Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Reverse Relationship between Circular Economy Innovation and Digital Sustainability—The Dual Mediation of Government Incentives
Next Article in Special Issue
A Survey of Electric-Scooter Riders’ Route Choice, Safety Perception, and Helmet Use
Previous Article in Journal
Special Issue on Advances in Operations and Supply Chain Management with Sustainability Considerations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15065180
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cross-Cultural Differences in Driving Styles: A Moderated Mediation Analysis Linking Forgivingness, Emotion Regulation Difficulties, and Driving Styles

by
Berfin Töre
1,
Meital Navon-Eyal
2 and
Orit Taubman – Ben-Ari
2,*
1
Psychological Counseling and Guidance Unit, Eskisehir Technical University, Eskisehir 26555, Turkey
2
The Louis and Gabi Weisfeld School of Social Work, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290001, Israel
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 5180; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065180
Submission received: 7 February 2023 / Revised: 27 February 2023 / Accepted: 13 March 2023 / Published: 15 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Traffic Safety, Road User Attitudes and Sustainable Transportation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Although various factors contributing to driving styles have been studied in recent decades, cultural differences have received little attention. Both emotion regulation difficulties and trait forgivingness have been found to be associated with driving styles, but the role of culture in these associations has not been yet explored. The current study seeks to understand the mediating role of emotion regulation difficulties in the association between trait forgivingness and driving styles and whether this relationship differs in different cultures. To this end, a moderated mediation model was developed and tested among 823 drivers from Israel (n = 287), Turkey (n = 329), and the USA (n = 207). The participants completed the Forgivingness Scale, Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory (MDSI), Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, and background details. The moderated mediation analysis was conducted using model 59 in the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes and Preacher (2013). The results show significant differences in all driving styles between the study groups. In addition, the mediation model for the angry and hostile and the reckless and careless driving styles was found to apply only to certain countries. The study highlights cultural differences and their importance in understanding the association between emotional processes and driving styles and the need to design culturally sensitive interventions.

1. Introduction

Although driving is an everyday task for most people in today’s world, it is also the most hazardous human behavior, as approximately 1.35 million people die in road accidents each year worldwide [1]. The main identified cause of accidents is human factors, especially those that are driver related [2], highlighting the importance of understanding driving styles and the factors associated with them. Driving style refers to how individuals choose to drive, reflecting their decisions regarding driving speed, overtaking, headway, and their propensity to violate traffic rules. Driving style is influenced by both the individual’s attitudes and beliefs with regard to driving and their general needs and values [3].
Much research has been carried out to conceptualize and classify individual driving styles, with one of the most recently developed and commonly used instruments being the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory (MDSI) [4], which represents both an integrative conceptualization and a multidimensional measuring tool [5]. The MDSI defines four driving styles: the reckless and careless style, which refers to deliberate violations of safe driving and the seeking of sensations and thrills on the road; the anxious style, or feelings of alertness, tension, and ineffective relaxing activities while driving; the angry and hostile style, relating to feelings of irritability and hostile behavior while driving; and the patient and careful style, which refers to planning ahead, paying attention, patience, consideration of other road users’ needs, and obedience to traffic rules [3,6]. The first three driving styles, reckless and careless, anxious, and angry and hostile, are considered maladaptive and have been found to be related to higher involvement in traffic crashes, whereas the patient and careful driving style is considered positive and adaptive [6].
The MDSI was originally developed in Israel and has since been adapted and validated in different countries and a variety of cultures, such as Argentina [7], Spain [8], Romania [9], Bulgaria [10], Italy [11], the United Kingdom [12], the Netherlands and Belgium [13], China [5], and Malaysia [14]. The few studies that compare countries have found, for example, that in both China and the United Kingdom, older drivers report less maladaptive driving styles, with older Chinese drivers also reporting higher endorsement of the adaptive style [12], and that young drivers in Australia tend to report more maladaptive driving styles than in Israel [15]. It is therefore possible that cultural differences play a role in explaining the tendency to adopt careful or maladaptive driving styles. The current study aims to further investigate such differences in three different cultures: the United States, which is an example of an individualistic culture; Turkey, which is considered a collectivistic culture; and Israel, which is a combination of individualistic and collectivistic culture, also called ‘somewhat collectivistic’ [16]. Research shows that belonging to a collectivistic or individualistic culture shapes how people view themselves and the world [17]. Several factors contributing to driving styles have been studied over the last two decades. It has been found that personal factors, such as age and experience [18], cognitive factors, such as thinking style [19], social factors, such as intrafamilial transmissions of driving styles [20,21], and personality factors, such as extraversion, agreeableness or conscientiousness [22], or impulsive sensation-seeking [23], are all associated with driving styles. However, despite an increasing interest in recent years in emotions and emotional processes in psychology, few studies have examined emotional processes, such as forgivingness or emotion regulation, in the context of driving [24]. Even fewer studies have presented a complex model of associations between emotional processes and driving styles [24,25]). Moreover, the role of cultural differences in this regard has not been examined. The current study therefore aims to examine a moderated mediation model in which difficulties in emotion regulation mediate the association between forgivingness and driving styles, and the culture of the country in which the driver lives (Turkey, Israel, the USA) moderates this association and its indirect effect.

1.1. Literature Review

Forgivingness is a personality trait defined as a consistent tendency to forgive mistakes across time and in different contexts [26]. In the context of driving, it has been found to be negatively related to driving anger and aggressive driving behavior [25,27,28]. Forgivingness has also been found to buffer the effect of negative affect on aggressive driving behavior [29]. In terms of driving styles, drivers with low trait forgivingness tend to adopt a maladaptive driving style (careless and reckless, angry and hostile, or anxious), whereas drivers with high trait forgivingness tend to adopt the patient and careful driving style [24].
In the traffic accident literature, forgivingness is frequently referred to as a reaction to injustice that entails the reduction in resentment or anger toward the offender, which is replaced with more positive feelings, thoughts, and behavior [30]. In other words, forgivingness triggers emotion regulation processes, as it requires the individual to react with diminished negative emotions, cognitions, and behavior toward the offender [31]. Therefore, forgivingness is more than a single act; it entails setting emotional goals and then regulating the trajectory of one’s emotions over time to achieve these goals [32].
Emotion regulation involves both conscious and unconscious strategies used to reduce, maintain, or increase positive or negative emotions [33]. These strategies allow individuals to control what emotions they feel, when and how they experience them, and how they express them [34]. As a result, emotion regulation is considered essential for a person to function effectively [35].
Investigations of the association between emotion regulation and driving-related outcomes indicate that emotion regulation is negatively related to risky driving behavior, speeding, violations [36,37,38], and texting while driving [39]. Emotion regulation abilities have also been found to be associated with driving anger and aggressive driving and to moderate the relationship between driving anger and aggressive driving [40]. In terms of driving styles, studies show that greater difficulties in emotion regulation are related to more maladaptive driving styles, whereas fewer difficulties in emotion regulation are related to the more adaptive driving style [24,41].
Moreover, there is a well-established association between forgivingness and emotion regulation, wherein a higher level of forgivingness is associated with higher emotion regulation [42,43]. In addition, studies attest to the mediating role of emotion regulation in the relationship between forgivingness and a set of variables, such as depression [44] and mental and physical health [45]. However, no prior study, to the best of our knowledge, has examined the mediating role of emotion regulation in the association between forgivingness and driving style.
Both forgivingness and emotion regulation may be influenced by culture and context. In individualistic cultures, the underlying motivation for forgivingness is personal well-being, whereas, in collectivistic cultures, forgivingness is motivated by collective norms aimed at social harmony [46]. Culture similarly affects people’s motivation to regulate their emotions [47]. In addition, the acceptance of emotional expression and the actual expression of emotions in society varies between countries and cultures [46]. Studies show that expressive suppression, which involves the inhibition of the outward expression of an ongoing emotion, is more common in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures [16,48]. Moreover, emotion regulation can be either adaptive or maladaptive, depending on whether or not it is consistent with the cultural context [47]. In other words, the emotion regulation strategies most often employed may differ between collectivist and individualistic cultures. Therefore, the association between forgivingness and emotion regulation may also vary across cultures.

1.2. The Current Study

Thus, in view of the literature and the deficiency in cultural examinations and explanations, we aimed first to examine differences in driving styles between three countries that represent different cultures. Secondly, we sought to examine the mediating role of emotion regulation difficulties in the relationship between forgivingness and driving styles and whether this mediating effect is moderated by culture by comparing drivers from the United States, Turkey, and Israel. The schematic research model can be seen in Figure 1. In line with these aims, the following hypotheses were formulated:
(1)
There is a significant difference between countries in the adoption of the patient and careful, angry and hostile, reckless and careless, and anxious driving styles.
(2)
Lower forgivingness is associated with higher levels of emotion regulation difficulties, which, in turn, are related to higher levels of maladaptive driving styles (reckless and careless, anxious, angry and hostile) and lower levels of the patient and careful driving style.
(3)
The mediating effect of emotion regulation difficulties on the relationship between forgivingness and both maladaptive and adaptive styles is moderated by culture, and the mediation model will differ across Israel, Turkey, and the United States.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Data were collected from 823 non-professional drivers; 287 (35.30%) from Israel, 329 (40.46%) from Turkey, and 207 (25.1%) from the USA. The participants were recruited through social media in a convenience sample. The mean age of Israeli drivers was 35.84 years (SD = 12.78), of Turkish drivers was 42.03 years (SD = 12.42), and of American drivers was 31.70 years (SD = 13.15). The drivers from Israel had held a driver’s license for 16.95 years (SD = 11.99), from Turkey for 18.81 years (SD = 11.86), and from the USA for 15.50 years (SD = 12.25). The mean of overall driving hours per week for Israeli drivers was 11.19 h (SD = 10.03), for Turkish drivers was 11.62 h (SD = 13.01), and for American drivers was 13.29 h (SD = 16.69). The majority of the participants had an academic degree: Israel, 71.3%; Turkey, 80.9%; and the USA, 54.1%. Similarly, most of the participants had either a full-time or part-time job: 73.2 %, 71.4 %, and 60.9% for Israel, Turkey, and the USA, respectively. For the demographic data of the sample, see Table 1.

2.2. Instruments

2.2.1. Demographic Information Form

The form was used to obtain information about the participants (age, sex, education, economic status, and employment status) and their driving history (years of having a driver’s license, overall driving hours, accident history, and injury history).

2.2.2. The Forgivingness Scale

The scale assesses the trait of forgivingness [26] and consists of ten items rated on a 5-point scale. As this is a unidimensional scale, the score was computed by totaling the participants’ responses to all items, with higher scores denoting a higher level of forgivingness. The scale has been translated into Hebrew [24] and Turkish [49]. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.74 for Israeli drivers, 0.71 for Turkish drivers, and 0.76 for American drivers.

2.2.3. The Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory (MDSI)

The scale assesses the four driving styles [4,6], reckless and careless, angry and hostile, anxious, and patient and careful, and consists of forty-four items rated on a six-point scale. The scores for the four driving styles were computed by averaging the participants’ responses to the relevant items, with higher scores reflecting a higher tendency for each style. The scale was translated into Turkish by three bilingual (Turkish–English) traffic psychology experts (two Ph.D. students and one faculty professor). Cronbach’s alphas for reckless and careless, angry and hostile, anxious, and patient and careful driving styles were 0.82, 0.80, 0.79, and 0.62, respectively, for Israeli drivers; 0.81, 0.72, 0.79, and 0.65, respectively, for Turkish drivers; and 0.82, 0.72, 0.77, and 0.72, respectively, for American drivers.

2.2.4. The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS)

The scale assesses emotion regulation difficulties [35] and has been translated into Hebrew [24] and Turkish [50]. It consists of thirty-six items rated on a five-point scale that relate to six kinds of difficulties: nonacceptance of emotional responses; difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior; impulse control difficulties; lack of emotional awareness; limited access to emotion regulation strategies; and lack of emotional clarity. The score is computed as the average of the participant’s responses to all items, with higher scores reflecting greater emotion regulation difficulties. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93 for Israeli drivers, 0.92 for Turkish drivers, and 0.94 for American drivers.

2.3. Procedure

This study was planned as a quantitative cross-sectional study. Ethical approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board of Bar-Ilan University. The data for the study were collected through social media with a link to a questionnaire in Qualtrics between March and May 2022. The participants were given information about the purpose and requirements of the study, anonymity, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw at any time. After giving their informed consent, they completed the questionnaires in a standardized order: the Forgivingness Scale, MDSI, DERS, and the demographic information form. It took approximately 25 min to complete the questionnaires. When participants completed the questionnaires, they were thanked for their participation. Since the data were collected from three different groups, three different links were created, each in the native language of the participants: Hebrew, Turkish, or English. The data collected were analyzed using an SPSS 22 statistical program.

2.4. Data Analysis

First, the means and standard deviations were computed for all the study variables. A series of ANOVAs was then performed to determine whether Israeli, Turkish, and American drivers differed in terms of trait forgivingness, emotion regulation difficulty, and driving styles. The data were considered normal since the skewness values were between −1.07 and + 1.40, −1.11 and +1.09, and −0.52 and +1.008, and the kurtosis values were between 0.005 and 4.17, −0.013 and +2.44, and −0.62 and +0.85 for all variables for Israel, Turkey, and the United States, respectively. The deviation of the data from normality is considered not severe if the skewness values are less than three and the kurtosis values are less than ten [51]. Next, Pearson’s correlations were calculated. Finally, four moderated mediation analyses were performed using model 59 in the PROCESS macro [52] with country as the moderator. Moderated mediation analysis is a technique to examine whether an indirect effect is conditional on the values of a moderating variable. The effect of X on Y is referred to as a conditional indirect effect when at least one path (X→M, M→Y, X→Y) through the mediator is moderated [53]. The indirect effects were tested with bias-corrected bootstrapping (n = 5000) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). When the value of zero is outside of the confidence interval, a significant indirect effect is indicated. Because of the differences in age and sex between countries, these variables were controlled for in the analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Differences between the Study Groups

Table 2 presents the results of the ANOVAs conducted, with the study group as the independent variable, to examine differences in all study variables between the groups. In several cases, the variance of the different study groups was not equal, and therefore the Welch test results are reported.
The analyses yielded a significant difference between the groups for trait forgivingness; FWelch (2, 480.949) = 35.26, p < 0.001. The Games–Howell post hoc comparison was used to examine the specific group differences due to the violation of the homogeneity assumption. Post hoc comparison showed that Israeli drivers scored higher for forgivingness than both American and Turkish drivers, and American drivers scored higher for forgivingness than Turkish drivers. A significant difference was also found between groups for emotion regulation difficulties; FWelch (2, 479.321) = 15.88, p < 0.001. The Games–Howell post hoc comparison indicated that both American and Turkish drivers scored higher for emotion regulation difficulties than Israeli drivers.
In addition, significant differences emerged between the groups for all four driving styles: anxious, F (2, 820) = 23.32, p < 0.001; angry and hostile, F (2, 820) = 10.13, p < 0.001; reckless and careless, F (2, 820) = 9.58, p < 0.001; and patient and careful, FWelch (2, 477.475) = 12.90, p < 0.001. The Tukey-HSD post hoc comparison was used for the three maladaptive driving styles and the Games–Howell post hoc comparison for the careful driving style because of the violation of the assumption of homogeneity. The results show that American drivers scored higher for the anxious driving style than both Israeli and Turkish drivers. Turkish drivers scored higher the angry driving style than both Israeli and American drivers. For the reckless driving style, American and Israeli drivers scored higher than Turkish drivers. Finally, for the patient and careful driving style, both Israeli and Turkish drivers scored higher than American drivers.

