Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS

The Big Five Inventory–2 (BFI-2) uses 60 items to hierarchically assess the Big Five personality domains and 15 more-specific facet traits. The present research develops two abbreviated forms of the BFI-2—the 30-item BFI-2-S and the 15-item BFI-2-XS—and then examines their measurement properties. At the level of the Big Five domains, we find that the BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS retain much of the full measure’s reliability and validity. At the facet level, we find that the BFI-2-S may be useful for examining facet traits in reasonably large samples, whereas the BFI-2-XS should not be used to assess facets. Finally, we discuss some key tradeoffs to consider when deciding whether to administer an abbreviated form instead of the full BFI-2.     

Are situation awareness and decision-making in driving totally conscious processes? Results of a hazard prediction task

Detecting danger in the driving environment is an indispensable task to guarantee safety which depends on the driver’s ability to predict upcoming hazards. But does correct prediction lead to an appropriate response? This study advances hazard perception research by investigating the link between successful prediction and response selection. Three groups of drivers (learners, novices and experienced drivers) were recruited, with novice and experienced drivers further split into offender and non-offender groups. Specifically, this works aims to develop an improved Spanish Hazard Prediction Test and to explore the differences in Situation Awareness, (SA: perception, comprehension and prediction) and Decision-Making (DM) among learners, younger inexperienced and experienced drivers and between driving offenders and non-offenders. The contribution of the current work is not only theoretical; the Hazard Prediction Test is also a valid way to test Hazard Perception. The test, as well as being useful as part of the test for a driving license, could also serve a purpose in the renewal of licenses after a ban or as a way of training drivers. A sample of 121 participants watched a series of driving video clips that ended with a sudden occlusion prior to a hazard. They then answered questions to assess their SA (“What is the hazard?” “Where is it located?” “What happens next?”) and DM (“What would you do in this situation?”). This alternative to the Hazard Perception Test demonstrates a satisfactory internal consistency (Alpha = 0.750), with eleven videos achieving discrimination indices above 0.30. Learners performed significantly worse than experienced drivers when required to identify and locate the hazard. Interestingly, drivers were more accurate in answering the DM question than questions regarding SA, suggesting that drivers can choose an appropriate response manoeuvre without a totally conscious knowledge of the exact hazard.     

Analysis of factors affecting drivers’ choice to engage with a mobile phone while driving in Beijing

In the current work, we examined reasons that drivers choose to engage with a mobile phone while driving in Beijing. An Internet survey was administered to collect data about talking and texting while driving. Conversations were sorted into different types. Respondents were requested to indicate the frequency of initiating a call or text, perceived risk, perceived importance and emotionality of the call or text. A structural equation model of talking and texting while driving was developed with perceived risk, perceived importance and emotionality of the call as predictors and compared to a similar model with U.S. drivers. Unlike the U.S. data, perceived risk has a significant negative impact on the choice to call or text among drivers in Beijing. Results also show that perceived importance of the call is a major factor affecting the usage of phone while driving. Even though drivers know it is dangerous and illegal, Beijing drivers choose to talk on mobile phones while driving, but they prefer not to text.