A comparison of the Driving Anger Scale and the Propensity for Angry Driving Scale

Download A comparison of the Driving Anger Scale and the Propensity for Angry Driving Scale

Post on 21-Dec-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents

2 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>Accident Analysis and Prevention 58 (2013) 88 96</p><p>Contents lists available at ScienceDirect</p><p>Accident Analysis and Prevention</p><p>j ourna l h om epage: www.elsev ier .co</p><p>A comp he Driving</p><p>Mark J.Ma School of Engb College of Art</p><p>a r t i c l</p><p>Article history:Received 8 ApReceived in reAccepted 5 Ma</p><p>Keywords:Risky drivingViolationsAngry drivingDriver angerDASPADSNew Zealand</p><p>ctor rivin</p><p> scal behor Anan 18</p><p> and nrtiallut it r had</p><p>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.</p><p> 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p><p>1. Introdu</p><p>Driving efrustration,which has bwith one ofcommon to2002b). Furdrivers engbehavioursand Groege(2004) weninuential Research hto near-mispotential h2013) and closing contret al., 2001,</p><p>There arsured, with</p><p> CorresponE-mail add</p><p>0001-4575/$ http://dx.doi.oction</p><p>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,</p><p> 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</p><p> (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</p><p> 2003; Sullman et al., 2007).e a number of ways in which driving anger can be mea-</p><p> two such scales being the Driving Anger Scale (DAS;</p><p>ding author. Tel.: +44 7771892297.ress: M.Sullman@craneld.ac.uk (M.J.M. Sullman).</p><p>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.</p><p>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</p><p> 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</p><p>. Sullmana,, Amanda N. Stephensb</p><p>ineering, Craneld University, UKs, Psychology, Victoria University, Australia</p><p> e i n f o</p><p>ril 2013vised form 3 May 2013y 2013</p><p>a b s t r a c t</p><p>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</p><p>Propensity for Angry</p><p>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</p><p> been partialled out, the addition of the DAS and PADS again</p></li><li><p>M.J.M. Sullman, A.N. Stephens / Accident Analysis and Prevention 58 (2013) 88 96 89</p><p>(DePasquale et al., 2001), while the DAS has been shown to haveten-week testretest reliability of 0.84 (Deffenbacher et al., 2002a).</p><p>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).</p><p>Also in version of tage differeened versiet al., 2005noted that ples with (mentionedsamples froranges.</p><p>The DASrisky drivin2001, 2002concentratiDeffenbacha relationshet al., 2002bfusing ndithe PADS wcrashes (Daditions, sucroad rules research uscant relatioFurthermornicantly reand Ragan, </p><p>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</p><p>2. Methods</p><p>2.1. Participants</p><p>otal ealan</p><p> rangen liporte,242</p><p>ateri</p><p>Prope PADtes dncousponrespoely a</p><p>are dnly ro yo</p><p> nottualing cll at hererse le nex</p><p>ponsutlind by</p><p> milg adealand todjusas su</p><p>Driviving DAS;epict youf the evok</p><p> 5 = v driv</p><p>Trait Traiesigre pble aded </p><p> 4 = asurel con999</p><p>Driviving he Dehaviours and crash related conditions. For examplestudies which have used the original nineteen itemhe PADS neither reported any age differences (Dahlen</p><p> 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.,</p><p>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</p><p> above) using the longer version of the scale usedm the general population with much broader age</p><p> 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).</p><p> the PADS has been validated ve times (DePasquale Dahlen and Ragan, 2004; Leal and Pachana, 2008, 2009;</p><p> 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,</p><p> the results of a factor analysis (Leal and Pachana, 2008,only remaining study to compare the two scales relied</p><p> 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</p><p> to use the PADS on drivers in New Zealand. The presentompared the PADS and DAS to test whether the previ-</p><p> relationships could be generalised to a broader samplehe scales were also subject to CFA in order to conrm</p><p> structure.</p><p>A tNew Z43.7%)had beand re(M = 16</p><p>2.2. M</p><p>2.2.1. The</p><p>vignetmay ethen reThese extrem</p><p>You suddeHow d(a) Do(b) Ac</p><p>be(c) Ye</p><p>w(d) Cu</p><p>th</p><p>Resdure oreplacesentingwordinNew Zchangewere apark w</p><p>2.2.2. Dri</p><p>Scale (items dbeeps aeach oanger anger;overall</p><p>2.2.3. The</p><p>scale dpants aapplicahot-henever;all meainterna1988, 1</p><p>2.2.4. Dri</p><p>from tof 213 licenced drivers recruited from three cities ind participated in the study. Participants (males = 92;ed in age from 17 to 80 years (M = 43.96; SD = 15.95),cenced between 1 and 65 years (M = 25.73; SD = 14.68)d driving between approximately 100 and 78,000 km; SD = 10,603) per annum.