3.2. Associations between the Study Variables

For both Israeli and American drivers, trait forgivingness was negatively correlated with both emotion regulation difficulties and maladaptive driving styles and positively related to the patient and careful driving style. In addition, emotion regulation difficulties were positively correlated with maladaptive driving styles and negatively with the patient and careful driving style. The correlations for these two groups can be seen in Table 3. Among Turkish drivers, trait forgivingness was negatively correlated with both emotion regulation difficulties and maladaptive driving styles. In addition, emotion regulation difficulties were positively correlated with the three maladaptive driving styles and negatively with the patient and careful driving style. The correlations for this group are presented in Table 4.

3.3. The Moderated Mediation Model

The moderated mediation hypotheses were tested for each of the four driving styles, with age and gender included as control variables. The moderating role of country was tested for each path (path a, path b, and path c). In addition, four mediation analyses, in which age and gender were included as control variables, were conducted for each driving style for each country. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 5. Only significant findings are reported.
As can be seen in Table 5, the indirect effects of forgivingness mediated by emotion regulation difficulties on the anxious driving style and the patient and careful driving style were statistically significant for the drivers from all three countries. For the angry and hostile driving style, the mediation model was significant for Israeli and American drivers, and for the reckless and careless driving style, it was significant for Turkish and American drivers. However, the index of moderated mediation was only significant for the patient and careful driving style (B = 0.08, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.01; 0.16]). As zero is not within the CI, a significant moderating effect of country on the indirect effect is indicated. The results for the patient and careful driving style predicted by forgivingness for American, Israeli, and Turkish drivers can be seen in Figure 2. A conditional indirect effect test indicated that the indirect effect of forgivingness on the patient and careful driving style was stronger for American drivers (B = 0.12, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.06; 0.19]) than for Turkish drivers (B = 0.04, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.01; 0.08]). The difference between the two conditional indirect effects was significant (diff = 0.08, 95% CI [0.006, 0.15]).
Furthermore, the interaction between forgivingness and country was significant for the patient and careful driving style (F (2, 812) = 6.78, p = 0.001). Simple slope tests (conditional effects on path c) indicated that the effect of forgivingness on the patient and careful driving style was significant for American drivers (B = 0.17, SE = 0.06, t = 2.97, p = 0.003) and marginally significant for Israeli drivers (B = 0.12, SE = 0.06, t = 1.92, p = 0.055) and Turkish drivers (B = −0.10, SE = 0.05, t = −0.190, p = 0.057). In other words, among American and Israeli drivers, the higher the forgivingness, the greater their adoption of the patient and careful driving style. On the other hand, among Turkish drivers, the lower the forgivingness, the greater their adoption of the patient and careful driving style. The interaction pattern appears in Figure 3.

4. Discussion

This study investigates the differences in driving styles between three countries. The results show that American drivers adopt the anxious driving style more and the patient and careful driving style less than Turkish and Israeli drivers, and that Turkish drivers adopt the hostile and angry driving style more and the reckless and careless driving style less than American and Israeli drivers. The findings indicate that the tendency to adopt a given driving style varies in different cultures. They may also suggest that drivers in different countries have different motivations for risky driving. The study therefore highlights the importance of understanding the cultural context of driving behavior.
To further explore the differences, a moderated mediation model was tested to investigate the possible mediating role of emotion regulation difficulties in the relationship between forgivingness and driving styles and whether this mediating effect is moderated by culture. The results show that emotion regulation difficulties mediated the relationship between forgivingness and the anxious and the patient and careful driving styles in all three countries. It is possible that among all drivers, those with lower trait forgivingness might be less flexible and thus less capable of screening the effect of negative affect on their mode of driving [29]; that is, they are less able to regulate their emotions. They are, therefore, more likely to display less careful and more anxious driving.
However, for the angry and hostile driving style, the mediation model was confirmed only among Israeli and American drivers, and for the reckless and careless driving style, only among Turkish and American drivers. This suggests that emotional processes play different roles in these maladaptive styles in different cultures. Acknowledging these differences may be of great value for policymakers and researchers seeking to promote safer driving. Future research could investigate the underlying mechanism of emotional processes in the angry and hostile driving style among Turkish drivers and in the reckless and careless driving style among Israeli drivers.
The results of the simple slope test revealed that even though Israeli and American drivers scored higher on forgivingness than Turkish drivers, among Turkish drivers, lower trait forgivingness was associated with greater adoption of the patient and careful driving style. Previous studies investigating differences in forgivingness in different cultures similarly found that trait forgivingness is higher in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures [54]. This difference might be explained by the way people perceive forgivingness in different cultures. In individualistic cultures, the goal of forgivingness is personal well-being, whereas, in collectivistic cultures, it is social well-being [55]. In other words, in collectivistic cultures, forgivingness is motivated by a desire for social harmony and a reduction in conflict, rather than inner peace [56], making it a cultural norm rather than an individual trait. Therefore, even if trait forgivingness levels are low in collectivistic cultures such as Turkey, people might drive safely in order to maintain social harmony.
Moreover, the results of the moderated mediation show that the effect of forgivingness on the patient and careful driving style through emotion regulation difficulties was stronger for American drivers than for Turkish drivers. This is further evidence that forgivingness is higher in individualistic cultures, and that its association with less difficulty in regulating negative emotions is related to greater endorsement of the careful style. However, a closer inspection of forgivingness in the different cultures paints a more complex picture, as American drivers report the lowest level of careful and patient driving of all the study groups. This may result from the fact that the common or normative type of emotion regulation strategy is different in collectivistic and individualistic cultures. In individualistic cultures, cultural norms encourage emotional expression, whereas expressive suppression is more common in collectivistic cultures [57]. Therefore, among American drivers, who belong to a more individualistic culture, forgivingness is related to less difficulty in expressing emotions, which may be reflected in their driving style, as well. However, in the more collectivistic culture of Turkey, the tendency to inhibit emotions, which might be considered a difficulty in emotion regulation, actually promotes driving in a more careful and considerate manner.

5. Conclusions

The results of this study show that different driving styles are adopted among different cultures and the effect of forgivingness on the patient and careful driving style through emotion regulation difficulties differs among individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Hence, this study indicates that culture is an important factor that might assist in understanding the underlying mechanisms of emotional processes associated with the tendency to adopt certain driving styles in a given culture. It therefore underlines the importance of examining cultural differences as a means of better understanding the unique way in which individuals choose to drive.
This study makes an important contribution to the literature. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first to investigate the mediating role of emotion regulation difficulties in the relationship between forgivingness and driving styles. On the practical level, the results highlight the potential importance of emotion regulation intervention programs to enhance the adoption of an adaptive driving style. Although a number of such programs exist [58], they are not common. Moreover, the study casts light on the role of cultural differences in understanding the emotional processes related to driving styles and therefore demonstrates the need for culture-specific intervention programs.
One limitation of this study should be mentioned. The study is not based on representative samples, but rather on the self-reports of convenience samples of drivers recruited through social media. This raises the possibility of a social desirability or self-serving bias and may limit the generalizability of the findings. However, previous research attests to the validity of self-reporting in the field of transportation psychology [59] and to the reliability of responses collected through social media [60]. Future studies might consider the use of driving simulators or actual driving scenarios to support self-report instruments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.T., M.N.-E. and O.T.–B.-A.; methodology, B.T., M.N.-E. and O.T.–B.-A.; software, B.T.; validation, B.T., M.N.-E. and O.T.–B.-A.; formal analysis, B.T.; data curation, B.T. and M.N.-E.; writing—original draft preparation, B.T.; writing—review and editing, B.T., M.N.-E. and O.T.–B.-A.; visualization, B.T.; supervision, O.T.–B.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Bar Ilan University School of Social Work Review Board (protocol code 121601, first approved on December 2016 and extended on March 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen, Y.; Deng, Y. Traffic accident risk factor identification based on complex network. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 719, 032074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. 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, 279–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O.; Mikulincer, M.; Gillath, O. The Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory–scale construct and validation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2004, 36, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Wang, Y.; Qu, W.; Ge, Y.; Sun, X.; Zhang, K. Effect of personality traits on driving style: Psychometric adaption of the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory in a Chinese sample. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O.; Skvirsky, V. The Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory a decade later: Review of the literature and re-evaluation of the scale. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 93, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Poó, F.M.; Taubman- Ben-Ari, O.; Ledesma, R.D.; Díaz-Lázaro, C.M. Reliability and validity of a Spanish-language version of the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2013, 17, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Padilla, J.L.; Castro, C.; Doncel, P.; Taubman-Ben-Ari, O. Adaptation of the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory for Spanish drivers: Convergent and predictive validity evidence for detecting safe and unsafe driving styles. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 136, 105413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Holman, A.C.; Havârneanu, C.E. The Romanian version of the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory: Psychometric properties and cultural specificities. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2015, 35, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Totkova, Z.; Racheva, R. The Bulgarian version of the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory: Psychometric properties. Behav. Sci. 2019, 9, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Freuli, F.; De Cet, G.; Gastaldi, M.; Orsini, F.; Tagliabue, M.; Rossi, R.; Vidotto, G. Cross-cultural perspective of driving style in young adults: Psychometric evaluation through the analysis of the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020, 73, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sun, X.; Jiang, Y.; Burnett, G.; Wang, Q. Investigating driving styles: A validation study of multidimensional driving styles with British and Chinese drivers. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 8831094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Van Huysduynen, H.; Terken, J.M.B.; Martens, J.B.O.S.; Eggen, J.H. Measuring driving styles: A validation of the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular ApplicationsAutomotiveUI ‘15, Nottingham, UK, 1–3 September 2015; pp. 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Karjanto, J.; Yusof, N.M.; Terken, J.; Hassan, M.Z.; Delbressine, F.; Van Huysduynen, H.; Rauterberg, M. The identification of Malaysian driving styles using the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory. MATEC Web Conf. 2017, 90, 01004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Skvirsky, V.; Taubman-Ben-Ari, O.; Greenbury, T.J.; Prato, C.G. Contributors to young drivers’ driving styles–A comparison between Israel and Queensland. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 109, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Matsumoto, D.; Yoo, S.H.; Fontaine, J. Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2008, 39, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fischer, I.C.; Secinti, E.; Cemalcilar, Z.; Rand, K.L. Examining cross-cultural relationships between meaning in life and psychological well-being in Turkey and the United States. J. Happiness Stud. 2021, 22, 1341–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Underwood, G. On-road behaviour of younger and older novices during the first six months of driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 58, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kleisen, L.M.B. The Relationship between Thinking and Driving Styles and Their Contribution to Young Driver Road Safety. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia, June 2011. [Google Scholar]
  20. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O.; Mikulincer, M.; Gillath, O. From parents to children: Similarity in parents and offspring driving styles. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2005, 8, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O. Couple similarity for driving style. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2006, 9, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O.; Yehiel, D. Driving styles and their associations with personality and motivation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 45, 416–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Poó, F.M.; Ledesma, R.D. A study on the relationship between personality and driving styles. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2013, 14, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Navon, M.; Taubman-Ben-Ari, O. Driven by emotions: The association between emotion regulation, forgivingness, and driving styles. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 65, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kovácsová, N.; Rošková, E.; Lajunen, T. Forgivingness, anger, and hostility in aggressive driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 62, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Berry, J.W.; Worthington, E.L.; O’Connor, L.E.; Parrott, L.; Wade, N.G. Forgivingness, vengeful rumination, and affective traits. J. Pers. 2005, 73, 183–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bumgarner, D.J.; Webb, J.R.; Dula, C.S. Forgiveness and adverse driving outcomes within the past five years: Driving anger, driving anger expression, and aggressive driving behaviors as mediators. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 42, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Moore, M.; Dahlen, E.R. Forgiveness and consideration of future consequences in aggressive driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2008, 40, 1661–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Kovácsová, N.; Lajunen, T.; Rošková, E. Aggression on the road: Relationships between dysfunctional impulsivity, forgiveness, negative emotions, and aggressive driving. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 42, 286–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Enright, R.D. Forgiveness Is a Choice: A Step-by-Step Process for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  31. Worthington, E.L., Jr. Handbook of Forgiveness; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  32. Brady, D.L.; Saldanha, M.F.; Barclay, L.J. Conceptualizing forgiveness: A review and path forward. J. Organ. Behav. 2022, 44, 261–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gross, J.J. Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2001, 10, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gross, J.J. The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2, 271–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gratz, K.L.; Roemer, L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. J. Psychopathol. Behav. 2004, 26, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Arnau-Sabatés, L.; Sala-Roca, J.; Jariot-Garcia, M. Emotional abilities as predictors of risky driving behavior among a cohort of middle-aged drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 45, 818–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Sani, S.R.H.; Tabibi, Z.; Fadardi, J.S.; Stavrinos, D. Aggression, emotional self-regulation, attentional bias, and cognitive inhibition predict risky driving behavior. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 109, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Šeibokaitė, L.; Endriulaitienė, A.; Sullman, M.J.; Markšaitytė, R.; Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė, K. Difficulties in emotion regulation and risky driving among Lithuanian drivers. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2017, 18, 688–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Feldman, G.; Greeson, J.; Renna, M.; Robbins-Monteith, K. Mindfulness predicts less texting while driving among young adults: Examining attention-and emotion-regulation motives as potential mediators. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2011, 51, 856–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Popuşoi, S.; Holman, A. Driving anger and aggressive tendency: The moderating role of emotion regulation strategy. Bull. Transilv. Univ. Bras. 2016, 9, 153–164. [Google Scholar]
  41. Trógolo, M.A.; Melchior, F.; Medrano, L.A. The role of difficulties in emotion regulation on driving behavior. J. Behav. Health Soc. Issues 2014, 6, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ho, M.Y.; Van Tongeren, D.R.; You, J. The role of self-regulation in forgiveness: A regulatory model of forgiveness. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Prihastiwi, W.J. Role of self-concept, emotional regulation, empathy in predicting forgiveness in teens of junior high school students in surabaya. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Rev. 2019, 7, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhang, L.; Lu, J.; Li, B.; Wang, X.; Shangguan, C. Gender differences in the mediating effects of emotion-regulation strategies: Forgiveness and depression among adolescents. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2020, 163, 110094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rey, L.; Extremera, N. Forgiveness and health-related quality of life in older people: Adaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies as mediators. J. Health Psychol. 2016, 21, 2944–2954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ho, M.Y.; Fung, H.H. A dynamic process model of forgiveness: A cross-cultural perspective. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2011, 15, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ford, B.Q.; Mauss, I.B. Culture and emotion regulation. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2015, 3, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Butler, E.A.; Lee, T.L.; Gross, J.J. Emotion regulation and culture: Are the social consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific? Emotion 2007, 7, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Sarıçam, H.; Akın, A. Affedicilik Ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlamasi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalişmasi. HAYEF J. Educ. 2013, 10, 37–46. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rugancı, R.N.; Gençöz, T. Psychometric properties of a Turkish version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. J. Clin. Psychol. 2010, 66, 442–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hayes, A.F. PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling [White paper]. Available online: http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2022).
  53. Edwards, K.D.; Konold, T.R. Moderated mediation analysis: A review and application to school climate research. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2020, 25, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ohtsubo, Y.; Masuda, T.; Matsunaga, M.; Noguchi, Y.; Yamasue, H.; Ishii, K. Is collectivistic forgiveness different from individualistic forgiveness? Dispositional correlates of trait forgivingness in Canada and Japan. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 2019, 51, 290–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Sandage, S.J.; Williamson, I. Forgiveness in cultural context. In Handbook of Forgiveness; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 65–80. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hook, J.N.; Worthington, E.L., Jr.; Utsey, S.O. Collectivism, forgiveness, and social harmony. Couns. Psychol. 2009, 37, 821–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ramzan, N.; Amjad, N. Cross cultural variation in emotion regulation: A systematic review. Ann. King Edw. Med. Univ. 2017, 23, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Deffenbacher, J.L. Angry drivers: Characteristics and clinical interventions. Rev. Mex. Psicol. 2009, 26, 5–16. [Google Scholar]
  59. Møller, K.M. Self-Reports of Traffic Accidents: A Critical Evaluation of Information Validity, Survey Design and Limitations of Use. Ph.D. Thesis, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  60. Jordan, K. Validity, reliability, and the case for participant-centered research: Reflections on a multi-platform social media study. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Int. 2018, 34, 913–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 05180 g001 550
Figure 1. The schematic research model.
Figure 1. The schematic research model.
Sustainability 15 05180 g001
Sustainability 15 05180 g002 550
Figure 2. Moderated mediation model for the patient and careful driving style by forgivingness, emotion regulation difficulties, and country; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Moderated mediation model for the patient and careful driving style by forgivingness, emotion regulation difficulties, and country; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 15 05180 g002
Sustainability 15 05180 g003 550
Figure 3. Interactive effect of forgivingness and country on the patient and careful driving style.
Figure 3. Interactive effect of forgivingness and country on the patient and careful driving style.
Sustainability 15 05180 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographic data of the sample.
Table 1. Demographic data of the sample.
Israeli DriversTurkish DriversAmerican DriversDifference Test
Variables
N287329207
Age35.84 a (12.78)42.03 b (12.41)31.70 c (13.15)F = 44.63 ***
Overall driving hours11.19 (10.03)11.62 (13.15)13.28 (16.69)FWelch = 1.29
Having a license (in years ) 16.95 a (11.99)18.81 b (11.86)15.50 c (12.25)F = 14.52 ***
Gender χ2 = 19.53 ***
   Men%55.1 a (N = 158)%49.2 a (N = 162)%34.8 b (N = 72)
   Women%44.9 a (N = 129)%50.8 a (N = 167)%64.2 b (N = 133)
   Other%0 (N = 0)%0 (N = 0)%1 (N = 2)
Education χ2 = 112.88 ***
   Elementary %0.4 a (N = 1)%1.5 a (N = 5)%1.4 a (N = 3)
   High school%16.8 a (N = 47)%14.6 a,b (N = 48)%9.7 b (N = 20)
   Some college, no degree%11.5 a (N = 32)%3 b (N = 10)%34.8 c (N = 72)
   Academic%71.3 a (N = 199)%80.9 b (N = 266)%54.1 c (N = 112)
Economic status χ2 = 20.87 **
   Well below average%1.1 a (N = 3)%1.5 a (N = 5)%1.9 a (N = 4)
   Below average%13.7 a (N = 38)%6.1 b (N = 20)%13.5 a (N = 28)
   Average%47.8 a,b (N = 133)%52.3 b (N = 172)%39.6 a (N = 82)
   Above average%33.1 a (N = 92)%35.6 a (N = 117)%36.2 a (N = 75)
   Well above average %4.3 a (N = 12)%4.6 a,b (N = 15)%8.7 b (N = 18)
Employment status
   Awaiting army recruitment%5.2 (N = 15)%0 (N = 0)%0 (N = 0)
   Full-time or part-time job%73.2 (N = 210)%71.4 (N = 235)%60.9 (N = 126)
   Soldier%4.5 (N = 13)%0.6 (N = 2)%0.5 (N = 1)
   Student%25.8 (N = 74)%6.1 (N = 20)%51.7 (N = 107)
   Unemployed%3.5 (N = 10)%4.3 (N = 14)%2.4 (N = 5)
   Retired%4.5 (N = 13)%17.3 (N = 57)%2.4 (N = 5)
   Other%0.7 (N = 2)%5.2 (N = 17)%4.4 (N = 9)
Accident history χ2 = 10.56 **
   Involvement in accident%67.2 a (N = 193)%74.5 b (N = 245)%61.4 a (N = 127)
   No involvement in accident%32.8 a (N = 94)%25.5 b (N = 84)%38.6 a (N = 80)
Accident injury history χ2 = 2.09
   Yes%17.8 (N = 51)%14 (N = 46)%16.4 (N = 34)
   No%79.4 (N = 228)%86 (N = 283)%83.6 (N = 173)
Relative’s injury history χ2 = 7.31 *
   Yes%54.7 a (N = 152)%44.5 b (N = 146)%53.4 a (N = 110)
   No%45.3 a (N = 126)%55.35 b(N = 182)%46.6 a (N = 96)
Note. Means not sharing same subscripts differ significantly. * p < 0.005, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 2. ANOVA results and post hoc comparisons.
Table 2. ANOVA results and post hoc comparisons.
NFWelchpMeanSD
Trait Forgivingness 35.26 ***0.000
   Israel287 3.41 a0.52
   Turkey329 3.04 b0.54
   USA207 3.23 c0.66
Emotion Regulation Difficulties 15.88 ***0.000
   Israel287 11.58 d3.08
   Turkey329 12.68 e2.90
   USA207 13.13 e3.61
Patient and Careful Driving Style 12.90 ***0.000
   Israel287 4.92 g0.50
   Turkey329 4.98 g0.53
   USA207 4.70 h0.66
NFpMeanSD
Anxious Driving Style 23.32 ***0.000
   Israel287 2.30 a0.52
   Turkey329 2.25 a0.56
   USA207 2.57 b0.56
Angry Driving Style 10.13 ***0.000
   Israel287 2.40 c0.94
   Turkey329 2.67 d0.94
   USA207 2.35 c0.87
Reckless Driving Style 9.58 ***0.000
   Israel287 2.29 e0.67
   Turkey329 2.10 f0.69
   USA207 2.34 e0.73
Note: Means not sharing the same subscripts differ significantly. *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Pearson coefficients for Israeli and American drivers.
Table 3. Pearson coefficients for Israeli and American drivers.
12345678
1. Gender-−0.19 **0.01−0.070.01−0.14 *−0.23 **0.08
2. Age0.08-0.00−0.27 ***−0.24 **−0.003−0.130.26 ***
3. Forgivingness0.010.09-−0.31 ***−0.17 **−0.34 ***−0.27 ***0.29 ***
4. Emotion Regulation Difficulties−0.15 *−0.30 ***−0.30 ***-0.45 ***0.25 ***0.38 ***−0.46 ***
5. Anxious Driving Style−0.18 **−0.18**−0.28 ***0.41 ***-0.17 *0.37 ***−0.26 ***
6. Angry Driving Style0.15 *−0.18**−0.29 ***0.25 ***0.33 ***-0.59 ***−0.38 ***
7. Reckless Driving Style0.22 ***−0.15*−0.25 ***0.20 **0.33 ***0.63 ***-−0.55 ***
8. Patient and Careful Driving Style−0.07−0.17**0.21 ***−0.34 ***−0.37 ***−0.40 ***−0.55 ***-
Note: The results on the right-hand side of the table (bold numbers) pertain to the USA sample; the results on the left-hand side of the table pertain to the Israeli sample; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Pearson coefficients for the Turkish drivers.
Table 4. Pearson coefficients for the Turkish drivers.
12345678
1. Gender-
2. Age−0.01-
3. Forgivingness−0.0040.22 ***-
4. Emotion Regulation Difficulties−0.04−0.23 ***−0.22 ***-
5. Anxious Driving Style0.01−0.15 **−0.13 *0.44 ***-
6. Angry Driving Style0.05−0.19 **−0.25 ***0.18 **0.15 **-
7. Reckless Driving Style0.09−0.26 ***−0.13 *0.22 ***0.26 ***0.64 ***-
8. Patient and Careful Driving Style0.050.07−0.03−0.26 ***−0.25 ***−0.25 ***−0.44 ***-
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Moderated mediation results.
Table 5. Moderated mediation results.
Anxious Driving Style Angry and Hostile Driving StyleReckless and Careless Driving Style Patient and Careful Driving Style
Conditional indirect effect of forgivingness on Ys in:EffectLLCIULCIEffectLLCIULCIEffectLLCIULCIEffectLLCIULCI
Turkey−0.07 *−0.12−0.02−0.03−0.090.002−0.04 *−0.08−0.010.04 *0.010.08
Israel−0.09 *−0.16−0.03−0.08 *−0.18−0.01−0.04−0.120.010.07 *0.020.15
USA−0.11 *−0.18−0.06−0.06 *−0.12−0.003−0.10 *−0.17−0.050.12 *0.060.19
Index of moderated mediationIndexLLCIULCIIndexLLCIULCIIndexLLCIULCIIndexLLCIULCI
W1 (Turkey vs. Israel)−0.02−0.110.05−0.05−0.150.04−0.004−0.090.060.03−0.030.11
W2 (Turkey vs. USA)−0.04−0.120.04−0.02−0.100.05−0.06−0.140.010.08 *0.010.16
Note. LLCI = lower limit; ULCI = upper limit. Country is dummy coded (Turkey as reference level). * p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Töre, B.; Navon-Eyal, M.; Taubman – Ben-Ari, O. Cross-Cultural Differences in Driving Styles: A Moderated Mediation Analysis Linking Forgivingness, Emotion Regulation Difficulties, and Driving Styles. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5180. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065180

AMA Style

Töre B, Navon-Eyal M, Taubman – Ben-Ari O. Cross-Cultural Differences in Driving Styles: A Moderated Mediation Analysis Linking Forgivingness, Emotion Regulation Difficulties, and Driving Styles. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):5180. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065180

Chicago/Turabian Style

Töre, Berfin, Meital Navon-Eyal, and Orit Taubman – Ben-Ari. 2023. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Driving Styles: A Moderated Mediation Analysis Linking Forgivingness, Emotion Regulation Difficulties, and Driving Styles" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 5180. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065180

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop