International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Driving Anger, Aberrant Driving Behaviors, and
Road Crash Risk: Testing of a Mediated Model
Tingru Zhang
1,2
, Alan H. S. Chan
2
, Hongjun Xue
3
, Xiaoyan Zhang
1,3,4,
* and Da Tao
1
1
Institute of Human Factors and Ergonomics, College of Mechatronics and Control Engineering, Shenzhen
University, Shenzhen 518060, China; [email protected] (T.Z.); [email protected] (D.T.)
2
Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, China; [email protected]
3
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China; [email protected]
4
Key laboratory of Optoelectronic Devices and Systems of Ministry of Education and Guangdong Province,
Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-755-26557471
Received: 27 November 2018; Accepted: 21 January 2019; Published: 22 January 2019
Abstract:
With the dramatic increase in motorization, road traffic crashes have become the leading
cause of death in China. To reduce the losses associated with road safety problems, it is important to
understand the risk factors contributing to the high crash rate among Chinese drivers. This study
investigated how driving anger and aberrant driving behaviors are related to crash risk by proposing
and testing one mediated model. In this model, the effects of driving anger on road crash risk were
mediated by aberrant driving behaviors. However, unlike previous studies, instead of using the
overall scale scores, the subscales of driving anger and aberrant driving behaviors were used to
establish the mediated model in this study. To test the validity of this model, an Internet-based
questionnaire, which included various measures of driving anger, aberrant driving, and road crash
history, was completed by a sample of 1974 Chinese drivers. The results showed that the model fitted
the data very well and aberrant driving behaviors fully mediated the effects of driving anger on road
crash risk. Findings from the present study are useful for the development of countermeasures to
reduce road traffic crashes in China.
Keywords: driving anger; aberrant driving behaviors; road crash risk; mediated model
1. Introduction
The number of motorized vehicles in China has increased 10-fold in the past 15 years, from about
16 million in 2000 to 163 million in 2015 [
1
]. Along with this dramatic increase in motorization, road
safety has become a major public health problem [
2
]. In 2017, road fatalities were as high as 45.9 per
100,000 persons and 305.0 per 100,000 motor vehicles in China. [
1
]. The problem of traffic crashes has
attracted much attention from driving safety researchers in recent years, and many related studies
have been reported [
2
,
3
]. However, the risk factors associated with the high rate of traffic accidents
in China are still unclear. According to some recent studies [
4
–
6
], Chinese drivers are more likely to
experience road rage while driving due to conflicts among drivers and traffic congestion in Chinese
urban cities [
7
]. It is very likely that driving anger and associated aberrant driving behaviors could be
significant predictors of road crash risk among Chinese drivers.
1.1. Driving Anger, Aberrant Driving Behaviors, and Road Crash Risk
Anger refers to a psychological emotional state characterized by feelings of annoyance, fury,
or rage. It is generally accompanied by muscular tension and arousal of the autonomic nervous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297; doi:10.3390/ijerph16030297 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 2 of 13
system [
8
]. Driving anger is one of the most frequently experienced emotions on the road [
9
].
In driving safety literature, the 14-item Driving Anger Scale (DAS) [
10
] has been widely used to
measure the trait of driving anger, which is the tendency of drivers to become angry while driving.
This instrument requires respondents to rate the amount of anger experienced when encountering
14 potentially anger-provoking scenarios on a 5-point scale. In studying the impacts of driving anger
on crash-related conditions (e.g., traffic tickets, losing concentration, near misses, and traffic crashes),
Deffenbacher et al. [11]
found that drivers with a higher level of driving anger (DAS > 3.7) were twice
as likely to crash in simulated driving compared with those with a lower anger level (DAS < 3.0).
Dahlen et al. [
12
] showed that driving anger was a positive predictor of loss of concentration and
near misses on the road, but it was not significantly associated with minor or major accidents. In a
recent questionnaire-based study, Sullman and Stephens [
13
] showed that driving anger significantly
contributed to the prediction of near misses, but not to traffic tickets, losing concentration, or road
crashes. These inconsistent findings, together with the fact that past studies were carried out in Western
countries, raise some doubts as to whether driving anger is a relevant factor for road crash risk in
China and what the working mechanisms are behind the anger–crash relationship.
Compared with driving anger, a driver’s aberrant driving behaviors seem to be stronger and
more direct predictors of road crash risk. According to Qu et al. [
14
], risky and aggressive driving
behaviors, such as speeding or running red lights, accounted for approximately 94.4% of all traffic
deaths in China. In road safety studies, the Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ) has proven to be a
valid measurement scale to examine drivers’ self-reported aberrant behaviors [
15
,
16
]. When initially
proposed by Reason et al. [
15
], the DBQ contained 50 items, which were classified into three subscales,
namely, violations, errors, and lapses, to capture different aspects of driving behaviors. In subsequent
applications, the contents of the DBQ have been revised to fit the actual needs of different studies and
additional subscales, such as emotional violations [
17
] and interpersonal violations [
18
], have been
reported. However, the psychological distinction between violations and errors is particularly robust
and these two subscales have been reported in almost all related studies (e.g., [
17
,
19
,
20
]). Crash risk is
related to both the tendency to commit violations [
18
,
21
] and the tendency to make errors [
22
]. In a
comprehensive review of the DBQ as a predictor of traffic crashes, De Winter and Dodou [
23
] showed
that violations and errors have comparable strengths in predicting self-reported crashes.
Driving anger and aberrant driving behaviors have been shown to be closely related [
24
]. It has
been demonstrated that anger interferes with human cognitive processes, such as attention [
25
] and
judgment [
26
], making angered individuals exhibit excessive optimism and reduced risk perception.
As a result, drivers who have reported a greater level of anger are more likely to commit violations
(e.g., tailgating and speeding) on the road [
12
,
13
,
27
,
28
]. Different relations between driving anger
and driving errors have been reported. A majority of studies have found a positive relation [
28
,
29
],
while a few have reported a nonsignificant association [
30
]. However, recent evidence suggests
that the anger–aberration relationship could be more complex than a simple positive association [
7
].
Zhang et al. [
7
] found that three types of driving anger (hostile gesture anger, arrival-blocking anger,
and safety-blocking anger), differing in their goal-blocking nature, can be measured by the 14-item
DAS. In particular, hostile gesture anger refers to anger triggered by hostile gestures or language;
arrival-blocking anger refers to anger triggered by events that slowed the movement of the driver; and
safety-blocking anger refers to anger triggered by events that might threaten the safety of the driver.
More importantly, these three types of driving anger showed dissimilar associations with driving
aberrations. All these recent findings suggest that it is necessary to investigate anger–aberration
relations on their subscale levels.
1.2. The Mediated Model
Previous research has indicated strong relationships among driving anger, aberrant behaviors, and
road crash risk. However, only a few studies have tried to integrate them into one single model [
31
–
33
].
In a review of the causes of road crashes, Elander et al. [
31
] proposed a mediated model to describe the
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 3 of 13
relations among personality factors, driving behaviors, and road crash risk. In this mediated model,
personality factors (e.g., driving anger) have an indirect impact on crash risk through their influences
on driving behaviors (the mediator). The validity of such a mediated model has been investigated
in two questionnaire studies [
32
,
33
]. A study conducted on Norwegian drivers [
32
] showed that
risky driving behaviors (e.g., speeding) partially mediated the effects of driving anger on road crash
involvement. However, in a study on Turkish professional drivers [
33
], the effects of driving anger on
road crash risk were found to be mediated by dysfunctional drinking behaviors rather than aberrant
driving behaviors.
There are at least three reasons that may explain these inconsistent findings. The first is that
both DAS and DBQ, used to measure driving anger and driving aberrations, respectively, have been
demonstrated to contain subscales differing in psychological characteristics. As a result, the relationships
established using the overall scores of DAS and DBQ may have obscured the real associations at the
subscale level. For example, Zhang et al. [
7
] recently found that safety-blocking anger was negatively
associated with deliberate driving violations, though the overall anger–aberration relation was positive.
As a result, for a more accurate understanding of the relations of driving anger, aberrant driving, and
road crash risk, the subscales, rather than an overall score, should be used to establish the model.
Second, road crash risk was measured in different ways in two studies. Sümer [
33
] only used the
number of crashes, while Iversen and Rundmo [
32
] included both crashes and near misses as measures
of crash risk. According to Dahlen et al. [
12
], for a comprehensive representation of crash risk, different
crash-related conditions should be measured. Finally, the inconsistent findings of the two mediated
models mentioned above may be due to a lack of control of the influence of demographic variables in
the two studies. Since there has been evidence that age and gender, as well as driving experience, are
significantly related to crash risk [
34
–
36
], the real associations of driving anger, aberration, and crash
risk may have been masked or biased by the confounding effects of these demographic variables.
To overcome the three abovementioned limitations in previous works, the present study aimed to
establish more accurate relations between driving anger, aberrant driving behaviors, and road crash
risk by proposing and verifying the validity of a mediated model. The framework of the proposed
mediated model is shown in Figure 1. Specifically, the 14-item DAS was used to measure driving anger
and the DBQ was used to record aberrant driving behaviors. The subscales of DAS and DBQ, rather
than overall scores, were applied in the model. Information about four crash-related conditions (traffic
tickets, losing concentration, near misses, and traffic crashes) was collected to represent the latent
variable crash risk. Path a represents the effect of driving anger on aberrant driving behaviors (the
mediator); path b represents the effect of the mediator on the crash risk; and path c represents the direct
effect of driving anger on crash risk. The total effect of driving anger on crash risk can be apportioned
into its indirect effect (i.e., mediated effect, a*b) and direct effect (path c’). The mediated effect through
aberrant driving behaviors is significant when the product of paths a and b is significantly different
from zero [
37
,
38
]. The effects of demographic variables on crash risk are controlled for by including
path d in the model [
39
]. It is hypothesized that the effects of driving anger on crash risk would be
fully mediated by aberrant driving behaviors. That is, driving anger would have no direct influence
on crash risk (c’ = 0), but would directly affect aberrant driving behaviors, which, in turn, influence
crash risk (a*b
6=
0). The findings from this study provide a better understanding of the role of driving
anger and aberrant driving in the causation of road traffic crashes. The results are also useful for the
development of effective road safety countermeasures in China.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 4 of 13
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 3 of 14
through their influences on driving behaviors (the mediator). The validity of such a mediated model
has been investigated in two questionnaire studies [32,33]. A study conducted on Norwegian drivers
[32] showed that risky driving behaviors (e.g., speeding) partially mediated the effects of driving
anger on road crash involvement. However, in a study on Turkish professional drivers [33], the
effects of driving anger on road crash risk were found to be mediated by dysfunctional drinking
behaviors rather than aberrant driving behaviors.
There are at least three reasons that may explain these inconsistent findings. The first is that both
DAS and DBQ, used to measure driving anger and driving aberrations, respectively, have been
demonstrated to contain subscales differing in psychological characteristics. As a result, the
relationships established using the overall scores of DAS and DBQ may have obscured the real
associations at the subscale level. For example, Zhang et al. [7] recently found that safety-blocking
anger was negatively associated with deliberate driving violations, though the overall anger–
aberration relation was positive. As a result, for a more accurate understanding of the relations of
driving anger, aberrant driving, and road crash risk, the subscales, rather than an overall score,
should be used to establish the model. Second, road crash risk was measured in different ways in two
studies. Sümer [33] only used the number of crashes, while Iversen and Rundmo [32] included both
crashes and near misses as measures of crash risk. According to Dahlen et al. [12], for a
comprehensive representation of crash risk, different crash-related conditions should be measured.
Finally, the inconsistent findings of the two mediated models mentioned above may be due to a lack
of control of the influence of demographic variables in the two studies. Since there has been evidence
that age and gender, as well as driving experience, are significantly related to crash risk [34–36], the
real associations of driving anger, aberration, and crash risk may have been masked or biased by the
confounding effects of these demographic variables.
Figure 1. Framework of the mediated model proposed and tested in this study. It is hypothesized that
the effects of driving anger on crash risk would be fully mediated by aberrant driving behaviors (i.e.,
a*b ≠ 0, and c’ = 0).
