↓ Skip to main content

Sensation Seeking, Non-contextual Decision Making, and Driving Abilities As Measured through a Moped Simulator

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sensation Seeking, Non-contextual Decision Making, and Driving Abilities As Measured through a Moped Simulator
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02126
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evelyn Gianfranchi, Mariaelena Tagliabue, Andrea Spoto, Giulio Vidotto

Abstract

The general aim of the present study was to explore the relations between driving style (assessed through a moped riding simulator) and psychological variables such as sensation seeking and decision making. Because the influences of sensation seeking and decision making on driving styles have been studied separately in the literature, we have tried to investigate their mutual relations so as to include them in a more integrated framework. Participants rode the Honda Riding Trainer (HRT) simulator, filled in the Sensation Seeking Scale V (SSS V), and performed the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). A cluster analysis of the HRT riding indexes identified three groups: Prudent, Imprudent, and Insecure riders. First, the results showed that Insecure males seek thrills and adventure less than both Prudent males and Insecure females, whereas Prudent females are less disinhibited than both Prudent males and Insecure females. Moreover, concerning the relations among SSS, decision making as measured by the IGT, and riding performance, high thrill and adventure seekers performed worse in the simulator only if they were also bad decision makers, indicating that these two traits jointly contribute to the quality of riding performance. From an applied perspective, these results also provide useful information for the development of protocols for assessing driving abilities among novice road users. Indeed, the relation between risk proneness and riding style may allow for the identification of road-user populations who require specific training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 19 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 22%
Engineering 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 22 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,578,649
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,484
of 30,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,700
of 439,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#454
of 533 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 533 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.