, Herbert J. (ed.) Highway Safety and Driver Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1956. Brody, Leon. "Personal Characteristics of Chronic Violators and Accident Repeaters.” Bulletin No. 152, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. . "The Psychology of Problem Drivers." Unpub- lished material, Michigan State University, Highway Traffic Safety Center, 1965. Burg, Albert. "An Investigation of Some Relationships Between Dynamic Visual Acuity, Static Visual Acuity and Driving Record." University of California, Department of Engineering, April, 1964. Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi—Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1969. 61 62 Center for Safety Education. Basic Aspects and Applications of the Psychology of Safety. New York: New York University, Center for Safety Education, 1959. Crancer, Alfred. Accident and Violation Rates for Washington Drivers. Department of Motor Vehicles, State of Washington, Report No. 003, May, 1967. Davis, Russell, and Coiley, Patricia A. "Accident-Proneness in Motor-Vehicle Drivers." Ergonomics, II, 3 (May, 1959), Pp. 239-246. Downie, N. M., and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Dubin, Samuel S. "Emotions and Traffic Accidents." Traffic Safety Research Review, V, 2 (June, 1961), pp. 4-9. Elzey, Freeman F. A First Reader in Statistics. Belmont, California: Brooks-Cole Publishing Company, Inc., 1968. Farmer, E., and Chambers, E. G. A Study of Accident Prone- ness Among Motor Drivers. Medical Research Council, Industrial Health Research Board, Report No. 84, 1939. Florio, A. E.; O'Rourke, T. W.; and Stauffer, Delmar J. "Comparison of Attitudes Toward Driver Education of Selected School Youth." The Idea, IV, 2 (April, 1970), pp. 9-12. Games, Paul A., and Klare, George R. Elementary Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Goldstein, Leon G. "Human Variables in Traffic Accidents." Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1962. . "Psychological Aspects of Traffic Accidents." Traffic Digest and Review, (July, 1964), pp. 10-12’ 230 Greenshields, Bruce D., and Platt, Fletcher N. "Development of a Method ofPmedictingfughrAccident and High— Violation Drivers." Journal of Applied Psychology, LI (1967), PP. 205—210. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950. 63 Gumpper, David C., and Smith, Kinsley R. "The Prediction of Individual Accident Liability with an Inventory Measuring Risk—Taking Tendency." Traffic Safety Research Review, XII, (June, 1968), PP. 50—55. Hackley, William A., and Schlesinger, Lawrence E. "Changing Driver Attitudes Through Group Discussion: A Pilot Experiment." Traffic Safety Research Review, X, 3 (September, 1966), pp. 78-82. Haddon, William J.; Suchman, Edward A.; and Klein, David. Accident Research Methods and Approaches. New York: Harper and Row, 1964. Haner, Charles F. "Use of Personal Data in Underwriting Setting." Traffic Safety Research Review, VII, 3 (September, 1963), pp. 19-22. . "Use of Psychological Inventory in Writing Insurance for Youthful Male Drivers." Traffic Safety Research Review, VII, 1 (March, 1963), Pp. 5-9. Heath, Earl D. "The Relationships Between Driving Records, Selected Personality Characteristics, and Biographical Data of Traffic Offenders and Non-offenders." Highway Research Board, Bulletin 212, 1959, pp. 16—20. Imhoff, Chris. "DDC for Violator Schools." Traffic Safety Research Review, LXIX, (March, 1969), pp. 10-12, 37- 34. "In-depth Study Pinpoints the Need for Research." Traffic Safety Research Review, LXVI (December, 1966), pp. 26-27, 34. Kenel, Francis C. "The Effectiveness of the Mann Inventory in Classifying Young Drivers Into Behavioral Categories and Its Relationship to Subsequent Driver Performance." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Levonian, Edward. "Prediction of Accidents and Convictions." Traffic Safety Research Review, XI, 3 (September, 1967), PP- 75-79. Malfetti, James L., and Fine, Jerome L. "Characteristics of Safe Drivers: A Pilot Study." Traffic Safety Research Review, VI, 3 (September, 1962), pp. 3-9. Mann, William A. "Building Attitudes for Safety." A Paper Presented to the National Safety Congress, 1960. 64 Mann, William A. "Difficulties in Changing Behavior." A Paper Presented to the National Safety Congress, 1968. . "Let's Talk It Over." Analogy, Charter Issue Allstate Insurance Company, 1966, pp. 4-9. . "The Nature of the Problem Driver." Unpublished material, Driver Improvement School Conference, Michigan State University, Highway Traffic Safety Center, 1965. McFarland, Ross A.; Moore, Roland C.; and Warren, A. Bertrand. Human Variables in Motor Vehicle Accidents. Boston: Harvard School of Public Health, 1955. McFarland, Ross A. "Psychological and Behavioral Aspects of Automobile Accidents." Traffic Safety Research Reviey, XII, 3 (September, 1968), pp. 71-80. . . "The Role of Preventive Medicine in Highway Safety." American Journal of Public Health, XLVII, 3 (March, 1957), pp. 288—296. McGlade, Francis. "Conservation of Army Resources Through Accident Prevention." Safety, II, 2 (November—December, 1966), pp. 45-47. National Safety Council. Agcident Facts. National Safety Council, Statistics Division, 1969. "News Briefs." Traffic Digest and Review, XVII, (April, 1969), p. 2. "NSC Reports 1968 Traffic Accident Figures." Traffic Digest and Review, XVII (April, 1969), p. 7. O'Day, James. "Why Drivers Behave As They Do." Analogy, Allstate Insurance Company (Spring, 1968), pp. 11-12. O'Neall, Peggy Ann. "Relationship of Accident Involvement and Number of Citation: 1966 Data.” Traffic Quarterly, XX (October, 1968): pp. 583—94. Pelz, Donald C. "Who Are the Dangerous Drivers?" Analogy, Allstate Insurance Company (Spring, 1968), pp. 13-15. Pepyne, Edward W. "Changing Driver Attitudes." A Paper Presented to the Driver Education Section of the MEA Regional Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 12, 1956. 65 Peranio, Anthony. "Logic and Road Safety Research." Traffic Quarterly, XXIII (January, 1969), pp. 123-131. Preston, Caroline E., and Harris, Stanley. "Psychology of Drivers in Traffic Accidents." Journal of Applied Psychology: XLIX (1965), pp. 284-288. Pyle, Howard. "Is Safety Now All Washington?" A Paper Presented to the National Extension Homemakers' Council Leadership Conference on Highway Safety, Michigan State University, February, 1969. Quane, William L. "The Relationship of Visual Perceptual Capabilities as Measured by the Perception of Traffic Hazards Test and Behavioral Categories as Measured by the Mann Inventory." Unpublished Doctoral disserta— tion, Michigan State University, 1970. Recht, J. L. "The 1969 Traffic Story." Traffic Safety Research Review, LXX, 3 (March, 1970), pp. 16-18, 30- 35. Ribicoff, Abraham. "You Drive As You Live." Analogy, Allstate Insurance Company (Winter, 1966—67), pp. 16-18. - Rommel, R. C. S. "Personality Characteristics and Attitudes of Youthful Accident—Repeating Drivers." Traffic Safety Research Review, III, 1 (March, 1959), Pp. 13-14. Schuster, D. H. "Prediction of Follow—Up Driving Accidents and Violations." Traffic Safety Research Review, XII, 2 (March, 1968), pp. 17-21. . "The Psychometric Prediction of Problem Drivers." Traffic Safetnyesearch Review, (December, 1962), pp. 16-20. , and Guilford, J. P. "An Analysis of Accident Repeater and Chronic violator Drivers." National Safety Council Transactions, XXIV (October, 1958), pp. 136-139. Shaw, Lynette. "The Practical Use of Projective Personality Tests As Accident Predictors." Traffic Safety Research Reyiew, IX, 2 (June, 1965), pp. 34-72. , and Sichel, Herbert S. "The Reduction of Accidents in a Transport Company by the Determination of the Accident Liability of Individual Drivers." 66 Traffic Safety Research Review, V, 4 (December, 1961), pp. 2-12. Stack, Herbert J., and Elkow, J. Duke. Education for Safe Living. Englewood Clifts, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1957. APPENDICES 67 APPENDIX A THE MANN INVENTORY AND RESPONSE SHEET USED BY KENEL IN HIS STUDY 68 THE MANN INVENTORY Name Age Sex Months Driving __———_—__._ Experience The following statements reflect your attitude and feelings about yourself and your relations to others. There are no right or wrong answers. Fill in on the answer sheet the answer that reflects your feelings the best. Do not mark on the test booklet A. always B. usually C. sometimes D. rarely E. never 1. I (like) (liked) to take part in organized extra- curricular activities in school. 2. Young prople are much better drivers than middle-aged people. 3. Policemen are sincere in enforcing the laws. 4. My parents (are) (were) reasonable in their relations with me. 5. My community is a happy place to live. 6. I put off until tomorrow things I should do today. 7. I like to daydream. 8. I feel full of pep when I get behind the wheel. 9. I (live) (lived) in a home that (is) (was) happy. 10. If I see a police officer, I am more careful. ll. Over—careful drivers cause more accidents than the so-called reckless ones. 12. I enjoy being out late at night and sleeping mornings. 13. I get a feeling of real power when driving a car. 14. Courses in school (any grade level) are set up to meet the needs and interests of the student. 15. I am concerned about the way my clothes look. 69 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 70 Slow drivers should be kept off the highways. All new drivers should be required to take a course in driver education. Unsafe drivers should be deprived of the right to drive. Accidents don't just happen; they are caused. I like to get everything out of a car that it has in it. The chief work of most policemen should be traffic control. My parents (exert) (exerted) too much control over me. The people in my community want all traffic laws enforced. I have been tempted to cheat on a test. I get impatient in heavy traffic. There are times when it seems like everyone is against me. Old, defective cars should be kept off the road. Drivers should be given more freedom in obeying traffic signs. People should drive when they are angry. Passing on hills and curves is exceedingly dangerous. It is necessary to stop at "stop" signs if no other cars are in sight. I like to put extras on my car to attract attention. I am good at talking myself out of trouble. Strong discipline in practice makes a better team. I (am) (was) popular with most of the students in my class. Police officers are rougher on teen—agers than on adults. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 71 Teachers want to help students with their problems. My (father) (principal driver in family) gets traffic tickets for moving violations. I have as good table manners at home as when I eat out. I have been wrong in an argument but wouldn't admit it to my opponent. Society should have the right to question the way I drive. I like to razz a team when it is losing. I am proud of my reputation in the community. I am considered a friendly person. I like most of my work. Our family (spends) (spent) a great deal of time together. Attitudes toward driving are more important than ability to handle a car. I like to take chances when I'm driving. Traffic laws are set up to promote safety. Courtesy toward other drivers is important. I like a great deal of freedom. I don't mind being told what to do. My grades in school (are) (were) a good indication of my ability. I become concerned about what other people think of me. I find that older people tend to be too bossy. I feel somewhat nervous when I drive a car. I think courtesy towards others is a good reflection of a person's character. 72 58. I get more fun out of driving a car than in any other activity. 59. The police are only trying to do the job for which they were hired. 60. My folks (insist) (insisted) that I spend most week- day evenings at home. 61. I am considered a reliable person. 62. I like to help a person who is in trouble. 63. I am more courteous than the average driver. 73 THE MANN INVENTORY Sex Age Name da. yr. mo. \II))))\II)\II)\II (((((((((( )))))))))\II ((((((In\((( ))))\II))))) ((((((II\(I.\II\ )))))\II)))) (((II\(II\(\/\(I.\ )\II\.I)))\)))) (((II\(((((( ) ) \I \II ) ) .t/ ) \.I ) ((((II\(I\((( )))))))))) ((((((II\(II\/.\ )))))\II\II\II\.I) (((/|\(((((( \II)\./))))))) (((((((((( \II\Il\II))\.l\/))) (((II\((II\(I.\( I O O C O O C O 0 I l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 l ))\./)))\Il)\ll)\ll ((((((((((( ))\II))))))\./) (((((((II\((( ))))))))))) ((((((((((( \./))))))))\n/) (((((/I\((((( )))))\II))))) ((((((((((II\ \.I \II \n/ \.I \.I \.i ) ) ) \II \.I (((((/.\II\(((( \Il\I/\|I\|I\n/\lr)\ll))) ((((/\(ll\((/.\( \./))\.I)))\II)\II) ((((II\(((I\(( \II))))))\II))) ((((((((((( ))))))))))) (((II\I|\(I.\(II\(( 74 ))))\II\II\I/\II\.I\II\II ((((II\/I\((/\II\( ))))))))))) (((/|\((/I\((II\( )))))))))\II) ((((((II\((/\( ((((((((((( )))))\l/))\II)\I/ (((II\(II\((II\/\( )))))))))\II (((((((((( )\II\II)))\II\II\II\II (((((II\(I.\(( ((((/\((/.\II\( )))))))))\II (((((((((( )))\|I\.I)\./\/)) (((((((((( APPENDIX B THE PERSONAL ATTITUDE SURVEY AND RESPONSE SHEET USED IN THIS STUDY 75 PERSONAL ATTITUDE SURVEY The following statements reflect your attitude and feelings about yourself and your relations to others. There are no right or wrong answers. Fill in on the answer sheet the answer that reflects your feelings the best. Do not mark on the test booklet: A. always B. usually C. sometimes D. rarely E. never 1. I liked to take part in organized extra—curricular activities in school. 2. Young people are much better drivers than middle—aged people. 3. Policemen are sincere in enforcing the laws. 4. My parents were reasonable in their relations with me. 5. My community is a happy place to live. 6. I put off until tomorrow things I should do today. 7. I like to daydream while I am driving. 8. I feel full of pep when I get behind the wheel. 9. I live in a home that is happy. 10. If I see a police officer when I am driving I am more careful. ll. Over-careful drivers cause more accidents than the so-called reckless ones. 12. I enjoy being out late at night and sleeping mornings. 13. I get a feeling of real power when driving a car. 14. Courses in school were set up to meet the needs and interests of the student. 15. I am concerned about the way my clothes look. 16. Slow drivers should be kept off the highways. 76 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 77 All drivers should be required to take a course in driver education. UnSafe drivers should be deprived of the right to drive. Accidents don't just happen; they are caused. I like to get everything out of a car that it has in it. The chief work of most policemen should be traffic control. My parents exerted too much control over me. The people in my community want the traffic laws enforced. I have been tempted to cheat on a test at school. I get impatient when driving in heavy traffic. There are times when it seems like everyone is against me. Old, defective cars should be kept off the road. Drivers should be given more freedom in obeying traffic signs. People should drive when they are angry. Passing on hills and curves is exceedingly dangerous. It is necessary to stop at "stop" signs if no other cars are in sight. I like to put extras on my car to attract attention. I am good at talking my way out of trouble. Strong discipline in practice makes a better team. I am popular with most of my acquaintances. Cops are rougher on teen—agers than on adults. My supervisors want to help me with my problems. I get traffic tickets for moving violations. I have as good table manners at home as when I eat out. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 78 I have been wrong in an argument but wouldn't admit it to my opponent. The state should have the right to question the way I drive. I like to razz a team when it is losing. I am proud of my reputation in the community. I am considered a friendly person. I liked most of my school work. Our family spends a great deal of time together. Attitudes toward driving are more important than ability to handle the car. I like to take chances when I'm driving. Traffic laws are set up to promote safety. Courtesy toward other drivers is important. I like a great deal of freedom. I don't mind being told what to do. My grades in school were a good indication of my ability. I sometimes become concerned about what other people think of me. I find that older people tend to be too bossy. I feel somewhat nervous when I drive a car. I think courtesy towards others is a good reflection of a person's character. I get more fun out of driving a car than in any other activity. The police are only trying to do the job for which I they were hired. I spend most week—day evenings at home, when I am not working. I 79 61. I am considered a reliable person. 62. I like to help a person who is in trouble. 63. I am more courteous than the average driver. How do you feel about answering these questions? (Write on back of answer sheet) 8O MANN PERSONAL ATTITUDE SURVEY ANSWER SHEET Name Driver License Number A always B usually C sometimes D rarely E never 1. A B C D E 22. A B C D E 43. A B C D E 2. A B C D E 23. A B C D E 44. A B C D E 3. A B C D E 24. A B C D E 45. A B C D E 4. A B C D E 25. A B C D E 46. A B C D E 5. A B C D E 26. A B C D E 47. A B C D E 6. A B C D E 27. A B C D E 48. A B C D E 7. A B C D E 28. A B C D E 49. A B C D E 8. A B C D E 29. A B C D E 50. A B C D E 9. A B C D E 30. A B C D E 51. A B C D E 10. A B C D E 31. A B C D E 52. A B C D E 11. A B C D E 32. A B C D E 53. A B C D E 12. A B C D E 33. A B C D E 54. A B C D E 13. A B C D E 34. A B C D E 55. A B C D E 14. A B C D E 35. A B C D E 56. A B C D E 15. A B C D E 36. A B C D E 57. A B C D E 16. A B C D E 37. A B C D E 58. A B C D E 17. A B C D E 38. A B C D E 59. A B C D E 18. A B C D E 39. A B C D E 60. A B C D E 19. A B C D E 40. A B C D E 61. A B C D E 20. A B C D E 41. A B C D E 62. A B C D E 21. A B C D E 42. A B C D E 63. A B C D E ANS milillwiii[iiiiifliflif