Cognitive and Motivational Antecedents of Different Driving Styles in a Sample of Lithuanian Drivers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. I do not consider it correct that the number of respondents by gender was not balanced. Women made up 74.4%, which significantly distorted the research. It is proven that female drivers behave more disciplined than male drivers.
2. I do not agree with the average age of non-professional drivers. This category is specific from the point of view of the traffic survey, and the results cannot be generalized.
3. Why did they decide to compare the age group of young women with older professional drivers? In my opinion, it is incomparable.
4. How was the research conducted? Were the respondents present during the study or was the questionnaire conducted online?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript titled "“Cognitive and motivational antecedents of different driving styles in a sample of Lithuanian drivers”. Your insightful feedback have immensely contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions and have made revisions accordingly. In attached file we provided a detailed response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSeveral different aims of the study are mentioned in the article but I think the aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between driving style on one hand, and hazard perception skills, risk assessment of particular driving behavior (e.g. hand held mobile phone or drink driving), assessment of the own driving skills, attitudes towards risky driving and demographics (including driving experience) on the other. Are hazard perception skills, risk assessment, assessment of own driving skills, attitudes toward risky driving and demographics predictors for the four following driving styles: a safe (careful and patient) driving style, a reckless driving style, an aggressive driving style, and an anxious driving style? To this end the researchers developed an online questionnaire that consisted of the following sections: questions about demographics, the items of the ‘multidimensional driving style inventory’(Taubman-Ben-Ari, Mikulincer, & Gillath, 2004), the Lithuanian hazard prediction test (Endriulaitienė et al., 2022), the items of a risk perception scale (Rosenbloom, Shahar, Elharar, & Danino, 2008), items of a drivers’ self-assessment questionnaire (Lajunen & Summala, 1995), and items of a questionnaire about attitudes towards risky driving (Iversen & Rundmo, 2002). This online questionnaire was completed by 646 drivers of which 446 were non-professional drivers and 200 were professional drivers. For non-professional drivers and for professional drivers separately, four hierarchical regressions were conducted with the scores one of the four driving styles as dependent variable and the so called ‘cognitive characteristics’ (i.e. the scores on the hazard prediction test and the scores on the risk perception scale) included as predictors in the first step, the self-reported driving skills included in the second step, the scores on the attitudes towards risky driving in the third step, and the variables with regard to demographics in the fourth step.
For the non-professional drivers the scores on the hazard prediction test were not a valid predictor for each of the four driving styles. However, the scores on the risk perception scale appeared to be a significant predictor for the anxious driving style. The riskier non-professional drivers assessed particular dangerous driving behavior to be, the more they rated themselves as having an anxious driving style. After having accounted for the predictors in the first step, self-assessed perceptional-motor skills appeared to be a strong and significant predictor for having an anxious driving style. The worse the non-professional drivers thought their perceptional-motor skills were, the more they thought to have an anxious driving style. Self-assessed perceptional-motor skills also appeared to be significant predictors for the careless driving style and the angry driving style. The more the non-professional drivers thought their perceptional-motor skills were good, the more they assessed themselves as having a careless and angry driving style. Self-assessed safety skills were in particular a strong predictor for the careful driving style. The more the non-professional drivers thought to possess safety skills the more they assessed themselves to have a careful driving style. After having accounted for the predictors in the first and the second step, for the non-professional drivers, the additional explained variance of the predictor ‘attitudes towards risky driving were quite modest but quite significant with regard to the careless driving style. The more non-professional showed a positive attitude towards risky driving the more they assessed themselves of having a careless driving style. Finally, after having accounted for the predictors in all the previous steps, in particular driving experience (number of years in possession of a driving license) appeared to be a rather strong predictor for an angry driving style. The more experienced the no-professional drivers were the more they assessed themselves of having an angry driving style.
