期刊文献+

驾驶员决策风格对驾驶风格的影响 被引量:5

Effect of Decision Making Style on Drivers' Driving Style
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的探索驾驶员决策风格对驾驶风格的影响。方法采用多维度驾驶风格量表(MDSI-C)和一般决策风格量表(GDMS)对199名驾驶员进行测量。结果 MDSI-C感觉寻求、愤怒、焦虑和分心4个维度的性别差异显著(t=-3.021,-4.259,3.550,5.531,P<0.01)。理智与感觉寻求、分心和焦虑维度得分呈负相关(r=-0.352^-0.383,P<0.01)。直觉冲动与感觉寻求、分心和焦虑维度呈正相关(r=0.140~0.264,P<0.05)。依赖与愤怒、冒险维度呈负相关(r=-0.221,-0.242,P<0.01),与分心和焦虑维度呈正相关(r=0.350,0.477,P<0.01)。回归分析发现:驾驶员各人口学因素和DMPS各维度的主效应,可以分别解释冒险型、愤怒型和焦虑型驾驶风格36.9%、21.1%和42.1%的变异。结论不同决策风格类型通过影响驾驶员的驾驶风格,进而影响驾驶安全。 Objective To explore the effect of decision making style on drivers' driving styles. Methods 199 drivers were measured by using Chinese Multi- dimensional Driving Style Inventory and General Decision- Making Style scale revised by Chen xiaochen et al. Results Gender difference were found in sensation seeking,angry,anxious and dissociative driving styles( t =- 3. 021,- 4. 259,3. 550,5. 531,P < 0. 01). Rational correlated negatively with sensation seeking,dissociative and anxious driving style( r =- 0. 352 ^- 0. 383,P < 0. 01). Intuition- impulsive positively correlated with sensation seeking,dissociative and anxious driving styles( r = 0. 140 ~ 0. 264,P <0. 05). Dependent correlated negatively with angry and reckless driving styles( r =- 0. 221,- 0. 242,P < 0. 01),and correlated positively with dissociative and anxious driving style( r = 0. 350,0. 477,P < 0. 01). Regression analysis revealed that the effect of demographic factors and DMPS can explian 36. 9% variation of reckless driving style,21. 1%of angry driving style and 42. 1% of anxious driving style. Conclusion Different styles of decision- making have different effect on drivers' driving style,thereby affecting their driving safety.
作者 刘晶 孙龙
出处 《人类工效学》 2015年第4期18-21,共4页 Chinese Journal of Ergonomics
基金 2013年度辽宁省社会科学规划基金青年项目(L13CSH018)
关键词 驾驶员 驾驶决策 决策风格 驾驶风格 驾驶安全 交通安全 驾驶行为 交通事故 driver decision making making style driving style driving safety traffic safety driving behavior traffic accident.
  • 相关文献

参考文献11

二级参考文献88

  • 1朱国锋,何存道.驾驶员情绪状态量表信度与效度的初步研究[J].心理科学,2002,25(3):296-299. 被引量:11
  • 2Lauriola M, Levin I P. Personality traits and risky decision-making in a controlled experimental task: an exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 2001, 31:215-226
  • 3Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econornetrica, 1979, 47(2): 263-292
  • 4Soane E, Chmiel N. Are risk preferences consistent? The influence of decision domain and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 2005, 38:1781-1791
  • 5Moore S R, Smith R E, Gonzalez R. Personality and judgment heuristics: contextual and individual difference interactions in social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1997, 23(1): 76-83
  • 6Kowert P A, Hermann M Co. Who takes risks? Daring and caution in foreign policy making. Journal of conflict Resolution, 1997, 41(5): 611-637
  • 7Nicholson N, Soane E, Fenton-O'Creevy M, et al. Domain specific risk taking and personality. Journal of Risk Research, 2005, 8(2): 157-176
  • 8Levin I P, Gaeth G J, Schreiber J, et al. A new look at framing effects: distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2002, 88(1): 411-429
  • 9Levin I P, Schneider S L, Gaeth G J. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1998, 76(2): 149-188
  • 10Le Pine J A, Colquitt J A, Erez A. Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 2000, 53(3): 563-593

共引文献69

同被引文献29

引证文献5

二级引证文献11

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部