To overcome the three abovementioned limitations in previous works, the present study aimed
to establish more accurate relations between driving anger, aberrant driving behaviors, and road
crash risk by proposing and verifying the validity of a mediated model. The framework of the
proposed mediated model is shown in Figure 1. Specifically, the 14-item DAS was used to measure
driving anger and the DBQ was used to record aberrant driving behaviors. The subscales of DAS and
DBQ, rather than overall scores, were applied in the model. Information about four crash-related
conditions (traffic tickets, losing concentration, near misses, and traffic crashes) was collected to
represent the latent variable crash risk. Path a represents the effect of driving anger on aberrant
driving behaviors (the mediator); path b represents the effect of the mediator on the crash risk; and
path c represents the direct effect of driving anger on crash risk. The total effect of driving anger on
crash risk can be apportioned into its indirect effect (i.e., mediated effect, a
*
b) and direct effect (path
c’). The mediated effect through aberrant driving behaviors is significant when the product of paths
a and b is significantly different from zero [37,38]. The effects of demographic variables on crash risk
are controlled for by including path d in the model [39]. It is hypothesized that the effects of driving
anger on crash risk would be fully mediated by aberrant driving behaviors. That is, driving anger
would have no direct influence on crash risk (c’ = 0), but would directly affect aberrant driving
behaviors, which, in turn, influence crash risk (a*b ≠ 0). The findings from this study provide a better
Figure 1.
Framework of the mediated model proposed and tested in this study. It is hypothesized that
the effects of driving anger on crash risk would be fully mediated by aberrant driving behaviors (i.e.,
a*b 6= 0, and c’ = 0).
2. Materials and Methods
The Internet has proven to be a valid tool for assessing driver behaviors in China [
17
]. The online
questionnaire survey technique was used for collecting data in this study. Invitations to participate in
the survey were posted on the Autohome Forum (www.autohome.com.cn). The forum has 10 million
daily active users nationwide and is the biggest driver forum in China. Those interested were directed
to complete the questionnaire published on Sojump (www.sojump.com), a professional online survey
platform. Participants were required to first read the electronic consent form and only those who
agreed to participate were directed to complete the questionnaire. The study was approved by the
Institutional Review Board of Shenzhen University. The survey was open for two weeks and a total of
1974 valid responses were collected.
2.1. Structure of the Questionnaire
There were four sections in the questionnaire for measuring driving anger, aberrant driving
behaviors, road crash risk, and demographic variables.
2.1.1. DAS
The short, 14-item DAS, initially proposed by Deffenbacher et al. [
10
] and translated into Chinese
by Zhang et al. [
7
], was used here to measure drivers’ anger level. This instrument contains 14
anger-provoking scenarios and respondents are required to rate the amount of anger experienced for
each scenario on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = some, 4 = much, and 5 = very much).
Both the original 14-item short version and the Chinese translated version have shown good internal
consistency. However, Deffenbacher et al. [
10
] claimed that the short DAS was a one-factor structure
while Zhang et al. [
7
] showed that a three-factor structure of DAS (hostile gesture, safety-blocking, and
arrival-blocking) best fit the data.
2.1.2. DBQ
The 22-item Chinese version of the DBQ, developed by Zhang et al. [
7
], was used here to examine
self-reported aberrant driving behaviors. It contains 22 common aberrant driving behaviors (e.g.,
“sound horn to indicate your annoyance to another road user”) and respondents need to indicate how often
each aberration occurred to them in the past 12 months on a scale between 0 (never) and 5 (nearly all
the time). Zhang et al. [
7
] demonstrated that this Chinese version of the DBQ measured four types of
aberrant behaviors, namely, emotional violation, maintaining progress violation, deliberate violation,
and error. The four subscales were moderately correlated and all had acceptable internal consistency.
2.1.3. Road Crash Risk
In this section, participants were required to report the number of times they had encountered
each of the four crash-related conditions (traffic tickets, losing concentration, near misses, and traffic
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 5 of 13
crashes) in the past 12 months. A one-year period was chosen to correspond to the aberrant driving
behavior recording period in the DBQ. In the questionnaire, a near miss was defined as an unplanned
event that had the potential to cause, but did not actually result in, human injury, environmental
or equipment damage, or an interruption to normal operation [
40
]. An accident was defined as an
unplanned event that resulted in personal injury or property damage [
40
]. No definition for “losing
concentration” was provided in the questionnaire, as there was no standard definition for this term.
2.1.4. Demographic Variables
It has long been recognized that demographic variables, such as age, gender, and driving
experience, are significantly related to crash involvements. In this section, participants were asked
to report their age, gender, and years of active driving (“<3 years”, “3–5 years”, “6–10 years”, or
“>10 years”). Driving experience was assessed with “years of active driving” instead of “years
licensed” for two reasons. First, there may be inactive licensed drivers who rarely drive after obtaining
a driving license. Second, some Chinese drivers begin to drive before obtaining a driving license [
41
].
2.2. Statistical Analysis
Principal component analysis (PCA) is a frequently used technique to reorganize a number of
items from one measurement scale into a much smaller number of principal components (factors)
while retaining as much information as possible. In this study, PCA with varimax rotation [
42
] was
performed to analyze the factor structure of the DAS and DBQ. While a set of factors can be generated
by PCA, only a few factors account for meaningful amounts of item variance. Two criteria are usually
used to determine the factors that should be retained. First, according to the Kaiser criterion, a valid
factor should have an eigenvalue of >1 [
43
]. Second, the factor should satisfy the internal consistency
requirement by showing a Cronbach’s
α
> 0.60 [
44
]. An item would be grouped into the factor with
which it had the highest correlation (i.e., factor loading). However, when the value of the highest
correlation was less than 0.4 [
45
], the item was excluded from further analysis. PCA offered a method
to investigate the factor structure of DAS from an exploratory analysis perspective, which was a
supplement to past confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) studies [7,13].
Structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS software (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) was used
to test the goodness of fit of the mediated model and to calculate the path coefficients in the model.
While there are no golden rules, Kline [46] has advocated reporting three indices for assessing model
fit: The comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the
standardized root mean square residual (SRMSR). In this study, the model fit was examined with
these three indices and a model was considered good when CFI > 0.95, RMSEA < 0.08, and SRMSR <
0.08 [47]. The direct, indirect, and total effects [48] in the model have also been reported.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
The participants had an average age of 32.61 years (SD = 6.29) and the majority (92.0%) of them
were male drivers. Regarding driving experience, 44.9% of respondents were in the “<3 years” group,
20.7% in the “3–5 years” group, 22.7% in the “6–10 years” group, and the remaining 11.7% in the
“>10 years” group.
Table 1 shows the mean ratings of DAS, DBQ instruments, and the mean reported frequency of
the four crash-related conditions. The mean DAS score of 2.45 was comparable to that reported in one
recent Chinese driver anger study (2.54 in Li et al. [
49
]). The mean DBQ score of 2.19 was higher than
the score of 1.26 reported in a past Chinese driver behaviors study [17].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 6 of 13
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the DAS, DBQ, and crash-related conditions.
Variables Mean Standard Deviation
DAS 2.45 0.69
DBQ 2.19 0.73
Traffic tickets 0.80 0.95
Losing concentration 0.91 1.12
Near misses 0.53 0.72
Traffic crashes 0.23 0.45
3.2. Psychometric Properties of DAS
The content and mean rating for each item of DAS is presented in Table 2. In this study, PCA,
instead of CFA, was used to analyze the factor structure of the 14-item DAS since there is no consensus
in terms of the factor structure of the scales. Some studies have claimed that the short DAS is a
one-factor structure [
10
,
13
], while others have shown that a three-factor structure of DAS (hostile
gesture, safety-blocking, and arrival-blocking) best fit the data [
7
,
50
]. The PCA technique offers an
opportunity to explore the DAS factor structure from an exploratory perspective, the results of which
would provide important evidence to reconfirm the validity of the three-factor structure. The three-factor
structure identified in [
7
] is presented in the third column of Table 2. Item 11 was not classified into any
of the three factors since it was crossly loaded on arrival-blocking and safety-blocking factors.
Table 2.
Mean and standard deviation (SD) of each DAS item and the results (number of factors
determined, factor loading, etc.) of PCA.
DAS
Items
Scenarios
Original
Factor
Category
a
Mean (SD)
Factor1
Hostile Gesture
(40.19%)
α = 0.797
Factor2
Arrival-Blocking
(9.17%)
α = 0.817
Factor3
Safety-Blocking
(7.08%)
α = 0.688
9
Someone makes an obscene gesture
toward you about your driving
HS 3.25 (1.29) 0.836
10
Someone honks at you about your
driving
HS 2.90 (1.20) 0.794
11
A bicyclist is riding in the middle
of the lane and is slowing traffic
× 2.96 (1.18) 0.606
14
You are driving behind a large
truck and you cannot see around it
AB 1.95 (1.02) 0.732
5 You pass a radar speed trap AB 1.43 (0.79) 0.722
12 A police officer pulls you over AB 1.63 (0.90) 0.706
13
A truck kicks up sand or gravel on
the car you are driving
AB 2.64 (1.20) 0.549
8 You are stuck in a traffic jam AB 2.28 (1.05) 0.538
6
Someone speeds up when you try
to pass him/her
AB 2.47 (1.10) 0.491
7
Someone is slow in parking and is
holding up traffic
AB 2.32 (1.05) 0.478
4
Someone runs a red light or stop
sign
SB 2.24 (1.22) 0.750
1
Someone is weaving in and out of
traffic
SB 2.18 (0.97) 0.633
3
Someone backs right out in front of
you without looking
SB 2.95 (1.16) 0.603
2
A slow vehicle on a mountain road
will not pull over and let people by
SB 3.16 (1.16) 0.520
Mean
(SD)
2.45 (0.69) 3.04 (1.03) 2.63 (0.81) 3.10 (0.71)
a
: The factor category was based on the study by Zhang et al. [
7
].
×
: Item 11 has been excluded from any of the
three factors in previous study [
7
]. HS: hostile gesture; AB: arrival-blocking; SB: safety-blocking. Note: The value
inside the bracket under a factor is the percentage of variance in driving anger data explained by that factor. All the
Cronbach’s α values for the three factors are larger than 0.60, indicating an acceptable internal consistency.
The PCA process generated three valid factors (Table 2) with an eigenvalue >1 and Cronbach’s
α
> 0.60. A total of 56.44% variance in the driving anger data was explained by this three-factor
solution. This factor structure is highly coincident with the three-factor structure previously proposed
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 7 of 13
by
Zhang et al. [7]
. Specifically, Factor 1 contained two items (9 and 10) from the original hostile
gesture factor, as well as item 11, and was labeled as “hostile gesture”. Factor 2 consisted of seven
items from the original arrival-blocking factor and was therefore labeled as “arrival-blocking”. Factor 3
was formed by four items from the original safety-blocking factor and was labeled as “safety-blocking”.
As a result, the previous three-factor structure of the 14-item DAS was reconfirmed here using the PCA
technique. A mean score on each subscale was computed on the basis of the items within each scale.
3.3. Psychometric Properties of the DBQ
The content and mean rating for each item in the DBQ is presented in Table 3. Similar to the
analysis on the DAS, the factor structure of the DBQ was investigated with PCA. Three factors,
accounted for a total of 42.49% of the variance in DBQ data, were generated (Table 3). Items 6 and 11,
with factor loadings of <0.40 on all three factors, were excluded from further analysis. Among the
three factors, Factor 1 accounted for 27.69% of the variance in DBQ data and had a good Cronbach’s
α
of 0.853. Items in this factor were traffic violations involving anger and Factor 1 was therefore
named “emotional violation”. Factor 2 explained 9.01% of the variance with an acceptable internal
reliability of 0.669. Items in this factor were also traffic violations, but without much emotion involved.
They were deliberate deviations from safe driving and therefore Factor 2 was labeled as “deliberate
violation”. There were six items in Factor 3 and they accounted for 5.79% of the variance. Factor 3 was
labeled as “error” since all items in the category were inappropriate driving behaviors due to drivers’
misjudgments or failures of observations. The Cronbach’s
α
of this error factor was 0.648, indicating
an acceptable internal reliability. A mean score on each DBQ subscale was calculated on the basis of
the items within each scale.
Table 3.
Mean and standard deviation (SD) of each DBQ item and the results (number of factors
determined, factor loading, etc.) of PCA.
