results being found, is remarkable, in the least. That
level of dedication reveals an unusual persistence in
pursuing a specific behavioral concept, particularly
with no support from one study to the next. In fact,
there are no controlled studies that demonstrated a
decrease in accident rates when individuals were
screened using psychological tests.

CURRENT STATUS

It cannot be denied that the idea of accident prone-
ness has a certain intuitive appeal. It seems consistent
with some of the experiences that we might have had
regarding certain people we have known; that is,
some individuals seem to have more than their “fair
share” of accidents. However, intuitive appeal can-
not replace empirical predictive validity. This is not
to say that some personality factors, in combination
with many other factors, may not play a role in the
occurrence of accidents, but rather that they are
limited in their usefulness, particularly as an aid in
predicting accidents.

Before accident proneness can be accepted as a
stable personality characteristic, it must be measured
reliably and then shown to have validity as a predic-
tor. Personality researchers have only recently been
able to consistently identify personality trait dimen-
sions (Digman, 1989). Barrick and Mount (1991)
have established relationships between these traits
and job performance using meta-analysis; however,
the use of personality traits to predict the likelihood
of accident involvement is still a long way off. The
folklore behind the measurement of personality, as it
applies to the identification of those who are “prone”
to accidents, needs to be replaced by rigorous scien-
tific methods and data. The lack of cross-validation
obviates the claims of those noted above who pur-
ported to have found scales that predict susceptibil-
ity to accidents.

The cross-validation problem is exemplified by a
pair of studies conducted by Sanders and Hofmann
(1975), in which they investigated the personality
aspects in aviation accidents involving pilot error. In
the first study, they found that they could correctly

classify 86% of their sample of aviators as to whether
they had been previously listed as contributing to a
military aviation accident. However, the cross-
validation study conducted the following year failed
to identify a single personality trait consistently
associated with pilots involved in accidents (Sanders,
Hofmann, and Neese, 1976).

According to Connolly (1981), the following
conclusions about accident proneness appear to be
the least assailable. First, there are accident repeaters
but inequality of exposure is difficult to exclude as a
contributing cause. Second, repeating is possible in
a very small number of people; however, repeaters
are mostly an ever-changing group. That is, accident
repeatersare not astable componentof the workforce,
and their identification and removal would not
lower accident rates by much. Finally, as already
mentioned, psychological testing has not been use-
ful in describing or predicting accident proneness.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It should be pointed out that it is not the concept of
accident proneness that is being questioned in this
paper, but rather, the unsubstantiated claims that it
is an identifiable constellation of personality traits
thatcan be predicted using psychological tests. There
are three fundamental issues that need to be ad-
dressed before any meaningful data on accident
propensity can be obtained. The first issue is that
such research requires a substantial data base for use
in conducting a statistical validation analysis where
the criterion variable is the number of accidents.
Such a data base does not exist, nor is it likely that one
can be compiled. Because most people are not in-
volved in multiple accidents, a criterion other than
number of accidents would first need to be estab-
lished, such as incidents or errors, or some other less
ultimate criterion measure.

Second, stability over time of the psychological
variables used as predictors must be demonstrated. If
personality variables are to be used to establish
relationships with accident occurrence, a longitudi-
nal study is necessary to ensure that these variables do

-_

oneness.

oe


attempted to show that unequal liability could be
explained by significant differences in personality
traits between “accident-free” and “accident-prone”
groups. These investigators assembled a set of
“personality” tests, which consisted of aesthetokinetic
(perceptualmotor), intelligence, mechanical aptitude,
and perseveration measures. Correlational analysis
on a group of 128 bus drivers over a five-year period
yielded low, positive correlations, none of which was
significant. The data on the psychomotor test were
then ordered according to interquartile groups for
each of the five years for which accident data were
available, and mean differences between top and
bottom interquartile groups were tested for each
year. Statistically-significant differences were found
between groups at the p< .05 level for years 3, 4, and
5. Farmers and Chambers then concluded that,
“Accident proneness is no longer a theory but an
established fact.” They asserted further that if the
psychomotor test were used in screening driver
applicants, the future accident rate would be reduced.
However, they made no attempt to validate this
assertion,

Farmers and Chambers proceeded further, assert-
ing that, “Accident proneness was shown to manifest
itself in all kinds of accidents and throughout all
conditions of exposure,” a supposition that was not
supported by their data, Their study did not ad-
equately document whether the quality and quantity
of the exposure of the various groups were the same,
and they made the unwarranted interpretation that
differences between groups were due to stable psy-
chological characteristics. This was in spite of their
finding that the tests used were of doubtful validity
with only one, aesthetokinetic (which can hardly be
considered a personality measure), showing statisti-
cal significance,

