I
I

71-31,307
SMITH, Donald Lewis, 1928THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SIX BASIC
INTERESTS OF PERSONALITY AS MEASURED BY
THE ALLPORT-VERNON-LINDZEY STUDY OF VALUES
AND DRIVING RECORD OF MICHIGAN CIVILIAN
DRIVERS AS DETERMINED BY ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT
AND TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1971
Education, psychology

U niversity M icrofilms, A XEROX Com pany , A n n Arbor, M ichigan

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SIX BASIC INTERESTS
OF PERSONALITY AS MEASURED BY THE ALLPORTVERNON-LINDZEY STUDY OF VALUES AND DRIVING
RECORD OF MICHIGAN CIVILIAN DRIVERS AS
DETERMINED BY ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT
AND TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS
By
Donald Lewis Smith

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education
1971

ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SIX BASIC INTERESTS
OF PERSONALITY AS MEASURED BY THE ALLPORTVERNON-LINDZEY STUDY OF VALUES AND DRIVING
RECORD OF MICHIGAN CIVILIAN DRIVERS AS
DETERMINED BY ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT
AND TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS
By
Donald Lewis Smith

The purpose of this investigation was to determine
the relationship between the basic interests of personality
(i.e., religious, political, social, aesthetic, economic,
and theoretical values) as determined by the AllportVernon-Lindzey Study of Values, and the driving records^of
a randomly selected group of Michigan drivers.

The rela­

tionship was investigated with the variables of age, sex,
and marital status held constant.
Also investigated was the relationship of the basic
interests of personality (values) to the driving records
of a randomly selected group of Michigan drivers when clas­
sified into four driving record categories:

no accident/

no violation, no accident/violation, accident/no violation,
and accident/violation.
A total of 252 male and female drivers randomly
selected from the files of the Driver Services Division of

Donald Lewis Smith
the Michigan Department of State served as subjects for
the study.

Reported accidents and violation convictions

for the immediate past three years were obtained from the
files, while quantitative scores for each of the six basic
interests of personality (values) were obtained by a mailout form of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values.
The data was analyzed statistically to determine
the differences among the factors being tested.

Correla­

tions between the factors of age, sex, and marital status
and driving record were determined.

In those cases where

the obtained correlation coefficient was large enough to
give an F ratio greater than the critical value of F at
the .01 level of significance, a significant correlation
was evident.
Partial correlations were computed to determine the
relationship of each of the six basic interests of per­
sonality (values) to driving record when age, sex, and
marital status were held constant.

For a basic interest

of personality (value) to predict driving record beyond the
ability of age, sex, and marital status, an F ratio greater
than the critical value of F at the .01 level of signifi­
cance was necessary.
Subjects were divided into four driving record
categories:
a.
b.

subjects with driving records of no viola­
tions or accidents;
subjects with driving records of violations,
but no accidents;

Donald Lewis Smith
c.
d.

subjects with driving records of accidents,
but no violations; and
subjects with driving records of both acci­
dents and violations.

The investigation of the relationship between each of the
six basic interests of personality (values) of the subjects
in the category no accident/no violation and of the sub­
jects in the category accidents/violations was considered
to be of interest in this study.

Also of interest was the

relationship between each of the six basic interests of
personality (values) of the subjects in the category of
no accidents/violations, and of the subjects in the cate­
gory accidents/no violations.
The basic interest of personality (values) data
was summarized by one-way analysis of variance.

Compari­

sons were then made between the driving record categories
of interest on the basic interest of personality (value).
A computed F ratio greater than the critical value of F
at the .01 level of significance was considered to indicate
a significant relationship between driving record cate­
gories for each basic interests of personality (values).
Within the limitations of this study, the following
conclusions were made:
1.

The prediction of driving record is not signifi­

cantly improved by including the basic interests of per­
sonality, religious, political, social, aesthetic, eco­
nomic, and theoretical values, with the factors of age,
sex, and marital status.

The partial correlation

Donald Lewis Smith
coefficient obtained was not significant at the .01 level
of significance.

When subjects were divided into dichoto-

mous groups of male and female drivers, the partial cor­
relation coefficients obtained were not significant at the
.01 level of significance.
2.

The subjects were grouped into the following

categories:
a.
b.
c.
d.

no accicent/no violation
no accident/violation
accident/no violation
accident/violation.

The relationship of the basic interests of personality,
religious, political, social, aesthetic, economic, and
theoretical values, to the driving record of subjects when
classified into the four driving record categories was not
significant at the .01 level of significance.

When sub­

jects were divided into dichotomous groups of male and
female drivers, the relationship of the basic interests of
personality (values), to the driving record of male and
female subjects when classified into the four driving
categories was not significant at the .01 level of signifi­
cance .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The preparation of this dissertation was made pos­
sible only through the guidance, suggestions, and invalu­
able help of some very capable and considerate individuals.
To Dr. Robert 0. Nolan, Professor in the Highway
Traffic Safety Center, whose encouragement and support as
academic advisor is most appreciated, the writer is par­
ticularly grateful for his excellent advice and fine direc­
tion given during the course of this study.
To the other members of the doctoral committee;
Dr. Robert E. Gustafson of the Highway Traffic Safety
Center, Dr. William A. Mann and Dr. Keith P. Anderson of
the College of Education, grateful appreciation is ex­
pressed for their sincere suggestions, encouragement, and
constructive criticisms.
To Mr. James Maas of the College of Education, many
thanks for his patience and understanding, and without
whose excellent help the statistical analysis and interpre­
tation of this study would have been impossible.
A special acknowledgment to the writer's wife,
Joanna, whose sacrifice and cooperation during this entire
program made it all possible, and to Denise, an understand­
ing and patient daughter.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................ ii
LIST OF T A B L E S .....................................

v

Chapter
I.

THE P R O B L E M ............... ...

1

...............................
1
Need
Purpose of theS t u d y ...................
6
Hypotheses
..........................
7
Major Hypotheses . . . . . . .
7
Subhypotheses
.....................
8
Definition of T e r m s ...................... 10
Delimitations ........................
11
Overview of the Dissertation . . . .
12
Possible Applications...................... 13
II.

A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE................ 14
Relationship of Personality and Attitude
with Driving R e c o r d ................... 15
Relationship of Individual Values with
Personality and Attitude................ 23
Relationship of Sex, Marital Status, and
Age Factors with Driving Record . .
28
Marital Status .....................
29
Age...........................
31
Sex..................................... 33
The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values as an Instrument................ 35
Summary
............................... 38

III.

DESIGN OF THE STUDY............................ 40
H y p o t h e s e s ............................... 40
Major Hypotheses
40
Subhypotheses .....................
41
Sample..................................... 43
Selection Procedure ..................
43
Collection of Data.
................... 44
iii

Chapter

Page
45
45

Sources of Data........................
Driving Record .....................
Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values...........................
Methods of Analysis of Data............

46
48

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA............................

54

Preparation of Data for Statistical
A n a l y s i s ...........................
Results of the Statistical Analysis . .
H y p o t h e s e s ...........................
Subhypotheses ........................
Summary of Findings . . . . . . .
V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND
MENDATIONS

56
57
62
70
97

RECOM­
106

S u m m a r y ..........................106
The Major F i n d i n g s . ............. 109
Conclusions
...................... Ill
Correlations....................Ill
Partial Correlations ...............
112
Planned Comparisons ...............
113
Recommendations for Further Research.
.
114
D i s c u s s i o n ....................... 115
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................... 122
APPENDICES

.................................. 128

A.

Cover L e t t e r .......................... 130

B.

Mean Scored in Each Driving Category for the
Six Basic Interests of Personality (Values)
for All Subjects....................... 133

C.

Mean Scores in Each Driving Category for the
Six Basic Interests of Personality (Values)
for Male S u b j e c t s .................... 135

D.

Mean Scores in Each Driving Category for the
Six Basic Interests of Personality (Values)
of Female S u b j e c t s .................... 137

E.

Summary of D a t a ....................... 139

F.

Graphs of N o r m s ....................... 153

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1.

Distribution of sample population.

2.

Correlations between driving record and the
known factors of marital status, sex, and age
for all subjects ...........................

55

Correlation coefficients for each of the basic
interests of personality (values) and driving
record for all subjects without consideration
of the factors of age, sex, and marital
status........................................

58

Correlation coefficients for each of the basic
interests of personality (values) and driving
record for male subjects without consideration
of the factors of age and marital status

60

Correlation coefficients for each of the basic
interests of personality (values) and driving
record for female subjects without considera­
tion of the factors of age and marital status.

61

6. Partial correlation coefficients between each
of the basic interests of personality (values)
and driving record of all subjects when age,
marital status and sex are partialed out

64

3.

4.

5.

7.

8.

9.

.

50

Partial correlation coefficients between each
Of the basic interests of personality (values)
and driving records of female subjects when
age and marital status are partialed out

65

Partial correlation coefficients between each
of the basic interests of personality (values)
and driving record of male subjects when age
and marital status are partialed out.

66

The relationship of religious values to the
driving record of 252 subjects classified into
four driving record categories...............

73

v

Table
10.

11.

Page
The relationship of religious values to the
driving record of 106 male subjects classified
into four driving record categories . . . .

75

The relationship of religious values to the
driving record of 14 6 female subjects clas­
sified into four driving record categories.

76

.

12.

The relationship of political values to the
driving record of 252 subjects classified into
four driving record categories................... 78

13.

The relationship of political values to the
driving record of 10 6 male subjects classified
into four driving record categories
. . . .

79

The relationship of political values to the
driving record of 14 6 female subjects clas­
sified into four driving record categories.

81

14.

.

15.

The relationship of social values to the
driving record of 252 subjects classified into
four driving record categories................... 82

16.

The relationship of social values to the
driving record of 10 6 male subjects classified
into four driving record categories . . .
. 84

17.

The relationship of social values to the
driving record of 146 female subjects clas­
sified into four driving record categories.

.

85

18.

The relationship of aesthetic values to the
driving record of 252 subjects classified into
four driving record categories................... 87

19.

The relationship of aesthetic values to the
driving record of 106 male subjects classified
into four driving record categories . . . .

88

The relationship of aesthetic values to the
driving record of 14 6 female subjects clas­
sified into four driving record categories.

90

20.

21.

.

The relationship of economic values to the
driving record of 252 subjects classified into
four driving record categories...................91

vi

Table
22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

Page
The relationship of economic values to the
driving record of 106 male subjects classified
into four driving record categories .

93

The relationship of economic values to the
driving record of 146 female subjects clas­
sified into four driving record categories.

95

The relationship of theoretical values to the
driving record of 252 subjects classified into
............
four driving record categories

96

The relationship of theoretical values to the
driving record of 106 male subjects classified
into four driving record categories . . . .

98

The relationship of theoretical values to the
driving record of 146 female subjects clas­
sified into four driving record categories.

99

vii

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Need
Based on reasonable theory it has been hypothesized
that people drive as they live,1 the result of various
observation.;' which have led traffic safety personnel to
believe a high correlation may exist between behavior on
and off the highway.

Furthermore, several research studies

investigating characteristics of accident repeaters tend to
support the theory that the accident repeater is a dis­
turbed person whose bad driving is merely a symptom of his
broader problem.

2

Keeping m

mind that attitudes may be

defined as a psychological set to react to certain stimuli
m a predetermined direction with a predetermined force, 3 it
appears that attitudes are widely assumed to be signifi­
cant determinants of social behavior.
Specific attitudes toward driving are not an iso­
lated part of the driver's personality but rather a

1Ward Edwards, "We Drive as We Live," Analogy
(Spring, 1968), 21-22.
2

Richard Bishop, "A Theory of Driving Behavior,"
a paper, Michigan State University, 19 67.
3
M„J..ton Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values
(San Francisco: Jossey-Baas, Inc., 1968), p. 127.
1

projection of it.

4

People perceive situations in the light

of their attitudes toward a situation, but they do not
necessarily perceive it objectively.

In turn, their be­

havior in a situation reflects their perception of it.
Insofar as a driver's attitudes toward a given type of
situation are realistic, his perception of it will be
realistic; and insofar as his perception of it is realis­
tic, his behavior in that situation will be safe.

Brody

and Stack state:
The more unrealistic or biased his attitudes
toward that type of situation, the more dis­
torted will be his perception of it; and the
more distorted his perception of it, the less
safe will be his behavior in that driving sit­
uation. 5
Social scientists and traffic safety experts for
many years have been attempting to discover what factors
cause people to act and drive in a manner which leads to
becoming involved in highway crashes.

Specifically they

have been asking what makes drivers act the way they do.
Many drivers perform driving acts which lead to accidents,
are willing to pay heavy fines, and generally mistreat each
other on the road.

American psychologists have been study­

ing this phenomenon very carefully for many years.
4

It

William Mann, "Building Attitudes for Safety," a
presentation at the National Safety Congress, 1960.
5
Leon Brody and Herbert Stack, Highway Safety and
Driver Education (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1954), p. 87.

3
cannot be said that chronic violators and accident re­
peaters, for the most part, don't know any better, or
don't have the skills required for driving; skills and
knowledge they frequently have in substantial degree.

It

is in certain psychological traits that they can be dis­
tinguished from more commendable drivers.
Eduard Spranger

7

defined six basic interests or

motives in personality, labeling them as values, which
determine a person's attitude; the Theoretical Value, the
Economic Value, the Aesthetic Value, the Social Value, the
Political Value, and the Religious Value.

The measurement

of these six basic values has proven highly predictive of
O

human behavior in behavioral research.
Spranger

9

claims that throughout history man has

been motivated in his actions by these six values.

He

maintains that man's perception of his world around him,
and his subsequent relationship to that world, is deter­
mined by the degree of importance he places on each of
these six values.

The theoretical value places truth

^Leon Brody, "The Psychology of Problem Drivers,"
a paper, Michigan State University, 1965.
7
Eduard Spranger, Types of Men, trans. by Paul
J. W. Pigors (New York: Stechert-Hafner, 1928), p. 105.
g

H. Cantril and G. W. Allport, "Recent Applica­
tions of the Study of Values," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, XXVIII (1933), 261.
9
Spranger, Types of Men, pp. 109-24 6.

above all else, the economic value places self-preservation
as all important, the aesthetic value has self-fulfillment
as its primary consideration, the social value places other
human beings above all else, the political value is con­
cerned only with power, while the religious value is
defined as being concerned with the highest total value of
man's existence.
To understand an individual driver's personality
interests (values) might possibly give an indication of
his driving success in avoiding highway crashes and his
involvement in traffic law violations.

In 1957 a study

was made by Conger, et al.1Q in which they investigated the
possible relationship between each of the six values
advanced by Spranger and the driving records of selected
Air Force personnel in Denver, Colorado.

The instrument

used to determine the influence of values for these men on
their driving record was the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study
of Values.

This instrument measures the relative importance

of Spranger's six values; viz, religious, economic, polit­
ical, social, aesthetic, and theoretical.

This group of

drivers was restricted in age, all being in their twenties;
consisted only of males, with all living on or near Lowry
Air Force base.

These men were divided into two categories

"^John J. Conger, et al., "Psychological and Psychophysiological Factors in Motor Vehicle Accidents,"
Journal of the American Medical Association, CLXIX (April,
1959), 1581.
;

of drivers; fifteen Airmen with no accidents or hazardous
violations within the immediately preceding 54 month
period, and a second group of fifteen with two or more
responsible accidents in a like period.

This study showed

a significant relationship between three of the six values
in the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values and driving
record.

However, to date the relationship of the influence

of the six values with driving record has not been investi­
gated with a randomly selected civilian population of both
sexes and a wide range of ages.

Neither has such a rela­

tionship been investigated with a statistically controlled
consideration of drivers’ age, sex, and marital status.
Conger and Rainey‘S have conducted three studies
in which individuals' values as determined by the AllportVernon-Lindzey Study of Values were compared with driving
records.

In these studies drivers had been placed into

dichotomous groups of no accident or no hazardous viola­
tion drivers, and drivers with two or more responsible
traffic accidents; the two or more traffic accidents group
showing a significant difference from the no accident or
no violation group on three (religious, economic, and
aesthetic) of the six basic interests of personality
^~*~Ibid.; John J. Conger, et al. , "Personal and
Interpersonal Factors in Motor Vehicle Accidents," American
Journal of Psychiatry, CXIII (June, 1957), 1072; R. V.
Rainey, et a l ., "Personality Characteristics as a Selective
Factor in Driver Education," Highway Research Bulletin,
No. 285 (1961), 16.

(values).

No studies have yet attempted to investigate

this relationship when drivers are categorized into the
various combinations of accident and violation experience;
e.g.

(1) drivers with no reported accidents or violation

convictions within a specified period of time,

(2) drivers

with reported accidents but no violation convictions within
the same period of time,

(3) drivers with no reported

accidents but with violation convictions in the same period,
and (4) drivers with both reported accidents and violation
convictions in the same span of time.
Purpose of the Study
Studies by Levonian, 12 Heath, 13 and C o p p m 14 have
shown that age, sex, and marital status are reliable pre­
dictors of driving record.
One purpose of this study was to discover if any
of the six values as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values can improve the prediction of
driving record beyond the ability of the factors of age,
12

Edward Levonian, "Prediction of Accidents and
Convictions," Traffic Safety Research Review, XI (Septem­
ber, 1967) , 75.
13 Earl D. Heath, "The Relationship Between Driving
Records, Selected Personality Characteristics, and Bio­
graphical Data of Traffic Offenders and Non-offenders"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University,
1958).
14
Ronald Coppm, et al., "The 1964 California
Driver Record Study: Part 5, Driving Record by Age, Sex,
and Marital Status," Report 20 (June, 1965).

7
sex, and marital status for the population selected.

These

six values (aesthetic, economic, social, political, theo­
retical, and religious) are derived directly from Spranger's
six basic interests or values of personality.
A second purpose of this study was to determine if
there were significant differences between the four cate­
gories of drivers, classified according to accident and
violation experience.

These categories are:

a.

no accident/no violation (no violation con­
victions or accidents within the last three
years),

b.

no accidents/violation (two or more violation
convictions within last three years),

c.

accident/no violation (one or more accidents
within last three years),

d.

accident/violation (one or more accidents
within last thx'ee years, one or more viola­
tions within last three years),

for each of the six values as measured by the AllportVernon-Lindzey Study of Values.
Hypotheses
Major Hypotheses
This study had six major hypotheses, all of which
deal with the prediction of driving record when any of the
six basic interests of personality (values) are included
with the factors of age, sex, and marital status.
Hypothesis 1 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including reli­
gious values as measured by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values with the factors of age,
sex, and marital status.

Hypothesis 2 ; The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including eco­
nomic values as measured by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values with the factors of age,
sex, and marital status.
Hypothesis 3 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including polit­
ical values as measured by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values with the factors of age,
sex, and marital status.
Hypothesis 4 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including social
values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values with the factors of age, sex, and
marital status.
Hypothesis 5 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including
aesthetic values as measured by the AllportVernon-Lindzey Study of Values with the factors
of age, sex, and marital status.
Hypothesis 6 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including theo­
retical values as measured by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values with the factors of age,
sex, and marital status.
A significant relationship between driving record
and any of the six

basic interests in personality (values)

whenage, sex,

marital status are "held constant" indi­

and

cates that the particular value can be a predictor of an
individual's driving record.
Subhypotheses
For the six subhypotheses, subjects were classified
into the following four categories of accident and viola­
tion experience:
a.

no accident/no violation (no violation con­
victions or accidents within last three
years).

b.

no accident/violation (two or more violation
convictions within last three years).

c.

accident/no violation (one or more accidents
within last three years).

d.

accident/violation (one or more accidents
within last three years, one or more viola­
tion convictions within last three years).

Subhypothesis 1 : There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to religious
values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values when individuals are grouped
according to the four accident and violation
experience categories.
Subhypothesis 2 ; There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to political
values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values when individuals are grouped
according to the four accident and violation
experience categories.
Subhypothesis 3 : There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to social values
as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study
of Values when individuals are grouped according
to the four accident and violation experience
categories.
Subhypothesis 4 : There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to aesthetic
values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values when individuals are grouped
according to the four accident and violation
experience categories.
Subhypothesis 5 ; There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to economic
values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values when individuals are grouped
according to the four accident and violation
experience categories.
Subhypothesis 6 ; There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to theoretical
values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values when individuals are grouped
according to the four accident and violation
experience categories.

Definition of Terms
Six basic interests of personality:

The Study of

Values aims to measure the relative prominence of six basic
interests or motives in personality, referred hereafter as
values:

theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, politi­

cal, and religious.

