Most organisations still treat risk as something external, something to do with equipment, processes or environment. Yet the research is unmistakable, accidents usually come from behaviour. People behave according to deeply ingrained psychological preferences, not according to checklists, and this is the part of risk management that most businesses ignore.
The PeopleMaps Behavioural Risk Index changes that completely. It provides a structured, predictive view of how an individual’s natural behavioural style, rooted in Jungian preference theory, influences the likelihood of accidents, errors or unsafe decisions.
According to some research, in over 90% of accidents human behaviour played a significant contribution.
Our behaviour is strongly influenced by our personality type, as most behaviours are personality-centric.
Some behaviours have been identified as being contributors to accidents and therefore present an increase in risk.
PeopleMaps can determine personality type and therefore preferred behaviour. From this it can measure potential risk.
Behaviour sits at the centre of real world risk
Decades of research support the idea that predictable personality patterns influence safety outcomes.
Clarke and Robertson’s meta analytic review showed this behaviour increased accident involvement across multiple work settings.
Research linking lower cooperative behaviour with rule breaking and corner cutting is touching on Jungian patterns associated with strong autonomy, independent decision making and lower natural inclination toward group coordination. Beus et al. described this pattern as a key predictor of unsafe behaviour even when safety climate was controlled.
In driver behaviour research, sensation seeking is consistently linked with speeding, risky overtaking and reduced hazard perception. In Jungian language, this reflects a preference for stimulation, novelty and rapid engagement with the environment. PeopleMaps models this as a high preference for pace, intensity and momentum.
Driving anger research, including Zhang et al., shows that frustration sensitivity creates higher crash risk. In Jungian terms this is not pathology, it is a preference for direct expression combined with a lower threshold for environmental interference. When that preference is mismatched to the driving environment, risk increases.
What the PeopleMaps Behavioural Risk Index actually measures
The Index takes these well established behavioural risk patterns and maps them onto PeopleMaps’ Jungian based framework.
preference for pace versus steadiness
preference for order versus spontaneity
preference for harmony versus assertiveness
preference for emotional intensity versus emotional detachment
preference for stimulation versus predictability
preference for focus versus broad awareness
These preferences are not good or bad. They simply tell us how someone naturally engages with the world. Risk increases when the role demands behaviour that contradicts those preferences.
The Index identifies where this misalignment is likely and converts it into a clear, practical behavioural risk signal. Employers can then design roles more intelligently, provide targeted support and avoid placing individuals into environments that force them into unnatural patterns that increase the likelihood of mistakes.
Why this approach works
This is why the Behavioural Risk Index is so powerful. It gives organisations the ability to predict where an individual’s natural preferences may create unsafe behaviour before it ever shows up on the road or in the workplace. It turns personality insight into prevention.
References
Clarke, S. & Robertson, I. (2005). A meta analytic review of personality factors and accident involvement.
Beus, J., McCord, M. & Zohar, D. (2015). A meta analysis of personality and workplace safety behaviour.
Jonah, B. (1997). Sensation seeking and risky driving.
Zhang, T. et al. (2019). Driving anger and crash risk.