In a later writing however, Chambers seemed to
have second thoughts about their previous assertions
(Chambers and Yule, 1941); however, like Green-
wood and Woods, and Newbold before them, only
their conclusions were recalled and quoted in later
years by numerous individuals intrigued with the
notion of being able to screen “accident prone”

individuals from the workforce. Such misinterpreta-
tion of findings contributed significantly to the
development ofa folklore surrounding the notion of
accident proneness that has little correspondence to
the evidence upon which it is said to be based. As
additional personality tests were used in subsequent
studies, contradictory and confusing results called to
question the accident-proneness concept proposed
by Farmers and Chambers, and it largely lost favor
among informed research workers, but not among
the general public and particularly, not in some
management circles,

A factor contributing to the folklore was that
accident-proneness theory provided managers of
that era with an excuse to blame the employee, rather
than sharing responsibility for an accident. Stimu-
lated by misleading reports, and the manager's “need
to believe,” studies on the theory of, accident-prone-
ness proliferated, but unfortunately, most were flawed
in their scientific methods. Later, several researchers
(Mintz and Blum, 1948; Arbous and Kerrich, 195 1)
critically reviewed the literature in the field and
found a considerable amount of careless reporting,
illogical reasoning, and lack of familiarity with the
statistical theory underlying the notion of accident
proneness. However, faulty conclusions continued
to plague the literature and further the misunder-
standing of accident-proneness. Much later,
Wagenaarand Groeneweg (1987) noted, “Psycholo-
gists are talking moonshine if they claim that acci-
dent-prone people can be removed through
psychological testing.” In spite of such ‘warnings, the
inclination to believe that psychological testing can
be used to identify accident-prone individuals still
exists today.

Recently, Hanson (1988) observed that the con-
cept of accident proneness reveals little about how
accident-involved workers differ from workers who
are accident-free. Efforts to establish a relationship
between personality characteristics and accident li-
ability during the last 40 years include over 20
separate research studies. For so many researchers to
persist in pursuing the construct of accident prone-
ness, as it relates to personality, without any reliable


indeed remain stable over time. Third, there is the
need to account for the impact of situational and
circumstantial variables (i.e., differential risk, differ-
ential perceived risk, and life events) on the likeli-
hood of an accident occurring. As Alkov, Gaynor,
and Borowsky (1985) insightfully noted, “Rather
than a chronic lifelong personality trait, we may be
dealing with acute situational factors that precipitate
risk-taking behavior during certain times of life.”
Arbous and Kerrich (1 951), in an illuminating cri-
tique, divided accident-proneness research into two
parts; clinical evaluation and statistical analysis. They
warned against indiscriminate use of the notion of
accident-proneness to explain all cases of repeated
accidents; however, they also noted that it cannot be
said that no cases of accident Proneness exist, and
that consideration of the concept, as a clinical phe-
nomenon applied to some individuals, may have
some value.

If meaningful results are to be obtained in this
area, the three issues noted above must be addressed
and resolved satisfactorily. Further, that research
must conform to established principles and stan-
dards for conducting psychometric studies, Without
these conditions being met, there is no Purpose
whatsoever in continuing to pursue an approach to
accident- proneness, characterized by many of the
studies reviewed in this paper, and continuing to add
to the large body of highly-flawed literature on the
subject. Folklore, however intriguing, adds litte to
the scientific understanding necessary to predict
human behavior.

REFERENCES

Alkov, R.A., Gaynor, J.A., Borowsky, B.S. (1985).
Pilot error as a symptom of inadequate stress
coping. Aviation, Space and Environmental
Medicine, 56:3, 244-277,

Arbous, A.G. and Kerrich, J.E. (1951). Accident
statistics andthe concept of accident Pprone-
ness. Biometrics, 7, 340,

Barrick, M.R, Mount, MK. (1991). The big five
Personality dimensions and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-27.

Connolly, J. (1981). Accident Proneness. British
Journal of Hospital Medicine, 26(5), 470-474,

Digman, J.M. (1989). Fiver robust trait dimen-
sions: Development, stability, and utility. Jour-
nal of Personality, 57(2), 195-214,

Farmers, E. and Chambers, E.G. (1 939). A study of
accident proneness among motor drivers. In-
dustrial Health Research Board, Medical Re-
search Council, Report No. 84. Her Britannic
Majesty’s Stationary Office, London.

Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The
incidence of industrial accidents upon indi-
viduals with special reference to multiple acci-
dents. /ndustrial. Fatigue Research Board, Medi-
cal Research Committee, Report No. 4. Her
Britannic Majesty’s Stationary Office, Lon-
don.

Haddon, W., Suchman, E.A., and Klein, D. (1964).
Accident Research. NY.: Harper & Row.

Mintz, A., and Blum, MLL. (1949). A re-examina-
tion of the accident proneness concept. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 33, 195-211.

Newbold, E.M. (1926). A contribution to the study
of the human factor in the causation of acci-
dents. Report No. 34. Industrial Health Re-
search Board, London.

Sanders,M.G., and Hofmann, M.A. (1975). Per-
sonality aspects of involvement in pilot-error
accidents. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine, 46(2), pp. 186-190.

Sanders, M.G., Hofmann, M.A., and Neese, T.A.
(1976). Cross-validation study of the person-
ality aspects of involvement in pilot-error acci-
dents. Aviation, Space, and Environmental ‘Medi-
cine, 42(2), pp. 177-179.

Wagenaar, W.A., and Groeneweg, J. (1987). Acci-
dents at sea: Multiple causes and impossible
consequences. International Journal of Man-
Machine Studies, 27, 587-598.

4 xu.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993-761-068-60067




Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

DOT/FAA/AM-93/9

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Accident Proneness: A Research Review

5. Report Date
May 1993

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Mark D. Rodgers, Ph.D., and Robert E. Blanchard, Ph.D.

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address
FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute
P.O. Box 25082

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract ar Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address

Office of Aviation Medicine
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20591

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

a. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplemental Notes

16. Abstract

Accident proneness is a concept that refers to an

enduring or stable personality characteristic that

predisposes an individual toward having accidents (Haddon, Suchman, and Klein, 1964). The concept is
controversial and has sustained a lively debate in the literature over the past 75 years. For the most part,
though, continual interest has been fueled by poor experimental procedures, misinterpretation of previously
reported results, the need to assign blame to individuals, and a rather curious doggedness in attempting to
establish a relationship between accidents and personality traits, despite the lack of supporting scientific
evidence. This paper reports the origins of the notion of accident proneness and reviews the studies that

purport to support or refute it.

17. Key Words

Accident Proneness, Personality Traits, Accidents,
Prediction, Literature Critiques

18. Distribution Statement

Document is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Z

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

Reproduction of completed page authorized


ACCIDENT PRONENESS: A RESEARCH REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Background

Accident proneness is a concept that refers to an
enduring or stable personality characteristic that
predisposes an individual toward having acci-
dents (Haddon, Suchman, and Klein, 1964).
The concept is controversial and has sustained
a lively debate in the literature over the past 75
years. For the most part, though, continual
interest has been fueled by poor experimental
procedures, misinterpretation of previously reported
results, the need to assign blame to individuals, and
a rather curious doggedness in attempting to estab-
lish a relationship between accidents and personality
traits, despite the lack of supporting scientific evi-
dence. This paper reports the origins of the notion of
accident proneness and reviews the studies that
purport to support or refute it.

Early Studies

It all began during World War I with Greenwood
and Woods (1919), who studied workers at a British
munitions factory and found that accidents were not
evenly distributed among workers, but that a rela-
tively small proportion had most of the accidents, In
an effort to explain this phenomenon, they sug-
gested the notion of unequal initial liability, a con-
cept that later came to be called “accident proneness.”
This investigation involved the comparison of ob-
served accident frequency with the accident fre-
quency that would be expected by chance alone.
Greenwood and Woods also performed checks across
consecutive time periods for these variables and
found what they reported as positive correlations,
which led them to propose the presence of individu-
als with unequal liabilities as the best explanation of
their findings,

In spite of relatively careful experimental proce-
dures, these investigators arrived at the unfounded
conclusion that, “So far as our present knowledge
oes, it seems that the genesis of multiple accidents
under uniform external conditions is an affair of
personality...” Remarkably, they reached this con-
clusion without any specific study of the per-
sonalities of the individuals whose accidents
they tabulated.

Later, Newbold (1926), followed up on the work
of Greenwood and Woods and studied the accident
records of a large group of workers in 13 factories.
Like Greenwood and Woods, Newbold found that
a small number of workers contributed more than
their share of accidents. She also concluded that this
finding was indicative of a stable personality charac-
teristic. However, Newbold carefully pointed out
that, “It is not possible in a mass examination of this
kind to find out how much of this may be due to
individual differences in the conditions of work or
how much to personal tendency, but there are many
indications that some part, at any rate, is due to
personal tendency.”

Nonetheless, despite Newbold’s caveat and care-
ful phrasing with respect to “personal tendency,” her
work was often cited as offering proof of the exist-
ence of individuals who are psychologically prone to
accidents (Haddon, and co-authors, 1964).

Later Studies

The actual psychological construct of accident
proneness evolved from the work of Farmers and
Chambers (1939), who utilized the statistical
observations of Greenwood and Woods (1919) and
Newbold (1926) to formulate a formal theoretical
description of the accident-prone individual in
psychological terms. Farmers and Chambers