DBQ Items Aberrant Driving Behaviors Mean (SD)
Factor1
Emotional Violation
(27.69%)
α = 0.853
Factor2
Deliberate Violation
(9.01%)
α = 0.669
Factor3
Error
(5.79%)
α = 0.648
13 Warn a slow car in front to drive faster 2.60 (1.07) 0.768
22
Give chase when angered by another
driver
2.04 (0.96) 0.760
17
Sound horn to indicate annoyance to
another driver
2.63 (1.10) 0.723
15
Aversion to other road users and indicate
hostility to them
2.00 (1.09) 0.713
4 Drive fast when in bad mood 2.67 (1.18) 0.637
12
Drive fast to pass a yellow light turning
to red
2.85 (1.13) 0.540
18 Unknowingly speeding 2.40 (1.01) 0.530
9 Tailgating the vehicle that angered you 2.32 (1.02) 0.508
14
Do not give way to cyclists when turning
right
1.70 (0.84) 0.461
3 Driving wrong way on opposite lanes 1.55 (0.79) 0.679
8 Disregard the traffic light 1.51 (0.82) 0.650
1 Drive under the influence of alcohol 1.28 (0.57) 0.551
16 Use a non-motor lane 1.84 (0.91) 0.539
5 Overtake on the right side 2.78 (1.00) 0.483
20 Fail to notice “left-turn-forbidden” signs 2.27 (0.71) 0.714
19 Distracted, have to brake hard 1.97 (0.65) 0.605
2 Get into the wrong lane 2.41 (0.72) 0.602
21 Forget which gear 1.61 (0.72) 0.597
10 Fail to notice a pedestrian crossing 1.59 (0.67) 0.484
7
Distracted, misjudge interval and
narrowly miss collision
1.17 (0.42) 0.448
Mean (SD) 2.05 (0.47) 2.36 (0.70) 1.79 (0.55) 1.83 (0.39)
6 Fail to notice “give-way” signs 2.41 (1.19) 0.235 0.358 0.345
11
Stop on road where stopping/parking is
not allowed
2.12 (1.00) 0.142 0.329 0.368
Note: The value inside the bracket under a factor is the percentage of variance in DBQ data explained by that factor.
All the Cronbach’s
α
values for the three factors are larger than 0.60, indicating an acceptable internal consistency.
Items 6 and 11 were excluded from further analysis due to their low factor loading (<0.40) on all three factors.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 8 of 13
3.4. The Mediated Model
A mediated model was developed (see Figure 2) in accordance with the framework proposed in
Figure 1. Specifically, the three types of driving anger were the distal predictors, the three categories of
aberrant driving behaviors were the mediators, and the crash-related condition was the variable being
explained. The effects of age, gender, and driving experience on crash involvement were controlled.
The proposed model was evaluated using the SEM technique. The SEM results suggested that the
model would fit the data better by allowing deliberate violation to have a direct effect on traffic tickets.
Therefore, one path between deliberate violation and traffic tickets (represented by the dash-dot line in
Figure 2) was added to the model. The goodness of fit of the adjusted model was then evaluated using
the SEM technique again. The results showed that the CFI value was 0.959, which was higher than the
0.95 cut-off criterion. The values for RMSEA and SRMSR were 0.055 and 0.041, respectively, both of
which were below the maximum allowable value of 0.08. The values of these indices suggested that
the adjusted mediated model fit the data very well.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 8 of 14
20
Fail to notice “left-turn-forbidden”
signs
2.27
(0.71)
0.714
19 Distracted, have to brake hard
1.97
(0.65)
0.605
2 Get into the wrong lane
2.41
(0.72)
0.602
21 Forget which gear
1.61
(0.72)
0.597
10 Fail to notice a pedestrian crossing
1.59
(0.67)
0.484
7
Distracted, misjudge interval and
narrowly miss collision
1.17
(0.42)
0.448
Mean
(SD)
2.05
(0.47)
2.36 (0.70) 1.79 (0.55)
1.83
(0.39)
6 Fail to notice “give-way” signs
2.41
(1.19)
0.235 0.358 0.345
11
Stop on road where stopping/parking
is not allowed
2.12
(1.00)
0.142 0.329 0.368
Note: The value inside the bracket under a factor is the percentage of variance in DBQ data explained
by that factor. All the Cronbach’s α values for the three factors are larger than 0.60, indicating an
acceptable internal consistency. Items 6 and 11 were excluded from further analysis due to their low
factor loading (< 0.40) on all three factors.
3.4. The Mediated Model
A mediated model was developed (see Figure 2) in accordance with the framework proposed in
Figure 1. Specifically, the three types of driving anger were the distal predictors, the three categories
of aberrant driving behaviors were the mediators, and the crash-related condition was the variable
being explained. The effects of age, gender, and driving experience on crash involvement were
controlled. The proposed model was evaluated using the SEM technique. The SEM results suggested
that the model would fit the data better by allowing deliberate violation to have a direct effect on
traffic tickets. Therefore, one path between deliberate violation and traffic tickets (represented by the
dash-dot line in Figure 2) was added to the model. The goodness of fit of the adjusted model was
then evaluated using the SEM technique again. The results showed that the CFI value was 0.959,
which was higher than the 0.95 cut-off criterion. The values for RMSEA and SRMSR were 0.055 and
0.041, respectively, both of which were below the maximum allowable value of 0.08. The values of
these indices suggested that the adjusted mediated model fit the data very well.
Figure 2. Results of the mediated model. Values on the paths are the standardized path coefficients.
The dashed lines represent the direct effects of driving anger on crash risk and the dash-dot line
Figure 2.
Results of the mediated model. Values on the paths are the standardized path coefficients.
The dashed lines represent the direct effects of driving anger on crash risk and the dash-dot line
represents the direct effect of deliberate violation on traffic tickets. R
2
represents the amount of variance
the factor is accounted for in the model. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
In terms of the confounding effects of demographic variables, it was found that drivers with
more driving experience were less likely to get involved in traffic crashes (standardized coefficient
β = −0.232
, p < 0.001). No significant effect of age and gender on crash risk was identified. To simplify
the presentation of the model, the effects of age, gender, and driving experience on the four
crash-related conditions were not shown in the mediated models. Other standardized path coefficients
(
β
) are placed on the corresponding paths in Figure 2. Regarding driving anger–aberration associations,
it was found that hostile gesture anger and arrival-blocking anger were positively associated with all
three types of aberrant driving behaviors. Safety-blocking anger had a significantly negative effect
on deliberate violation (
β
=
−
0.09), but no effect on emotional violation (
β
= 0.04) or error (
β
= 0.01).
About 36% of the variance in emotional violation and 21% of the variance in deliberate violations were
explained by driving anger. Only 7% of the variance in driving errors was explained. For driving
aberration–crash associations, all three types of driving aberrations were positive predictors of crash
risk, but with different magnitudes of effect. The error showed the greatest magnitude of effect on
crash risk, followed by emotional violation, and deliberate violation showed the smallest magnitude
of effect. As was hypothesized, the direct effects (the values on dashed lines in Figure 2) of the
three types of driving anger on crash risk were insignificant. These results suggested that hostile
gesture and arrival-blocking anger could increase driver crash risk by promoting all three types of
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 9 of 13
driving aberration. On the other hand, safety-blocking anger could decrease crash liability by reducing
deliberate violations. In total, 31% of the variance in crash risk was explained in this model. Finally, it
was found that deliberate violation showed a positive direct effect on traffic tickets (β = 0.19).
A bootstrapping procedure was employed to test the significance of the mediating effect of
aberrant driving behaviors. A thousand bootstrap samples were generated according to random
sampling from the data set (n = 1974). The standardized direct, total indirect, and total effects are
summarized in Table 4. The total indirect effect is the sum of the specific indirect effects of driving
anger on crash risk via the three types of driving aberration. Arrival–blocking anger was the strongest
predictor of crash risk, followed by hostile gesture anger. Both the direct and total indirect effects of
safety-blocking anger on crash risk were insignificant.
Table 4.
The standardized direct, indirect, and total effects of each type of driving anger on crash risk.
Effect Types Hostile Gesture Safety-Blocking Arrival-Blocking
Indirect effect 0.073 ** 0.004 0.137 **
Direct effect 0.054 −0.049 0.037
Total effect 0.127 ** −0.045 0.174 **
** p < 0.01.
4. Discussion
After the relations between driving anger and crash risk were demonstrated, it was necessary to
turn to the explanation and theory testing regarding those relations. This study investigated whether
aberrant driving behaviors would mediate the effects of driving anger on crash involvement risk.
In general, the results support the conclusion that driving anger influences certain types of aberrant
driving behaviors, which further affect the crash liability of drivers. However, the magnitudes of the
mediated effects were shown to be dependent on the specific type of driving anger and aberrant driving.
For anger–aberration relationships, about 36% of the variance in emotional violations and 21%
of the variance in deliberate violations were explained by driving anger. Only 7% of the variance
in driving errors was explained, a result that is not surprising as driving errors are more related to
anxiety [
51
] or stress [
52
] rather than driving anger. Our results confirmed the findings reported by
Zhang et al. [
7
] that the strengths and directions of anger–aberration relations differed across the three
types of driving anger. Consistent with the widely accepted positive anger-aberration relation, it
was found that arrival-blocking anger and hostile gesture anger were positive predictors of all three
categories of driving aberrations. However, the positive relation did not apply to safety-blocking anger,
which was found to be negatively related to deliberate violations and unrelated to emotional violations
and errors. This is probably because those who are more intensely angered by safety-threating events
may have stronger safety-mindedness and are less likely to violate traffic rules [53].
On the driving aberration–crash risk relationships, it was found that driving errors and emotional
violations were more relevant predictors than deliberate violations. This finding is quite reasonable
since drivers tend to commit deliberate violations when they are confident in controlling the traffic
situation [
54
]. This means that deliberate violations would be committed only when the crash risk
was evaluated to be low by the driver. On the other hand, both emotional violations and errors are
behaviors involving no or little logical analysis, which may increase crash risk when adopted on the
road. However, this is not the case for one specific crash-related condition—the traffic ticket. The SEM
results suggested that deliberate violations had a strong direct effect on traffic tickets. This result is
consistent with the definition of the traffic ticket—that it entails violations of traffic laws [55].
On the anger–crash risk relationships, the results of SEM support the proposed mediated model,
suggesting that aberrant driving behaviors serve to clarify the nature of the relationship between
driving anger and crash liability. These findings support the crash prediction framework proposed by
Elander et al. [
31
], that driving anger is distal while aberrant driving behaviors are proximal factors in
predicting traffic crashes. However, dissimilar to previous mediated models, where overall driving
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 10 of 13
anger and aberrant driving behaviors were used [
32
,
33
], this is the first study that has applied the
subscales of driving anger and aberrant driving behaviors in the mediated model. The results showed
that the working mechanisms of hostile gesture anger and arrival-blocking anger in influencing crash
risk were quite similar. Both of them increase the probability of drivers committing aberrant driving
behaviors, which, in turn, increase the crash risk. However, the magnitudes of their effects on crash
risk differed, with arrival-blocking anger showing stronger effects than hostile gesture anger. In terms
of safety-blocking anger, there were indirect negative effects on crash risk via the mediator of deliberate
violations. The results, that different types of driving anger have dissimilar effects on road crash
risk, suggest that the anger–crash relationships previously established using an overall driving anger
score [12,13] have masked the real effects at the subscale levels.
The mediated models established in the present study provide a better understanding of the role
of driving anger in the causation of road traffic crashes, which should contribute to developing effective
countermeasures. First, our results suggest that the serious traffic congestion problem in China may
contribute to the high road crash rate among Chinese drivers. When stuck in traffic, arrival-blocking
anger would be provoked, making drivers more likely to commit driving aberrations and further
increasing the crash risk. It is expected that solutions aimed at relieving traffic congestion have the
potential to reduce the crash rate in China. Second, our results indicate that countermeasures in
treating drivers with high hostile gesture and arrival-blocking anger would be effective to reduce crash
risk. Currently, no training or treatment programs on high-anger drivers have yet been developed in
China. It is suggested that future research should start to develop effective anger treatment strategies
and evaluate whether these strategies can improve road safety in China. Third, since the effects of
driving anger on crash risk are fully mediated by aberrant driving behaviors, it is possible to improve
road safety with driving aberration intervention. In road safety literature, education campaigns and
law enforcement have proven to be effective in reducing deliberate violations [
2
,
56
]. Taking China as
an example, it has been found that anti-speeding devices and heavier traffic fines have successfully
reduced speeding on the road [
2
]. According to Lajunen et al. [
53
], emotional violations can be reduced
by improving drivers’ tolerance of frustration and their management of anger. In terms of decreasing
driving errors, training programs and driver assistance systems (e.g., the autonomous cruise control
system) have proven to be effective [57,58].
One major limitation of this study is its reliance on self-reported measures, the data from which
may suffer from social desirability bias. That is, aberrant driving behaviors may be underreported due
to the deliberate tendency of respondents to give answers in a manner that will be viewed favorably
to others. However, some researchers have found that self-reported driving aberrations were only
slightly affected by social desirability bias [
59
,
60
]. Moreover, the anonymity of the Internet survey may
have partially offset such bias. Another problem is that self-reported crash-related data, especially
for near misses, may suffer from recall bias [
61
] and might not be reliable if respondents do not fully
understand the question, although the questionnaire provided some definitions [
62
]. Future studies
may be undertaken to test the mediated model by means of more objective measures of crash risk,
though it should be mentioned that a recent study comparing self-reported and police-recorded traffic
crashes found them to be strongly correlated [
63
]. Also, epidemiological data have indicated that crash
risk is the highest within the first year of licensure and then improves dramatically [
64
]. Therefore,
setting the lowest level of driving experience to be less than three years might have not captured
the effect of driving experience on crash risk. Finally, the sample size of the survey might not be
representative of the general driving population in China. For instance, the majority of the respondents
were male; therefore, one should be cautious in generalizing the findings.
5. Conclusions
This study demonstrated that aberrant driving behaviors fully mediate the effects of driving
anger on crash risk. Importantly, the magnitude and significance of the associations in the mediated
models depend on the specific type of driving anger and aberrant driving behaviors. These findings
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 11 of 13
contribute to road safety research by providing a deeper understanding of the role of driving anger
and aberrant driving in the causation of road traffic crashes. The results of the mediated model suggest
that crash risk can be decreased either by relieving hostile gesture anger and arrival-blocking anger
or by reducing driving aberrations. Therefore, this study is useful in guiding the development of
countermeasures aimed at reducing road traffic crashes in China.
Author Contributions:
T.Z. and A.H.S.C. wrote the proposal and designed the questionnaire. T.Z. and X.Z.
collected data, analyzed data and wrote the first draft of this manuscript. H.X. and D.T. participated in editing of
the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 51705332
and 71801156.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive
comments that greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. Available online: http://data.stats.gov.cn/index.htm (accessed on 4
June 2018).
2.
Zhang, W.; Tsimhoni, O.; Sivak, M.; Flannagan, M.J. Road safety in China: Analysis of current challenges.
J. Saf. Res. 2010, 41, 25–30. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Zhang, G.; Yau, K.K.; Gong, X. Traffic violations in Guangdong Province of China: Speeding and drunk
driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 64, 30–40. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Lei, H.; Yan, X.; Wu, C.; Zhang, H. A Study on Chinese Motorists’ Operational Behavior in Angry Driving.
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety, Wuhan, China,
30 June–2 July 2011; pp. 1905–1911.
5.
Wang, P.; Rau, P.-L.P.; Salvendy, G. Road safety research in China: Review and appraisal. Traffic Inj. Prev.
2010, 11, 425–432. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Li, F.; Li, C.; Long, Y.; Zhan, C.; Hennessy, D.A. Reliability and validity of aggressive driving measures in
China. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2004, 5, 349–355. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Zhang, T.; Chan, A.H.; Zhang, W. Dimensions of driving anger and their relationships with aberrant driving.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 81, 124–133. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Hambleton, R.K.; Merenda, P.F.; Spielberger, C.D. (Eds.) Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for
Cross-Cultural Assessment; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2004.
9.
Mesken, J.; Hagenzieker, M.P.; Rothengatter, T.; de Waard, D. Frequency, determinants, and consequences of
different drivers’ emotions: An on-the-road study using self-reports, (observed) behaviour, and physiology.
Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2007, 10, 458–475. [CrossRef]
10.
Deffenbacher, J.L.; Oetting, E.R.; Lynch, R.S. Development of a driving anger scale. Psychol. Rep.
1994
, 74,
83–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11.
Deffenbacher, J.L.; Deffenbacher, D.M.; Lynch, R.S.; Richards, T.L. Anger, aggression, and risky behavior: A
comparison of high and low anger drivers. Behav. Res. Ther. 2003, 41, 701–718. [CrossRef]
12.
Dahlen, E.R.; Martin, R.C.; Ragan, K.; Kuhlman, M.M. Driving anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and
boredom proneness in the prediction of unsafe driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2005, 37, 341–348. [CrossRef]
13.
Sullman, M.J.; Stephens, A.N. A comparison of the Driving Anger Scale and the Propensity for Angry
Driving Scale. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 58, 88–96. [CrossRef]
14.
Qu, W.; Ge, Y.; Jiang, C.; Du, F.; Zhang, K. The Dula Dangerous Driving Index in China: An investigation of
reliability and validity. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 64, 62–68. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Reason, J.; Manstead, A.; Stradling, S.; Baxter, J.; Campbell, K. Errors and violations on the roads: A real
distinction? Ergonomics 1990, 33, 1315–1332. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Guého, L.; Granie, M.-A.; Abric, J.-C. French validation of a new version of the Driver Behavior Questionnaire
(DBQ) for drivers of all ages and level of experiences. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2014
, 63, 41–48. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Shi, J.; Bai, Y.; Ying, X.; Atchley, P. Aberrant driving behaviors: A study of drivers in Beijing. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2010, 42, 1031–1040. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 12 of 13
18.
Mesken, J.; Lajunen, T.; Summala, H. Interpersonal violations, speeding violations and their relation to
accident involvement in Finland. Ergonomics 2002, 45, 469–483. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19.
Martinussen, L.M.; Hakamies-Blomqvist, L.; Møller, M.; Özkan, T.; Lajunen, T. Age, gender, mileage and the
DBQ: The validity of the Driver Behavior Questionnaire in different driver groups. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2013
,
52, 228–236. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
Davey, J.; Wishart, D.; Freeman, J.; Watson, B. An application of the driver behaviour questionnaire in an
Australian organisational fleet setting. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2007, 10, 11–21. [CrossRef]
21.
Bener, A.; Özkan, T.; Lajunen, T. The driver behaviour questionnaire in arab gulf countries: Qatar and united
arab emirates. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2008, 40, 1411–1417. [CrossRef]
22.
Rimmö, P.-A.; Hakamies-Blomqvist, L. Older drivers’ aberrant driving behaviour, impaired activity, and
health as reasons for self-imposed driving limitations. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
2002
, 5, 47–62.
[CrossRef]
23.
De Winter, J.; Dodou, D. The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire as a predictor of accidents: A meta-analysis.
J. Saf. Res. 2010, 41, 463–470. [CrossRef]
24.
Zhang, T.; Chan, A.H. The association between driving anger and driving outcomes: A meta-analysis of
evidence from the past twenty years. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 90, 50–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Schimmack, U.; Derryberry, D. Attentional interference effects of emotional pictures: Threat, negativity, or
arousal. Emotion 2005, 5, 55–66. [CrossRef]
26.
