Estructura factorial del Driving Log en una muestra española

Abstract

El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo la adaptación del Driving Log, un cuestionario que valora los comportamientos agresivos y arriesgados al volante, en una muestra española de 395 personas. El análisis factorial confirmatorio mostró que el cuestionario ajustaba satisfactoriamente en dos factores, etiquetados como Conducción Arriesgada y Conducción Agresiva. Los análisis posteriores mostraron que el número de trayectos realizados se asoció significativamente a la Conducción Arriesgada, mientras que el número de veces en que se experimentó ira lo hizo tanto con la Conducción Arriesgada como con la Conducción Agresiva. Igualmente, se vio que los hombres se comportaban de forma más arriesgada y agresiva que las mujeres, y que los jóvenes lo hacían en mayor grado que los mayores.

Spanish adaptation and validation of the Dula Dangerous Driving Index (DDDI)

“…The short version of the DAS (Herrero‐Fernández, 2011a) is a self‐report questionnaire that assesses the degree of anger provoked by certain driving situations. It is composed of 14 items divided into three subscales: Impeded Progress by Others (assesses the degree of anger provoked by situations in which our driving fluency is affected by the actions of others, e.g., “Someone is slow in parking and holds up traffic”), Reckless Driving (measures the degree of anger provoked by situations in which other drivers perform risky maneuvers, e.g., “Someone runs a red light or stop sign”), and Direct Hostility (evaluates the degree to which we are provoked by other drivers’ hostility towards us, e.g., “Someone makes an obscene gesture toward you about your driving”).…”

“…Each item is answered on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = not at all ; 3 = some anger ; 5 = a lot of anger ), yielding a total score and a score for each subscale. This questionnaire has shown good psychometric properties (Impeded Progress by Others: α = .77; Reckless Driving: α = .66; Direct Hostility: α = .87; total DAS: α = .84; Herrero‐Fernández, 2011a). In our sample, the psychometric properties of this scale were also good ( α = .89).…”

Psychological Coping and Resilience to COVID-19 in Mexico, Evidence From a National Sample

“…Although the definition of resilience is controversial (Parada-Fernández & Herrero-Fernández, 2022), the specialized literature refers to some important components that allude to elements of the environment, the person, or the interaction between the two. Thus, notions such as transcending adversity, overcoming situations of risk or stress, and rebuilding or recovering from critical events, are concepts that are linked to resilience (Fraser et al, 1999; Ruiz Párraga and López Martínez, 2012).…”

The relationship between driving anger and risk could be non-linear. Towards a circumplex model of anger and risk on the road / La relación entre la ira y el riesgo en la conducción podría ser no lineal. Hacia un modelo circumplejo de la ira y el riesgo en carretera

“…This emotion explains the variance observed in road accidents to a greater extent than other personality traits, such as conscientiousness and sensation seeking, which have also been strongly related to driving risk (Dahlen, Martin, Ragan, & Kuhlman, 2005; Dahlen & White, 2006). Driving anger has a negative influence on some cognitive variables, such as attention, perception and information processing (Bone & Mowen, 2006; Deffenbacher, Deffenbacher, Lynch, & Richards, 2003), and this type of anger has been related to infractions (Underwood, Chapman, Wright, & Crundall, 1999) and to risky and aggressive driving behaviours (Deffenbacher, Lynch, Filetti, Dahlen, & Oetting, 2003; Deffenbacher, White, & Lynch, 2004; Herrero-Fernández, Fonseca-Baeza, & Pla-Sancho, 2014; Jovanovic, Stanojevic, & Stanojevic, 2011). In addition, few differences have been found in anger by gender, likely because of the effect of anonymity (Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher, 2001).…”