The classification is based directly

upon Eduard Spranger's Types of Men,15 which defends the
view that the personalities of men are best known through
a study of their values or evaluative attitudes.
Driving record:

The number of accidents and viola­

tion convictions the driver had accumulated within the
past three years, as found in the driver record files of
the Michigan Department of State, Driver Services Depart­
ment.
Age:

The drivers' actual ages on August 31,

1970.
Marital status:

Single, married.

Sex: Male, female.
Accident: The Michigan State Police daily submit
accident data to the Department of State.

These data are

taken from accident reports submitted to the Michigan
State Police by all reporting agencies in Michigan, viz.
vehicle collisions investigated and reported by a law
enforcement agency.
15 Spranger, Types of Men, pp. 2-25, 28.

Violation conviction: Each convicting court sends
a record of motor vehicle offense convictions to the De­
partment of State.

Only convictions of moving violations

of the Michigan Vehicle Code and local ordinances as
determined by a duly authorized court of law are recorded
in the driver record files.
Driver category:
a.

no accident/no violation (one or no violation
convictions, and no accidents within last
three years).

b.

no accident/violation (two or more violation
convictions, and no accidents within the last
three years).

c.

accident/no violation (one or more accidents,
and no violation convictions within last
three years).

d.

accident/violation (one of more accidents,
and one or more violation convictions within
last three years).
Delimitations

This study was limited in the following manner:
t;

The population from which the subjects for this

study were extracted were the approximately 5,500,000
licensed drivers recorded in the office of the Michigan
Department of State, Driver Services Division in July,
1970.
2.

The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values is

an ipsative forced-choice test.

The essential character­

istic of an ipsative test is that when a person makes a

choice in favor of one item, he is at the same time reject­
ing or giving lower priority to other choices.

However,

many psychometrists contend that the ipsative forcedchoice technique parallels real life in that one is always
forced to choose between items.^
3.

Only the driving records for the immediately

past three years were evaluated.

Drivers licensed less

than three were not included in this study.
Overview of the Dissertation
In Chapter II a review of literature is found
relating to the Allport-Vernon Lindzey Study of Values,
the relationship of personality and attitude with driving
record, the relationship of individual values to person­
ality, and the relationship of sex, marital status, and
age to driving record.
Chapter III includes the design of the study,
including sampling technique, procedure for collection of
data, and the method of analysis.

In addition, the valid­

ity and reliability of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study
of Values will be discussed.
Analysis of the data and the degree of relation­
ships between the driving record, the six personality

16

William A. Mehrens and Irwin J. Lehman, Standard­
ized Tests in Education (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1969), pp. 212-213.

interests (values), and the factors of age, sex, and
marital status is found in Chapter IV.
In Chapter V the study is summarized, conclusions
stated, and recommendations for further research are given.
A discussion section is also found in this chapter.
Possible Applications
The results of this study could suggest a further
experimental study to determine if traffic safety educa­
tion, including driver education, general safety education,
and pedestrian safety should emphasize the encouragement
of those attitudes and behavioral objectives associated
with spiritual, moral, and other values which are related
to driving behavior.
If the results of this study indicate there is a
significant relationship between any of the six personality
interests (values) and driving record, it would seem worth­
while to investigate this relationship further to determine
if any of the values showing a significant relationship
could be considered another behavioral objective directed
toward improving driving performance.

CHAPTER II
A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A review of the literature revealed several studies
indicating a significant relationship of personality and
attitude with driving record.

Additional studies indicated

a relationship of individual values with personality.
Further studies reviewed pointed out the relationship of
age, sex, and marital status with driving record.
Because the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values
was used as the instrument to measure basic personality
interests (values), several studies were reviewed to
ascertain the feasibility, validity, and reliability of
the test as an instrument for the study.
McFarland‘S stated that automobile accidents result
from "an action of the agent or vehicle because of some
characteristic of the host or driver, and as a function of
the environment, therefore the host or driver is of great­
est concern."

He further stated "most of the causes of

motor vehicle accidents are ultimately related to the
driver."

■Sr o s s A. McFarland, "Health and Safety in Trans­
portation," Public Health Reports, LXXIII, No. 8 (August,
1958), 70.
14

Beamish and Malfetti

2

conducted a study in Cleve­

land, Ohio, to determine if there existed any significant
differences between 16 to 19 year old traffic violators and
non-violators.

The most apparent discriminating factor

between the youthful traffic violators and non-violators
was found to be in certain personality traits.

Although

there were other differences, personality stood out promi3
nently m their results. McFarland and Mosely found that
most of the accidents in a study of commercial drivers was
attributable to human error.

Even when environmental and

vehicle defects were indicated, their study concluded that
the driver was the primary cause of accidents which they
investigated.
Relationship of Personality and
Attitude with Driving Record
4
Shaw, in a study dealing with commercial drivers,
concluded that among drivers with adequate skills and good
physical fitness, the liability to accidents is primarily
a manifestation of personality, attitudes, and beliefs.
2

J. J. Beamish and J. L. Malfetti, "A Psychological
Comparison of Violator and Non-violator Automobile Drivers
in the 16 to 19 Year Age Group," Traffic Safety Research
Review (1962), 12-15.
3
Ross A. McFarland and Alfred L. Mosely, Human
Factors in Highway Transportation Safety (Boston: Harvard
School of Public Health, 1954), p. 19.
4
L. Shaw, "The Practical Use of Projective Person­
ality Tests as Accident Predictors," Traffic Safety Re­
search Review, IX (June, 1965), 70.

Personality factors showed a high relationship to driving
safety, according to a study examining the effects of
emotions on driving by Dubin,^ with accident-repeater
drivers as a group actually classified as having border­
line psychopathic personalities.
Conger^ pointed out that the major contributing
factor to safe or dangerous driving is the individual him­
self, and that attitudes are of greater importance than
physical or intellectual capabilities.

At the University

of Colorado School of Medicine, he was engaged for several
years in studying large numbers of safe and unsafe drivers.
Individual drivers were given extensive examinations in­
volving a wide variety of techniques; ranging from psycho­
logical tests of personality functioning, intelligence and
aptitude tests, and psychiatric interviews; to measures
of reaction time, depth perception, hand-eye coordination,
and psychophysiological reactions to emotional stress.

The

traditional sorts of measures often assumed to make the
biggest difference between safe and unsafe drivers— such
things as the reaction time, depth perception, and eye-hand
coordination, as well as psychophysiological functioning
5

Samuel S. Dubm, "Emotions and Traffic Accidents—
A Psychologist Looks at the Problem of Highway Safety,"
Traffic Satety Research Review, V (June, 1961), 7.
c.

John J. Conger, "Personality Factors in Motor
Vehicle Accidents," Medical Times (March, 1960), 281.

and intelligence--seemed to make little difference in most
cases.
McGuire,

7

m

a study of U.S. Marine personnel at

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, stated that the largest
■single cause of accidents is personality related; and that
g

personality tests

are capable of differentiating between

drivers frequently involved in accidents and those accident
free.
Schuster

9

agreed, from his investigations with

California drivers with high accident and moving violation
records, that attitudes provided the best predictors for
accidents and violations.

His study attempted to predict

drivers who would be involved in an accident or who would
have two or more moving violations in the three year period
after the date of testing in 1959.

Attitude and personal­

ity scales were found to predict follow-up accidents and
moving violations significantly.
Driving is an activity which expresses one's
personality and attitudes, claimed social psychiatrist
7
Fredrick L. McGuire, "An Outline for a New
Approach to the Problem of Highway Accidents," U.S. Armed
Forces Medical Journal, VII, 8 (August, 1956), 1158.
8

Fredrick L. McGuire, "Psychological Comparison of
Automobile Drivers," U.S. Armed Forces Medical Journal,
VII, 8 (December, 1956), 1743.
9
D.
H. Schuster, "Prediction of Follow-up Driving
Accidents and Violations," Traffic Safety Research Review,
XII (March, 1968), 21.

Turfboer.^

Driving is a form of expressive behavior,

and it often expresses the driver's attitude toward the
world and his fellow citizens.
The study by Conger, et al.~^ with Airmen at Lowry
Air Force Base in Denver suggested that accident repeaters
differ from other drivers primarily in their personality
characteristics.

In comparison with nonaccident subjects,

the accident subjects showed a statistically significant
tendency to have less capacity for managing or controlling
hostility, to be either excessively self-centered and
indifferent to the rights of others or excessively sociocentric, and to be generally less able to tolerate tension
without discharging it immediately.

The accident subjects

tended to be categorized more frequently as consistently
or occasionally belligerent or covertly hostile.
Edwards

12

made the assumption that driving is

not fundamentally different from other kinds of human
activity.

He stated that human information processing and

decision making in a car on the road should not be too
much different from human information processing and

"^Robert Turfboer, "Do People Really Drive as They
Live?" Traffic Quarterly, XXI (January, 1967), 102.
"^Conger, et al., "Psychological and Psychophysio­
logical Factors," p. 1581.
12

Ward Edwards, "Information Processing, Decision
Making, and Highway Safety," Driver Behavior, Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety, 1968, p. 166.

decision making in the office, the home, or the laboratory.
The same attitudes and personality the individual exhibits
in these surroundings are manifested on the road in his or
her car.
Dubin

13

further pointed out that recent develop­

ments in social psychology have brought into the area of
caused phenomena many events which were previously con­
sidered to be chance determined.

Preventable automobile

accidents stem from unsafe behavior.

An individual's

driving decisions depend on his own norms, values, emotions,
ability, personality and culture.

McGuire 14 further added

that the largest single factor operating in the production
of motor vehicle accidents is the personality of the
drivers.

It is believed that our present knowledge has

advanced to the point where we begin to develop a program
that will diagnose and treat drivers on the basis of their
particular personality patterns.
An individual's personality, which may be mani­
fested in his driving record, appears to be closely related
to his perceptual style.

In a symposium conducted at Duke

University, 15 several observations were presented concern­
ing perception and personality.
13 D u bm,

"Emotions and Traffic Accidents," p. 5.

14
McGuire, "An Outline," p. 1165.
15 Perception and Personality: A Symposium, Duke
University, 1950.

Bruner and Postman^® stated in one series of ex­
periments that perceptual recognition is more rapid and
correct the more stimuli used are "familiar, probable, or
congruous with prevailing attitudes, values or needs."
Brunswick

17

added that while all people establish values,

they establish the need of these values as a factor in
perception.

McGinnies and Bowles 18 concluded that since

individuals tend to perceive selectively in accordance
with their basic values, or interests, it seems reasonable
to suppose that they will also acquire new perceptual
habits in a manner consistent with their particular value
orientation.
19
Le Bren-Francis,
a behavioral psychologist, main­
tained that behavioral patterns start with perception.

He

stated that perception is individual, that when we look at
an object each of us sees something different.

Further,

he maintained that whatever our perceptions may be, they
are shaped and moulded by our state of being and our back­
ground .
^Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman, "Perception, Cog­
nition, and Behavior," Perception and Personality; A
Symposium, Duke University, 1950.
17 Leo Brunswick, "Remarks on Functionalism in Per­
ception," Perception and Personality: A Symposium, Duke
University, 1950.
18

Warren Bowles and Elliott McGinnies, "Personal
Values as Determinants of Perceptual Fixation," Perception
and Personality: A Symposium, Duke University, 1950.
19 Brian Le Bren-Francis, Do You See What I See?
(New York: Vantage Press, 1966), pp. 7, 8.

Reiley, et al. ,20 investigated driver actions in
vehicle control as a result of visual information.

The

subjects in their study were instructed to follow specified
cars at various speeds and various following distances.
The vehicles being followed were instructed before-hand to
brake, accelerate, and turn at predetermined intervals and
locations.

The subjects' actions resulting from perceiving

the various stimuli were recorded and analyzed, with the
conclusions being that most individuals apparently operate
in accordance with the entirety of the visual environment
around them rather than on the basis of specific and iso­
lated cues.

A set of expectancies is learned concerning

the manner in which the visual world behaves.

All of their

data indicated that visual information available to a
driver is used in a highly systematic manner in effecting
control actions.

It is difficult, they concluded, to de­

rive simple functional relationships describing this use
because of the adaptability of the driver.
Barrett and Thornton

21

found that perceptual dif­

ferences accounted for 79 - 90 percent of the variance in
20

Raymond E. Reiley, et al., "The Translation of
Visual Information into Vehicular Control Actions," in
Biotechnology, Inc. (Arlington, Virginia, October, 1965),
pp. 46-47.
21

Gerald V. Barrett and Carl L. Thornton, "Rela­
tionship between Perceptual Style and Driver Reaction to
an Emergency Situation," Journal of Applied Psychology, LII
(1968), 169-176.

subjects' reaction to emergency situations.

In their

study, 20 drivers were subjected to a controlled emergency
situation in an unprogrammed automobile simulator, where a
pedestrian (dummy) emerged from a shed into the path of the
vehicle.

Subsequent measurements of individual perceptual

style, using the Rod and Frame Test (RFT), were found to
correlate from .85 to .95 with effectiveness of appropriate
reaction to the emergency situation.
Perception is the connecting link between the
driving situation and ultimate driving behavior.

If

drivers fail to see the driving situation for what it is,
a dangerous, ambiguous, unpredictable arena of human be­
havior, they will cause an accident or be involved in one.
Brody

22

.

pointed out that "no matter how organically perfect

a person's sensory equipment may b e , it does not neces­
sarily follow that he will perceive the world around him
accurately and realistically."

He adds that studies have

shown that accident and violation-free drivers do not have
better vision than accident repeaters and chronic violators,
but apparently they see the driving situation for what it
is.

Perception, then, is more than sheer vision; it also

involves interpreting the importance of what is seen, thus
providing a sound basis for coping with seen situations.
Such interpretation is based not only upon the physical
22

Brody and Stack, Highway Safety and Driver Edu­
cation , pp. 86-87.

functioning of the sensory apparatus, but also upon what
has been learned from past experiences, in fact, upon the
whole personality of the driver. 23
Relationship of Individual Values with
Personality and Attitude
An individual1s personality is not completely
described until due consideration is given to his values,
24
according to Stagner,
with values generally designating
generalized attitudes.

He further stated that additional

research is needed before it is known to v/hat extent
values guide behavior.
25
Guilford, Christensen, et al.
defined a value
and an interest as a generalized behavior tendency which
attracts an individual to a certain class of activities
or incentives.

Rokeach,

26

in his studies of the relation­

ship of values and attitudes at Michigan State University,
stated that value seems to be a more dynamic concept than
attitude since it has strong motivational, cognitive,
affective, and behavioral components.

While attitude and

23

D.
J. Van Lennep, "Psychological Factors in Driv­
ing," Traffic Quarterly, VI (October, 1952), 483-498.
24
Ross Stagner, Psychology of Personality (New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1948) , pT 237.
25
J. P. Guilford, et al., "A Factor Analysis Study
of Human Interests," Psychological Monograph, LXVIII,
No. 375 (1954), 68.
2 6>

Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes and Values, pp. 124-

160.

value are both widely assumed to be determinants of social
behavior, value is a determinant of attitude as well as of
behavior. . He further pointed out that values have to do
with modes of conduct, while an attitude represents several
beliefs focused on a specific object or situation.

A value

is a single belief that guides actions and judgments across
specific objects and situations.
Uhlaner,

27

in his work with military personnel,

stressed the interaction of values with other personality
factors in determining behavior and work performance.
Spranger 2 8 maintained an individual shapes his life
by his values.

He insisted that the mental character of

man is primarily determined through the value category by
means of which he lives and shapes his own life.

Spranger

defined individuals by the following designations, accord­
ing to their prominent value standard.

The theorist sets

truth above everything else in human relations.

The

purely economic man is egotistical, seeing everything as
a means of self-preservation.

The aesthetic individual has

self-fulfillment as his principal aim in life, with little
regard for other people.

The social man considers other

human beings as his principal interest, exhibiting an
27

Julius E. Uhlaner, "Human Performance, Jobs, and
Systems Psychology," address to the Division of Military
Psychology, American Psychology Association, Miami,
Florida, September 6, 197 0.
^Spranger, Types of Men, pp. 2-25, 28.

altruistic view toward the world.

The political indi­

vidual, independent of any specific form of appearance,
aims for the satisfaction of his own vital or mental drive
for existence, even at the cost of others.

A religious

man is he whose mental structure is permanently directed
to the creation of the highest and absolutely satisfying
value experience; religiosity being that condition, in­
stinctively or rationally, in which his experiences are
either positively or negatively related to the total value
of life.
Morality is derived from personal values, and
attitude toward law and society is set by morals, and
where one's values lie determine his respect and actions
toward society stated Rabbi Frankel.

29

Moynihan

30

added

that the ultimate realization of individual development
relies on a consistency with moral values, religious, and
spiritual ideals.
In their previously reported study of driving
records among selected Air Force personnel, Conger,
et al.31 found that marked differences existed between
29

Rabbi Phillip Frankel, speech delivered during
Law and Morality Week at Central Methodist Church, Lansing,
Michigan, August 11, 1970.
30 James F. Moynihan, "The Philosophical Aspects of
Guidance," Review of Educational Research, XXVII (April,
1957), 187.
31
Conger, et al., "Personal and Interpersonal
Factors," p. 1072.

26
accident and non-accident groups on a measure of values.
Several psychological tests were administered to these men,
as well as clinical psychological interviews.

However,

the most significant differences between the accident and
non-accident groups were three values of the AllportVernon-Lmdzey Study of Values test.

Conger, 32 m.

another

study, pointed out that the individual with a poor driving
record is likely to be unconventional in his opinions and
values.
Edwards

33

recommended that a study be made of the

kinds of values that seem most important in controlling
driver decisions, and an effort be made to change value
judgments within poor driver groups.

Schulzmger

34

in

his case studies of thousands of varied types of general
accident cases admitted to his hospital said that many
accidents represent a problem in defective moral and reli­
gious values.

He stated that accidents in some respects

share common ground with such other problems as juvenile
delinquency, major crime, alcoholism, drug addiction, and
social and economic adjustment.

32 Conger, "Personality Factors," p. 283.
^Edwards, "We Drive As We Live," p. 22.
34Morris S. Schulsinger, The Accident Syndrome
(Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1956), p. 188.

Cantril and Allport 35 pointed out that several
experiments demonstrated a clear relationship between
values and conduct.

They claimed the evidence from recent

applications of the Study of Values must be interpreted as
establishing these values as self-consistent, generalized
traits of personality.

They showed that a person's activ­

ity is not determined exclusively by the stimulus of the
moment, nor by a merely transient interest, nor by a spe­
cific attitude peculiar to each situation which he en­
counters.

On the contrary, general evaluation attitudes

enter into various common activities of everyday life, and
in so doing help to account for the consistencies of
personality.
Elizabeth Duffy, 36 in her study of several value
or evaluative attitudes scales, found definite correlation
with measures of attitude and personality.

Her conclusions

were that value measurement is a stable predictor of
personality.

Duffy further explained that investigations

employing the Study of Values, and other values, indicated
that the investigation of evaluative attitudes is an ap­
proach of far-reaching significance in the study of
personality.
35

Cantril and Allport, "Recent Applications,"

p. 272.
36
Elizabeth Duffy, "A Critical Review of Investi­
gations Employing the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values and Other Tests of Evaluative Attitude, Psychological Bulletin, XXXVII (1940), 609.

Kelly

37

stated m

his twenty year study of personal­

ity change of selected college graduates, that in the esti­
mated long-term consistency of five domains of personality
variables, value interests are the most stable, with an
index of approximately .50.
The literature has shown a definite link between
personality of drivers and their driving behavior, par­
ticularly in regard to traffic accidents and traffic vio­
lations.

Additional literature indicates high correlation

between individuals' value ratings and their subsequent
attitude and personality ratings on many significant
scales.

It would seem from this source of information

that the relationship between values and driving record
suggests further investigation.
Relationship of Sex, Marital Status, and
Age Factors with Driving Record
Several studies have shown a significant relation­
ship exists between the three variables of sex, marital
status, and age with an individual's driving record of
accident involvement and traffic-law violation convictions.
Levonian, 38 in a study of 7,430 California drivers, re­
ported that negligent vehicle operators could be identified
37

E.
L. Kelly, "Consistency of the Adult Personal­
ity," American Psychologist, X (1955), 675.
38
Levonian, "Prediction of Accidents and Convic­
tions," p. 75.

at a statistically significant level on the basis of four
variables, three of which are age, sex, and marital
status.
Marital Status
Many studies have shown a significant difference
in driving records of married and unmarried individuals,
especially in the younger ages.

Consequently a review of

the literature leads one to believe that marital status is
a predictor of driving record.

In a massive study of

California drivers using driving records for 19 62, differ­
ences were noted between the records of 97,000 males and
68,000 females.

Males under 25 who were married had less

accidents than those who were single.

After age 25, how­

ever, married persons, both male and female, were safer
than single persons.

A similar trend appeared for viola­

tions; married males under 20 had less violations than
single males up to age 20. 39
40
Heath,
in his investigation of 958 New Jersey
drivers, pointed out that traffic offenders can be dis­
tinguished from non-offenders by marital status.

The group

of traffic offenders was characterized by unmarried
39

R. C. Peck, R. S. Coppm, and W. C. Marsh,
"Driver Record by Age, Sex, and Marital Status," Highway
Research Review, XI (September, 1967), 65.
40
. .
Heath, "The Relationship Between Driving
Records," p. 78.

individuals.

However, he found no statistical signifi­

cance among individuals who reported themselves to be
widowed, separated, or divorced.

Rainey and Conger 41

found in a different study of selected Airmen that single
men were involved in accidents to a much higher degree than
married men.

They concluded that single status could con­

tribute more directly to accidents than other correlates
by virtue of social factors, namely spending more leisure
time drinking and bar and party hopping.

Single men become

more vulnerable to accidents as a consequence.
Coppin, et al.42 found in another California study
indications that married female and male driving records
were superior to the single drivers of their respective
sexes, with single females having approximately twice the
accident and violation incidence of their married counter­
parts.

Similar findings were observed concerning the male

drivers.

For both sexes, marital status was found to have

exerted a significant effect upon driving record, both
accidents and violation convictions.

Generally, single

drivers had a higher accident and violation frequency than
married drivers.

41

Rainey, et al., "Personality Characteristics,"

p. 16.
42

Coppin, et al., "The 1964 California Driver
Record Study," p. 4.

Me
Heath, 43 again in his investigations of 958 New
Jersey drivers, pointed out that traffic offenders can be
distinguished from non-offenders by age, stating that the
traffic offender group was characterized by younger indi­
viduals.
Coppin 44 indicated in his California study that
accidents and citations tended to decrease with age, ex­
cept at extremely old ages where there was a tendency for
accidents to increase slightly.

For either sex he found

age to be a significant factor upon driving record, with
accidents and citations both occurring with less frequency
as age increased.
DeSilva 45 pointed out that accidents are closely
correlated with age, with the fatality rate decreasing
with advancing age up to 60, but thereafter rising
slightly.

A profile of 1,084 Michigan drivers m

1967

46

showed the younger drivers to have poorer driving records
than the older drivers, which included the categories of
43 Heath, "The Relationship
, . Between Driving
. .
Records."
44
.
Coppin, et al., "The 1964 California Driver
Record Study."
45 Harry DeSilva, Why We Have Automobile
•
Accidents
(New York:
Arbor:

John Wiley and Sons, 1953), p. 28.

^Joseph W. Little, Michigan Driver Profile (Ann
University of Michigan, 1968), p. 5 ~.

32
accidents, convictions, and license suspensions.

The

younger age groups were not only overrepresented in acci­
dents, but were also overrepresented in almost any des­
cription of a poor driver one might choose.
A study of 72 0 truck drivers in California by
Levonian, Case, and Gregory 47 demonstrated that age cor­
related with recorded accidents; the younger men tended to
have more accidents than older drivers.
48
Lauer,
in a study of 7,692 Iowa drivers sampled
from the drivers license files, pointed out that there is
a preponderance of evidence that male drivers 30 years of
age and under contribute very heavily to the accident
total; the difference from 18 years to 23 years being
.
highly significant. McFarland 49 likewise maintained
that
in ordinary pleasure vehicle driving the age group under 30
years of age has been found to produce the most accidents.
The results of a 1968 American Medical Associa50
tion Automotive Safety Symposium
revealed that

^Edward Levonian, Harry W. Case, and Raymond
Gregory, "Prediction of Recorded Accidents and Violations
Using Non-Driving Predictors," Highway Research Record,
IV (1963), 58.
48A. R. Lauer, "Age and Sex in Relation
•
to Acci­
dents," Highway Research Board Bulletin 60 (1952), 137.
49
. . .
McFarland and Mosely, Human Factors m Highway
Transportation Safety, p . 14 5.
50American Medical Association Automotive Safety
Symposium, Washington, D.C., September 13 and 14, 1968,
p. 1.

youthful drivers constitute approximately 20 percent of
the total driving population, but are responsible for
slightly more than 33 percent of all fatal crashes.

On

the other hand, drivers 65 years of age or over constitute
8 percent of all drivers, and account for approximately 8
percent of the fatalities.

Their statistics showed that

after age 25 the accident rate declines steadily until
age 65, and then rises sharply.
Sex
Burg, 51 m

a California study to determine if driv­

ing records are more stable over a longer (six year) period
of time, found that males were involved in a greater number
of accidents than females.

He also pointed out that males

have more violation convictions than females, stating that
accidents are a very stable predictor of future driving
performance.
Coppin, 52 in his study of the California driver
revealed that both married and single female drivers had
driving records that were markedly superior to those of
their respective male counterparts.

Similarly, single and

married males had over twice as many driver record
51

Albert Burg, "The Stability of Driving Record
Over Time," Accident Analysis and Prevention, II (1970),
57-65.
52
. . .
Coppin, et al., "The 1964 California Driver
Record Study," p. 4.

incidents, accidents and citations, as their respective
female counterparts.
DeSilva 53 has shown, m

a study of Connecticut and

South Carolina drivers, that men are involved in a greater
number of accidents than are women.

Even though women

comprised approximately 20 percent of the licensed drivers
at the time of his study, they were involved in only 8 to
10 percent of all reported accidents.
In the profile of Michigan drivers, 54 male drivers
experienced twice as many accidents as female drivers.

Of

715 male drivers surveyed, 7.6 percent had one or more
accidents during the previous year, while of 348 female
drivers investigated, only 3.7 percent experienced one or
more accidents in the same period.
It is usually recognized that men drive more miles
than women drivers, consequently they experience more
exposure to traffic and the highway than their female
counterparts.

However, a two-year study in Iowa by Swanson,

Schwenk, and Lauer

55

.
showed that there are more fatalities

among male drivers proportionately and on a mileage basis
than there are for female drivers.
53 DeSilva, Why We Have Automobile Accidents, p. 28.
54 Little, Michigan Driver Profile, p. 5.
55 Clifford SWanson, Lillian Schwenk, and A. R.
Lauer, "Age and Fatal Motor Vehicle Accidents," Highway
Research Board Bulletin 212 (1959), 26.

Campbell^ stated there were more accidents in­
volving men than women drivers in his investigation of
32,3 87 drivers, somewhat due to the fact there are more
men drivers (in actual numbers) than women.

He pointed

out females show relatively less involvement in single-car
accidents, and more in two car accidents.

However, in two

car accidents, they also show a relatively higher fre­
quency of being struck than do men.

In spite of the many

theories as to why, the fact is still borne out that men
are involved in more accidents than women, regardless of
age or marital status, and likewise have more violation
convictions on their driving records than women.
The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values as an Instrument
The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values was
chosen as the instrument for this study because of its
ability to discriminate between certain interest values
. •
with a high degree of reliability and validity.
Duffy 57
pointed out that this scale demonstrates an individual's
relative interest in the discovery of truth (theoretical),
interest in the useful (economic), interest in form and
harmony (aesthetic), interest in and love of people
(social), interest in power (political), and the desire

^Campbell, "Driver Age and Sex, p. 37.
■^Duffy, "Critical Review," pp. 597-612.

for comprehension of and unity with the cosmos as a whole
(religious). The authors of the scale, Allport and
58
Vernon,
explained that the Study of Values was designed
to determine the relative prominence of each of these six
values in a given personality.
Cantrill and Allport 59 stated that evidence accumu­
lated since the publication of this scale indicates that
the reliability and validity claimed for it are approxi­
mately correct, if anything too low.

Coefficients deter-

mined by split-half and repeat reliability 6 0 indicate
respectively; theoretical, .62 and .66; economic, .72 and
.71; aesthetic, .84 and .84; social, .49 and .39; politi­
cal, .53 and .55; and religious, .84 and .80.

Validity

obtained by means of correlations between scores obtained
on five external tests and one self-rating test as a cri­
terion, with the Study of Values were; theoretical, +.41;
political, +.44; economic, +.57; aesthetic, +.57; social,
+.14; and religious, +.69.

58
G. W. Allport and P. E. Vernon, "A Test for
Personal Values," The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, XXVI (October-December, 1931), 236.
59
Cantrill and Allport, "Recent Applications,"
p. 272.
60

Allport and Vernon, "A Test for Personal
Values," p. 243.

37
Whitely,

61

in his various experiments with the

scale, was impressed by the relatively high degree of
constancy of the means scores for the successive adminis­
tration of the test.
Pintner

62

used the Study of Values and Thurstone's

Scale for measuring attitudes toward the church by a group
of 53 students.

Between the scores for the religious

values in the Study of Values and the attitudes favorable
to the church measured in the Thurstone Scale, he found an
r of +.78.

This result obtained with two entirely differ­

ent independent and individually reliable scales Pintner
felt was significant.
In an investigation of methods to measure interests,
63
Guilford, et a l .
concluded that at present there appears
no means of assessing interests that is more dependable,
more sensitive to individual differences, and more economi­
cal of time and effort than a verbal inventory such as the
Study of Values.

61

P. L. Whitely, "The Constancy of Personal
Values," The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
XXXIII (1938), 406.
62

A. R. Pintner, "A Comparison of Interests,
Abilities, and Attitudes," The Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, XXVII (1933), 351-357.
63
Guilford, et al., "A Factor Analysis Study,"
p. 68.

38
Stanley,

64

an his work with value systems, has

found the Study of Values to be useful in many fields,
particularly for comparing groups.

In a Denver, Colorado,
study of hxgh school age drivers, Conger 65 found the

scales of this test proved highly discriminating between
accident repeaters and accident-free subjects.
et al.,

66

Conger,

in their previously reported study of the driv­

ing records of 264 Airmen, considered the Study of Values
to be an extremely stable predictor of accident suscepti­
bility in their population.
Summary
The literature indicates the possibility of a
relationship between basic personality interests (values)
and driving record.

Other factors, such as age, sex, and

marital status have shown to be rather reliable and con­
sistent predictors of driving record.

Therefore, these

studies seem to indicate that exploration of the rela­
tionship of values and driving record, with due consider­
ation of age, sex, and marital status, might prove worth­
while.
64

J. C. Stanley, "Insight Into One's Own Values,"
Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXXII (1951), 399.
^ J o h n L. Conger and Wilbur Miller, Personality,
Social Class, and Delinquency (New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1966), p. 55.
66
Conger, et al., "Personal and Interpersonal
Factors," p. 1072.

67
Rainey, et al.,
found the Study of Values to be
highly discriminating in a study of 30 U.S. Air Force
personnel when separated into dichotomous groups of
accident-repeater and accident free drivers.

He concluded

a further study should be performed with a general civilian
sampling of drivers.

It was further recommended the

drivers consist of a larger range of age than his sample,
should include both sexes, and that driving record be a
continuous rather than a dichotomous variable.

67R. V. Rainey, et al., "An Investigation of the
Role of Psychological Factors in Motor Vehicle Accidents,"
Highway Research Board Bulletin 212 (1959), 12.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was twofold:

(1) to dis­

cover if any of the six basic interests of personality
(values) as determined by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study
of Values could improve the prediction of driving record
beyond the factors of age, sex, and marital status; and
(2) if significant differences for any of the six values
existed between drivers categorized as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.

no accident/no violation
no accident/violation
accident/no violation
accident/violation
Hypotheses

Major Hypotheses
This study has six primary hypotheses, with an
additional six subhypotheses, all of which are stated in
the null form.
Hypothesis 1 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including
religious values with the factors of age, sex,
and marital status.
Rd-amsv^ = Rd*ams 1

follows:

"^Correlation coefficients are subscripted as
d-driving record, a-age, m-marital status, s-sex,
40

Hypothesis 2 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including
economic values with the factors of age, sex, and
marital status.
R
= R
d*amsv2
d*ams
Hypothesis 3 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including politi­
cal values with the factors of age, sex, and
marital status.
R

d-amsv^

“ R

d*ams

Hypothesis 4 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including social
values with the- factors of age, sex, and marital
status.
R
=R
d*amsv4
d-ams
Hypothesis 5 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including
aesthetic values with the factors of age, sex,
and marital status.
Rd*amsv^ = Rd*ams
Hypothesis 6 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including theo­
retical values with the factors of age, sex, and
marital status.
R
=R
d*amsv,
d*ams

Subhypotheses
For the six subhypotheses, subjects were classified
into the following four categories of accident and viola­
tion experience:

vp-religious value, V 2-economic value, V3~political value,
V4~social value, V5-aesthetic value, and vg-theoretical
value.

42
a.
b.
c.
d.

no accident/no violation
no accident/violation
accident/no violation
accident/violation

Subhypothesis 1 : There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to religious
values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values when individuals are grouped
according to the four accident and violation
experience categories.
H :religious
,. .
M a = M,
= eM d
= M,
values
b
Subhypothesis 2 : There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to political
values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values when individuals are grouped
according to the four accident and violation
experience categories.
H:
.
,
M = M, = M = M ,
political values

a

b

e

d

Subhypothesis 3 : There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to social values
as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study
of Values when individuals are grouped according
to the four accident and violation experience
categories.
H: social
. t values
,
M a = M.o = M c = M,d
Subhypothesis 4 : There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to aesthetic
values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values when individuals are grouped
according to the four accident and violation
experience categories.
H: aesthetic
^ . values
' M a = M,
b = eM =
d M,
Subhypothesis 5 : There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to economic
values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values when individuals are grouped
according to the four accident and violation
experience categories.
H: economic
. values
,
M a = M.d = M c = M d,

Subhypothesis 6 ; There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to theoretical
values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values when individuals are grouped
according to the four accident and violation
experience categories.
H,
M = M = M = M
’theoretical values a
b
e
d
Sample
The population from which the subjects for this
study were extracted were the approximately 5,500,000
licensed drivers recorded in the office of the Michigan
Department of State, Driver Services Division in July,
1970.

It was determined that a systematic randomly

selected sample of .01 percent of the Michigan drivers,
resulting in 550 drivers, would be contacted to partici­
pate in the study.
»

Selection Procedure
Driver records are filed numerically by license
number in the offices of the Michigan Department of State
in Lansing.

Each license number is twelve digits and is

preceded by the first letter in the last name.

Because

the license number is generated by a soundex code from the
name and birth date, the filing sequence is effectively
alphabetical.
The Driver Services Division was in the process of
transferring their driver records to a computer system at
the time of this study.

As this record process was not

completed as the study began, it was necessary to use the
card file records for the driver selection phase of the
study.

The files are arranged in 90 bins containing six­

teen trays each.

The records are filed sequentially by

number in the trays.

Each tray from the first to the last

in the files contains approximately the same number as
every other bin.
To give each driver on file an equal opportunity
to be selected in the study, the first record in each third
row of the trays was removed.

Drivers licensed less than

three years were rejected and the next record in the tray
was used.
Collection of Data
The name, address, and age of each selected driver
was taken from the individual's file, along with the number
of accidents and violation convictions each individual had
accumulated during the last three years.

Each subject was

mailed a copy of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values
booklet to complete and return.

In addition, each subject

was asked to enter his marital status.

A letter

2

explain­

ing the booklet along with a gift pen was enclosed with
each questionnaire.
Thirty-nine percent (215) were returned as a
result of the first mailing.
2
Appendix A

A subsequent follow-up

45
mailing resulted in an additional 12 percent return, a
total of 51.8 percent or 2 86 responses.

Of that total,

34 booklets were not usable due to improper responses,
death, refusals, and change of address.
subjects were analyzed in this study.
were men and 14 6 women.

A total of 252
Of this total, 106

Ages ranged from 19 to 76, and

marital status responses indicated 50 single and 202 mar­
ried.
A preliminary study of 59 subjects was conducted
to determine the feasibility of the Study of Values as a
test instrument.

Procedures for analysis were also tested

to decide their appropriateness for this study.

As the

instrument and procedures appeared sufficiently capable
of offering the information needed to carry out the pro­
posed study, the random sampling procedures were continued
for a total of 550 subjects.

The test instrument, subject

contact techniques, and analysis procedures were identical
for both the preliminary and expanded studies.
Sources of Data
Driving Record
The accident/violation experience for each subject
was taken from the manual driver record file of the Michi­
gan Department of State, Driver Services Division.

The

records contained the date of each reported accident in
which a driver was involved.

The date and type of each

violation conviction was also recorded in the driver
records.

This information for the three year period prior

to August 31, 1970 was extracted for each subject selected
for inclusion in the study.
The Michigan State Police daily submit accident
data to the Department of State.

This data is taken from

accident reports submitted to the State Police by all re­
porting agencies in the state.

The convicting court sends

a record of motor vehicle offense convictions to the De­
partment of State.

Arrests not resulting in convictions

are not recorded in the driver record files.
Because the issuance of a violation citation is
commonplace when an accident has taken place, the convic­
tions recorded with accidents were rejected for purposes
of this study.
Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values
The Study of Values is designed to measure the
relative prominence in adult personalities of six basic
interests or motives in personality:

the theoretical,

economic, aesthetic, social, political, and religious.
classification is based directly upon Eduard Spranger's
3

Types of Men, which defends the view that the
3
Spranger, Types of Men, pp. 2-25, 28.

The

personalities of men are best known through a study of
their values or evaluative attitudes.
The test consists of a number of questions, based
upon a variety of familiar situations to which two alterna­
tive answers in Part I and four alternative answers in
Part II are provided.

In all there are 12 0 answers, twenty

of which refer to each of the six values.

The subject

records his preferences numerically by the side of each
alternative answer.

His scores on each page are then added

and the totals transcribed onto the score sheet.

The page

totals belonging to each of the six values are then summed.
Reliability coefficients for the questions used in
this test were determined by both the split-half and test4
.
. .
retest procedures.
The split-half coefficients were
theoretical, .62; economic, .72; aesthetic, .84; social,
.49; political, .53; and religious, .84.

The repeat coef­

ficients were theoretical, .66; economic,

.71; aesthetic,

.84; social, .39; political, .55; and religious, .80.
Validity coefficients were obtained by means of
correlations between scores obtained on five external
tests and one self-rating test as a criterion with the
5
Study of Values questions.
The validity coefficients were
4
Allport and Vernon, "A Test for Personal Values,"
p. 243.
JIbid.

48
theoretical, +.40; economic, +.57; aesthetic, +.57; social,
+.14; political, +.44; and religious, +.69.
Cantrill and Allport,^ in a later test of relia­
bility and validity, state that the coefficients for both
are approximately correct, and if anything, they are too
7
low. Whitely, m his various experiments with the Study
of Values, was impressed by the relatively high degree of
constancy of the means scores for the successive adminis­
trations of the test.
Methods of Analysis of Data
The computer was used to determine the predictive
possibilities of each of the six values of interest toward
driving success.

Each subject's driving record of acci­

dents and violation convictions was entered on punch cards
along with their age, sex, and marital status.

Because

the age variable in respect to driving record is of a
curvilinear nature, age was squared and also entered for
each subject.

By forming a quadratic equation, the age

variable was transformed to a linear quantity, allowing it
to be analyzed simultaneously with the other independent
variables in the study.
The subjects' scores for each of the six values
were also placed on their punch cards.

By means of

g
Cantrill and Allport, "Recent Applications, p. 272.
7
Whitely, "The Constancy of Personal Values,"
p. 243.

partial correlation it was possible to determine if any of
the six values of interest significantly improved the pre­
dictive ability of age, sex, and marital status for the
complete group of subjects.
In addition, subjects were grouped into dichotomous
categories of male and female.

By means of partial cor­

relation holding age and marital status constant, it was
possible to determine if any of the six values of interest
significantly improved the predictive ability of age and
marital status for driving record of either sex.
The .01 level of significance was used in this
study.

Each subject was scored on six tests; i.e. relig­

ious, economic, political, social, aesthetic, and theoreti­
cal values.

As the alpha level is additive when a series

of tests are administered, it was necessary to use the .01
level of significance for each test (value) to keep the
overall alpha at the .06 level of significance.
The distribution of the sample population for this
study is shown in Table 1.

The subjects were placed into

four categories of driving record.

Category A, no acci­

dent/no violation, was comprised of 64 subjects; 22 men
and 4 2 women, of which 57 were married and seven were
single.

Category B, no accident/violation, was comprised

of 54 subjects; 25 men and 29 women, of which 47 were
married and seven were single.

Category C, accident/no

violation, was comprised of 77 subjects; 36 men and 41

TABLE 1.— Distribution of sample population.
Driving Record Category
Variable

Total
A

B

C

D

Sex:
Male
Female

22
42

25
29

36
41

22
35

106
146

Marital Status:
Married
Single

57
7

47
7

51
26

47
10

202
50

Age:
19-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-45
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-over

7
7
11
5
6
12
8
3
4
1
““

2
9
5
7
5
8
4
9
2
3
1

18
17
8
6
8
8
5
3
3
1
-

12
11
9
7
4
5
3
3
1
1
1

39
44
33
25
23
33
20
18
10
6
1
1

Total

64

54

77

57

252

Driving Record Category:
A
B
C
D

-

no accident/no violation
no accident/violation
accident/no violation
accident/violation

women, of which 51 were married and 2 6 were single.

In

Category D, accident/violation, there were 57 subjects;
2 2 men and 35 women, of which 47 men were married and ten
were single.
The planned comparison method for analysis of
variance was performed to determine if there were signifi­
cant differences between the four categories for each of
the six values of interest.

This technique made it pos­

sible to determine if significant differences for each of
the six values exist specifically between the category of
no accident/no violation and the category of accident/
violation.

Also, the category of no accident/violation

and the category accident/no violation could be compared.
The comparison consisting of the combination of categories
no accident/no violation plus accident/violation and
the combination of categories no accident/violation plus
accident/no violation could also be compared.

These were
g

the only comparisons possible, as they were orthogonal,
an assumption required for this method of analysis refer­
ring to statistical independence of variables.
Of the three analyses of variance comparisons
which were statistically possible to perform, two were
meaningful and interpretive in light of the stated sub­
hypotheses.
8

The comparison between the category of

William L. Hayes, Statistics (New York:
Rinehart, and Winston, 1963), p. 473.

Holt,

no accident/no violation and the category of accident/
violation was orthogonal, and gave a comparison of two
extreme driving record categories, viz. those subjects
with both accidents and violation convictions, and those
subjects with neither accidents or violation convictions.
Also, the comparison between the category of no accident/
violation and the category of accident/no violation was
orthogonal; and gave a comparison of two different driving
record categories, viz. those subjects who had been in­
volved in accidents but had not received any violation
convictions on their driving record, and those subjects
with violation convictions on their driving record but
having not been involved in any recorded accidents.
The third orthogonal comparison consisted of two
combined categories and the other two combined categories.
The combinations were the categories of no accident/no
violation plus accident/violation and the categories of
no accident/violation plus accident/no violation.

It was

concluded that the comparison of the extreme driving
record categories combined and the two categories of
accident/no violation and no accident/violation could not
be interpreted in light of the six subhypotheses.

It was

decided to use the first two comparisons only, because
these two comparisons constituted the questions which were
of particular interest in this study, while the third

comparison gave information which would be meaningless and
uninterpretive.
In further analysis, subjects in each category
were placed into dichotomous groups of male and female.
The planned comparison method for analysis of variance was
performed to determine if there were significant differ­
ences between the four categories for each of the six
values of interest for each sex.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA

This study was designed to discover if any of the
six basic interests of personality (values) as determined
by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values could im­
prove the prediction of driving record beyond the factors
of age, sex, and marital status for a randomly selected
group of Michigan drivers.
A review of literature has shown that the factors
of age, sex, and marital status have the ability to pre­
dict driving record.

Correlations developed from the

data collected are shown in Table 2, supporting the con­
tention that age and sex do in fact predict driving record.
The correlation coefficients derived form the data for the
2 52 subjects indicated the degree of variance in the
sample's driving record which could be explained by each
of the three known predictors; age, sex, and marital status.
Although previous reports showed marital status to be a
significant factor, the marital status of the subjects in
this study did not indicate a significant correlation able
to predict driving record.

However, knowing the sex of the

subjects in this study proved significantly capable of
predicting driving record.

Also, knowing the age of the
54

TABLE 2.— Correlations between driving record and the known factors of marital
status, sex, and age for all subjects (n = 252).
Known
Factors

Correlation Coefficient3

F ratio*3

.11338

3.2568

Sex

.22347

13.1412°

Age

.23121

7.0305°

Marital Status
*

cl

*

«

Correlation coefficient— degree of variance for driving record which
can be explained by each of the factors.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio
must be 6.8 or larger.
c » • »
Significantly different from zero at the .01 level.

subjects in this study proved significantly capable of
predicting record, viz. accidents and violation convic­
tions .
This study was also designed to show if signifi­
cant differences for any of the six basic interests of
personality (values) existed between drivers when cate­
gorized as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.

no accident/no violation
no accident/violation
accident/no violation
accident/violation

The data collected from the 252 subjects in the
study included age, sex, and marital status; and the scores
as determined by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values
for each of the six basic interests of personality (values),
i.e., aesthetic, theoretical, economic, political, social,
and religious.

The dependent variable of driving record,

accident and violation convictions, was tabulated from the
driver record files of the Department of State.

The data

was analyzed statistically to determine if there were
significant relationships.

A summary of the data collected

for the study appears in Appendix E .
Preparation of Data for
Statistical Analysis
A total of 252 computer data cards were punched for
simple correlation and partial correlation regression
analyses, along with the analysis of variance computations
to provide information for the planned comparisons.

The

Michigan State University Control Data Corporation 3600
computer was used for these computations, while the planned
comparisons were computed by means of rotary calculator.
All tests of significance were computed on the rotary cal­
culator.
Results of the Statistical Analysis
A simple correlation between the predictor vari­
ables of age, sex, and marital status was made with driving
record (Table 1).

Simple correlations were then computed

between each of the six interests of personality (values)
and driving record.
In Table 3 are shown the computations across the
252 subjects that gave the degree of variance in driving
record which could be explained by each of the six basic
interests of personality (values) of the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values, without regard to age, sex, or
marital status.

Positive correlation coefficients indi­

cated that higher value scores corresponded to higher
accident and violation conviction incidence in driving
record.

The negative correlation coefficients (religious,

social, and economic) indicated that higher basic interests
of personality (value) scores corresponded to lower acci­
dent and violation conviction incidence in driving record.
The correlation coefficients between driving record and
the six basic interests of personality (religious, eco­
nomic, political, aesthetic, social, and theoretical

TABLE 3.— Correlation coefficients for each of the basic interests of personality
(values) and driving record for all subjects without consideration of the factors
of age, sex, and marital status (n = 252).
Basic Interests of Personality
(Values)a

Correlation Coefficient'*3

Religious

-.05712°

Political

.07736

F ratio^

.752
1.509

-.01447°

.050

Aesthetic

.1097

.025

Economic

-.02460°

.150

.04785

.501

Social

Theoretical

The six basic interests of personality (values) of the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
3d

Degree of variance for driving record which can be explained by each
of the basic interests of personality (values).
c
,
Negative correlation: indicates subjects with higher basic interests
of personality (values) scores have correspondingly lower accident and violation
conviction incidence on their driving records.
cl

To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

values) as determined by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study
of Values were not significantly different from zero at
the .01 level of significance.

As age, sex, and marital

status were not held constant, further analysis was indi­
cated with these three variables partialed out.
The 252 subjects were then divided by sex, forming
two groups of 14 6 women drivers and 106 men drivers.

In

Tables 4 and 5 are shown the computations for each group
that gave the degree of variance in driving record which
could be explained by each of the six basic interests of
personality (values) of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values, without regard to age or marital status.

Positive

correlation coefficients indicated that higher basic
interests of personality (value) scores corresponded to
higher accident and violation conviction incidence in
driving record.

The negative correlation coefficients

(theoretical, aesthetic, social, and religious for women;
and economic, political, and religious for men) indicated
higher basic interests of personality (value) scores cor­
responded to lower accident and violation conviction inci­
dence in driving record.

The correlation coefficients

between the driving records of male and female subjects,
and the six basic interests of personality (religious,
economic, political, aesthetic, social, and theoretical
values) as determined by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study
of Values were not significantly different from zero at

TABLE 4.— Correlation coefficients for each of the basic interests of personality
(values) and driving record for male subjects without consideration of the factors
of age and marital status (n = 106).
Basic Interests of Personality
(Values)3

Correlation Coefficient

F ratio*3

Religious

-.01135

.104

Political

-.06597

.418

Social

.10885

1.263

Aesthetic

.14658

2.339

-.18110

3.549

.01604

.031

Economic
Theoretical
£

The six basic interests of personality (values) of the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
3d
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

TABLE 5.— Correlation coefficients for each of the basic interests of personality
(values) and driving record for female subjects without consideration of the
factors of age and marital status (n = 146).
Basic Interests of Personality
(Values)a

Correlation Coefficient

„
.b
F ratio

Religious

-.03514

.142

Political

.10051

1.434

Social

-.00020

.0000057

Aesthetic

-.00709

.007

.01538

.028

-.03335

.142

Economic
Theoretical
3

The six basic interests of personality (values) of the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

the .01 level of significance.

As age, sex, and marital

status were not held constant, further analysis was indi­
cated with these three variables partialed out.
Hypotheses
The correlation coefficient of the variables of
age, sex, and marital status was partialed out to eliminate
its influence on the correlation between the six basic
interests of personality (values) and driving record.

The

partial correlation coefficient indicated the degree of
variance for driving record which could be explained by
each of the six basic interests of personality (values)
when the factors of age, sex, and marital status were held
constant.

The partial correlation coefficient of any basic

interest of personality (value) had to be significant at
the .01 level of significance in order for that basic
interest of personality (value) to improve the prediction
of driving record by the factors age, sex, and marital
status.
To determine whether a partial correlation coeffi­
cient is significantly different from zero, the quantity
F1 N-5 = 1

r2

F1 N-5 =: 8,8

2

(N-5) is compared to the tabled value
alPha = *01)

^Hubert M. Blalock, Social Statistics (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960), p. 355.

Hypothesis 1 : The prediction of driving record is
not significantly improved by including the basic
interest of personality, religious values, with the
factors of age, sex, and marital status.
Table 6 shows the partial correlation coefficient
between driving record and the basic interest of personal­
ity, religious value, as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values, with age, marital status, and sex
partialed out for the 252 subjects.

The partial correla­

tion coefficient was not significantly different from zero
at the .01 level of significance.
Tables 7 and 8 show the results when the subjects
were divided by sex into groups of 146 women drivers and
106 men drivers.

The partial correlation coefficient

between driving record and the basic interest of personal­
ity, religious value, as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values, with age and marital status par»

tialed out, was not significantly different from zero at
the .01 level of significance, therefore the null hypo­
thesis was not rejected.
Hypothesis 2 ; The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including the
basic interest of personality, economic value,
with the factors of age, sex, and marital status.
Table 6, p. 64 shows the partial correlation coef­
ficient between driving record and the basic interest of
personality, economic value, as determined by the AllportVernon-Lindzey Study of Values, with age, sex, and marital
status partialed out for the 252 subjects was not

TABLE 6.— Partial correlations coefficients between each of the basic interests of
personality (values) and driving record of all subjects when age, marital status
and sex are partialed out.
Basic Interests of Personality
(Values)a

Partial Correlation Coefficient*5

F ratioc

Religious

.01944

.09389

Political

.02219

.12356

Social

.05597

.77553

Aesthetic

.44044

.04220

Economic

.07961

1.57000

Theoretical

.00638

.00988

£

The six basic interests of personality (values) of the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
^The degree of variance for driving record which can be explained by
each of the basic interests of personality (values) when age, marital status, and
sex are held constant.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

TABLE 7.— Partial correlation coefficients between each of the basic interests of
personality (values) and driving records of female subjects when age and
marital status are partialed out (n = 146).
Basic Interests of Personality
(Values)a

Partial Correlation Coefficient^

F ratio0

Religious

.00109

.000

Political

.07301

.761

Social

-.03367

.161

Aesthetic

-.02112

.063

.04192

.250

-.03767

.202

Economic
Theoretical

The six basic interests of personality (values) of the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
^The degree of variance for driving record which can be explained by
each of the six basic interests of personality (values) when age and marital
status are held constant.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

TABLE 8.— Partial correlation coefficients between each of the basic interests of
personality (values) and driving record of male subjects when age and marital
status are partialed out (n = 106).
Basic Interests of Personality
(Values)a

Partial Correlation Coefficient

F ratio*3

Religious

.00882

.008

Political

-.11941

1.475

Social

.14280

2.123

Aesthetic

.11286

1.316

-.16877

2.990

.02318

.055

Economic
Theoretical
£

The six basic interests of personality (values) of the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
3d
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

significantly different from zero at the .01 level of
significance.
Tables 7 and 8, pages 65 and 66 show the results
when the subjects were divided by sex into groups of 146
women drivers and 10 6 men drivers.

The partial correla­

tion coefficient between driving record and the basic
interest of personality, economic value, as determined by
the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, with age and
marital status partialed out, was not significantly dif­
ferent from zero at the .01 level of significance, there­
fore the null hypothesis was not rejected.
Hypothesis 3 ; The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including the
basic interest of personality, political value,
with the factors of age, sex, and marital status.
Table 6, page 64 shows the partial correlation
coefficient between driving record and the basic interest
of personality, political value, as determined by the
Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, with age, marital
status, and sex partialed out for the 252 subjects, was
not significantly different from zero at the .01 level of
significance.
Tables 7 and 8, pages 65 and 66 show the results
when the subjects were divided by sex into groups of 146
women drivers and 106 men drivers.

The partial correla­

tion coefficient between driving record and the basic
interest of personality, political value, as determined by
the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, with age and

marital status partialed out, was not significantly differ­
ent from zero at the .01 level of significance, therefore
the null hypothesis was not rejected.
Hypothesis 4 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including the
basic interest of personality, social value, with
the factors of age, sex, and marital status.
Table 6, page 64 shows the partial correlation
coefficient between driving record and the basic interest
of personality, social value, as determined by the AllportVernon-Lindzey Study of Values, with age, sex, and marital
status partialed out for the 252 subjects, was not signifi­
cantly different from zero at the .01 level of significance.
Tables 7 and 8, pages 65 and 66 show the results
when the subjects were divided by sex into groups of 146
women drivers and 106 men drivers.

The partial correlation

coefficient between driving record and the basic interest
of personality, social value, as determined by the AllportVernon-Lindzey Study of Values, with age and marital status
partialed out, was not significantly different from zero
at the .01 level of significance, therefore the null hypo­
thesis was not rejected.
Hypothesis 5 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including the
basic interest of personality, aesthetic value,
with the factors of age, sex, and marital status.
Tables 6, page 64 shows the partial correlation
coefficient between driving record and the basic interest
of personality, aesthetic value, as determined by the

Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, with age, sex, and
marital status partialed out for the 252 subjects was not
significantly different from zero at the .01 level of
significance.
Tables 7 and 8, pages 65 and 66 show the results
when the subjects were divided by sex into groups of 146
women drivers and 10 6 men drivers.

The partial correlation

coefficient between driving record and the basic interest
of personality, aesthetic value, as determined by the
Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, with age and mari­
tal status partialed out, was not significantly different
from zero at the .01 level of significance, therefore the
null hypothesis was not rejected.
Hypothesis 6 : The prediction of driving record
is not significantly improved by including the
basic interest of personality, theoretical value,
with the factors of age, sex, and marital status.
Table 6, page 64 shows the partial correlation
coefficient between driving record and the basic interest
of personality, theoretical value, as determined by the
Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, with age, sex, and
marital status partialed out for the 252 subjects was not
significantly different from zero at the .01 level of
significance.
Tables 7 and 8, pages 65 and 66 show the results
when the subjects were divided by sex into groups of 146
women drivers and 106 men drivers.

The partial correla­

tion coefficient between driving record and the basic

interest of personality, theoretical value, as determined
by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, with age
and marital status partialed out, was not significantly
different from zero at the .01 level of significance,
therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected.
Subhypotheses
The planned comparisons method for analysis of
variance was performed for each of the six interests of
personality (values) to determine if there were significant
differences between categories of drivers when grouped as
follows:

no accident/no violation, violation/no accident,

no violation/accident, and accident/violation.

The total

number of comparisons that may be tested by means of
planned comparisons within the framework of an analysis of
variance design is restricted to the number of degrees of
freedom between groups.

In this design three comparisons

could be made, the appropriate comparisons being restricted
to orthogonal contrasts.

The driving record categories

analyzed by planned comparisons were:
1.
2.
3.

no accident/no violation and accident/violation
no accident/violation and accident/no violation
no accident/no violation, accident/violation
and no accident/violation, accident/no viola­
tion .

Of the three analysis of variance comparisons which
were statistically possible to perform, two were meaningful
and interpretive in light of the stated subhypotheses.

The

comparison between the category of no accident/no violation

and the category of accident/violation was orthogonal, and
gave a comparison of two extreme driving record categories;
viz., those subjects with both accidents and violation
convictions, and those subjects with neither accidents or
violation convictions.

Also, the comparison between the

category of no accident/violation and the category of
accident/no violation was orthogonal, and gave a comparison
of two different driving record categories; viz., those
subjects having been involved in accidents but had not
received any violation convictions on their driving record,
and those subjects with violation convictions on their
driving record but having not been involved in any recorded
accidents.
The third orthogonal comparison consisted of two
combined categories and the other two categories combined.
The combinations were the categories of no accident/no
violation plus accident/violation and the categories of
no accident/violation plus accident/no violation.

It was

concluded that the comparison of the extreme driving record
categories combined with the two categories of accident/
no violation and no accident/violation combined could not
be interpreted in light of the six subhypotheses.
For the six subhypotheses, the 252 subjects were
grouped into the following categories:
a.
b.
c.
d.

no accident/no violation, with 64 subjects
no accident/violation, with 54 subjects
accident/no violation, with 77 subjects
accident/violation, with 57 subjects.

72
In addition, the 252 subjects were divided into dichotomous
groups of male and female drivers, with the male subjects
grouped into the following categories:
a.
b.
c.
d.

no accident/no violation, with 22 subjects
no accident/violation, with 25 subjects
accident/no violation, with 36 subjects
accident/violation, with22 subjects

and the female subjects grouped

into the following cate­

gories :
a.
b.
c.
d.

no accident/no violation, with 42 subjects
no accident/violation, with 29 subjects
accident/no violation, with 21 subjects
accident/violation, with35 subjects.

Subhypothesis 1 ; There is no significantdiffer­
ence between drivers with respect to the basic
interest of personality, religious values, as
measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values when individuals are grouped into the four
driving record categories.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, religious value, and the driving
record of the 252 subjects classified into the four driving
categories appear in Table 9.

There was no significant

difference between the categories of no accident/no viola­
tion and accident/violation at the .01 level of signifi­
cance for the basic interest of personality, religious
value.

Also, there was no significant difference between

the categories of no accident/violation and accident/no
violation at the .01 level of significance for the basic
interest of personality, religious value.

Although no

significance was indicated at the chosen .01 level of
significance, the comparison of no accident/violation and

TABLE 9.— The relationship of religious values to the driving record of 252
subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 252).
Driver Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

476.163

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

1.290
397.791
77.082

Within Categories

22395.082

Degrees of Freedom

Mean Squares

„
,. b
F ratio

3
1
1
1
248

1.290
397.791
77.082

.014
4.440

90.3037

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accicent/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

accident/no violation categories of driving record was
significant at the .05 level of significance.

This coin­

cides with Conger and Rainey1s findings that religious
values were a predictive factor of driving record.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, religious value, and the driving
record of the male subjects classified into the four driv­
ing categories appear in Table 10.

There was no signifi­

cant difference between the categories of no accident/no
violation and accident/violation at the .01 level of
significance for the basic interest of personality,
religious value.

Also, there was no significant differ­

ence between the categories of no accident/violation and
accident/no violation at the .01 level of significance for
the basic interest of personality, religious value.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, religious value, and the driving
record of the female subjects classified into the four
driving categories appear in Table 11.

There was no

significant difference between the categories of no acci­
dent/no violation and accident/violation at the .01 level
of significance for the basic interest of personality,
religious value.

Also, there was no significant differ­

ence between the categories of no accident/violation and
accident/no violation at the .01 level of significance for

TABLE 10.— The relationship of religious values to the driving record of 106 male
subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 106).
Driver Record
Categories

Siam of
Squares

Between Categories

195.0739

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

3.842
188.062
7.425

Within Categories

9967.1902

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio*5

65.0246
1
1
1

102

Mean Squares

3.842
188.062
7.425

.039
1.925

97.7176

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
aBasic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

ci

TABLE 11.— The relationship of religious values to the driving record of 146
female subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 146).
Driver Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

352.4179

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

1.611
20.238
112.873

Within Categories

11827.8629

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio*3

117.4726
1
1
1

142

Mean Squares

1.611
20.238
112.873

.019
.243

83.295

1 - Comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation/ accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance/ the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

the basic interest of personality, religious value, there­
fore the null hypothesis was not rejected.
Subhypothesis 2 ; There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to the basic
interest of personality, political value, as
measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values when individuals are grouped into the four
driving record categories.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, political value, and the driving
record of the 252 subjects classified into the four driv­
ing categories appear in Table 12.

