1 / 22

Psychometric Profiling of Driving Behaviour the good, the bad and the ugly Dr. Craig Jackson

Psychometric Profiling of Driving Behaviour the good, the bad and the ugly Dr. Craig Jackson Prof of Occupational Health Psychology Head of Psychology Div. BCU Research Director Health Research Consultants. Outline History of behavioural profiling Relative usefulness

keon
Download Presentation

Psychometric Profiling of Driving Behaviour the good, the bad and the ugly Dr. Craig Jackson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Psychometric Profiling of Driving Behaviourthe good, the bad and the ugly Dr. Craig Jackson Prof of Occupational Health Psychology Head of Psychology Div. BCU Research Director Health Research Consultants

  2. Outline • History of behavioural profiling • Relative usefulness • Applicability to driver behaviour • Development of Psychometric Tool • Behavioural Profiling - observations of Drive-Thrus and unsafe driving • Preliminary Psychometric Profiling Results • Conclusions

  3. Behavioural Profiling Offender Profiling generally refers to: 1. process of using 2. all available information 3. about a crime, 4. a crime scene, 5. and a victim, 6. to compose a profile of 7. the (as yet) unknown perpetrator

  4. History of Offender Profiling Actual origins difficult to pin down Spectrum of offending – petty to major Established 1970s FBI’s Behavioural Support Unit (now the Investigative Support Unit) “Behavioural Profiles” developed by James Brussel (1956) in hunt for Con Edison bomber in New York Robert Brittain asked by CID to provide behavioural profile of “Bible John” killer in Glasgow in late 1960s

  5. Mechanics of Behavioural Profiling FBI used extensive interviews with 36 convicted serial killers Belief that personality of offender could be gleaned from 5 areas: 1. Crime scene 2. Nature of crimes 3. Forensic evidence 4. Medical examination of victim 5. Victim characteristics Useful for deliberate offending How useful for accidents and non-intentional offences in driving? 1,2,3 and possibly 5 could be of use

  6. A note about “offender types” Offender types traditionally split into 2 groups: Organised vs Disorganised Can this be applied to drivers? Personality types: Extravert vs Introvert Sanguine vs Phlegmatic

  7. Is Behavioural Profiling useful? Limited (if any) success Two criticisms of profiling behaviour 1) Often based on small data numbers / limited samples 2) Profiles are too vague to be successful / specific The Best Predictor of Future Behaviour is Past Behaviour Recidivism of Driving

  8. Example of Profiling and the BTK killer Serial killer in Kansas active from 1974 to 2005 Murdered 10 people from 1974 – 1991 (caught in 2005) Variety of profiles based on crime scene analysis were summarised as: “Look for an American male with a possible connection to the military. His IQ will be above 105. He will like to masturbate, and will be aloof and selfish in bed. He will drive a decent car. He will be a ‘now’ person. He won’t be comfortable with women. But he may have women friends. He will be a lone wolf. But he will be able to function in social settings…he will be either, never married, divorced or married, and if he is married his wife will be younger or older. He may or may not live in a rental, and might be lower class, upper lower class, lower middle class or middle class. And he will be crazy like a fox, as opposed to being mental.” Gladwell (2007)

  9. Why bother in Profiling unsafe driver Behaviour? Violent sexual offenders Unsafe drivers Rare in population Common in population Covert activity Overt activity Rarely occurs Commonly occurs Will always be pursued Will often be ignored Severe penalties if caught Non-severe penalties Inconsistent with usual persona Consistent with usual persona Culturally vilified Culturally acceptable (some) Easier to measure & profile unsafe drivers than violent sexual offenders

  10. Who are the offending drivers?

  11. Method #1 Psychometric Testing of Drivers Literature review Develop pilot surveys (9 versions) measuring variety of factors: e.g. sex, age, mileage, attitudes, personality, risk taking, alertness, health, parental influence, in-car technology, perceived skills Several hundred respondents (non-pro drivers) from varied sample Baseline data with Manchester Driver Behaviour questionnaire Find associations with scores on MDB Give weightings to factors associated with good/bad MDB scores Use traffic light system to suggest need for driver re-training

  12. Method #2 Field Observations Test principles of behavioural profiling Can drivers exhibiting unsafe driving behaviours (UDBs) be profiled? Several observations in a single fast food chain in UK Summertime All covert All without permission Used same 2 researchers

  13. Field Observations Recorded details of all vehicles exiting car park during observations: 1. Drive-Thru versus Eat-in customers 2. Vehicle type 3. Sex 4. Passengers 5. UDBs eating drinking phone use no seatbelt no indicators poor traffic entry

  14. Field Observations

  15. Field Observations

  16. Field Observations - Results 202 vehicles observed 106 drive-thru 96 eat-in P-value (52.5%) (47.5%) Eating 21.6% 1.0% 0.00 Drinking 2.0% 0.0% 0.28 Using phone 1.0% 3.0% 0.54 No seatbelt 9.0% 8.0% 0.78 No signals 73.0% 66.0% 0.28 Entering traffic badly 7.0% 12.0% 0.24 “Unsafe driving” 83.0% 75.0% 0.16

  17. Field Observations Results 202 vehicles observed 120 Male 82 Female P-value (59%) (41%) “Safe Driving” 20% 24% 0.49 “Unsafe Driving” 80% 76%

  18. Field Observations Conclusions • Fast food customers drive fairly poorly upon exiting • signalling seatbelt use entering traffic • UDBs equal between drive-thru and eat-in customers • UDBs equal between sexes • 80% van drivers unsafe & 79% car drivers unsafe • Eating while driving obviously more common in drive-thru customers • If producing a gross behavioural profile of unsafe drivers • based on observations of crime scenes (fast food outlets), • we are looking for . . . .

  19. Example of Profiling and Unsafe Driving “Look for a British citizen with an average IQ, although it could be substantially higher or lower than average. The Unsafe driver will be a male or possibly female, who may be married or un-married, divorced or widowed. He or She may drive a decent car, but it may also be low-end of the market. The Unsafe driver will have a good job, although s/he may be unemployed or even self-employed. He or she will definitely be driving something with 4 wheels”.

  20. Field Observations Conclusions Culprits

  21. Conclusion • Behavioural Profiling too inaccurate, unreliable & subjective • Psychometric testing more reliable • Psychometric testing takes time, patience, & cost to get it right • Cheap to administer • Can be computerized • Easy to complete / self-completion • Simple to score • Objective • Easily comparable

More Related