</p><p>als</p><p>nsity for Angry Driving Scale (PADS)S (DePasquale et al., 2001) contains nineteen shortescribing potentially anger-inducing situations driversnter. Participants are asked to read each vignette andd by circling the most appropriate of four responses.nses range on a continuum from mildly aggressive toggressive. For example:</p><p>riving on a city street. Without warning, a pedestrianuns in front of your car nearly causing you to hit him/her.u respond?hing except feel grateful no-one was injuredly stop your car and get out to yell at the pedestrian forareless and stupidthe pedestrian out your window telling them to watch</p><p> they are goingoudly at the pedestrian out your window telling themt time you are not going to stop</p><p>es to the 19-items are rescored according to the proce-ed by DePasquale et al. (2001) where item responses are</p><p> weighted mean response values ranging from 1 (repre-d responses) to 7 (severe aggressive responses). Minoraptations were made to make the terms suitable for ad sample. For example, the measurement system was</p><p> metric, reference to the left and right side of the roadsted and a number of American terms changed (e.g. carbstituted for parking lot).</p><p>ng Anger Scale (short)Anger was also measured using the short Driving Anger</p><p> Deffenbacher et al., 1994). The DAS (short) contains 14-ting anger-provoking situations. For example, Someone</p><p> about your driving. Participants are asked to imaginesituations happening to them and to rate the amount ofed by each on a ve-point scale (1 = not at all; 3 = someery much anger). Responses are then tallied to form oneing anger score.</p><p>Anger Scalet Anger Scale (TAS; Spielberger, 1988,1999) is a 10-itemned to measure trait propensities for anger. Partici-resented with 10 statements and asked to indicate howeach one generally is to them. For example, I am aperson. Responses are on a 4-point scale (1 = almostlmost always). Responses are scored to provide an over-</p><p> of propensity to become angered. The TAS exhibits goodsistency with ranging from 0.81 to 0.91 (Spielberger,).</p><p>ng violationsviolations were obtained using the eight violation itemsriving Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ; Reason et al.,</p></li><li><p>90 M.J.M. Sullman, A.N. Stephens / Accident Analysis and Prevention 58 (2013) 88 96</p><p>1990). Participants are asked to rate how often in the past year theyhave committed each of the eight different types of driving viola-tions; for example, disregarded the speed limit on a residential road.Ratings are made on a 6-point scale (0 = never; 3 = occasionally;5 = all the time). The violation subscale of the DBQ has good internalreliability ( = 0.81; Parker et al., 1995, 2002).</p><p>2.2.5. Driving Survey and Speed PreferencesParticipants also provided information on accidents and acci-</p><p>dent related history using questions taken from Deffenbacher et al.(2000) Driving Survey. Six questions were provided which askedhow often in the past three months participants had: been in aminor accident; been in a major accident; received a trafc ticket;lost concentration while driving; a minor loss of control of thevehicle while driving; nearly had an accident (near-misses). Par-ticipants provide one value indicating the frequency of each. Thesesix questions were analysed as individual variables.</p><p>Participants also reported the speed they would generally driveat on ve different types of roads. These were: an open road; a busymain street; a road through a residential area; a motorway; and, awinding coeach instan</p><p>2.2.6. DemoDemogr</p><p>type of liceoften drivenufacturing)drove on cmonthly, w</p><p>2.3. Proced</p><p>The studParticipantsNew Zealanpages of eacto send queposted a qutionnaire anaddressed thad no idecompletelythat participlicence andwho did nonaire pack </p><p>the closest to theirs. A total of 600 questionnaires were distributedand 225 returned, with a response rate of 37.5%.</p><p>Although a total of 225 drivers completed the questionnaires,twelve cases with 10% or more missing data from the two driv-ing scales were excluded from further analysis, resulting in a nalsample containing 213 participants.</p><p>Further missing data were handled in two ways. For the CFA,Maximum Likelihood (Robust) Estimations were calculated mean-ing missing values were not imputed, but parameter estimatesassumed complete data were available (Enders, 2001). For subse-quent analysis, cases with one missing data point were subjectedto trimmed mean (by gender) imputation. During the correlationaland regression analyses, two further cases were excluded becauseresponses for more than 8 of the 10 Trait Anger Scale items werenot provided. This will be reected in lower degrees of freedom onthis measure. As the missing data constituted less than 5% of theoverall data and appeared random, these methods of data handlingare deemed satisfactory (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).</p><p>3. Results</p><p>escr...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >