Introduction: Unsafe driving contributes substantially to road traffic crashes, and impulsivity is a consistent behavioral risk factor; however, the mechanisms translating impulsivity into unsafe driving remain unclear, limiting targeted intervention. Method: Across two studies, we tested whether two modifiable psychological resources—spiritual fitness (SF; a secular construct reflecting value-based decision-making and moral conduct in traffic) and existential well-being (EWB)—mediate the link between trait impulsivity and aggressive/hostile driving behaviors (AHB) and anxiety-based performance deficits (APD). Study 1 used hierarchical and logistic regressions controlling for sex, driving experience, and crash involvement. Study 2 re-tested the model longitudinally over six months using bias-corrected bootstrapping (5,000 resamples), controlling for baseline mediator and outcome levels. Results: In Study 1, adding SF and EWB reduced impulsivity’s effects on AHB (β = 0.287 to 0.095) and APD (β = 0.292 to 0.092), with incremental ΔR2 of 0.132 and 0.152, respectively. Lifetime crash involvement was independently associated with lower EWB (OR = 0.69 per SD, 95% CI [0.49, 0.97]); drivers in the lower half of EWB showed roughly double the crash-involvement rate. In Study 2, total indirect effects were significant for AHB (ab = 0.037, 95% CI [.004, 0.078]) and APD (ab = 0.050, 95% CI [.010, 0.097]); EWB was the only significant longitudinal mediator of APD. An exposure-adjusted Poisson model corroborated these findings: each SD of EWB predicted a 34% lower crash rate per year licensed (IRR = 0.66), whereas impulsivity predicted an elevated rate (IRR = 1.51). Conclusions: Impulsivity affects unsafe driving indirectly through SF and EWB, with full mediation for APD (via EWB) and indirect-only mediation for AHB. Practical Applications: Brief EWB screening may aid fitness-for-duty assessment and post-license rehabilitation; a 4–6 session CBT-based module targeting rumination, intrusive thoughts, and attentional control is proposed as a testable intervention hypothesis pending controlled evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mamcarz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: