Driving anger expression in Germany—Validation of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory for German drivers

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Driving anger expression in Germany—Validation of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory for German drivers. / Brandenburg, Stefan; Oehl, Michael; Hartwig, Christian.
in: Traffic Injury Prevention, Jahrgang 20, Nr. 1, 09.03.2019, S. 52-57.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{4bafa8a26a8f45feacc4c1500ead40ac,
title = "Driving anger expression in Germany—Validation of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory for German drivers",
abstract = "Objective: The main objective of this article is to examine whether the Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX) applies to German drivers because this scale has previously been given to drivers in many different countries. Methods: We applied German versions of the DAX, the Driving Anger Scale (DAS), and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) to a sample of 501 German drivers. We computed confirmatory factor analysis and principal axis factoring (PAF) analysis to examine the structure of driving anger expression in Germany. Finally, we related the drivers{\textquoteright} anger exp ression scores to their driving anger experiences and their general anger propensities to assess the validity of the DAX for German drivers. Results: Results indicated that the DAX{\textquoteright}s original factor structure does not apply to German drivers because the confirmatory factor analysis did not show a good model fit. An item analysis revealed that many DAX items had no meaningful variability. They were excluded from further analysis. The subsequent PAF analysis indicated that German drivers do not use personal physical aggression to express their driving anger. Instead, they reported unique preventive anger expression management behavior. In addition, their driving anger expressions were significantly related to their driving anger experiences and their general anger propensities indicated the validity of the refined DAX for German drivers. Conclusions: We conclude that German drivers do not use strong behaviors to express their driving anger. Many statements of Deffenbacher et al.{\textquoteright}s (Behav Res Ther. 40:717–737, 2002) original American questionnaire were not applicable for our sample of German drivers. These findings are in line with several other studies showing discrepancies in driving anger expression in various countries. Future investigations should examine the reasons for discrepancies in driving anger expression.",
keywords = "Driving anger expression, Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX), emotions in driving, personality and driving, Business psychology",
author = "Stefan Brandenburg and Michael Oehl and Christian Hartwig",
year = "2019",
month = mar,
day = "9",
doi = "10.1080/15389588.2018.1493467",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "52--57",
journal = "Traffic Injury Prevention",
issn = "1538-9588",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Driving anger expression in Germany—Validation of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory for German drivers

AU - Brandenburg, Stefan

AU - Oehl, Michael

AU - Hartwig, Christian

PY - 2019/3/9

Y1 - 2019/3/9

N2 - Objective: The main objective of this article is to examine whether the Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX) applies to German drivers because this scale has previously been given to drivers in many different countries. Methods: We applied German versions of the DAX, the Driving Anger Scale (DAS), and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) to a sample of 501 German drivers. We computed confirmatory factor analysis and principal axis factoring (PAF) analysis to examine the structure of driving anger expression in Germany. Finally, we related the drivers’ anger exp ression scores to their driving anger experiences and their general anger propensities to assess the validity of the DAX for German drivers. Results: Results indicated that the DAX’s original factor structure does not apply to German drivers because the confirmatory factor analysis did not show a good model fit. An item analysis revealed that many DAX items had no meaningful variability. They were excluded from further analysis. The subsequent PAF analysis indicated that German drivers do not use personal physical aggression to express their driving anger. Instead, they reported unique preventive anger expression management behavior. In addition, their driving anger expressions were significantly related to their driving anger experiences and their general anger propensities indicated the validity of the refined DAX for German drivers. Conclusions: We conclude that German drivers do not use strong behaviors to express their driving anger. Many statements of Deffenbacher et al.’s (Behav Res Ther. 40:717–737, 2002) original American questionnaire were not applicable for our sample of German drivers. These findings are in line with several other studies showing discrepancies in driving anger expression in various countries. Future investigations should examine the reasons for discrepancies in driving anger expression.

AB - Objective: The main objective of this article is to examine whether the Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX) applies to German drivers because this scale has previously been given to drivers in many different countries. Methods: We applied German versions of the DAX, the Driving Anger Scale (DAS), and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) to a sample of 501 German drivers. We computed confirmatory factor analysis and principal axis factoring (PAF) analysis to examine the structure of driving anger expression in Germany. Finally, we related the drivers’ anger exp ression scores to their driving anger experiences and their general anger propensities to assess the validity of the DAX for German drivers. Results: Results indicated that the DAX’s original factor structure does not apply to German drivers because the confirmatory factor analysis did not show a good model fit. An item analysis revealed that many DAX items had no meaningful variability. They were excluded from further analysis. The subsequent PAF analysis indicated that German drivers do not use personal physical aggression to express their driving anger. Instead, they reported unique preventive anger expression management behavior. In addition, their driving anger expressions were significantly related to their driving anger experiences and their general anger propensities indicated the validity of the refined DAX for German drivers. Conclusions: We conclude that German drivers do not use strong behaviors to express their driving anger. Many statements of Deffenbacher et al.’s (Behav Res Ther. 40:717–737, 2002) original American questionnaire were not applicable for our sample of German drivers. These findings are in line with several other studies showing discrepancies in driving anger expression in various countries. Future investigations should examine the reasons for discrepancies in driving anger expression.

KW - Driving anger expression

KW - Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX)

KW - emotions in driving

KW - personality and driving

KW - Business psychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062789682&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/15389588.2018.1493467

DO - 10.1080/15389588.2018.1493467

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 30852917

AN - SCOPUS:85062789682

VL - 20

SP - 52

EP - 57

JO - Traffic Injury Prevention

JF - Traffic Injury Prevention

SN - 1538-9588

IS - 1

ER -

DOI

Zuletzt angesehen

Aktivitäten

  1. Knowledge Acquisition and Problem Solving in CSCL with Learning Protocols: Effects of Different Scripting Strategies
  2. Combing Wind, Adorning Water. Afro-Indigenous Approximations in the Art Practices of Edgar Calel and Sandra Monterroso
  3. Design of small touch screen interfaces for older users: The impact of screen size, task difficulty and task complexity
  4. Wirkung von Lehrerfortbildungen auf Expertise von Lehrkräften: Verschwendete Zeit oder Chance zur Unterrichtsentwicklung?
  5. ‘Cultural Ecosystem’ as tool for researching alternative cultures – potentials, limits and the question of ‘another black box’.
  6. Im Spannungsfeld von antagonistischen und agonalen Konfliktstrukturen. Zur Inszenierung von Kulturkämpfen in Massenmedien
  7. Of mice, polemics and toxins (dis)placed on stage of public consultation. Situational analysis of the GMO-discourse in Poland
  8. Model Predictive Control for Switching Gain Adaptation in a Sliding Mode Controller of a DC Drive with Nonlinear Friction
  9. Mathematikdidaktische Fachsprache von Studierenden bei der Analyse von Schülerlösungen zu kompetenzorientierten Aufgaben
  10. Mapping participation in public environmental decision-making processes: An international database on published case studies
  11. Does participation benefit the environment? Insights from a meta analysis of 259 cases of public environmental decision-making
  12. A Coding Scheme to Analyse Global Text Processing in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: What Eye Movements Can Tell Us