a comparison of the driving anger scale and the propensity for angry driving scale
Post on 21-Dec-2016
Embed Size (px)
Accident Analysis and Prevention 58 (2013) 88 96
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accident Analysis and Prevention
j ourna l h om epage: www.elsev ier .co
A comp he Driving
Mark J.Ma School of Engb College of Art
a r t i c l
Article history:Received 8 ApReceived in reAccepted 5 Ma
Keywords:Risky drivingViolationsAngry drivingDriver angerDASPADSNew Zealand
scal behor Anan 18
and nrtiallut it r had
made a signicant contribution to the prediction of near-misses, but this time it was only the DAS whichmade a signicant contribution. The present study clearly shows that both scales are robust measures,measuring similar, but slightly different aspects of driving anger.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Driving efrustration,which has bwith one ofcommon to2002b). Furdrivers engbehavioursand Groege(2004) weninuential Research hto near-mispotential h2013) and closing contret al., 2001,
There arsured, with
vokes a wide range of emotions in people, including joy, anxiety, fear and anger. Anger is one of the emotionsecome increasingly researched over the last ten years,
the reasons for this being the fact that it is relatively experience anger while driving (Deffenbacher et al.,thermore, a number of studies have found that angryage more often in aggressive and dangerous driving
(Dahlen et al., 2005; Deffenbacher et al., 1994; Stephensr, 2011; Sullman et al., 2013). In fact, Dahlen and Ragant so far as to state that driving anger is one of the mostpredictors of aggressive and risky driving behaviour.as also found driving anger to be signicantly relatedses (Underwood et al., 1999), slower reaction times toazards (Stephens and Groeger, 2011; Stephens et al.,rash related conditions, such as loss of concentration,ol of the vehicle and crash involvement (Deffenbacher
2003; Sullman et al., 2007).e a number of ways in which driving anger can be mea-
two such scales being the Driving Anger Scale (DAS;
ding author. Tel.: +44 7771892297.ress: M.Sullman@craneld.ac.uk (M.J.M. Sullman).
Deffenbacher et al., 1994) and the Propensity for Angry DrivingScale (PADS; DePasquale et al., 2001). In addition there are twoversions of the DAS, a short fourteen item unidimensional measureand a longer thirty three item multidimensional measure. The shortversion of the DAS presents fourteen different situations and asksthe responding driver to report the degree of anger that each situ-ation makes them feel. In contrast, the PADS, which is a nineteenitem scale, presents situations that are likely to evoke anger andthen asks the respondent to indicate how they would respond byselecting one of four potential responses. These range from mildreactions, such as slowing down, to more extreme responses, suchas ramming the other car.
The DAS and PADS have both been found to have good psy-chometric properties. Research has shown the DAS to have goodinternal reliability, with alpha coefcients ranging from 0.80 to0.92 (Deffenbacher et al., 1994, 2002a). The alpha coefcients forthe PADS have also been good, ranging from 0.85 to 0.89 (Dahlenand Ragan, 2004; DePasquale et al., 2001). Convergent validity anddiscriminant validity for the PADS has been displayed through rela-tionships with trait anger and hostility (DePasquale et al., 2001),while the validity of the DAS has also been shown through cor-relations with the Trait Anger Scale (Deffenbacher et al., 1994;Villieux and Delhomme, 2007). Moreover, the testretest reliabil-ity of both scales has also been shown to be high. The PADShas been found to have four-week testretest reliability of 0.91
see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.rg/10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.002arison of the Driving Anger Scale and t Scale
. Sullmana,, Amanda N. Stephensb
ineering, Craneld University, UKs, Psychology, Victoria University, Australia
e i n f o
ril 2013vised form 3 May 2013y 2013
a b s t r a c t
The present study investigated the faScale) and the Propensity for Angry Dfrom the general population. The twowith general trait anger, risky drivingrelated conditions. Conrmatory FactPADS was reduced from a 19-item to to trait anger, risky driving behaviourvariables and trait anger had been pacontribution to predicting violations, bdemographic variables and trait angem/locate /aap
Propensity for Angry
structures of the 14-item version of the DAS (Driving Angerg Scale (PADS) using a sample of New Zealand drivers drawnes were also investigated with regards to their relationshipsaviour, along with crash involvement and a variety of crash-alysis supported both scales as unidimensional, although the-item scale. Both the PADS and DAS were signicantly relatedear-misses. However, once the inuence of the demographiced out, the addition of the PADS and DAS made a signicantwas only the PADS which was signicant. In contrast, after the
been partialled out, the addition of the DAS and PADS again
M.J.M. Sullman, A.N. Stephens / Accident Analysis and Prevention 58 (2013) 88 96 89
(DePasquale et al., 2001), while the DAS has been shown to haveten-week testretest reliability of 0.84 (Deffenbacher et al., 2002a).
As would be expected, both scales seem to have similar rela-tionships with descriptive variables (e.g., age and gender), as wellas driving bin the two version of tand Ragan,et al. (2001has found fthe DAS (Dgender diff1994).
Also in version of tage differeened versiet al., 2005noted that ples with (mentionedsamples froranges.
The DASrisky drivin2001, 2002concentratiDeffenbacha relationshet al., 2002bfusing ndithe PADS wcrashes (Daditions, sucroad rules research uscant relatioFurthermornicantly reand Ragan,
Althoughet al., 2001;Maxwell etDAS and theFurthermored the PADa twenty onversion. Thurable. MoreAustralian sbased upon2009). The solely uponthat the par19) and weralisability othe fact thahas been fo1998; Sullmbe investigawas the rsdrivers, butstudy also cously foundof drivers. Ttheir factor
Prope PADtes dncousponrespoely a
are dnly ro yo
nottualing cll at hererse le nex
milg adealand todjusas su
Driviving DAS;epict youf the evok
5 = v driv
Trait Traiesigre pble aded
4 = asurel con999
Driviving he Dehaviours and crash related conditions. For examplestudies which have used the original nineteen itemhe PADS neither reported any age differences (Dahlen
2004; DePasquale et al., 2001) and only DePasquale) reported a gender difference. Although some researchemales score more highly on the shortened version ofahlen and Ragan, 2004) most research has found noerences (e.g. Dahlen et al., 2005; Deffenbacher et al.,
contrast to the research using the multidimensionalhe DAS (e.g. Lajunen et al., 1998; Sullman, 2006) nonces were reported in the studies using the short-on of the scale (Dahlen and Ragan, 2004; Dahlen; Deffenbacher et al., 1994). However, it should bethe studies using the short DAS have all used sam-very narrow age ranges, whereas the two studies
above) using the longer version of the scale usedm the general population with much broader age
has also been found to be related to aggressive andg behaviour (Dahlen et al., 2005; Deffenbacher et al.,b) and other crash related conditions, such as; loss ofon, loss of control and near-misses (Dahlen et al., 2005;er et al., 2001). In addition, although one study foundip between the DAS and major crashes (Deffenbacher), this has not been a common nding. Similarly con-ngs have arisen from the PADS. In an American studyas found to be correlated with both major and minorhlen and Ragan, 2004) and other crash-related con-h as loss of control and receiving tickets for violating(Dahlen and Ragan, 2004). In contrast, more recenting an Australian version of the PADS found no signi-nship with crash involvement (Leal and Pachana, 2008).e, like the DAS, the PADS has also been found to be sig-lated to aggressive and risky driving behaviour (Dahlen2004).
the PADS has been validated ve times (DePasquale Dahlen and Ragan, 2004; Leal and Pachana, 2008, 2009;
al., 2005), only two of these studies have used both the PADS (Dahlen and Ragan, 2004; Maxwell et al., 2005).e, one of these two studies (Maxwell et al., 2005) modi-S by dropping four of the nineteen items and also usede item version of the DAS, rather than the fourteen items, the ndings generated by that study were not compa-over, as with the British study (Maxwell et al., 2005), thetudies also modied the PADS by dropping four items,
the results of a factor analysis (Leal and Pachana, 2008,only remaining study to compare the two scales relied
psychology undergraduates as participants. This meansticipants were from a very restricted age range (mediane mainly female (75%), calling into question the gener-f these ndings. This concern is highlighted further byt in samples from the general population driving angerund to be related to both gender and age (Lajunen et al.,an, 2006). Therefore, it seems important that the PADSted in a broader sample of drivers. The present studyt to not only investigate the PADS in a broader sample of
to use the PADS on drivers in New Zealand. The presentompared the PADS and DAS to test whether the previ-
relationships could be generalised to a broader samplehe scales were also subject to CFA in order to conrm