There was no signifi­

cant difference between the categories of no accident/no
violation and accident/violation at the .01 level of
significance for the basic interest of personality, politi­
cal value.

Also, there was no significant difference be­

tween the categories of no accident/violation and accident/
no violation at the .01 level of significance for the basic
interest of personality, political value.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, political value, and the driving
record of the male subjects classified into the four driv­
ing categories appear in Table 13.

There was no signifi­

cant difference between the categories of no accident/no
violation and accident/violation at the .01 level of
significance for the basic interest of personality, politi­
cal value.

Also, there was no significant difference be­

tween the categories of no accident/violation and

cl

i

TABLE 12.— The relationship of political values to the driving record of 252
subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 252).
Driver Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

476.163

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

51.562
61.476
416.388

Within Categories

11272.605

Degrees of Freedom

Mean Squares

F ratio^

3
1
1
1
248

51.562
61.476
416.388

1.13
1.35

45.454

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
aBasic interest of Personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

TABLE 13.— The relationship of political values to the driving record of 106 male
subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 106).
Driver Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

162.5759

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

121.120
30.034
6.764

Within Categories

5189.0184

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio*3

54.1920
1
1
1

102

Mean Squares

121.120
30.034
6.764

2.381
.590

50.8727

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
aBasic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

accident/no violation at the .01 level of significance for
the basic interest of personality, political value.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, political value, and the driving
record of the female subjects classified into the four
driving record categories appear in Table 14.

There was

no significant difference between the categories of no
accident/no violation and accident/violation at the .01
level of significance for the basic interest of personal­
ity, political value.

Also, there was no significant

difference between the categories of no accident/violation
and accident/no violation at the .01 level of significance
for the basic interest of personality, political value,
therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected.
Subhypothesis 3 : There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to the basic
interest of personality, social value, as measured
by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values when
individuals are grouped into the four driving
record categories.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, social value, and the driving
record of the 252 subjects classified into the four driving
categories appear in Table 15.

There was no significant

difference between the categories of no accident/no viola­
tion and accident/violation at the .01 level of signifi­
cance for the basic interest of personality, social value.
Also, there was no significant difference between the cate­
gories of no accident/violation and accident/no violation

TABLE 14.— The relationship of political valuesa to the driving record of 14 6
female subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 146).
Driver Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

441.8206

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

5.143
27.355
386.206

Within Categories

4917.6383

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio*3

147.2735
1
1
1

142

Mean Squares

5.143
27.355
386.206

.149
.790

34.631

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

cl

TABLE 15.--The relationship of social values to the driving record of 252 sub­
jects classified into four driving record categories (n = 252).
Driver Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

365.995

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

66.645
28.150
271.200

Within Categories

15124.500

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio

122.000
1
1
1

248

Mean Squares

66.645
28.150
271.200

1.09
.46

60.986

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
3d

To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

at the .01 level of significance for the basic interest of
personality, the social value.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, social value, and the driving
record of the male subjects classified into the four driv­
ing record categories appear in Table 16.

There was no

significant difference between the categories of no acci­
dent/no violation and accident/violation at the .01 level
of significance for the basic interest of personality,
social value.

Also, there was no significant difference

between the categories of no accident/violation and acci­
dent/no violation at the .01 level of significance for the
basic interest of personality, social value.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, social value, and the driving
record of the female subjects classified into the four
driving record categories appear in Table 17.

There was

no significant difference between the categories of no
accident/no violation and accident/violation at the .01
level of significance for the basic interest of personal­
ity, social value.

Also, there was no significant differ­

ence between the categories of no accident/violation and
accident/no violation at the .01 level of significance for
the basic interest of personality, social value, therefore
the null hypothesis was not rejected.

TABLE 16.— The relationship of social valuesa to the driving record of 106 male
subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 106).
Driving Record
Categories

Slim of
Squares

Between Categories

137.1755

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

121.120
10.434
23.449

Within Categories

7147.3622

Degrees of Freedom

F ratio'*3

45.7252

3
1
1
1
102

Mean Squares

121.120
10.434
23.449

1.729
.149

70.0722

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
to

To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

TABLE 17.— The relationship of social values to the driving record of 146
female subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 146).
Driving Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

320.7702

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

13.108
97.353
183.092

Within Categories

6353.8942

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio*3

106.9234
1
1
1

142

Mean Squares

13.108
97.353
183.092

.293
2.176

44.746

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
aBasic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
3d
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

Subhypothesis 4 : There is no significane differ­
ence between drivers with respect to the basic
interest of personality, aesthetic value, as
measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values when individuals are grouped into the four
driving record categories.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, aesthetic value, and the driving
record of the 252 subjects classified into the four driv­
ing categories appear in Table 18.

There was no signifi­

cant difference between the categories of no accident/no
violation and accident/violation at the .01 level of
significance on the basic interest of personality, aesthe­
tic value.

Also, there was no significant difference

between the categories of no accident/violation and acci­
dent/no violation at the .01 level of significance for the
basic interest of personality, aesthetic value.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, aesthetic value, and the driving
record of the male subjects classified into the four driv­
ing record categories appear in Table 19.

There was no

significant difference between the categories of no acci­
dent/no violation and accident/violation at the .01 level
of significance for the basic interest of personality,
aesthetic value.

Also, there was no significant differ­

ence between the categories of no accident/violation and
accident/no violation at the .01 level of significance for
the basic interest of personality, aesthetic value.

TABLE 18.— The relationship of aesthetic values3 to the driving record of 252
subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 252).
Driving Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

243.270

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

147.645
95.500
.125

Within Categories

16098.620

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio*5

81.090
1
1
1

248

Mean Squares

147.645
95.500
.125

2.270
1.470

64.910

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

£

TABLE 19.— The relationship of aesthetic values to the driving record of 106 male
subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 106).
Driving Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

354.8420

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

250.591
80.575
34.314

Within Categories

5415.2806

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio

118.2807
1
1
1

102

Mean Squares

250.591
80.575
34.314

4.720
1.518

53.0910

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
aBasic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLind2ey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

Although no significance was indicated at the chosen .01
level of significance, the comparison of no accident/no
violation and accident/violation driving record categories
for male subjects was significant at the .05 level of
significance.

This coincides also with Conger and Rainey's

findings that aesthetic values were a predictive factor of
driving record.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, aesthetic value, and the driving
record of the female subjects classified into the four
driving record categories appear in Table 20.

There was no

significant difference between the categories of no acci­
dent/no violation and accident/violation at the .01 level
of significance for the basic interest of personality,
aesthetic value.

Also, there was no significant differ­

ence between the categories of no accident/violation and
accident/no violation at the .01 level of significance for
the basic interest of personality, aesthetic value, there­
fore the null hypothesis was not rejected.
Subhypothesis 5 : There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to the basic
interest of personality,, economic value, as
measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values when individuals are grouped into the four
driving record categories.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, economic value, and the driving
record of the 252 subjects classified into the four driving
record categories appear in Table 21.

There was no

ci

TABLE 20.— The relationship of aesthetic values to the driving record of 14 6
female subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 146).
Driving Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

168.3316

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

15.464
31.874
100.973

Within Categories

9548.1410

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio*3

56.1105
1
1
1

142

Mean Squares

15.464
31.874
100.973

.230
.474

67.240

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

TABLE 21.— The relationship of economic values to the driving record of 252
subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 252).
Driving Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

119.20

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

107.38
8.34
3.49

Within Categories

117404.86

Degrees of Freedom

F ratio*5

39 .73

3
1
1
1
248

Mean Squares

107.38
8.34
3.49

1.53
.12

70.18

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
cl

Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

significant difference between the categories of no acci­
dent/no violation and accident/violation at the .01 level
of significance for the basic interest of personality,
economic value.

Also, there was no significant difference

between the categories of no accident/violation and acci­
dent/no violation at the .01 level of significance for the
basic interest of personality, economic value.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, economic value, and the driving
record of the male subjects classified into the four driv­
ing record categories appear in Table 22.

There was no

significant difference between the categories of no acci­
dent/no violation and accident/violation at the .01 level
of significance for the basic interest of personality,
economic value.

Also, there was no significant difference

between the categories of no accident/violation and acci­
dent/no violation at the .01 level of significance for the
basic interest of personality, economic value.

Although

no significance was indicated at the chosen .01 level of
significance, the comparison of no accident/no violation
and accident/violation driving record categories for male
subjects was significant at the .05 level of significance.
This coincides also with Conger and Rainey's findings that
economic values were a predictive factor of driving record.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, economic value, and the driving

TABLE 22.— The relationship of economic values cl to the driving record of 106 male
subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 106).
Driving Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

452.1647

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

378.240
22.760
58.778

Within Categories

Degrees of Freedom

3

102

F ratio^

150.7216
1
1
1

6309.4579

Mean Squares

378.240
22.760
58.778

6.115
.368

61.8574

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accicent/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
cl

»

Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

record of the female subjects classified into the four
driving record categories appear in Table 23.

There was

no significant difference between the categories of no
accident/no violation and accident/violation at the .01
level of significance for the basic interest of personal­
ity, economic value.

Also, there was no significant dif­

ference between the categories of no accident/violation
and accident/no violation at the .01 level of significance
for the basic interest of personality, economic value,
therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected.
Subhypothesis 6 ; There is no significant differ­
ence between drivers with respect to the basic
interest of personality, theoretical value, as
measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values when individuals are grouped into the
four driving record categories.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, theoretical value, and the driving
record of the 252 subjects classified into the four driv­
ing categories appear in Table 24.

There was no signifi­

cant difference between the categories of no accident/no
violation and accident/violation at the .01 level of
significance for the basic interest of personality, theo­
retical value.

Also, there was no significant difference

between the categories of no accident/violation and
accident/no violation at the .01 level of significance for
the basic interest of personality, theoretical value.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, theoretical value, and the driving

TABLE 23.— The relationship of economic values to the driving record of 146
female subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 146).
Driving Record
Categories
Between Categories
Comparison
1.
2.
3.
Within Categories

Sum of
Squares
128.6719

Degrees of Freedom

3

.998
65.521
83.289
9646.9514

F ratio*3

42.8906
1
1
1

142

Mean Squares

.998
65.521
83.289

.015
.964

67.936

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

cl

»

TABLE 24.--The relationship of theoretical values to the driving record of 252
subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 2 52).
Driving Record
Categories

Sum- of
Squares

Between Categories

20.281

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

.131
16.042
4.109

Within Categories

12129.630

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio^

6.760
1
1
1

248

Mean Squares

.1305
16.042
4.109

.003
.330

48.910

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
aBasic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

record of the male subjects classified into the four driv­
ing record categories appear in Table 25.

There was no

significant difference between the categories of no acci­
dent/no violation and accident/violation at the .01 level
of significance for the basic interest of personality,
theoretical value.

Also, there was no significant differ­

ence between the categories of no accident/violation and
accident/no violation at the .01 level of significance for
the basic interest of personality, theoretical value.
The results of the relationship of the basic
interest of personality, theoretical value, and the driv­
ing record of the female subjects classified into the
four driving record categories appear in Table 26.

There

was no significant difference between the categories of
no accident/no violation and accident/violation at the .01
level of significance for the basic interest of personal­
ity, theoretical value.

Also, there was no significant

difference between the categories of no accident/violation
and accident/no violation at the .01 level of significance
for the basic interest of personality, theoretical value,
therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected.
Summary of Findings
The following results are summarized from the
statistical analysis.
Age and sex showed a significant correlation with
driving record, i.e. accidents and violation convictions.

TABLE 25.— The relationship of theoretical values3 to the driving record of 106
male subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 106).
Driving Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

67.0492

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

48.096
.022
18.382

Within Categories

5021.2149

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio*5

22.3497
1
1
1

102

Mean Squares

48 .096
.022
18.382

.977
.000

49.2276

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

TABLE 26.— The relationship of theoretical valuesa to the driving record of 146
female subjects classified into four driving record categories (n = 146).
Driving Record
Categories

Sum of
Squares

Between Categories

73.4470

Comparison
1.
2.
3.

36.411
27.953
7. 879

Within Categories

6255.546

Degrees of Freedom

3

F ratio^

24.4823
1
1
1

142

Mean Squares

36.411
27.953
7.879

.827
.635

44.052

1 - comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/violation
2 - comparison of no accident/violation and accident/no violation
3 - comparison of no accident/no violation, accident/violation and
no accident/violation, accident/no violation
Basic interest of personality as determined by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values.
To be significant at the .01 level of significance, the F ratio must
be 6.8 or larger.

Because the age variable in respect to driving record is
of a curvilinear nature, age was squared and also entered
for each subject.

By forming a quadratic equation, the age

variable was transformed to a linear quantity.

Accidents

and violation convictions decreased as age increased.

As

expected, accidents and violation convictions were higher
for males than females.

However, in this study marital

status did not show a significant correlation with driving
record.
The prediction of driving record for the 252 sub­
jects was not significantly improved by the addition of
the basic interest of personality, religious value, to the
factors of age, sex, and marital status.
were divided

by

When the subjects

sex into dichotomous groups of men and

women drivers, the prediction of driving record was not
significantly improved by the addition of the basic inter­
est of personality, religious value, to the factors of age
and marital status.
The prediction of driving record for the 252 sub­
jects was not significantly improved by the addition of
the basic interest of personality, political value, to the
factors of age, sex, and marital status.

When the subjects

were divided by sex into dichotomous groups of men and
women drivers, the prediction of driving record was not
significantly improved by the addition of the basic

interest of personality, political value, to the factors
of age and marital status.
The prediction of driving record for the 252 sub­
jects was not significantly improved by the addition of
the basic interest of personality, social value, to the
factors of age, sex, and marital status.

When the sub­

jects were divided by sex into dichotomous groups of men
and women drivers, the prediction of driving record was
not significantly improved by the addition of the basic
interest of personality, social value, to the factors of
age and marital status.
The prediction of driving record for the 252 sub­
jects was not significantly improved by the addition of
the basic interest of personality, aesthetic value, to the
factors of age, sex, and marital status.

When the subjects

were divided by sex into dichotomous groups of men and
women drivers, the prediction of driving record was not
significantly improved by the addition of the basic
interest of personality, aesthetic value, to the factors
of age and marital status.
The prediction of driving record for the 252 sub­
jects was not significantly improved by the addition of
the basic interest of personality, economic value, to the
factors of age, sex, and marital status.

When the subjects

were divided by sex into dichotomous groups of men and
women drivers, the prediction of driving record was not

significantly improved by the addition of the basic
interest of personality, economic value, to the factors of
age and marital status.
The prediction of driving record for the 252 sub­
jects was not significantly improved by the addition of
the basic interest of personality, theoretical value, to
the factors of age, sex, and marital status.

When the

subjects were divided by sex into dichotomous groups of
men and women drivers, the prediction of driving record
was not significantly improved by the addition of the
basic interest of personality, theoretical value, to the
factors of age and marital status.
When the 252 subjects were grouped into categories
of no accident/no violation, no accident/violation, acci­
dent/no violation, and accident/violation there was no
significant difference at the .01 level of significance for
the basic interest of personality, religious value, when
compared as follows:
1.
2.

no accident/no violation and accident/violation
no accident/violation and accident/no violation.

Comparison of the same categories with only male
subjects indicated no significant difference at the .01
level of significance for the basic interest of personality,
religious value.

Similar comparisons with female subjects

indicated no significant difference at the .01 level of
significance for the basic interest of personality,
religious value.

When the 252 subjects were grouped into categories
of no accident/no violation, no accident/violation, acci­
dent/no violation, and accident/violation there was no
significant difference at the .01 level of significance
for the basic interest of personality, political value,
when compared as follows:
1.
2.

no accident/no violation and accident/violation
no accident/violation and accident/no violation

Comparison of the same categories with only male subjects
indicated no significant difference at the .01 level of
significance for the basic interest of personality, politi­
cal value.

Similar comparisons with female subjects indi­

cated no significant difference at the .01 level of signif­
icance for the basic interest of personality, political
value.
When the 252 subjects were grouped into categories
of no accident/no violation, no accident/violation, acci­
dent/no violation, and accident/violation there was no
significant difference at the .01 level of significance
for the basic interest of personality, social value, when
compared as follows:
1.
2.

no accident/no violation and accident/violation
no accident/violation and accident/no violation,

Comparison of the same categories with only male subjects
indicated no significant difference at the .01 level of
significance for the basic interest of personality, social
value.

Similar comparisons with female subjects indicated

no significant difference at the .01 level of significance
for the basic interest of personality, social value.
When the 252 subjects were grouped into categories
of no accident/no violation, no accident/violation, acci­
dent/no violation, and accident/violation there was no
significant difference at the .01 level of significance
for the basic interest of personality, aesthetic value,
when compared as follows:
1.
2.

no accident/no violation and accident/violation
no accident/violation and accident/no violation

Comparison of the same categories with only male subjects
indicated no significant difference

at the .01 level of

significance for the basic interest of personality, aesthe­
tic value.

Similar comparisons with female subjects indi­

cated no significant difference at the .01 level of
significance for the basic interest of personality, aesthe­
tic value.
When the 252 subjects were grouped into categories
of no accident/no violation, no accident/violation, acci­
dent/no violation, and accident/violation there was no
significant difference at the .01 level of significance for
the basic interest of personality, economic value, when
compared as follows:
1.
2.

no accident/no violation and accident/violation
no accident/violation and accident/no violation,

Comparison of the same categories with only male subjects
indicated no significant difference at the .01 level of

significance for the basic interest of personality, eco­
nomic value.

Similar comparisons with female subjects

indicated no significant difference at the .01 level of
significance for the basic interest of personality, eco­
nomic value.
When the 252 subjects were grouped into categories
of no accident/no violation, accident/no violation, and
accident/violation there was no significant difference at
the .01 level of significance for the basic interest of
personality, theoretical value, when compared as follows:
1.
2.

no accident/no violation and accident/violation
no accident/violation and accident/no violation.

Comparison of the same categories with only male subjects
indicated no significant difference at the .01 level of
significance for the basic interest of personality, theo­
retical value.

Similar comparisons with female subjects

indicated no significant difference at the .01 level of
significance for the basic interest of personality, theo­
retical value.
The mean scores in each of the driving record cate­
gories for the six basic interests of personality (values)
for all subjects is found in Appendix B.

The mean scores

for each of the driving record categories for the six basic
interests of personality (values) for male subjects is
found in Appendix C and for female subjects in Appendix D.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study investigated the relationship between
the basic interests of personality (i.e., religious, polit­
ical, social, aesthetic, economic, and theoretical values)
as determined by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values, and the driving records of a randomly selected
group of Michigan drivers.

The relationship was investi­

gated with the variables of age, sex, and .marital status
held constant.
Also investigated was the relationship of the basic
interests of personality (values) to the driving records of
a randomly selected group of Michigan drivers when clas­
sified into four driving record categories; no accident/
no violation, no accident/violation, accident/no violation,
and accident/violation.
A total of 252 male and female drivers randomly
selected from the files of the Driver Services Division
of the Michigan Department of State served as subjects for
the study.

Reported accidents and violation convictions

for the immediate past three years were obtained from the
106

files, while quantitative scores for each of the six basic
interests of personality (values) were obtained by a mailout form of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values.
The data was analyzed statistically to determine
the differences among the factors being tested.

Correla­

tions between the factors of age, sex, and marital status
and driving record were determined.

In those cases where

the obtained correlation coefficient was large enough to
give an F ratio greater than the critical value of F at
the .01 level of significance, a significant correlation
was evident.
Partial correlations were computed to determine the
relationship of each of the six basic interests of per­
sonality (values) to driving record when age, sex, and
marital status are held constant.

For a basic interest of

personality (value) to predict driving record beyond the
ability of age, sex, and marital status, an F ratio greater
than the critical value of F at the .01 level of signifi­
cance was necessary.
The subjects were divided into dichotomous groups
of 106 male and 146 female drivers, and partial correla­
tions were computed to determine the relationship of each
of the six basic interests of personality (values) to
driving record when age and marital status are held con­
stant.

For a basic interest of personality (value) to

predict driving record beyond the ability of age and

marital status, an F ratio greater than the critical value
of F at the .01 level of significance was needed.
Subjects were divided into four driving record
categories:
a.
b.
c.
d.

subjects with driving records
or accidents;
subjects with driving records
but no accidents;
subjects with driving records
but no violations; and
subjects with driving records
dents and violations.

of no violations
of violations,
of accidents,
of both acci­

The investigation of the relationship between each of the
six basic interests of personality (values) of the subjects
in the category no accident/no violation and of the sub­
jects in the category accidents/violations was considered
to be of interest in this study.

Also of interest was the

relationship between each of the six basic interests of
personality (values) of the subjects in the category of
no accidents/violations, and of the subjects in the cate­
gory accidents/no violations.
The basic interest of personality (value) data was
summarized by one-way analysis of variance.

Comparisons

were then made between the driving record categories of
interest on the basic interest of personality (value).

A

computed F ratio greater than the critical value of F at
the .01 level of significance was considered to indicate a
significant relationship between driving record categories
for each basic interests of personality (values).

Subjects in each driving category were then divided
into dichotomous groups of male and female drivers.

An

investigation of the same relationship was made to deter­
mine if a significant relationship was indicated between
male subjects in the category accident/violation and the
male subjects in the category no accident/no violation for
each of the basic interests of personality (values).

Also,

if a significant relationship existed between male sub­
jects in the category no accident/violation and the cate­
gory no violation/accident for each of the basic interests
of personality (values).

The same investigations were per­

formed for female subjects.

A computed F ratio greater

than the critical value of F at the .01 level of signifi­
cance was considered to indicate a significant relationship
between the driving record categories.
The subjects in this study showed a close resemb­
lance to the national norms of the six basic interests of
personality (values) of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of
Values as established by the publisher, Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston.

These results are shown in Appendix F.
The Major Findings

Within the limitations of this study, the following
conclusions were made.
1.

It was hypothesized that:

The prediction of driving record is not signif­

icantly improved by including the basic interests of per­
sonality; religious, economic, political, aesthetic,

social, and theoretical values with the factors of age,
sex, and marital status.

The partial correlation coeffi­

cients obtained were not significant at the .01 level of
significance.

When subjects were divided into dichotomous

groups of male and female drivers, the partial correlation
coefficients obtained were not significant at the .01
level of significance, therefore the null hypothesis was
not rejected.
2.

There is no significant difference between

drivers with respect to the basic interests of personality;
religious, economic, political, aesthetic, social, and
theoretical values as measured by the Allport-VernonLindzey Study of Values when subjects are grouped as
follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.

no accident/no violation
no accident/violation
accident/no violation
accident/violation.

The relationship of the basic interests of per­
sonality; religious, economic, political, aesthetic,
social, and theoretical values to the driving record of
subjects when classified into the four driving record cate­
gories was not significant at the .01 level of signifi­
cance.

When subjects were divided into dichotomous groups

of male and female drivers, the relationship of the basic
interests of personality; religious, economic, political,
aesthetic, social, and theoretical values to the driving
record of male and female subjects when classified into

the four driving categories was not significant at the .01
level of significance, therefore the null hypothesis was
not rejected.
Although no significance was indicated at the
chosen .01 level of significance, the comparison of driv­
ing record categories no accident/violation and accident/
no violation was significant for religious values at the
.05 level of significance; the comparison of no accident/
no violation and accident/violation driving categories of
male drivers for the aesthetic value; and the comparison
of no accident/no violation and accident/violation driving
record categories of male drivers for the economic value.
This coincides with Conger and Rainey's findings that
these three values were predictive factors of driving
record.
Conclusions
Correlations
Correlations were computed and indicated a signifi­
cant relationship between the factors of age and sex with
driving record.

Accidents and violation conviction inci­

dence was significantly higher in this study for male sub­
jects than for the female subjects.

Because the age factor

in respect to driving record is of a curvilinear nature,
subjects' ages were squared to form a quadratic, trans­
forming the factor to a linear quantity.

For this study,

accident and violation conviction incidence decreased
significantly as age increased.
Correlations were computed between marital status
and driving record.

For this study, there was no signifi­

cant relationship between marital status and driving record.
Partial Correlations
Partial correlations computed between each of the
six basic interests of personality (values) and driving
record with the factors of age, sex, and marital status
held constant indicated there was no significant relation­
ship for this study.

The prediction of driving record by

the factors of age, sex, and marital status was not signif­
icantly improved by the addition of any of the six basic
interests of personality (values).
The subjects were divided into dichotomous groups
of male and female subjects.

Partial correlations com­

puted between each of the six basic interests of personal­
ity (values) and driving record with the factors of age and
marital status held constant indicated there was no signif­
icant relationship for this study.

With subjects divided

into male and female groups, the prediction of driving
record by the factors of age and marital status was not
significantly improved by the addition of any of the six
basic interests of personality (values).

Planned Comparisons
The relationship of each of the six basic interests
of personality (values) to the driving record of subjects
in this study when classified into four driving record
categories indicated no significance.
Subjects were divided into dichotomous groups of
male and female drivers within the four driving record
categories.

The relationship of each of the six basic

interests of personality (values) to the driving record of
subjects indicated no significance.
Previous studies^" have reported three of the basic
interests of personality (i.e., economic, aesthetic,
religious values) were able to significantly predict driv­
ing record.

Eowever, in these studies the Allport-Vernon-

Lindzey Study of Values was only one of several instruments
used with the same group of subjects and driving record
data.

When several measures are employed, the possibility

of significance appearing in the analysis is increased by
chance factors alone.

The present study was conducted with

a single instrument composed of six measures of basic
interests of personality (values).

The tests of signifi­

cance were made at the .01 level of significance, or a
combined level of significance for the entire instrument
of .06, whereas previous studies had used .05 and .10
1
Conger, et al., "Personal and Interpersonal
Factors," p. 1072.

levels of significance.

This study by design attempted to

eliminate chance factors as much as statistically possible,
consequently no relationship could be found between any of
the basic interests of personality (values) and driving
record.
Recommendations for Further Research
On the basis of the findings from this study, it is
recommended that:
1.

A similar study be conducted, using the instru­

ment under a more controlled situation.

With the mail-out

form there is no assurance that instructions are being
followed and that responses are strictly those of the sub­
ject.
2.

A similar study be conducted using an instru­

ment other than the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values.
A paper and pencil test obtains only what people say they
value, as Raths
actually value.

2

points out, not necessarily what they
Rokeach

3

recommends a more extensive

measurement of value than what the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values is capable of measuring.

2

Louis E. Raths, et al., Values and Teaching:
Working with Values in the Classroom (Columbus: Charles
E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1966), p. 205.
JRokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values,
pp. 124-150.

3.

A more extensive study be conducted over a

period of time.

Values have a tendency to change,^ and

this change with its relationship to differences in driving
record might be more revealing.
4.

A study be conducted correlating attitude,

motivation, and personality factors testing procedures
with the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values and the
Sixteen P. F. Test for personality factors, or the Mann
Inventory, which has proven highly reliable in predicting
violation incidence.
Discussion
Three of the six basic interests of personality
(values) of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values
are closely allied with several of the attitudes which
many traffic safety experts consider conducive to safe and
efficient driving.

Specifically, the religious, social,

and theoretical values indicate a tendency of an indi­
vidual to be concerned with matters above and beyond his
own immediate needs.

Such an individual places concern for

truth, honesty, and the welfare of his fellowman above his
own personal concerns.

It seems feasible that these same

values would influence an individual's attitudes and sub­
sequent actions as a driver, a driver who is conscious of
4

I. E. Bender, "Changes in Religious Interest: A
Retest after Fifteen Years," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, LVII (1958), 41-46.

and concerned with the welfare of others on the public
highways and streets.

By contrast the remaining three

basic interests of personality (values); political, eco­
nomic, and aesthetic values indicate a tendency to be ego­
tistical, concerned with self-fulfillment, and interested
in personal power, even at the expense of others.

A fair

assumption might be that an individual with such value
systems would have very little concern for other highway
users, and consequently he could be involved in traffic
law violations and motor vehicle accidents.

Driving be­

havior is simply an extension of one's attitude toward
others, and value standards determine this attitude.
Much of the literature reviewed in this study
stressed the point that values are responsible for atti­
tudes, and ultimately for individual behavior.

Bishop

submits that there is strong support for the notion that
values must be added to the list of possible explanations
. .
.
.
5
for people driving differently m similar circumstances.
There was no significant relationship between basic
interests of personality (values) and driving record as
measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values in
this study.

However, this does not necessarily mean that

5Automotive Safety Foundation, A Resource Curriculum in Driver and Traffic Safety Education (Washington:
1970), p. 149.

£

values and driving behavior are not related.

Rokeach

states that values are a very subtle element in an indivrdual's personality.

Raths

7

adds that attitudes are

difficult to discover, and more difficult yet to guanitate
A paper and pencil test such as the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey
Study of Values may not accurately discover an individual'
value system.

Such obtained data does not prove that

people live by the value systems they designate.

Actually

they give only verbal reports of what people say they
believe; it is indeed probable that many individuals be­
have in ways quite in conflict with their verbal reports.
As values determine attitude, an individual's value sys­
tem, though difficult to determine, seems to have much to
do with his attitudes and subsequent behavior.
The other measurement used in this study was the
state driving records of the various subjects.

These

records served as a criterion of driving ability.

Evi­

dence is being accumulated showing that such records are
not a valid indicator of driving ability.

If and when a

more valid and reliable measure of driving ability is
developed, a comparison with drivers' value systems and
such a criterion may show some significant results.
Most of the literature on values supports the fact
that values are not constant, that they change with age.
^Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values, p. 160.
7

Raths, Values and Teaching, p. 27.

It might prove worthwhile for traffic safety personnel,
and particularly educators, to consider the value system
of the particular age group with which they are currently
working.

The value systems of adolescence is in a con­

stant state of flux.

In education, the opportunity is

present to help youngsters develop values that are con­
ducive to safe driving.

If such values are accepted by

the youngster, it would seem that proper attitudes and
acceptable driving behavior will follow.
The emphasis on values appears to be a worthwhile
concentration.

Research has shown that values seem to be

a more dynamic concept than are attitudes.

Both attitudes

and values are recognized as determinants of social be­
havior, but values are determinants of attitudes as well
g

as of behavior.

As Rokeach

with modes of conduct.

points out, values have to do

Driving behavior is simply a

"mode of conduct," an extension of one's attitudes, and
values determine this attitude.
In this study marital status was not found to be
a predictive factor of driving record at the .01 level of
significance.

This finding appears contrary to the

several studies reviewed which showed marital status to be
significantly related to driving record.

However, though

g

Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values, p. 164.

not at the chosen level of .01, marital status in this
study was significant at the .10 level of significance.
A possible explanation why marital status was not
significant at the .01 level of significance for this study
may be the age factor.

The studies reporting marital

status as a significant factor in driving record stated
that the predicting ability of marital status becomes pro­
gressively less significant after age 25 for accident
involvement, and after age 20 for violation incidence.

The

average age of the single drivers in this study was 32.2
years, only slightly less than the over-all study average
age of 38.7 years.

The fact that the average age for

single drivers in this study was greater than the subjects
in the reported literature may be the reason for the dif­
ference in the significance levels for marital status.
Although no significance was indicated at the
chosen .01 level of significance, the comparison of driv­
ing record categories no accident/violation and accident/
no violation was significant for religious values at the
.05 level of significance, the comparison of no accident/
no violation and accident/violation driving record cate­
gories of male drivers for the aesthetic value, and the
comparison of no accident/no violation and accident/
violation driving record categories of male drivers for the
economic value.

This coincides with Conger and Rainey's

findings that these three values were predictive factors
of driving record.
The fact that this study did not indicate any
significant relationship between basic interests of per­
sonality (values) and driving record might be an indica­
tion that drivers fail to recognize a relationship between
their driving style and their value system.

We find the

phenomenon existing where individuals in an outstanding
profession, and claiming to be altruistically concerned
about society, have very poor driving records.

Studies

have indicated that protestant ministers as a group have
a poor driving record, yet their calling as a profession
tends to be associated with social, theoretical, and
religious values.

Other similar inconsistencies would

lead to speculation that many drivers do not recognize
the connection between their avowed values and their con­
duct on the highway.

It might be that traffic safety

people have failed to inform drivers of this relationship,
and have not utilized the values people have to improve
driving behavior.
Perhaps a more positive approach relating driving
to values, as opposed to the negative approach of conse­
quences as the result of improper driving habits, could
be utilized.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Automotive Safety Foundation. A Resource Curriculum in
Driver and Traffic Safety Education. Washinqton:
1970.
Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics.
Hill, 1960.

New York:

McGraw-

Brody, Leon, and Stack, Herbert. Highway Safety and Driver
Education. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1954.
Conger, John, and Miller, Wilbur. Personality, Social
Class, and Delinquency. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1966.
DeSilva, Harry. Why We Have Automobile Accidents.
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1942.

New

Duke University. Perception and Personality: A Sym­
posium.
1950.
Hays, William L. Statistics. New York:
and Winston, Inc., 1963.

Holt, Rinehart

Le Bren-Francis, Brian. Do You See What I See?
York: Vantage Press, 1966.

New

McFarland, Ross A . , and Mosely, Alfred L. Human Factors
in Highway Transportation Safety. Boston:
Harvard School of Public Health, 1954.
Mehrens, William A., and Lehman, Irwin J. Standardized
Tests in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, Inc,,, 1969.
•Raths, Louis E . , et al. Values and Teaching: Working
with Values in the Classroom. Columbus: Charles
E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1966.
Rokeach, Milton. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values.
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1968.

122

San

Schulzinger, Morris S. The Accident Syndrome.
field: Charles C. Thomas, 1956.
Spranger, Eduard. Types of Men.
J. W. Pigors. New York:

Spring­

Translated by Paul
Stechert Hafner, 1928.

Stagner, Ross. Psychology of Personality.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1948.

New York:

Periodicals
Allport, G. W . , and Vernon, P. E. "A Test for Personal
Values." The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, XXVI (October-December, 19 31), 231246.
Barrett, Gerald V., and Thornton, Carl L. "Relationship
Between Perceptual Style and Driver Reaction to
an Emergency Situation." Journal of Applied Psy­
chology, LII (1968), 169-176.
Beamish, J. J . , and Malfetti, J. L. "A Psychological
Comparison of Violator and Non-violator Automobile
Drivers in the 16 to 19 Year Age Group." Traffic
Safety Research Review (1962), 12-15.
Bender, I. E.
"Changes in Religious Interest: A Retest
After Fifteen Years." Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, LVII (1958), 41-46.
Burg, Albert.
"The Stability of Driving Record Over
Time." Accident Analysis and Prevention, II
(1970), 57-65.
Campbell, B. J. "Driver Age and Sex Related to Accident
Time and Type." Research Review, X (June, 1966),
36-40.
Cantrill, L. H., and Allport, G. W. "Recent Applications
of the Study of Values." Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, XXVIII (1933) , 261, 272.
Conger, John L. "Personality Factors in Motor Vehicle
Accidents." Medical Times (March, 1960), 281284.
Conger, John L . , et al. "Psychological and Psychophysiological Factors in Motor Vehicle Accidents."
Journal of the American Medical Association,
CLXIX (April, 1959), 1581-1586.
~

Conger, John L., et al. "Personal and Interpersonal
Factors in Motor Vehicle Accidents." American
Journal of Psychiatry, CXII (June, 1957), 10691074.
Dubin, Samuel S. "Emotions and Traffic Accidents— A
Psychologist Looks at the Problem of Highway
Safety." Traffic Safety Research Review, V
(June, 196171 4-9".
Duffy, Elizabeth.
"A Critical Review of Investigations
Employing the Allport-Vernon Study of Values and
Other Tests of Evaluative Attitude." Psychological Bulletin, XXXVII (1940), 597-612.
Edwards, Ward.
"Information Processing, Decision Making,
and Highway Safety." Driver Behavior, Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (1968) , 165-180.
"We Drive as We Live."

Analogy (Spring, 19 68)

21 - 2 2 .

Guilford, J. P., et al. "A Factor Analysis Study of
Human Interests." Psychological Monograph,
LXVIII, No. 375 (1954), 68.
Kelly, E. L. "Consistency of the Adult Personality."
American Psychologist, X (1955), 659-681.
Lauer, A. R. "Age and Sex in Relation to Accidents."
Highway Research Board Bulletin 60 (19 52), 135140.
Levonian, Edward.
"Prediction of Accidents and Convic­
tions." Traffic Safety Research Review, XI
(September, 1967), 75-79.
Levonian, Edward; Case, Harry; and Gregory, Raymond.
"Prediction of Recorded Accidents and Violations
Using Non-Driving Predictors." Highway Research
Record, IV (1963), 50-61.
McFarland, Ross A. "Health and Safety in Transportation.1
Public Health Reports, LXXIII, No. 8 (August,
1958), 68-73.
McGuire, Fredrick L. "An Outline for a New Approach to
the Problem of Highway Accidents." U.S. Armed
Forces Medical Journal, VIII, No. 8 (August,
1956), 1157-1165.

McGuire, Fredrick L. "Psychological Comparison of Auto­
mobile Drivers." U.S. Armed Forces Medical
Journal, VII, No. 8 (December, 1956), 1741-1748.
Moynihan, James F. "The Philosophical Aspects of Guid­
ance." Review of Educational Research, XXVII
(April, 1957), 185-190.
Peck, R. C.; Coppin, R. E.; and Marsh, W. C. "Driver
Record by Age, Sex, and Marital Status." Highway
Research Record, XI (September, 1967), 54-67, 163".
Pintner, R. A.
"A Comparison of Interests, Abilities and
Attitudes." The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, XXVII (1933), 351-357.
Rainey, Robert V . , -et al. "An Investigation of the Role
of Psychological Factors in Motor Vehicle Acci­
dents." Highway Research Board Bulletin 212
(1959), 11-15.
________ . "Personality Characteristics as a Selective
Factor in Driver Education." Highway Research
Bulletin 285 (1961), 13-18.
Riley, Raymond E., et al. "The Translation of Visual
Information into Vehicular Control Actions."
Biotechnology, Inc., Arlington, Virginia
(October," 1965) , 43-47 .
Schuster, D. H. "Prediction of Follow-up Driving Acci­
dents and Violations." Traffic Safety Research
Review, XII (March, 1968), 18-21.
Shaw, L.

"The Practical Use of Projective Personality
Tests as Accident Predictors." Traffic Safety
Research Review, IX (June, 1965), 69-72.

Swanson, Clifford; Schwenk, Lillian; and Lauer, A. R.
"Age and Fatal Motor Vehicle Accidents." High­
way Research Board Bulletin 212 (1959), 21-26.
Stanley, J. C. "Insight Into One's Own Values." Journal
of Educational Psychology, XXXXII (1951), 399408 .
Tillman, W. A., and Hobbs, G. E. "The Accident-Prone
Automobile Driver." American Journal of Psy­
chiatry, XVI (November, 1949), 321-333.

Turfboer, Robert.
"Do People Really Drive as They Live?"
Traffic Quarterly, XXI (January, 1967), 101-108.
Van Lennep, D. J. "Psychological Factors in Driving."
Traffic Quarterly, XI (1952), 483-498.
Whitely, P. L. "The Constancy of Personal Values." The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXXIII
(1938) , 405-408“
~
Studies
Coppin, Ronald, et al. "The 19 64 California Driver Record
Study: Part 5, Driving Record by Age, Sex, and
Marital Status." Report 20.
(June, 1965).
Heath, Earl D. "The Relationship Between Driving Records,
Selected Personality Characteristics, and Bio­
graphical Data of Traffic Offenders and NonOffenders." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
New York University, 19 58.
Little, Joseph W. Michigan Driver Profile.
University of Michigan, 19 68.

Ann Arbor:

Other Sources Consulted
American Medical Association Automotive Safety Symposium.
Washington, D.C. September 13 and 14, 19 68.
Bishop, Richard.
"A Theory of Driving Behavior."
Paper, Michigan State University, 19 67.

A

Bowles, Warren, and McGinnies, Elliott.
"Personal Values
as Determinants of Perceptual Fixation." Per­
ception and Personality: A Symposium, Duke Uni­
versity, 1950.
Brody, Leon.
"The Psychology of Problem Drivers."
Paper, Michigan State University, 19 65.

A

Bruner, Jerome, and Postman, Leo.
"Perception, Cognition,
and Behavior." Perception and Personality: A
Symposium, Duke University, 1950.
Brunswick, Leo.
"Remarks on Functionalism in Perception."
Perception and Personality: A Symposium, Duke
University, 1950.

Frankel, Rabbi Phillip.
Speech delivered during Law and
Morality Services at Central Methodist Church,
Lansing, Michigan. August 11, 1970.
Mann, William.
"Building Attitudes for Safety." A Pre­
sentation at the National Safety Congress, 1960.
Uhlaner, Julius E.
"Human Performance, Jobs, and Systems
Psychology." Address to the Division of Military
Psychology, American Psychological Association,
Miami, Florida.
September 6, 197 0.

APPENDICES

128

APPENDIX A
COVER LETTER

129

Basic Personality Interests Study
V o MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ROOM 7 0 , KELLOGG CENTER
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 4 8 8 2 3

We need your help.
We would

like to know, very simply,

how you might

react to

certain situations.
I'm sure you will

find the situations challenging and

interesting.

Actually,

those contained

not take over

20 minutes to complete;

in the enclosed booklet should

yet your

individual

reactions are

important to us.
Why have we selected you?
Our sample has been carefully selected;
are analyzed anonymously, we feel

yet, when all

returns

you can help us develop a complete

and accurate picture of basic personality

interests

for all

the people

of Michigan.
You will
All

not be required

responses must and will

is completely academic

to sign your name on

be kept completely confidential.

in nature and has no commercial

To make your few minutes more pleasant,

The study

implications.

the enclosed pen can

be used to fill

in the return booklet.

perhaps,

it can also help to make other personal

later,

the return form.

Please accept

it as a momento;
tasks equally

enjoyable.
You will
fill out

find the enclosed response booklet

if you keep the following

in mind:

130

rather easy to

. Responses do not call
your personal
preferences
. The

for right or wrong answers--only

preferences and the degree of those

to certain statements,

responses must be yours

-- please do not have anyone

help you.
. Instructions
Instructions

for Part

I are given on page 2 of the booklet.

for Part 2 are on page 7 when you reach that

po in t .
. Again,

do not spend too much

immediate reaction
. When completed,

is the

time on the form.

Your

important one.

simply return the booklet

in the enclosed,

postage paid envelope.
When you've completed
why your personal
your

individual
May

contribution can be most

reactions to make our

I offer our

study progresses,
contribution

the booklet,

you will

I'm sure you will

important —

understand

and why we need

study complete.

sincere appreciation for helping us.

As the

be contacted at a later date concerning your

to this project.
Sincerely,

Donald L.

Smith

BASIC PERSONALITY

September,
Enclosure

1970

INTEREST STUDY

APPENDIX B
MEAN SCORES IN EACH DRIVING CATEGORY FOR
THE SIX BASIC INTERESTS OF PERSONALITY
(VALUES) FOR ALL SUBJECTS

132

APPENDIX B.— Mean scores in each driving record category for the six basic interests
of personality (values) of all subjects (n = 252).

Driving Record
Category

Religious Political
3

Social

Aesthetic

Economic

Theoretical

A - no accident/
no violation

42.17

38.92

41.25

35.73

42.20

39.25

B - no accident/
violation

42.72

40.16

40.37

36.01

41.24

39.18

C - accident/
no violation

39.18

41.55

39.42

37.75

41.75

39.89

D - accident/
violation

41.96

37.61

42.73

37.94

40.31

39.31

APPENDIX C
MEAN SCORES IN EACH DRIVING CATEGORY FOR
THE SIX BASIC INTERESTS OF PERSONALITY
(VALUES) FOR MALE SUBJECTS

134

APPENDIX C.--Mean scores in each driving record category for the six basic interests
of personality (values) of male subjects (n = 106).

Driving Record
Category

Religious
3

Political

Social

AestheticEconomic

Theoretical

A - no accident/
no violation

37.73

43.45

36.54

32.90

45.86

40.90

B - no accident/
violation

41.76

41.60

37.24

32.96

45.08

41.12

C - accident./
no violation

38.18

43.02

38.08

35.29

43.83

41.08

D - accident/
violation

39.13

40.13

39.86

37.68

40.00

43.00

APPENDIX D
MEAN SCORES IN EACH DRIVING CATEGORY FOR
THE SIX BASIC INTERESTS OF PERSONALITY
(VALUES) OF FEMALE SUBJECTS

136

APPENDIX D.— Mean scores in each driving record category for the six basic interests
of personality (values) of female subjects (n = 146).

Driving Record
Category

Religious
^

Political

Social

AestheticEconomic

Theoretical

A - no accident/
no violation

43.45

36.54

43.71

37.21

40.28

38.38

B - no accident/
violation

43.55

38.93

43.06

38.65

37.93

37.51

C - accident/
no violation

40.10

40.20

40.67

40.02

39.82

38.80

D - accident/
violation

43.74

36.02

45.54

38.11

40.51

37.00

APPENDIX E
SUMMARY OF DATA

138

to
o
l
w
H-

P
tQ
H

CO

I-1
Ul

(— 1
if*

to

4*
tn

to
it*

it*

to
-4

4*
it*

to
00

139

I— 1
to

I-1
M

I— 1
o

to

-j

<Tv

ui

4*

to

to
Ul

to
00

Ul
4*

4*
o

it*
4*

to
Ui

to
to

to
cn

to
to

to
4*

it*
Ul

to
to

Ul
l-1

Ul
H 1

4*
H

lO
O

4*
H

to
to

it*
to

to
Ul

if*
to

to
Ul

to
00

to
o

to
4*

4*
tO

4*
<Ti

4*
4*

tO
tO

it*
it*

4*
-o

it*
-o

Ul
to

4*
to

Ul
4*

to
to

to
to

ui
Ui

ui
o

co
to

to
o

it*
M

it*
Ui

to
to

to
to

to
Ch

Ul
Ul

to
-o

to
to

(O
ui

Ui
oi

to
t-1

it*
00

if*
Ui

4*
to

4*
o

to
H

4*
to

to
to

4*
it*

o

o

o

o

o

o

(— •

H

o

o

o

o

to
to

to
o

to
00

4*
to

to
to

4*
00

to
o

4*
4*

(J1
to

to
4*

it*
-o

to
to

M

[-■

H

M

H

I-1

t— *

o

M

(—1

O

O
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

to

Subject

to

h

to
oi

4*
4*

to
to

Theoretical
Score

4*

4*

00

00

CO
CTv

Economic
Score

4*
O

tO
I— 1

4*
t— 1

Aesthetic
Score

it*
— i

it*
to

to
*o

it*
to

Social
Score

LO
Ui

4*
to

to
to

tO
~o

4*
j—■

Political
Score

4*
to

4*
in

to
oo

ui
to

4*

Religious
Score

o

o

Sex1

to
<n

OJ
(Tv

Age

I-1

t— '

o
o

o
o

o
o

Accidents and
Violations

o

o

o

Category

(— *
o
1
Hi

(0
3
JU
M
(D
>t

H
1

1

3
0)
H
H
Hro

3
JD
I-1
CD

CL

t-1
<T>

o

o

o

o

O
O

o

o

o

to
to

Marital
Status-.2

Subj ect

O

Theoretical
Score

00

tO

CO

Ul

LO

1— 1

K>

C

O

O

K

)

v

£

*

O

O

O

t

N

j

t

O

O

C

T

l

O

U)J^totoU)cn(jJtt^tjOi^u)ji»cotjOf->U)tocnco
> { ^ ' O O J ( J l V O ( - 1

c
C

o t o ^ u )
D K ) M U J 0

U
0

)

* t ^ O O lt

^

I

O

U

l

O

^

J

l

-

J

l^ a ^ v t ^ u ) C o u i U ) O J O J
0 0 t U M i C * O < j 0 M O C n k 0 C

'

O

O

^

J

O

O

O

C
0

n lt » . L o 1t ^ 1i^
i f c » C 0 C 0

Economic
Score
Aesthetic
Score
Social
Score

Ulrf^COCOit^UltOUJif^UltOljOiJ^CjJit^OJJ^OJtP*
Gi>M c r i C n t \ J W O o M tf c ' N J O U > M t o t o a ' > . f = » o t o

Political
Score

c n t o c y i tf c > 4 ^ u ) u i u ) o j c o j ^ c o u ) ^ i c ^ t t i » ^ . >t^to
o o ^ M t u t ' O O o u i H ' o o o o o ^ J L n o t o . p ^ t o j ^

Religious
Score

O

M

M

M

M

O

O

O

M

M

M

O

O

O

M

o

O

o

C n t o o ^ C n N J t o M c o u i c o c n f o o j c n c h M C n t o M
o t o M t o o c y i V o c n o J M i M C n c r M t o C n o o o i C n

M

M

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

M

M

M

M

M

Sex
Age

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

Marital
Status

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

Accidents and
Violations

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Ca hegory

M

E .— Continued

U i ( j i C 7 i ' - J > t i C n u i U ) v o o o ( - j t o o ,i ( X ) o i —‘ toooif^

Appendix

OJU>LOLOU>U->rOMfOK>MMNJN)t'jNJf-, l
—' I —1
cn>t»U)toi-j O ( x > o o ^ j c ^ a i j i C o N > ( - ' O v D o O ' j

Subject

U * W i f c t > U W U U U i f ‘ iNitil
I i W t > f c W W
C - n i f c » C ' * ' > O O f O O i t ^ { j J O O t ' J t O L n i f c » h - 1 0'iifc>OCn

Theoretical
Score

0

0

-

'

J

C

T

i

O

b

J

U

"

l

M

(

—'

^

M

O

Economic
Score

O

L J i t . L O O J C O M ^ f O J ^ t N J O J M ^ ^ ^ U l O J M U )
v o < n o o ' J U i c n i - i ' J ( j i o o ^ m M h - , ouicx)^D(jo
fO

Oi

OJ

ifc»

CO

O

—]

O

J

|

—' I — '

tO

I— 1

03

-^1

O

I— ' C D

U ) C o c o U ) U ) > C i ( j 0 1j ^ >t ^ >t i . i C a . ( j o c n j i . U ) O i c o ( j O O J
( £ > U ) N J C n V D l - J

O

W

M

C

O

O

C

r

i

t

O

<

i

l

n

O

O

O

O

O

>

X

)

Aesthetic
Score
Social
Score
Political
Score

NJUl'X>Ji-iJ^^Jit^ChKJi{i»caNJUlHJ O J O O O t s 3 U l

Religious
Score

O

o

Sex

U)rf^^rf^u>rfi.oicr\CnNjuitoojiSs.(yitnifc.i->to
cnoo--ju>crtoooujOt£=»tvJcy»t!'-oocriooo'£>o

Age

O

O

O

O

O

O

I

—' O

O

O

O

{—1

I
—1 I
—1

O

(
—1

Marital
Status

f - ' M H O O H H O
o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

Accidents and
Violations

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Category

E .— Continued

,

Appendix

>t».u>roHJ o ' £ 3 0 o - j c r \ C n . p s , < j j M i - , o'£>oo'-j<T>

to

•o
M

-J
o

CTl
VO

03
03

03
-J

03
03

03
On

03
42*

03
OO

On
i- 1

42
t—1

4*
to

00

42

On
M

4.
On

42*

on

M

42to

42*
42*

42
00

on
o

42

4*

42
42

On
to

uO

00

On

OO

00

42
o

00
00

4*
>40

to
on

42
4.

H

00

VO

to

to
42*

00

42
to

00

00

On

o

4=.

On
to

42

03

4*
4=.

42
o

00

4*
-j

4*
O

00
00

(01

00

03

4.

00

00

03
to

03
I—1

03
O

On
VO

on
03

vn

on
03

On
On

Subj ect

OO

oo

03

On
o

to
03

42

t-*

42
oo

00

00

to
VO

00

00

I—1

Theoretical
Score

42
On

4*
On

42*
42*

42*
42*

4*
03

4*
o

4*
to

42
4*

42

42
I- 1

Economic
Score

00
00

00

42*

00

O

to

4*
to

00

03

OJ

H*

00
00

00

to

03

OJ

Aesthetic
Score

4*
O

42*
4*

4*
03

00

03

42*
to

03

42
o

00

M

-o

00
00

42
to

On

OJ

Social
Score

On
o

On
o

42*
03

00

42*
42.

00

03

42*
to

to
VO

OJ

42
o

4*
03

On

4*

00

<1

Political
Score

42.
VD

On
42*

4*

Vn
I- 1

to
On

42

00

00

00

-o

Religious
Score

o

H

o

H

H

H

Sex
Age

VO

■vj

00

00

00

00

VD

00

to

t—1

00

00

<1

42

On

H1

42*
to

42*
On

On

00
00

42*

00

42
42*

00

o
i—1

I- 1

o

H

H

o

M

f—1

M

o

O

O

cn

to
03

to
On

00

on

f—1

VO

42
4*

to
OD

42*
On

00
00

to
03

to

42.
00

42

42
O

to
On

42

M

42
M

00

00

03
O

42*

42

M

o

I- 1

M

o

M

f—1

H
1

f
—1

t->

(
—1

t—1

M

f—1

f— 1

t—1

(—1

I- 1

O

to

o
I- 1

o

o
to

o

o

I-1

O
H-1

O

I—1

o
42*

o
o

o
o

o
o

O
O

O

o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o

o

Accidents and
Violations

(-■

M

I-1

I- 1

I-1

M

I- 1

H

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Category

to

M

00

00

Marital
Status

E.— Continued.

-0

Appendix

-J
00

K > M O V D O O ' J < T ( C n J i > U ) N 3 H J

O V O O O ' J C T \ a i > f c .

Subject
Theoretical
Score

U 3 > f c * U ) C D G ' i V O ' X > a s: U 1 - ' J ( - > J > f c * O O t —

Economic
Score

t O L n U > i f c » U > t \ J U > G J U > t ' J C n t ' J U > l{ ^ G J J ^ i f c * G J U >

Aesthetic
Score

l O v i f f i U i t o u i i t m w H

V i > l —’

O

J

O

O

C

O

J

^

C

T

i

O

C

h

O

O

O

O

O

U

l

t

O

h

-

’

U

s

c

n

l

—'

L O i l ^ U l C A J ^ C j O O O ^ J ^ K J i t ^ O J U l i t a - U J O J O J O O i J i U ) U ) O C T > C n - ^ 1 4 ^ C n O ' X > J ^ f O N J C ,i ' X ) V D O O t O ' J

Social
Score

j ^ ^ t o L o w r f ^ C j o o j a ^ a ^ c o ^ w o j ^ i j J i t i - c n i i i .

Political
Score

' J o c r x M t s J C n i —' O i c » i t ^ L n o c D c r i ( j o c n o N J M
lt > . c o c n c n O J lf c > >C i . C T i t o >t i . u i 1t i i t > C n C n O i 4 5 > . U ) K J
c o c n i —, K ) < x ) c r > ' J t o c » U ) i - , ' J C n i - 1 o u i i —‘ ODiti

Religious
Score

o

Sex

o

O

O

H

O

I

-

J

HJ

h-‘

O H 1

O

O

I

—‘

I
—‘

O l —1

OJ^cntsjcn^Loo^tOiti-JOicnoj^criOJtocn
' X > O C T l ' X ) C r i J i . < X ) 0 ( _ n C X l t O v t ^ < 7 ' ( —‘ V C O l C j l C h C O

I—*

o

H

1—*

o

H

1—1

o

1—1

o

o

H

I—1

Marital
Status

I—1

o

I—1

Age

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

* 1 —* | —‘ f O t —' 1 —* 1 —' f —1
H

H

o

o

o

o

o

o

NJ

M

M

U>

l->

W

Accidents and
Violations
Category

E.— Continued

U ) N J C n U ) > f ^ C n i f c ‘ K j a ^ u i t - , t n t o ( j J U ) O J ( j o >P ^ lti.

Appendix

<jpvovooo<x>oocoa>cocooooooo"J-~j'j^j^j'-4

i£
G

!-«
o
00

~-J

M
o
OJ

t—1
On

4^
4=»

4s»

00

O

O

OJ

OJ

00

4*

CD

to

CO

N)

00

4^.
o

4*

CD

OJ

4^
-J

OJ

OJ

CD

On

4>
on

OJ

4^

to

OJ

4^
4*

NO
M

jo
cb

4=.
OJ

OJ

00

to

00

On

to
CD

4*

4^

4*

OJ

I-1

4^

to

00
on

4^

o

NO
00

4^

00

-O

CD

On

OJ

4^
O

4^
OJ

4^

4^>

to

J*

00
OJ

OJ

NO

4^

4^

on

On

OO

4*

O

00

tO

00
cn

00

1—1

00

H

M

O

o

M

H

H

On
On

00
00

00

On

ctj

-J

on

4^
O

H

I—1

H

M

(-*

O
M

O
t->

O
H

O
H

I-*

H

4^

M

h-1

OJ

M
O

on

O

f—■

I-1

M

M

0

0

0

M

0
0

CO
CO

CD
OO

CO

CO
OJ

VO
On

CO
4*

CO
00

Subject

4*

oj

00

-0

0J

00
OJ

00
CD

4^
OJ

00
-^1

OJ
I— 1

OJ
4^>

00
On

Theoretical
Score

on

OJ
I— '

OJ
tO

OJ
O

OJ
CD

1— 1
-J

M
OJ

Economic
Score

4*
O

to
CO

OJ

on
t\J

Aesthetic
Score

I-1
O
4*

OJ

to

OJ
OJ

OJ
I-1

-J

00
OJ

4^

0J

00

4*

0

00

oo
00

OJ

OJ
-0

OJ
—I

00
I-1

00

to

00

4*.

Ul

4^- 4=. Ul 4J>

0

4*

00

to

-J

Ul

NJ

CD

Social
Score

OJ
On

OJ
00

OJ
-J

4^

4s»

0

On

^
OJ

W
OJ

U)
--O

fi
NJ

Ji.
t\J

OJ
t\J

Political
Score

4^
00

4^
.
-o

4^
■vj

On

On

0o

O

00

^
OJ

O

CO

Ui
4^

in
KJ

cn
O

Religious
Score

O

0

0

H

0

H

1— 1

o

I-1

o

o

o

o

Sex

On

On
to

00
to

OJ

OJ

On

On
00

On
4>

4^
O

4=»
CO

tO
OJ

OJ
4^

to
00

KJ
CO

4^
<1

Age

M

H

f—1

h- 1

H

H*

H

t—1

H

H

H

H1 I-1 I-1

O
H

O
!—1

O
M

O
H

O
H

O
H

O

O
H

O
H

O

I
—'

t—1

O

O

O

I- 1

M

M

t—1

(—1

M

I- 1

I—1

i—1 I—1 i—1

On

I- 1

00

I—1

I—1

O

I—1

O

I—1

I—> f—>

Marital
Status
Accidents and
Violations
Category

E .— Continued

o

f-*
o
CO

I-1
I-1

Appendix

(->
H

I-1
NJ
00

M
NJ
-J

I-1
NJ
Ol

M
NJ
On

M
NJ
4-

I-1
NJ
OJ

M
NJ
NJ

(-*
NJ
H

(— 1
H
VD

H
H
00

t-'
M
<1

I—'

NJ
O

0J
00

41-

4t->

4^
NJ

41O

4*
VO

4*
4-

OJ
On

OJ
Ol

OJ
00

45.
NJ

45H

OJ
00

400

NJ
U

NJ
03

OJ
vl

NJ
®

41to

Theoretical
Score

4^
on

On
4-

On
o

OJ
On

On
cn

4NJ

4NJ

4^
OJ

OJ
00

4o

on
NJ

Ui
4-

45(— 1

45<1

On
4-

4^
4^

On
(— 1

OJ
4i-

4-~J

Economic
Score

NJ
VD

4iNJ

NJ
-j

OJ
00

OJ
<i

OJ
I-1

OJ
4-

On
(— 1

41O

on
oo

NJ
on

OJ
I-1

4O

OJ
I-1

NJ
VO

OJ
45-

NJ
NJ

4500

4-.
O'!

Aesthetic
Score

0J
Ol

NJ
VD

On
NJ

4OJ

OJ
(-■

OJ
VD

OJ
<31

OJ
o

OJ
o

OJ
OJ

4o

OJ
OJ

45OJ

45.
OJ

On
On

Ui
!— •

oj

on
o

oj

<43

Social
Score

On
4-

4M

On
NJ

4OJ

4-

OJ
00

OJ
'-J

4iOJ

OJ
4-

OJ
OJ

OJ
00

4CO

00
<31

45O

OJ
CO

OJ
H

<31
M

OJ
NJ

45-

OJ
00

0J
OJ

on
4-

OJ
o

4N>

OJ
OJ

OJ
VD

OJ
<31

4^
I-1

On
NJ

NJ
VD

45-

on

<31

NJ

Religious
Score

l-1

(-<

0J
NJ

On
NJ

4VD

1— 1

(-*

o
45-

O
OJ

O
OJ

O
NJ

O
00

O
00

O
NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

(-■
CO

I—1

I—*

I—1

I—1 M

Ul

i—’

1—1

U

M

1—1 H

NJ

Subj ect

Political
Score

OJ
VD

NJ
VD

4H*

45.
C31

OJ
00

1— 1

f— 1

t-1

M

O

I-1

H

(— 1

o

O

O

o

o

o

o

o

Sex

NJ
00

N)
'J

4*
41-

4NJ

45.

NJ
t— 1

NJ
NJ

NJ
4-

NJ
<31

NJ
OJ

<31
On

On
oo

4^
on

on
<31

4^
-J

4^
oo

Age

I— 1

O

I-1

I-1

O

t— 1

J
—1 I
—1 I
—1 (
—1 (
—■

O
NJ

O
45.

O
0J

O
NJ

O
NJ

O
NJ

O
H1

o

o

o

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

I-1

h->

I—1

I—1

!—1

1— 1

M

h-1 H

o

o

1—1 I—*

Marital
Status
Accidents and
Violations
Category

E .— Continued

M
NJ
VD

Appendix

h-1
0J
O

h
4:
0

(— 1

(-•

4*

4*

CO

*4

Ol

I—1
4*
On

00
oo

00
00

it*
H

OJ
M

00
oo

NJ

oo

4*
On

M

On
On

00
NJ

00
NJ

00
Ol

00
00

o

it*
00

H

M

H

4*
4*

it*
NJ

kt*
M

kt*
o

00

00
00

00
OO

kt*
-4

NJ

00

it*

OO

00
OO

kt*

0*

NJ

on

Ui

on
4*

4*
NJ

4*
NJ

kt*
o

00

it*

OJ

On

kt*

-4

00

kt*

kt*

00
NJ

oo
NJ

On
O

4*
H

00
on

OO
oo

NJ

to
o

00

4*

4*
00

00

Ul

OJ
Ol

4*
O

On
I-1

On

00

NJ

o

■'J

o

On

4*

oo

00

I-1

I-1

o
NJ

NJ

Ol

Ui

H1

H

OO

OJ

to

On

4*

i-1

H-1

4*

co
00

OJ
NJ

Ul

00

4*

4*

o

o

4*

H

4*
OJ

4*
00

ui

Ui
Ol

H

4*

oo

NJ

OO

4*

00

NJ

NJ
Ol

o

OJ
h->

00

4*

OJ

00

NJ
00

00
NJ

4*
00

it*

NJ

on

OO

Ui

4*
o

On
o

oo

OJ
Ol

On
o

00
oo

Ul
h-1

0*

00

4*

Ol

00

00
-J

oo
M

on
I-1

it*
00

NJ
H

oj

On

00

4*

NJ

00
4*

j*

N0

if*
OO

00

oo

it*

o

00

o

o

o

O

o

o

H

H

l-1

it*

NJ
Ol

NJ
OO

NJ
NJ

Ul

NJ

NJ
00

NJ
M

4*

OO

h-1

O

(— 1

O

O

I— 1

H

O

O

O
NJ

O

O
NJ

O

O
NJ

OJ

O
4*

O

00

O
OJ

O

00

O
NJ

O

00

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

4*

I-1

00

I-*
00
Ol

NJ

OJ

H

I-1
00
~4

00

OJ

ci

*

4

Subj ect

t->

4*

Theoretical
Score

00
(->

Economic
Score

00

o

Aesthetic
Score

00

00

'-J

Ol

4*
Ol

Social
Score

4*
NJ

4*
On

00

oo

Political
Score

to

on
4*

4*
oo

On

Religious
Score

OO

On
on

4*

OO

h-1

(-<

h-1

M

>t*

Ol

00

4*

o

Ol

Ol

i—1

O

t-1

o
4*

O

00

00

o
CO

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

O

00

UI

o

00

I-1

00

00

Ui

Sex
NJ

00

NJ

NJ

Age

o

oo

M

I-1

O

o

o

o

o

00

4*

00

4*

Accidents and
Violations

NJ

NJ

NJ

Category

Ui

O

On

Marital
Status

E .— Continued

M
kfck.

Appendix

l-1
4*
oo

H
cn
CO

H
Cn
-o

t-1
Cn
cn

Cn
cn

H-* t—1 H
Cn
tn
Cn
4.
U> to

Cn

cn

t-1

o

CO
cn

to
CO

CO
00

CO
VO

cn
co

Cn
CO

to
VO

CO
CO

4.
O

Co

CO
00

to
vo

cn
o

Theoretical
Score

I-1

Cn

CO
M

co

CO
CO

CO
00

45.
Cn

Co
Cn

to

.

•o

to
VO

CO

45.

o

cn
o

Economic
Score

45.
CO

CO
VD

CO
VO

Cn
1— 1

Cn
to

45.
-O

45.
M

CO
cn

CO

45.

00

45.

Cn

CO

45.
Cn

CO
co

Aesthetic
Score

45.
to

CO
to

45.

Cn
H

co

CO

CO

45.

cn

cn

45.

4.
co

45. Cn
CTi o

Cn

45.

00

Cn

o

CO
cn

CO
cn

Social
Score

CO
cn

CO
cn

CO
CO

45.

45.
45.

45.
CO

to

CO

4.

cn

VO

co
45.

4.

00

45.
to

45.

o

CO
45.

4.

to

—i

cn

Political
Score

Cn
Cn

CJ
CO

45.
to

H
-o

CO
cn

45.
VO

CO
VO

CO
CO

4.

cn
to

4.
o

to

CO

co

\->

45.
CO

cn

Cn

H

H

o

o

O

o

O

O

o

o

o

o

o

45.
o

CO
CO

Cn
t— 1

cn
cn

cn

CO

CO

Cn

cn

VD

00

to
45.

CO

to

-o

to

00

H

I—1

I-1

o

f—1

o

o

o

t-1

o

o
(—1

o
to

o

o
to

o
to

o

o

CO

CO

o
to

o

CO

o
to

o

CO

CO

to

CO

to

to

to

to

CO

to

CO

to

CO

f— 1
cn
cn

cn
Cn

H
cn
45.

45.
VO

45.
45.

4.
CO

4.
VO

CO
o

45.

4i>
VO

45.
00

to
CO

CO
00

45.
to

Cn
Cn

CO
CO

to
-0

to
cn

CO
VO

45.
cn

to

00

4^
CO

cn
o

4*
Cn

Cn
cn

cn
o

CO
CO

to
Cn

l-1
VO

H

I-1

i—*
cn
CO

Cn

t-1
cn
to

cn

to

h-1

4.

VO

M

O

oo

co

I—* M

45

co
cn

to
cn

Subject

Religious
Score
Sex

45.

45.

to

4.

to

to

Cn

co
45.

to

cn

CO

00

I—
1

M

H

O

t—1

O

I—1

(—1

Marital
Status

o
to

o
to

o
to

o
CO

o
to

o
to

o
to

o
to

Accidents and
Violations

to

to

CO

to

to

to

to

Category

o

to

Age

E.— Continued.

H
Cn
VO

H
cn
-o

Appendix

t—1

t-1
cn
o

H
cn
00

i45

H
00
on

00
4^

I-1
00
00

I-1
00
NJ

M
00
H

H
00
O

VD

00
as

00
VD

00
-J

cn
4^

00
VD

4^
l—l

00
00

4=>
O

4=.
h-5

OJ

4>

00
00

4^
00

4^
—]

4^
VD

4*
4=>

4>

4^
v4*

00

OJ

OJ

NJ
'J

NO

o

00
VO

OJ

o

NJ
00

OJ

cn

4=>

CD

4^
H

00

OJ

00

M

I-*
-O
00

-J

H
<1
Ol

~o
Vn

00
00

4^
1— 1

OJ

OJ

on

'J

o

4*
O

4=>
cn

4*
Vn

M

4^

(—1 M

-J

-~J

H

I-1

-j

oi

o

VD

Subject

4-

00

NJ

H

00
Cl

4=>

NJ
VO

NJ
VO

OJ
oi

OJ
on

4>
cn

Theoretical
Score

vO-

oo

on

oo

oo

00

NJ
Ol

On

o

NJ

Economic
Score

4*
-0

00
M

oo

4^

NJ
Cl

.£»
(-■

Aesthetic
Score

4^

NJ

4^

to

NJ

cn

4*

4=> OJ
O 00

M

OJ

4*

00

00

NJ

-J

Social
Score

00

4=»
O

On

4^

4=>

OJ

On

4^

M

4^.

Political
Score

00
VD

4*
VD

4*. 4^

on

oo

00

Religious
Score

I—1

f—1

NJ

NJ
4^

4*

NJ

Vn

NJ

OO

00
00

O

I—1 O

00

4^. H*
4^

00

4>

VD

oo

NJ

4*

OJ

-J

(-■

00

NJ
Ol

f—1

4*
00

cn

4^
f—1

4^
4^

00
00

00
00

4=.
-J

4^
Ol

4=cn

00
Ul

on
I-1

00
4*

On

'J

on
On

Ol
4*

4*

00
CO

00
'■J

4^

00
4=>

On

NJ

00
NJ

OJ

4=>

O

o

o

H

M

O

I— 1

M

H*

o

o

NJ

00
VD

00
00

4^
00

00
VD

cn
H

On
On

NO

NJ
1— 1

NJ

NJ

4=.

NJ

M

O

M

I—1

h-1

O

t-1

O

O

1— 1

O

H

f—1

O

O
NJ

O
NJ

O

o

0J

O
00

O
4^

O
NJ

O

4»

O

00

O
NJ

O

4^

45.

Vn

O
oo

o o o o o o
I
—' OaJ I—1 I
—’ t
—1 i
—1

Accidents and
Violations

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NO

NJ

Category

4^

4^

oo
1—1

NJ
00

On

00

On

4*

OJ

Sex

NJ

NJ

oo
-0

NJ

Age

f—1 f—1

NJ

NJ

Marital
Status

E.— Continued

H
00
cn

Appendix

H
00
-J

NJ
O
it*

NJ
O
OJ

NJ
O
NJ

N)
O
M

NJ
O
O

f— 1
VO
VO

H
VO
00

H
VO
sj

M
VO
OJ

H
VD

OJ
its

CN

OJ

Ul
CD

OJ

EJ

Js
VD

Js

to

its
OJ

0J
On

its
O

on

on
M

its
sj

on
NJ

On

OJ
OJ

Js
OJ

OJ
NJ

JS
OJ

00

Js

NJ
■t*

OJ
its

OJ
NJ

Ul
00

its
O

its

its

00

its

OJ

OJ
Js

Js
its

OJ

OJ
VO

its

NJ
its

its
NJ

its

I-1

VO

00

00
00

NJ
OJ

NJ
'O

OJ
OJ

Js
Js

OJ
o

Ul
OJ

NJ

its
Os

OJ

OJ

(—1

Js
Ul

OJ

o

Ui

OJ

H

Ui

NJ

-J

(Jl

o

OJ
OJ

Ul

00
Js

I-*

JS

00

its

00

•fs

on

On

VO
its

M

CO

Ul

its
NJ

NJ
NJ

00

0J
00

Ul
NJ

OJ
OJ

on

00

its
00

00
00

its

its

00
its

o

H
VO
00

t— 1
VD
NJ

its

on
on

t— 1
VO

H
VO

H
00
VD

H
00
00

00

its
NJ

oo

to

00

NJ

JS

on

NJ

NJ

VO

o

on its
«sj 00

00

00

00

00

NJ

NJ

OJ

VD

00

its
NJ

NJ
its

its
VO

its
On

00
sj

on
M

NJ
VO

o

OJ

00

its

its

00
OJ

JS

Js

Social
LJNO
OJX
Score

H

JS

Political
Score

00
OJ

Religious
Score

o

Sex

NJ
OJ

Age

NJ

JS

OJ
VD

its
OJ

On
o

OJ
(— 1

CD

'J

00

o

00
OO

On
its

OJ
OJ

oo
OJ

ds
NJ

OO

'-J

(— 1

f— 1

o

H

O

H

o

H

H

H

H

o

o

h->

o

O

I— 1

NJ

OJ
CD

JS
NJ

NJ

00

00

Ul

0J

OJ
its

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

1—1 I-1

f— 1

O

t-1 H

NJ

O
Js

O
OJ

NJ

O
OJ

0J

O
VD

o
00

OJ

OJ

OJ

OJ

OJ

0J

OJ

00

00

OJ

o
00

o

f—1

o

o

M

<1

H
o

00

00

M

its

On

NJ

NJ

00

00

00

M

JS

00

OO

VO

I-1

t—1

(—1

H

t—1 H

O

o

H

H

O

o

00

O

o
on

o
00

o

o

o

o

NJ

NJ

On

NJ

On

00

00

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

NJ

Economic
Score

VO

OJ

o

Theoretical
Score

00

■J

OJ

Subject

JS

NJ

o

Aesthetic
Score

Marital
Status

00

Accidents and
Violations

NJ

Category

E.— Continued

NJ
O
Ul

Appendix

(-■

NJ
O
O'l

to
to
CO

to
to
to

to
to

45.
1— 1

45.

H

O

to
45.

to
45.

Cn

Cn
o

Cn

45.
-O

to

Cn

■o

H

CO
45.

CO
45.

to
•o

Cn

45.

o

45.

H

to
to
o

to
I-1
to

to
I—1
00

to
M
'J

to
t— 1
cn

cn

to
(-■
45.

to
to

to
45.

45.
cn

CO
h-1

to
cn

CO

to
i— 1

CO
45.

cn
o

45.
cn

45.
o

CO
00

CO

to
cn

to

-J

45.
CO

co

to
CO

45.

CO
l— 1

to
to

cn
o

to

O

CO

45.
CO

45.
CD

45.
cn

CO

(— 1

cn

45.
cn

cn

to
cn

CO
M

CO
4.

45.
to

CO
to

to
CO

45.

45.

to

t
—1

to

to

H

to

H

to

H

to
o

to
o

co

CO
00

Theoretical
Score

45.

CO
CO

Economic
Score

to

to
t— 1

Aesthetic
Score

45.
CO

45.
Cn

Social
Score

I—1

CO
to

■O

4.

Political
Score

CO

Cn

45.
cn

Religious
Score

H

Sex

to
cn

Age

to

o

oo

to

to

M

O

CO

45.
to

4.

CTv

to

CO
45.

to

O

-J

45

45.
to

45.
I-1

45.
cn

to
t— 1

co

CO

45.
45.

to

45.
'O

45.
CO

to
cn

CO

45.

CO

CO

45.

CO
45.

in
CO

45.
to

H

45.

CO

o

to

<!

tn
tn

"J

o

to
to

CO
to

to
to

CO
to

CO

4.
00

cn
o

4.

4.

Cn

to

to

to

to

CO
-o

45.

H

CO
to

to

to

cn
45.

45.

Cn

Cn
Cn

4.

CO

cn

Cn

O

O

o

o

o

O

o

O

O

o

H

o

H

f->

to
45.

to

CO

CO

45.

00

to

to
to

to
to

to
45.

to

45.

H

H-1

I—1

(—1

o

o
to

o
to

CO

o

o

to

to

to

Cn

cn

CO

-o

f— 1

o

l-1

o

o
to

o
to

o
tn

o
to

o
to

o
to

CO

o
tn

CO

CO

CO

to

CO

to

CO

to

45.

tn

45.

to

CO

to

CO

•o

45.

UJ

cn
CO

.

45.
to
cn

45.

H*

4^

f-1

Subject

Cn

tn

to

to

-o

45.

1— 1

1—1

t—* f—' f—' I—1 I
—'

Marital
Status

o
45.

o
to

CO

o

o
to

cn

o

o

co

45.

o

o
45.

Accidents and
Violations

to

to

to

co

to

co

co

co

Category

CO
H

45.
cn

cn

E .— Continued

to
to
45.

Appendix

to
to

to
45.
to

to
45M

to
45o

to
OJ
CO

to
OJ
00

to
OJ
-o

to
OJ
cn

to
OJ
Cn

to
OJ
45-

to
OJ
OJ

to
OJ
to

to

to

o>

OJ

OJ
h-1

OJ
OJ

OJ
CO

45•o

OJ
to

OJ
CO

cn
cn

OJ
00

OJ
CO

45to

4500

OJ
Cn

4545-

to
to

OJ
'O

4-O

OJ
OJ

OJ
00

OJ
<1

OJ
CO

Cn
4-.

4^
cn

Ul
I-1

OJ
OJ

OJ
OJ

45Cn

OJ
45-

to
00

OJ
45-

OJ
Cn

45cn

45.
co

OJ
cn

45H

to
45-

OJ
CO

cn
OJ

45O

Cn
o

45t— 1

tn
OJ

45to

45to

45I-1

OJ
cn

Cn
O

45.
to

OJ
CO

OJ
CO

45cn

OJ
Cn

45o

OJ
45-

OJ
45-

4500

45.
-J

cn
-J

OJ
00

OJ
00

45-o

OJ
cn

H
CO

OJ
-o

(— *

o

o

H

M

H

o

45Cn

45CO

to
CO

(-*
CO

OJ
1— 1

451— 1

OJ
to

o

t-1

o

o
Cn

o
to

o

o
cn

o
cn

o
OJ

o
to

o

OJ

OJ

OJ

OJ

OJ

OJ

OJ

OJ

to
to

o

CO

4^
H

OJ

4-

45to

4-

45

45co

OJ
00

Cn
to

45o

45O

OJ
cn

OJ
to

u>
45-

OJ
I— 1

OJ
-j

OJ
cn

o

o

o

to
OJ

OJ
OJ

cn

.

M

to
to

00

•o

to
to
cn

OJ
CO

OJ

OJ

cn

to

Theoretical
Score

4*
00

45to

4545-

Economic
Score

0J
00

Aesthetic
Score

45-

to
to

co

OJ
00

45.

to

OJ

CO

45-

00

OJ

CD

CO

45-

Subj ect

45.

OJ

4-

45-

Cn

o

Ch

OJ

M

h-1

Social
Score

OJ
o

Oj

45.

OJ
00

45.
to

to

00

•-J

OJ
OJ

Political
Score

Cn
I-1

45cn

OJ

4cn

OJ

to

Cn

Cn

00

CO

to

Religious
Score.

o

o

o

o

Sex

OJ
cn

to
to

to

cn
45-

Age

H

f
—1

f
—1

o

OJ

O
to

o
to

o
to

o
to

o
to

OJ

OJ

OJ

OJ

OJ

OJ

OJ

o

oo

o

to

45-

45-

to

to

Cn

to

Cn

Cn

cn

Cn

o

H

H 1

H 1

o

o

o

4-

OJ

o
to

o

45-

cn

I— ■

oo

OJ

OJ

OJ

Marital
Status

OJ

o
to

Accidents and
Violations

OJ

OJ

Category

E .— Continued

to
45OJ

Appendix

to
4545-

to
Ul
o

to

to

to

to

to

4s.
CD

4s.

4s.

4s.

4S.

OO

<1

cn

cn

-o

CO
4S.

CO

CO

4s.

CO

CO

CO

M

4s.
4S»

Theoretical
Score

CO
CO

4s.
4.

CO
CO

cn

4s.
H

Economic
Score

4.

Ui

CO
4s.

CO

cn

4S.
CO

Ul
to

CO
-J

4.
CO

CO
■^1

4s.
H

to
00

4s.
4s.

to

CO
CO

4s.
CO

4s.

4.

CO

M

O

o

CO

CO

to

to

to

4s.

M
o

4.

I- 1

Subject

4s.
CO

4s.
[— 1

Ul

4s.

CO

o

CO
CO

CO
4s.

to

o

CO

Aesthetic
Score

4s.

to

4s.

4s.

cn

00

to

cn
to

Social
Score

4S.
4s.

CO
O

4s.
CO

Political
Score

to

4s.
4s.

4s.
CO

CO
t->

Religious
Score

o

M

O

H 1

H

Sex

CO
00

4s.
CO

to

to
to

o

to
CO

Age

f— 1

h-1

o

H

h-1

o

o

o

CO

4.

4s.

Accidents and
Violations

CO

CO

CO

Category

o
to

o

o

CO

4s.

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

00

o

CO

4S.

CO

Marital
Status

E .— Continued

to
Ul
t— 1

Appendix

to

Ui

APPENDIX F
GRAPHS OF NORMS

153

43

43

42

42

41

41

40

40
39

38

38

37

37

154

36

Religious

Political

Social

Aesthetic

Economic

Theoretical

average profile for adult population
driving record category A--no accident, no violation

Graph 1.— Profile of Values:
No Violation.

Driving Record Category A— No Accident,

43

43

42

42

41

41

40

40

38

38

37

37

36

36
Religious

Political

Social

Aesthetic

Economic

Theoretical

average profile for adult population
driving record category B--no accident, violation

Graph 2.— Profile of Values:
Violation.

Driving Record Category B— No Accident,

43

43

42

42

41

41

40

40

38

38

37

37

36

36
Religious

Political

Social

Aesthetic

Economic

Theoretical

average profile for adult population
driving record category C— accident, no violation

Graph 3.— Profile of Values:
No Violation.

Driving Record Category C— Accident,

43

43

42

42

41

41

40

40

39

39
38
37

37
36
Religious

Political

Social

Aesthetic

Economic

Theoretical

average profile for adult population
driving record category D— accident, violation

Graph 4.— Profile of Values:
Violation.

Driving Record Category D— Accident,