Brown Thomas G, Ouimet Marie Claude, Eldeb Manal, Tremblay Jacques, Vingilis Evelyn, Nadeau Louise, Pruessner Jens, Bechara Antoine
Research Centre of the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 24;11(2):e0150227. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150227. eCollection 2016.
Road crashes represent a huge burden on global health. Some drivers are prone to repeated episodes of risky driving (RD) and are over-represented in crashes and related morbidity. However, their characteristics are heterogeneous, hampering development of targeted intervention strategies. This study hypothesized that distinct personality, cognitive, and neurobiological processes are associated with the type of RD behaviours these drivers predominantly engage in.
Four age-matched groups of adult (19-39 years) males were recruited: 1) driving while impaired recidivists (DWI, n = 36); 2) non-alcohol reckless drivers (SPEED, n = 28); 3) drivers with a mixed RD profile (MIXED, n = 27); and 4) low-risk control drivers (CTL, n = 47). Their sociodemographic, criminal history, driving behaviour (by questionnaire and simulation performance), personality (Big Five traits, impulsivity, reward sensitivity), cognitive (disinhibition, decision making, behavioural risk taking), and neurobiological (cortisol stress response) characteristics were gathered and contrasted.
Compared to controls, group SPEED showed greater sensation seeking, disinhibition, disadvantageous decision making, and risk taking. Group MIXED exhibited more substance misuse, and antisocial, sensation seeking and reward sensitive personality features. Group DWI showed greater disinhibition and more severe alcohol misuse, and compared to the other RD groups, the lowest level of risk taking when sober. All RD groups exhibited less cortisol increase in response to stress compared to controls.
Each RD group exhibited a distinct personality and cognitive profile, which was consistent with stimulation seeking in group SPEED, fearlessness in group MIXED, and poor behavioural regulation associated with alcohol in group DWI. As these group differences were uniformly accompanied by blunted cortisol stress responses, they may reflect the disparate behavioural consequences of dysregulation of the stress system. In sum, RD preference appears to be a useful marker for clarifying explanatory pathways to risky driving, and for research into developing more personalized prevention efforts.
道路交通事故给全球健康带来了巨大负担。一些驾驶员容易反复出现危险驾驶行为，并且在交通事故及相关发病率中占比过高。然而，他们的特征具有异质性，这阻碍了针对性干预策略的制定。本研究假设，不同的人格、认知和神经生物学过程与这些驾驶员主要从事的危险驾驶行为类型相关。
招募了四组年龄匹配的成年男性（19 - 39岁）：1）屡犯酒后驾车者（DWI，n = 36）；2）非酒精类鲁莽驾驶者（SPEED，n = 28）；3）具有混合危险驾驶特征的驾驶者（MIXED，n = 27）；4）低风险对照驾驶者（CTL，n = 47）。收集并对比了他们的社会人口统计学、犯罪史、驾驶行为（通过问卷调查和模拟表现）、人格（大五人格特质、冲动性、奖励敏感性）、认知（去抑制、决策、行为风险承担）和神经生物学（皮质醇应激反应）特征。
与对照组相比，SPEED组表现出更强的寻求刺激、去抑制、不利决策和风险承担能力。MIXED组表现出更多的物质滥用，以及反社会、寻求刺激和奖励敏感的人格特征。DWI组表现出更强的去抑制和更严重的酒精滥用，并且与其他危险驾驶组相比，清醒时的风险承担水平最低。与对照组相比，所有危险驾驶组在应激反应中皮质醇升高幅度较小。
每个危险驾驶组都表现出独特的人格和认知特征，这与SPEED组的刺激寻求、MIXED组的无畏以及DWI组与酒精相关的行为调节不良相一致。由于这些组间差异均伴随着皮质醇应激反应减弱，它们可能反映了应激系统失调的不同行为后果。总之，危险驾驶偏好似乎是一个有用的标志，有助于阐明危险驾驶的解释途径，并为开发更个性化的预防措施提供研究依据。
