• Enhances pedestrian awareness in urban traffic. • Improves safety for vulnerable road users. • Examines factors influencing pedestrian behaviour. • Supports data-driven analysis of pedestrian dynamics. • Suggests research on gender, age, and physical limitations. Safeguarding pedestrian safety is fundamental to the successful transition toward sustainable urban mobility systems, given that walking remains a prevalent transport mode in everyday urban travel. Advancing pedestrian safety requires not only effective urban and transport planning but also a deeper understanding of pedestrian behaviour. This study explores the potential association between fundamental personality traits and self-reported pedestrian behaviours at intersections. An online survey was conducted using a non-probabilistic convenience sample of 548 participants aged 15 to 80, predominantly young, highly educated, and digitally active individuals residing in Portugal. Three established instruments were employed: The Pedestrian Behaviour Scale (PBS), the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), and the Impulsive Sensation Seeking Scale (ImpSS). Exploratory factor analysis of the PBS identified four behavioural dimensions: transgressive acts, attentional lapses, aggressive responses and prosocial behaviours. Descriptive results indicated higher levels of self-reported rule violations and lower levels of aggressive behaviour. Gender-related tendencies were observed, with men reporting more risk-prone behaviours and women slightly higher attentional lapses. Correlational analysis suggested positive associations between impulsivity, extraversion, and transgressive pedestrian behaviours. Given limitations related to sample composition, self-report measures, and the reliability of certain personality subscales, findings are interpreted as exploratory. The study contributes to interdisciplinary transport research by highlighting how psychological characteristics may relate to pedestrian behaviour, while underscoring the need for system-level safety strategies that do not place responsibility solely on pedestrians.
Oliveira et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: