{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020579268292682928, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009908536585365854, 'mean_word_length': 5.698979591836735, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Role of Individual Differences in Accident Involvement

Many research studies have focused on identifying how individual differences are linked to accident involvement. Results have indicated that such factors as external locus of control, anti-authority, delinquency, and low emotional stability are predictive of accident involvement (see Hansen, 1988 and Arthur, Barrett and Alexander, 1991). However, many studies have been limited to examining a few individual difference measures and determining the bivariate correlation between the construct and the criterion measure of accidents (i.e. number of accidents involved in). Typically, a concurrent research design is used, possibly confounding the measures of individual differences. This paper examines the influence of individual differences on accident involvement using a longitudinal research design. Individual difference measures were collected on soldiers in FY 86/87 and measures of job performance and accident involvement were collected for these soldiers for the following 3 years. Overall, the results are weak linking temperament or intelligence to accident involvement. One possible reason for the findings is the low frequency of accidents. Suggestions for additional research such as using incidents rather than accidents are presented.