Evans, J.S.B. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
2008, 59, 255–278. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Abdu, R.; Shinar, D.; Meiran, N. Situational (state) anger and driving. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
2012, 15, 575–580. [CrossRef]
28.
Stephens, A.N.; Groeger, J.A. Situational specificity of trait influences on drivers’ evaluations and driving
behaviour. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2009, 12, 29–39. [CrossRef]
29.
Berdoulat, E.; Vavassori, D.; Sastre, M.T.M. Driving anger, emotional and instrumental aggressiveness, and
impulsiveness in the prediction of aggressive and transgressive driving. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2013
, 50, 758–767.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
30.
González-Iglesias, B.; Gómez-Fraguela, J.A.; Luengo-Martín, M.Á. Driving anger and traffic violations:
Gender differences. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2012, 15, 404–412. [CrossRef]
31. Elander, J.; West, R.; French, D. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: An
examination of methods and findings. Psychol. Bull. 1993, 113, 279. [CrossRef]
32.
Iversen, H.; Rundmo, T. Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers.
Personal. Individ. Differ. 2002, 33, 1251–1263. [CrossRef]
33.
Sümer, N. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: Testing a contextual mediated model.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 2003, 35, 949–964. [CrossRef]
34.
Rhodes, N.; Pivik, K. Age and gender differences in risky driving: The roles of positive affect and risk
perception. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 923–931. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35.
La, Q.N.; Lee, A.H.; Meuleners, L.B.; Van Duong, D. Prevalence and factors associated with road traffic crash
among taxi drivers in Hanoi, Vietnam. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 50, 451–455. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36.
Yau, K.K.; Lo, H.; Fung, S.H. Multiple-vehicle traffic accidents in Hong Kong. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2006
, 38,
1157–1161. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37.
MacKinnon, D.P.; Fairchild, A.J.; Fritz, M.S. Mediation analysis. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
2007
, 58, 593–614.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach;
Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
39.
Kock, N.; Chatelain-Jardon, R.; Carmona, J. An experimental study of simulated Web-based threats and their
impact on knowledge communication effectiveness. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun.
2008
, 51, 183–197. [CrossRef]
40.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Accidents and Incidents. Available online: https://oshwiki.
eu/wiki/Main_Page (accessed on 19 September 2018).
41.
Liu, Q.; Zhang, L.; Li, J.; Zuo, D.; Kong, D.; Shen, X.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, Q. The gap in injury mortality rates
between urban and rural residents of Hubei province, China. BMC Public Health
2012
, 12, 180. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 297 13 of 13
42.
Abdi, H. Factor rotations in factor analyses. In Encyclopedia for Research Methods for the Social Sciences; Sage:
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 792–795.
43.
Kaiser, H.F. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas.
1960
, 20, 11.
[CrossRef]
44. Nunally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
45. Manly, B.F. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004.
46.
Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2016.
47.
Hooper, D.; Coughlan, J.; Mullen, M.R. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit.
Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 2008, 6, 53–60.
48.
Schreiber, J.B.; Nora, A.; Stage, F.K.; Barlow, E.A.; King, J. Reporting structural equation modeling and
confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J. Educ. Res. 2006, 99, 323–338. [CrossRef]
49.
Li, F.; Yao, X.; Jiang, L.; Li, Y. Driving anger in China: Psychometric properties of the Driving Anger Scale
(DAS) and its relationship with aggressive driving. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2014, 68, 130–135. [CrossRef]
50.
Herrero-Fernández, D. Psychometric adaptation of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory in a Spanish
sample: Differences by age and gender. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
2011
, 14, 324–329. [CrossRef]
51.
Shahar, A. Self-reported driving behaviors as a function of trait anxiety. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2009
, 41, 241–245.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
52.
Kontogiannis, T. Patterns of driver stress and coping strategies in a Greek sample and their relationship to
aberrant behaviors and traffic accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2006, 38, 913–924. [CrossRef]
53.
Lajunen, T.; Parker, D.; Stradling, S.G. Dimensions of driver anger, aggressive and highway code violations
and their mediation by safety orientation in UK drivers. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
1998
, 1,
107–121. [CrossRef]
54.
Forward, S.E. The intention to commit driving violations–A qualitative study. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic
Psychol. Behav. 2006, 9, 412–426. [CrossRef]
55.
Huang, Y.-H.; Zhang, W.; Murphy, L.; Shi, G.; Lin, Y. Attitudes and behavior of Chinese drivers regarding
seatbelt use. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 889–897. [CrossRef]
56.
Darby, P.; Murray, W.; Raeside, R. Applying online fleet driver assessment to help identify, target and reduce
occupational road safety risks. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 436–442. [CrossRef]
57.
Dijksterhuis, C.; Stuiver, A.; Mulder, B.; Brookhuis, K.A.; de Waard, D. An Adaptive Driver Support System
User Experiences and Driving Performance in a Simulator. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Soc.
2012
, 54,
772–785. [CrossRef]
58.
Romoser, M.R.; Fisher, D.L. The effect of active versus passive training strategies on improving older drivers’
scanning in intersections. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2009, 51, 652–668. [CrossRef]
59.
Sullman, M.J.; Taylor, J.E. Social desirability and self-reported driving behaviours: Should we be worried?
Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2010, 13, 215–221. [CrossRef]
60.
Lajunen, T.; Summala, H. Can we trust self-reports of driving? Effects of impression management on driver
behaviour questionnaire responses. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2003, 6, 97–107. [CrossRef]
61.
Chapman, P.; Underwood, G. Forgetting near-accidents: The roles of severity, culpability and experience in
the poor recall of dangerous driving situations. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2000, 14, 31–44. [CrossRef]
62.
Cordazzo, S.T.; Scialfa, C.T.; Bubric, K.; Ross, R.J. The driver behaviour questionnaire: A north American
analysis. J. Saf. Res. 2014, 50, 99–107. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63.
Boufous, S.; Ivers, R.; Senserrick, T.; Stevenson, M.; Norton, R.; Williamson, A. Accuracy of self-report of
on-road crashes and traffic offences in a cohort of young drivers: The DRIVE study. Inj. Prev.
2010
, 16,
275–277. [CrossRef]
64.
Curry, A.E.; Pfeiffer, M.R.; Durbin, D.R.; Elliott, M.R. Young driver crash rates by licensing age, driving
experience, and license phase. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 80, 243–250. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