For the professional drivers, the explained variance of the ‘cognitive characteristics was very modest and not significant, except for the anxious driving style. The more risky the professional drivers assessed particular dangerous driving behavior to be, the more they assessed themselves of having an anxious driving style. After having accounted for the predictors in the first step, only the self-assessed perceptional-motor skills appeared to be a strong and significant predictor for the anxious driving style. The more negative the provisional drivers were about their perceptional-motor skills the more anxious they assessed their driving style was. After having accounted for the predictors in the first and the second step, the scores on the attitudes towards risky driving scale added much explained variance to the careless driving style and the angry driving style. The more professional drivers showed positive attitudes towards risky driving, the more they assessed themselves as having a careless and angry driving style. Finally, after having accounted for the predictors in the previous steps, frequency of driving and the mean weekly milage appeared to be significant predictors for driving style. The more frequent the provisional driver drove the more careless they assessed their own driving style was. The higher their weekly kilometrage was the more they rated their driving style as careless and angry but less anxious.
Note that the above interpretation of the two tables with the results of the hierarchical regressions are my interpretations and not those made by the authors in the article. The authors for instance conclude that ‘hazard perception skills and risk perception skills found to be significant predictors of anxious, careless and angry driving styles, but mainly for professional drivers’ (lines 360-361). However, my conclusion is that the hazard prediction test is not a valid predictor for any of the four driving styles with regard the non-professional drivers and is although a significant predictor for the angry driving style for the professional drivers but this is also a quite modest predictor (the first step explains only 1% of the variance of the hierarchical regression with the angry driving style as dependent variable).
The article is well written and well structured but I have two major comments and some detailed comments.
Major comments
The authors are rather vague about the aims of this study. In the abstract they write: “The aim of this study (is) to assess whether road risk as well as road hazard perception skills and attitudes towards risky driving are significant psychological antecedents of different driving styles.” In lines 61-63 suddenly out of the blue (i.e. with no connection with the other text in this paragraph) the authors write: “Nevertheless, comparative analyses of driving styles among drivers with different driving experiences, even in international studies, remain relatively rare. Therefore, the main subject of this study – different driving styles among professional and non-professional drivers.” At the end of the introduction the authors write: “So, aim of this study (is) to assess whether road risk as well as road hazard perception skills and attitudes towards risky driving are significant psychological antecedents of different driving styles.”(lines 119-122). The discussion starts with the sentence: “The aim of this study was the assessment of cognitive and motivational antecedents of different driving styles.” These aims are all slightly different and in none the self-assessed driving skills (both with regard to perceptional-motor skills and with regard to safety skills) are mentioned as a predictor for driving style. This despite the fact that for the non-professional drivers this step explained a substantial amount of the variance for all driving styles, except the ‘careless’ driving style. Moreover, in none of the mentioned aims is adequately explained why it was necessary to have a group of non-professional drivers and a group of professional drivers. In the paragraph that ranges from line 35 to line 64, in the lines at the end of this paragraph (lines 61-64) is stated that a comparative analysis is required for drivers with different driving experience and that therefore in this study a distinction was made between non-professional drivers and professional drivers. As already mentioned this statement appears out of the blue. Also when there are valid arguments to have two groups with different driving experiences it is not obvious to distinguish non-professional drivers from professional drivers because non-professional drivers can be very experienced and professional drivers can be unexperienced. Either the authors mention valid arguments why they included a group of non-professional drivers and a group of professional drivers or they have to skip one of the two groups in their article.
