Two faces of internality: measuring overconfident and cautious driving Locus of Control
M. Masini, M. Passarelli, C. Chiorri, F. Bracco, T.F. Piccinno
Pages: 43-54
Abstract:
Locus of Control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe they can control events in their lives. Individuals with high ‘internal’ LoC think that they can control the situation; individuals with high ‘external’ LoC feel the opposite. LoC has been used to predict drivers’ behavior, but results are inconsistent: in some studies internal LoC is associated to safe driving behavior; in others to high rate of accidents; in others no relationship is found. We hypothesized that these findings reflect two different dimensions of internal LoC: (i) internal LoC makes people feel more responsible of their actions, so they are more cautious, and (ii) internal LoC makes people feel totally in control, so they push the boundaries. In this study we developed a new measure, the Driving Locus of Control Scale (DLOC), that differentiates two dimensions of internal LoC: overconfident and cautious. The DLOC was validated through exploratory (Sample 1: N = 187, 56% female, age 37 ±15) and confirmatory (Sample 2: N=325, 27% female, age 19 ± 7) factor analysis. The final measurement model comprised 11 items that loaded on three correlated factors (Overconfident Internal LoC, Cautious Internal LoC, External LoC) and showed good fit in both samples. To investigate construct validity, the Driving Internality (DI) - Driving Externality (DE) scale was administered in Sample 1. The Overconfident factor correlated with the DI (r=.40), and the External with the DE (r=.44). The internal/cautious factor correlated with neither the DI nor the DE. The results support the need to distinguish two dimensions of internal LoC, that might disambiguate the contrasting results on the relationship between risky driving and internal LoC.
Keywords: road safety; Locus of Control; driver behavior; internality; externality
2025 ISSUES
2024 ISSUES
LXII - April 2024LXIII - July 2024LXIV - November 2024Special 2024 Vol1Special 2024 Vol2Special 2024 Vol3Special 2024 Vol4
2023 ISSUES
LIX - April 2023LX - July 2023LXI - November 2023Special Issue 2023 Vol1Special Issue 2023 Vol2Special Issue 2023 Vol3
2022 ISSUES
LVI - April 2022LVII - July 2022LVIII - November 2022Special Issue 2022 Vol1Special Issue 2022 Vol2Special Issue 2022 Vol3Special Issue 2022 Vol4
2021 ISSUES
LIII - April 2021LIV - July 2021LV - November 2021Special Issue 2021 Vol1Special Issue 2021 Vol2Special Issue 2021 Vol3
2020 ISSUES
2019 ISSUES
Special Issue 2019 Vol1Special Issue 2019 Vol2Special Issue 2019 Vol3XLIX - November 2019XLVII - April 2019XLVIII - July 2019
2018 ISSUES
Special Issue 2018 Vol1Special Issue 2018 Vol2Special Issue 2018 Vol3XLIV - April 2018XLV - July 2018XLVI - November 2018
2017 ISSUES
Special Issue 2017 Vol1Special Issue 2017 Vol2Special Issue 2017 Vol3XLI - April 2017XLII - July 2017XLIII - November 2017
2016 ISSUES
Special Issue 2016 Vol1Special Issue 2016 Vol2Special Issue 2016 Vol3XL - November 2016XXXIX - July 2016XXXVIII - April 2016
2015 ISSUES
Special Issue 2015 Vol1Special Issue 2015 Vol2XXXV - April 2015XXXVI - July 2015XXXVII - November 2015
2014 ISSUES
Special Issue 2014 Vol1Special Issue 2014 Vol2Special Issue 2014 Vol3XXXII - April 2014XXXIII - July 2014XXXIV - November 2014
2013 ISSUES
2012 ISSUES
2011 ISSUES
2010 ISSUES
2009 ISSUES
2008 ISSUES
2007 ISSUES
2006 ISSUES
2005 ISSUES
2004 ISSUES
2003 ISSUES