My second major comment is about the use of hierarchical regressions. Traditionally in multiple regression, all predictors are included in one model and tested against the model containing only the intercept. This method does not allow to assess the additional effect of a particular predictor after having accounted for the effect of other predictors in previous steps. A hierarchical regression solves this problem. Based on a theory, in hierarchical regression, predictors are entered in blocks/steps. Does a predictor in a step accounts for sufficient change in variance (i.e. the F-statistic is significant) after having accounted for the change in R-square of predictors in previous steps? If one want’s for instance to know what the net effect is of a particular characteristic of drivers (e.g. attitudes towards risky driving) on a particular driving style, one enters variables about demographics in the first step and the scores on the ‘attitudes towards risky’ driving in the second. The results show what the net effect is of ‘attitudes towards risky driving’ on a particular driving style has after having controlled for the demographic variables in the first step. I miss such a theory for entering the predictors in various blocks in this study. Why for instance weren’t demographics entered in the first step? I also do not understand why the scores on het hazard prediction test and the how risky certain driving performances (e.g. driving under the influence of alcohol) are rated, were included in one step (the first) and called ‘cognitive characteristics’ whereas the other measurement tools were entered in separate steps. The hazard prediction test measures a skill and such a skill requires cognition. However, the assessment of how dangerous certain driving behaviors are is not so much a skill but an attitude. Daredevils will probably rate particular driving behaviors as less risky than cautious drivers and this has nothing to do with cognition. Why is there a separate step for the drivers’ self-assessment questionnaire, and a separate step for the questionnaire about attitudes towards risky driving) and are the so called two measurement tools with a ‘cognitive characteristics’ entered in one despite the fact they measure something completely different? I want that the authors rerun the hierarchical regressions with the demographic variables entered in the first step and with a separate step for the hazard prediction test (Endriulaitienė et al., 2022) and a separate step for the risk perception scale (Rosenbloom et al., 2008).
Detailed comments
Abstract. The first sentence reads: “The aim of this study to assess…”. This first sentence misses a verb. This sentence should read “The aim of this study is to assess…”. There are more sentences in this article where a verb is missing.
Introduction. First sentence (lines 28-30). This sentence reads: “During the past few years, the interest towards determining the role of human behavior in traffic crashes has been consistently increasing within the frame broader perception of risky driving behavior.” This sentence is vague and meaningless. Besides, such a statement requires more than one reference. Risky driving has been an important topic since mass motorization started and is not something that is of interest in the past couple of years.
Introduction. Lines 78-80. The authors write: “Recent studies reveal that cognitive abilities, such perception of various aspects of driving like road related risk and hazards are the most crucial factors directly linked to driving quality and habitual driving behavior, thus to driving styles.”References please.
Materials and methods. Line 145. ‘du’ should be ‘due’.
Materials and methods. Line 160. The authors speak about ‘the Lithuanian Hazard Perception Test’. This test is a hazard prediction test and not a hazard perception test. Hazard perception tests and hazard prediction test are not the same (e.g. Ventsislavova et al., 2019). Throughout the article the ‘hazard perception test’ should be changed into the ‘hazard prediction test’.
Materials and methods, 2.2. Research Instruments. Line 169. The authors write that the internal reliability of the hazard prediction test is low but ‘satisfactory’ (Cronbach’s alpha = .54). This is not satisfactory but unsatisfactory. Of all the other measurement tools also the Cronbach’s alpha is provided of the present study but not for the hazard prediction test. What was the Cronbach’s alpha for the hazard prediction test in the present study?
Materials and methods, 2.2. Research Instruments. Lines 175-176. The authors write that a higher score on the risk perception scale indicates better risk perception on the road. This requires a reference. Besides, I do not belief this is true. Risk perception should be adequate but not necessarily always high. Drivers should be well calibrated and this means not overestimating one’s own skills and not underestimating the risks but also not underestimating one’s own skills and overestimating the risks. One of the items in Rosenbloom et al. (2008) is ‘how risky is backward (reverse) driving’. This may be risky for an unexperienced driver but not so risky for an experienced driver. Is an experienced driver who considers backward driving as risky but not very risky a worse driver than an experienced driver who rates this as very risky?
Materials and methods. 2.4. Data analysis methods. Lines 236-238. The authors write that they have applied t-test to compare the driving styles of professional drivers and non-professional drivers. There are not such t-test in the results section of this article.
Results. Line 261. I think ‘Table’ should be ‘Table 1’.
Results. In the most left column in the first step the authors write Delta F (Greek capital delta and then an F). In the first step this should be F (without a delta).
Results. Table 2. Table 2 has the same caption as Table 1.
Discussion. Lines 305-306. The authors write: “Results of this study showed that greater risk perception found to be related to careless, angry and anxious driving styles.” This is only true for professional drivers but not for non-professional drivers.
Results. Lines 323-324. The authors write: “Perceiving ourself as competent driver leads to safe, but also to careless and angry driving style.” I do not think that they can write ‘leads’. The study is correlational and not causal. Also elsewhere in the text the authors make causal interpretations whereas only correlations were found.
Results. Lines 329-337. The authors write: “Believing that you can handle most of risk driving situations could result in careless driving such as tailgating, not wearing seatbelts. Feeling highly competent might lead drivers to become complacent and less attentive. They may neglect routine safety measures, such as regular vehicle maintenance or checking blind spots before changing lanes, assuming that their skills alone are sufficient to keep them safe. Also, treating ourself as competent driver causes some impatience with other. Thus, competent drivers may become frustrated and angry when they perceive other drivers as less skilled or when they believe that other drivers' mistakes are causing inconvenience or danger.” This requires references. It looks that the authors make use of the theory of risk homeostasis (Wilde, 1982). This theory is controversial (e.g. Vaa, 2007).
Limitations. Not -mentioned is that it were self-assessed driving styles and not observed driving styles. Also is not mentioned that there was a significant age difference between the two groups and this may explain some of the differences between non-professional drivers and professional drivers.
Conclusions. Lines 360-361. The authors write: “Hazard perception and risk perception skills found to be significant predictors of anxious, careless and angry driving styles, but mainly for professional drivers. This is a gross exaggeration. The hazard prediction test was not a significant predictor of any of the drive styles regarding non-professional drivers and only for the angry driving style for the professional drivers. Furthermore, as explained above, risk perception as it was measured is not a skill.
References
Endriulaitienė, A., Šeibokaitė, L., Markšaitytė, R., Slavinskienė, J., Crundall, D., & Ventsislavova, P. (2022). Correlations among self-report, static image, and video-based hazard perception assessments: The validity of a new Lithuanian hazard prediction test. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 173, 106716. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106716
Iversen, H., & Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(8), 1251-1263. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00010-7
Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safety-motive dimensions in drivers' self-assessments. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(3), 307-318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00068-H
Rosenbloom, T., Shahar, A., Elharar, A., & Danino, O. (2008). Risk perception of driving as a function of advanced training aimed at recognizing and handling risks in demanding driving situations. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(2), 697-703. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.09.007
Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Mikulincer, M., & Gillath, O. (2004). The multidimensional driving style inventory—scale construct and validation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(3), 323-332. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(03)00010-1
Vaa, T. (2007). The Risk Homeostasis Theory: Accept, reject or modify?- An Opposition to Gerald Wilde’s RHT. Paper presented at the the 20th ICTCT Conference, Valencia.
Ventsislavova, P., Crundall, D., Baguley, T., Castro, C., Gugliotta, A., Garcia-Fernandez, P., . . . Li, Q. (2019). A comparison of hazard perception and hazard prediction tests across China, Spain and the UK. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 122, 268-286. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.10.010
Wilde, G. J. S. (1982). The Theory of Risk Homeostasis: Implications for Safety and Health. Risk Analysis, 2(4), 209-225. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01384.x
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Sometimes a verb in a sentence is missing.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript titled "“Cognitive and motivational antecedents of different driving styles in a sample of Lithuanian drivers”. Your insightful feedback have immensely contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work.We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions and have made revisions accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction defines careful, anxious, aggressive, and reckless driving styles. Table 1 columns are named careful, anxious, angry, and careless. I assume angry = aggressive and careless = reckless.
There are two tables named Table 1 with identical titles. The second Table 1 refers to years as a professional driver, so I think this table is supposed to be Table 2 of professional driver results.
It’s difficult to evaluate the results without seeing the questionnaires and plots of the responses.
The authors do not explain how the 70 questions contained in the four surveys were divided into “blocks” of independent variables except to say that they were. The independent variables are hazard perception skills, risk perception skills, perceptional motor skills, safety skills, attitudes toward risky driving, driving experience, and a few additional demographic variables. Furthermore, the authors do not explain from which surveys some variables such as perceptional motor skills and safety skills were obtained. Some variable names align with the survey names such as risk perception and the attitudes toward risky driving, but even the composition of these variables are never explained. Is a variable such as safety skills a single composite score for each participant, or is each variable a “block” of many survey question responses introduced to the regression at that step? I assume it’s the later, since the authors do not provide t-statistics for specific variables.
The authors do not explain how the 44 questions in the driving style survey were used to determine which of the four driving styles fit each participant. Specifically, was a composite score for each participant used to divide them into four groups? For example, a total score below 2 was careful, while a total score above 4 was angry?
A weakness of hierarchical regression is that insignificant variables introduced at an early step are never removed. A newly added variable can only increase R-squared regardless of how irrelevant it may be to the dependent variable. The question is whether the increase is significant as indicated by the incremental F-statistic. However, the incremental F-statistic only indicates the contribution of the last “block” of variables added to the model. If the “block” contains multiple variables, then some variables within the block may not be significant if their individual t-statistics are examined. Thus, the final model includes many variables or entire blocks that are insignificant and ought to be discarded. For example, the professional careful driver model has only attitude toward risky driving and driving route as significant, but the entire final model is shown as significant even though most variables in this model are not significant. The final model results for each case should only show significant variables.
Some of the incremental R-squared values and incremental F-statistics noted to be significant are only marginally so. Indeed, for professional drivers, the only consistently significant variables were how often they drove and their attitude toward risky driving. Nothing else really matters.
Finally, the authors do not discuss how these results can be applied toward safety improvements. The results are not connected with either crash involvement or driver education or licensing laws.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript titled "“Cognitive and motivational antecedents of different driving styles in a sample of Lithuanian drivers”. Your insightful feedback have immensely contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions and have made revisions accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors revised the contribution according to the instructions. I agree to its publication in the journal.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript titled "“Cognitive and motivational antecedents of different driving styles in a sample of Lithuanian drivers”. Your insightful feedback has immensely contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work.
Sincerely,
Justina Slavinskienė, Auksė Endriulaitienė
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has improved considerably. However, I have two rather major comments and two very small detailed comments
Major comments
When interpreting the results of the hierarchical regressions the authors interpret the standardized beta coefficients in step 4 (which they wrongfully call the ‘final model’). For instance they write: “ It was found that poor hazard perception skills significantly relate to only aggressive driving style and just in a sample of professional drivers. (lines 309-310). However, hazard perception was for the first time introduced in step 2 of Table 2. In this step hazard perception skills (standardized beta coefficient = -.15) is not a significant predictor for an aggressive driving style. After having controlled for hazard perception skills in step 2 hazard perception skills become a significant predictor for an aggressive driving style in step 4 (standardized beta coefficient = -.29). When interpreting hierarchical regressions one should only look to the step a predictor is entered for the first time and not in later steps when this predictor has already been controlled for in a previous step. Table 2 shows that hazard perception as measured by the hazard prediction test is not a significant predictor of any of the four driving styles for professional drivers.
My second major comment is that the authors now have included two recommendations. Professional drivers could undergo a training focusing on hazard perception to mitigate aggressive driving and non-professional drivers could benefit from an intervention that enhances risk perception skills. Besides the fact, that the recommendation for professional drivers is based on a wrong interpretation of the hierarchical regression (see my first major comment) one can only provide these recommendation when also is referred to studies that indicate that the two proposed training interventions are effective. The authors should either provide references to studies that indicate that these interventions are effective or delete these two recommendations.
Detailed comments.
In the tables 1 and two is not mentioned what the reference sex was for the predictor ‘Gender’. Also both in table 1 and 2 underneath the table the authors now write: “NOTE: standardized beta coefficients are presented in Table 1 (2).
It is better to write in the caption of the tables. “The figures in the columns represent the standardized regression coefficients.”
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript titled "“Cognitive and motivational antecedents of different driving styles in a sample of Lithuanian drivers”. Your insightful feedback has immensely contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions and have made revisions accordingly. Please find attached document with more details of corrections.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did not respond to my comment “The final model results for each case should only show significant variables.” The intermediate iterations shown in Tables 1 and 2 are not important.
For non-professional drivers, the authors must rerun the final model shown in Table 1 with only four significant variables: driving experience, frequency of driving, risk perception skills, and attitudes toward risk driving. For professional drivers, the authors must rerun the final model shown in Table 2 with only four significant variables: mean of driven km per week, mean working hours per week, risk perception skills, and attitudes toward risk driving. These rerun final results for both non-professional and professional drivers can all be condensed into just one table.
Why are the results presented in version 2 so very different from the results presented in version 1? What changed in the analysis to change the results by so much? The authors removed the last column of Table 2 from version 1 for “safe” professional drivers. The authors now state that the “Model for safe driving was not significant (F = 1.58, p = .14), results could not be interpreted.” However, they no longer show the final F statistic for any of the models. Why was the F statistic removed from the final results?
Risk perception skills show very contrary results. Non-professional drivers have a positive coefficient for anxious drivers, but negative coefficients for reckless, aggressive, and safe drivers. Professional drivers have positive coefficients for all three (reckless, aggressive, and anxious), and both reckless and anxious drivers have essentially the same coefficient. So this variable shows very inconsistent results between driver types and across driving styles.
Statements made by the authors are not supported by the results. The authors state that “better risk perception skills are significant antecedents of reckless driving among professional drivers.” However, reckless drivers have about the same coefficient for risk perception skills as anxious drivers? The authors also state that “better risk perception skills are significant antecedents of aggressive driving style among professional drivers.” However, aggressive drivers have worse risk perception skills than both reckless and anxious drivers? The authors also state that “anxious driving style is associated with better risk perception skills.” However, anxious drivers have about the same coefficient for risk perception skills as reckless drivers? These results are far too inconsistent and lack interpretation to be published.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript titled "“Cognitive and motivational antecedents of different driving styles in a sample of Lithuanian drivers”. Your insightful feedback has immensely contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions and have made revisions accordingly. Please find attached document with more details of corrections and answers.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe interpretation of the hierarchical regression is still not correct. Once corrected for in a previous step, the results of that predictor should be ignored in all the steps after the first step it was entered. For professional drivers, hazard perception skills are for the first time entered in step 2 and in this step the regression coefficient is .06 for a Reckless driving style, -.15 for an Aggressive driving style, and -.16 for an Anxious driving style. None of these three regression coefficients is significant. That for Aggressive driving ‘hazard perception skills’ become significant in step 4 is meaningless because hazard perception skills have already been controlled for in step 2. You can provide the information of a certain predictor after it is controlled for in a previous step but these results have no meaning and have to be ignored. Therefore, hazard perception skills are no significant predictors for the three driving styles both for non-professional drivers and professional drivers. Because of this, conclusion 1 “hazard perception skills could be significant predictors for aggressive driving style among professional drivers only when risk perception skills, attitudes towards risky driving and some demographic variables are controlled” is wrong.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript titled "“Cognitive and motivational antecedents of different driving styles in a sample of Lithuanian drivers”. Your insightful feedback has immensely contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered your comment and suggestions, made revisions and rejected the first conclusion.
Sincerely, Justina Slavinskienė, Auksė Endriulaitienė
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have sufficiently responded to my comments. I recommneded that they only show the final results of the model and not the preceding steps, but that is not a major criticism if they insist on showing all the steps. They also do not show F statistics for the final models. They only show the the incremental F statistics. Again, not a major criticism, but easy enough to add back in.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript titled "“Cognitive and motivational antecedents of different driving styles in a sample of Lithuanian drivers”. Your insightful feedback has immensely contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions and have made revisions accordingly. We provide a detailed response in attached file.
We are confident that the revised manuscript addresses all concerns raised and aligns with the standards of this journal. We hope that you find the revisions satisfactory, and we eagerly await your feedback.
Sincerely,
Justina Slavinskienė, Auksė Endriulaitienė
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy lcomment about the interpretation of the hierarchical regressions have been processed adequately. I have no new comments.
