Accident Analysis and Prevention 36 (2004) 231–238

The Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire: a cross-cultural study

Timo Lajunen a,∗ , Dianne Parker b , Heikki Summala c
a Department of Psychology, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey
b Department of Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
c Traffic Research Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Received 8 August 2002; accepted 26 November 2002

Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate if the original factorial structure of the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire
(DBQ) was replicated in Finland and The Netherlands. A postal questionnaire survey of drivers was carried out in Britain, Finland and
The Netherlands. Exploratory factor analysis together with target (Procrustes) rotation and factorial agreement indexes were calculated to
investigate the applicability of Finnish and Dutch versions of DBQ. Results of the factor comparisons showed that the DBQ four-factor
structures found in Finland and The Netherlands were congruent but not perfect with the target structure found in Britain. Reliabilities of
the scales were around the same level as in the British data. In addition to the four first-order factors, two second-order factors (deliberate
violations and unintentional errors) were found in all three countries which supports the original structure by Reason et al. [Ergonomics
33 (1990) 1315]. Issues related to cross-cultural use of traffic behaviour questionnaires are discussed.
© 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire; Factor structure; Cross-cultural; Second-order factors

1. Introduction attention and memory failures, which can cause embar-

It has been estimated that in 90–95% of traffic crashes
human actions are a sole or a contributory factor (Rumar,
1985). Hence, most of the traffic crashes result from driver
malfunctioning rather than from a technical failure of the
vehicle. Based on his model of human error, Reason et al.
(1990) divided human risk behaviour to errors and viola-
tions, and developed a survey instrument, Driver Behaviour
Questionnaire (DBQ), to measure these concepts in driver
behaviour.
In their first study about DBQ, Reason et al. (1990)
showed that driver errors and violations are two empiri-
cally distinct classes of behaviour. They defined errors as
‘the failure of planned actions to achieve their intended
consequences’ and violations as ‘deliberate deviations from
those practices believed necessary to maintain the safe op-
eration of a potentially hazardous system’. Unlike errors,
violations were seen as deliberate behaviours, although both
errors and violations are potentially dangerous and could
lead to a crash. Reason et al. also found a third DBQ factor,
which they named “slips and lapses”. This factor included
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-312-210-3126;
fax: +90-312-210-1288.
E-mail address: timo@metu.edu.tr (T. Lajunen).
rassment but are unlikely to have an impact driving safety
(Parker et al., 1995). Since errors and violations result from
different psychological processes, they should be treated
differently (Reason et al., 1990). Subsequently, Lawton et al.
(1997) extended the violations scale by adding new items.
Factor analysis of this extended violations scale showed that
violations can be split into two distinctive scales according
to the reason why drivers violate. Aggressive violations
contain an interpersonally aggressive component whereas
“ordinary” violations are deliberate deviations from safe
driving without a specifically aggressive aim. In the DBQ
literature, mainly violations—not errors or lapses—have
been related to crash involvement. Among elderly drivers,
however, relatively high error and lapse scores have been
reported to predict involvement in an active accident, while
passive accident involvement has been associated with high
scores on the lapse factor (Parker et al., 2000).
In addition to studies conducted in the UK, the DBQ has
been used in several international studies. To date, DBQ
data have been collected in Australia (Blockey and Hartley,
1995), China (Xie et al., 2003), Greece (Kontogiannis et al.,
2002), Finland and The Netherlands (Lajunen et al., 1999;
Mesken et al., 2002), New Zealand (Sullman et al., 2000),
Sweden (Åberg and Rimmö, 1998), and Turkey (Sümer
et al., 2002). The original three-factor (errors, violations,

0001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00152-5
232 T. Lajunen et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 36 (2004) 231–238
lapses) or four-factor (errors, lapses, aggressive and
“ordinary” violations) structure has been broadly repli-
cated in most studies, although small differences in factor
structures have been reported. In their study conducted in
Western Australia, Blockey and Hartley (1995) extracted
three factors, distinguishing between violations and dan-
gerous errors. The content of the factors differed slightly
from those of Reason et al. (1990), the factors being named
as general errors, dangerous errors and dangerous viola-
tions. Åberg and Rimmö (1998) factor analysed the DBQ
responses of a large sample of Swedish drivers, finding
the same error and violation factors as in Reason et al.’s
(1990) original study. The lapses, however, were split into
inattention and inexperience errors. Sullman et al. (2000)
studied the DBQ responses of truck drivers in New Zealand,
and found four factors, which they named as errors, lapses,
violations and aggressive violations. The most distinctive
factor structure has been found among Chinese drivers. Xie
et al. (2003) administered a 24-item version of the DBQ
to a sample of 363 Chinese drivers including both profes-
sional and non-professional drivers. The exploratory factor
analysis resulted in three factors. The first factor included
six error and six lapse items whereas the second factor had
eight violation and one lapse item. The third factor con-
sisted of two error and two lapse items. Hence, the main
distinction between errors and violations was found also in
this study, although the factor structure was different from
the usual three- or four-factor structure found in Western
countries.
Although the three- or four-factor structure of the DBQ
seems to occur in various studies conducted in different
countries and language areas, the cross-cultural stability of
the DBQ is far from that of “Big Five” (Costa and McCrae,
1985) or Eysenckian three personality factors (Eysenck and
Eysenck, 1991/1996). Most of the studies using the DBQ
have established “national scoring keys” for the DBQ. For
example, the Swedish DBQ makes a distinction between
inattention and inexperience errors. Although the specifica-
tion of a national factor solution may provide important in-
formation for studies conducted in one particular country,
cross-national comparisons become difficult.
In addition to different factor structures and scoring keys,
the number of items has varied considerably between DBQ
versions used in different studies. Since the number of items
can influence the psychometric characteristics of the scale,
the comparisons between studies using, say, 24-item and the
104-item scale used in Sweden by Åberg and Rimmö (1998)
are problematic. In conclusion, various versions of the DBQ,
different sampling strategies (e.g. postal survey, road-side
surveys) and different target populations (e.g. professional
drivers, elderly drivers) all undermine the ease with which
cross-cultural comparisons of the DBQ factor structure can
be made. The aim of the present study is to investigate
the equivalence of the DBQ factor structures in samples of
British, Dutch and Finnish drivers. Traditional psychometric
analysis (reliabilities) and exploratory factor analysis with
target rotations were performed to similar large samples of
British, Dutch and Finnish drivers.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
The data reported here were collected as a part of a large
survey of aggressive driving. Samples of 2000 drivers were
selected from the Finnish register of car owners, the electoral
register in the UK and the register of telephone users in
The Netherlands. In Finland and Britain, an equal number
of men and women were selected. Since it was not possible
to get this kind of stratified sample in The Netherlands,
the Dutch sample was a random sample of telephone users.
Samples were representative of the whole geographical area
of the countries involved. A questionnaire together with a
cover letter and a Freepost return envelope were sent to
participants. The participants replied to the questionnaire
anonymously. The questionnaires were each given a code
in order to assess who had responded. After 3 weeks, a
reminder letter was posted to increase the response rate. The
response rate after the reminder was 42% in the UK, 35% in
The Netherlands and 56% in Finland. The higher response
rate for Finland was partly due to the fact that the sampling in
Finland was targeted only at drivers whereas in Britain and
The Netherlands the questionnaires were sent to electors and
telephone users, respectively, some of whom may not have
had a driving licence. To estimate the “true” response rates,
the response rates gained in Britain and The Netherlands
would have to be scaled in proportion to the percentage
of driving licence holders in the countries concerned. The
characteristics of the Finnish, British and Dutch samples are
presented in Table 1.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ)
In the present study, the extended 27-item Driver Be-
haviour Questionnaire (Lawton et al., 1997; Parker et al.,
1998) was translated into Dutch and Finnish. Lapses, errors,
aggressive and “ordinary” violations items were included.
The items are listed in Table 2. Respondents were asked to
indicate how often they themselves do each of the viola-
tions and errors when driving. Responses were recorded on
a six-point scale from “Never” to “Nearly all the time”.
2.2.2. Demographic and exposure measures
Respondents answered questions about their age, sex, and
estimated annual mileage.
2.3. Statistical analyses
The internal consistency of the DBQ scale scores
was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha reliability
 T. Lajunen et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 36 (2004) 231–238 233

Table 1
Characteristics of the British, Finnish and Dutch samples
Britons (n = 831) Finns (n = 1123) Dutch (n = 703)

Mean age (S.D.) 39.55 (14.51) 37.52 (15.12) 45.90 (14.75)

Mean driving experience in years 18.35 (12.91) 16.93 (12.94) 23.62 (13.11)
Mean annual mileage 18612 (20894) 20435 (21730) 24637 (34635)
Males (%) 51.3 45.9 70.4
Accident involved in previous 3 years (%) 31.3 22.5 28.2

Table 2
Means and standard deviations of the DBQ answers in the British, Finnish and Dutch data
Britons Finns Dutch

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Aggressive violations 0.71 0.70 0.53 0.69 0.49 0.55

7. Sound your horn to indicate your annoyance to another road user 1.06 1.08 0.72 0.99 0.79 0.91
17. Become angered by another driver and give chase with the intention of giving 0.20 0.59 0.46 0.82 0.11 0.40
him/her a piece of your mind
25. Become angered by a certain type of a driver and indicate your hostility by 0.85 0.96 0.41 0.77 0.56 0.77
whatever means you can
“Ordinary” violations 0.98 0.70 0.94 0.62 0.94 0.60
10. Pull out of a junction so far that the driver with right of way has to stop and let 0.82 0.99 0.29 0.54 0.52 0.70
you out
11. Disregard the speed limit on a residential road 1.38 1.21 2.04 1.32 1.40 1.17
18. Stay in a motorway lane that you know will be closed ahead until the last 0.52 0.85 0.34 0.68 0.61 0.81
minute before forcing your way into the other lane
20. Overtake a slow driver on the inside 0.70 0.95 0.22 0.59 0.79 0.95
21. Race away from traffic lights with the intention of beating the driver next to you 0.99 1.15 1.07 1.16 1.36 1.15
23. Drive so close to the car in front that it would be difficult to stop in an emergency 0.80 0.86 1.13 0.95 0.66 0.78
24. Cross a junction knowing that the traffic lights have already turned against you 0.78 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.47 0.67
28. Disregard the speed limit on a motorway 1.87 1.61 1.55 1.38 1.73 1.38
Errors 0.50 0.38 0.51 0.38 0.63 0.47
5. Queuing to turn left onto a main road, you pay such close attention to the main 0.63 0.71 0.56 0.69 0.52 0.65
stream of traffic that you nearly hit the car in front
6. Fail to notice that pedestrians are crossing when turning into a side street from a 0.44 0.61 0.72 0.72 0.67 0.88
main road
8. Fail to check your rear-view mirror before pulling out, changing lanes, etc. 0.71 0.82 0.77 0.78 1.21 1.75
9. Brake too quickly on a slippery road or steer the wrong way in a skid 0.68 0.70 0.57 0.68 0.71 0.73
13. On turning left nearly hit a cyclist who has come up on your inside 0.31 0.55 0.22 0.47 0.47 0.57
14. Miss “Give Way” signs and narrowly avoid colliding with traffic having right of way 0.24 0.47 0.21 0.49 0.39 0.60
16. Attempt to overtake someone that you had not noticed to be signalling a right turn 0.24 0.47 0.23 0.49 0.37 0.57
27. Underestimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle when overtaking 0.74 0.70 0.77 0.69 0.64 0.67
Lapses 0.97 0.48 0.87 0.45 0.79 0.43
1. Hit something when reversing that you had not previously seen 0.45 0.62 0.49 0.62 0.65 0.68
2. Intending to drive to destination A, you “wake up” to find yourself on the road to 0.86 0.92 10.02 0.92 0.77 0.84
destination B
4. Get into the wrong lane approaching a roundabout or a junction 1.45 0.82 1.27 0.74 1.01 0.74
12. Switch on one thing, such as the headlights, when you meant to switch on 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.83 0.54 0.71
something else, such as the wipers
15. Attempt to drive away from the traffic lights in third gear 0.69 0.86 0.80 0.81 0.65 0.82
19. Forget where you left your car in a car park 1.16 1.09 0.48 0.75 0.78 0.88
22. Misread the signs and exit from a roundabout on the wrong road 1.03 0.78 0.93 0.76 0.86 0.71
26. Realise that you have no clear recollection of the road along which you have 1.17 1.03 1.14 0.99 1.03 0.92
just been travelling
234 T. Lajunen et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 36 (2004) 231–238
coefficients. The equivalence of the DBQ factor structures
in three countries involved were assessed first by deter-
mining the number of factors present in each of the three
samples and then by comparing the rotated factor ma-
trices by using Procrustes target rotation techniques and
factorial agreement coefficients. The techniques used to de-
termine the number of factors were the “eigenvalue greater
than one” rule (“mineigen criterion”), visual inspection of
“Scree plots” and parallel analysis (Thompson and Daniel,
1996).
In order to investigate if the first-order factors constitute
second-order factors, factor scores for the extracted factors
were calculated. Correlation matrices for these factor scores
were then factor analysed (principal axis factoring, varimax
rotation).
In the target rotation procedure, one cultural group is ar-
bitrarily designated as the target group. In the present study,
the British drivers were used as a target group, because the
DBQ was developed originally using British samples. Sep-
arate identical factor analyses (principal axis factoring with
oblimin rotation) were conducted for the British, Dutch and
Finnish DBQ correlation matrices. Then, the structure matri-
ces obtained from the Finnish and Dutch data were target ro-
tated to match the British structure matrix. Finally, factorial
agreement was evaluated by calculating identity, additivity,
proportionality (Tucker’s coefficient) and linearity (correla-
tion) agreement coefficients. In general, values higher than
0.95 indicate factorial similarity, whereas values lower than
0.90 (van de Vijver and Poortinga, 1994) or 0.85 (ten Berge,
1986) are taken as a sign of non-negligible incongruities.
3. Results
3.1. Reliability analysis
Alpha reliability coefficients for the DBQ scales for three
nationalities are listed in Table 3. In all three samples,
“ordinary” violations scale seemed to be the most internally
consistent (α = 0.75–0.80) whereas the “lapses” scale had
the lowest alpha values (α = 0.64–0.69). Reliability anal-
ysis indicated, however, that removal of any of the items
would have led to decrease in internal consistency. DBQ
scale scores showed the highest reliability coefficients in
UK and lowest in The Netherlands. Although some al-
pha reliability coefficients seemed unacceptably low, the
Table 3
Alpha reliability coefficients of the DBQ scales for the British, Finnish
and Dutch data
Britons Finns
Aggressive violations (three items) 0.73 0.68
“Ordinary” violations (eight items) 0.79 0.80
Errors (eight items) 0.73 0.73
Lapses (eight items) 0.69 0.65
reliability coefficients were around the same level as those
found in previous DBQ studies in general.
3.2. Exploratory factor analysis
3.2.1. Number of factors
The three methods (eigenvalues greater that one, Cattell’s
Scree test, parallel test) for deciding on the number of fac-
tors produced slightly different results. In the Finnish and
British data, five factors had eigenvalues greater than one
whereas in the Dutch data the mineigen criterion suggested
six factors should be extracted. Obviously, the mineigen cri-
terion resulted in over-factoring. In all three datasets, visual
inspection of Scree plots suggested the presence of only
three factors. The third method, parallel test, suggested four
factors for the Finnish data, three for the British data and
three for the Dutch data. However, the three-factor solution
was not readily interpretable in either dataset. Overall, then,
a four-factor solution seemed to be most feasible.
3.2.2. Factor structure: first-order factors
Oblique rotation was applied, because factor correla-
tion matrices indicated that factors had relatively high
inter-correlations in the Finnish (range: 0.11–0.50), British
(range: 0.02–0.52) and Dutch data (range: 0.04–0.47).
Oblimin rotated factor matrices for all three data sets are
presented in Table 2. Four-factors accounted for 40.4% of
variance in the British data, 42.4% in the Finnish data, and
39.0% in the Dutch data. Table 4 shows that in all three
countries, aggressive violation items had the highest factor
loadings in the same factor. Among “ordinary” violations,
the situation was slightly less clear. Although the items
got the highest loadings in the same factor, especially in
the Finnish data the “ordinary” violation items also had
relatively high factor loadings on the first factor, which
was the one labelled aggressive violations. For Finns, many
of the “ordinary” violations have an aggressive flavour. It
should be noted that item “forcing someone to give away”
(number 10) loaded only on the “errors” factor, maybe
because of some ambiguity of the Finnish translation. The
behaviour described in the item could be interpreted either
as deliberate or unintentional.
Table 4 shows that almost all error items had their high-
est factor loading on one factor, which could be labelled
“errors”. The item “not checking the mirror” (number 8),
however, had factor loadings lower than 0.40 in both the
Dutch and the British data. In addition, the item “misjudge
an overtaking gap” also had a relatively high cross loading
on the “lapses” factor in all three countries. The “lapses”
items had the highest factor loadings in the same factor in
all three data sets. The factor loadings of items 2, 4 and 12
Dutch were, however, lower than 0.40 in the Dutch data. In general,
0.65 the factor analysis with oblique rotation seemed to produce
0.75 a relatively robust four-factor structure in all three countries.
0.64 These factors could be interpreted as aggressive violations,
0.64
“ordinary” violations, errors, and lapses.
 T. Lajunen et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 36 (2004) 231–238 235

Table 4
Results of the exploratory factor analysis with oblimin rotation for Britons, Finns and Dutch
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

UK FIN NL UK FIN NL UK FIN NL UK FIN NL

Aggressive violations
7. Annoyed, sounding your horn 0.67 0.65 0.63
17. Angry, giving chase 0.63 0.69 0.53
25. Angry, indicating hostility 0.69 0.74 0.80 0.43
“Ordinary” violations
10. Forcing someone to give way 0.47 0.48
11. Speeding on residential road 0.43 0.67 0.76 0.68
18. Forcing your way into the other lane 0.50 0.51 0.54
20. Overtaking on the inside 0.44 0.40 0.55 0.46
21. Racing away from traffic lights 0.47 0.50 0.63 0.56 0.49
23. Close following 0.51 0.59 0.45
24. Shooting lights 0.43 0.53 0.48 0.41
28. Speeding on motorway 0.44 0.74 0.71 0.80
Errors
5. Insufficient attention to vehicle ahead 0.49 0.47 0.52
6. Not noticing pedestrians crossing 0.56 0.59 0.50
8. Not checking mirror 0.43
9. Braking too quickly on slippery 0.43 0.46 0.47 0.41
13. Failing to notice a cyclist 0.57 0.50 0.59
14. Not noticing “Give Way” sign 0.62 0.60 0.65
16. Overtaking a right turner 0.52 0.54 0.51
27. Misjudge an overtaking gap 0.51 0.48 0.48 0.42 0.46 0.43
Lapses
1. Hitting something when reversing
2. Taking more usual route by error 0.41 0.48 0.42
4. Wrong lane at roundabout/junction 0.40 0.49
12. Going for the wrong switch 0.48 0.51
15. Driving away in third gear 0.42 0.38 0.50
19. Forgetting where the car is in a car park 0.52 0.43 0.54
22. Taking wrong exit from roundabout 0.43 0.42 0.47 0.52 0.53
26. No recollection of road travelled 0.52 0.45 0.57
Eigenvalues 2.35 3.29 2.27 3.98 2.89 2.92 3.51 4.01 3.10 2.91 3.31 2.64
For the sake of clarity, factor loadings less than 40 have been omitted.

3.2.3. Factor structure: second-order factors
The high correlations among the four factors extracted
in the exploratory factor analysis suggest that second-order
factors could emerge. It might be supposed that aggressive
and “ordinary” violations would constitute a second-order
“violations” factor and “errors” and “lapses” would form
a general “unintentional mistakes” factor. The results of a
factor analysis (principal axis extraction method with vari-
max rotation) of the factor scores from the first-order fac-
tor analysis (Table 4) are shown in Table 5. Table 5 shows
that “errors” and “lapses” loaded on the first factor, labelled
“unintentional mistakes”, and that aggressive and “ordinary”
violations loaded on the second factor (“violations”). This
factor solution accounted for 69.2% of the variance in the
British data, 63.9% in the Finnish data, and 62.3% in the
Dutch data.
3.3. Target rotation and agreement coefficients

Table 5 Target rotations of the Finnish and Dutch factor matrices

Results of the second-order factor analysis with varimax rotation were carried out using the British factor matrix as a target.
Factor 1: mistakes Factor 2: violations As recommended by van de Vijver and Leung (1997), iden-
tity, additivity, proportionality and linearity agreement co-
UK FIN NL UK FIN NL
efficients were calculated. The values of these indexes are
Aggressive violations −0.80 0.72 0.87 listed in Table 6. Table 6 shows that the identity and pro-
“Ordinary” violations 0.44 0.69 0.73 0.64
portionality coefficients indicated high similarity (although
Errors 0.69 0.85 0.74
Lapses 0.96 0.78 0.83 not full identity) between the Finnish and British structures
as well as between the Dutch and British DBQ factor struc-
Eigenvalues 1.60 1.42 1.27 1.17 1.14 1.22
tures. The values for additivity and the correlation coefficient
236 T. Lajunen et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 36 (2004) 231–238
Table 6
Four identity indexes for DBQ scales
Aggressive violations
FIN NL
Identity coefficient 0.96 0.94
Additivity coefficient 0.92 0.90
Proportionality coefficient 0.96 0.94
Correlation coefficient 0.92 0.90
were somewhat lower, especially in relation to the error and
lapses factor, but still acceptable. It should be noted that the
most widely applied index, i.e. coefficient of proportionality
(also known as Tucker’s phi), and the most stringent index
(identity coefficient) both indicated a high degree of simi-
larity between the factor structures.
4. Discussion
Self-reports can be a very useful and efficient means for
studying aberrant driving behaviour. At their best, anony-
mous surveys can provide reliable in-depth information
about behaviour, as well as about the motives and attitudes
leading to risky driving. One of the widely used instruments
for measuring self-reported driving is Manchester Driver
Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ). In addition to many studies
conducted in UK, the DBQ has been used in several studies
in other countries. In these studies, the DBQ has been trans-
lated at least to Chinese, Dutch, Finnish, Greek, Swedish,
and Turkish. Hence, the DBQ could potentially provide a
means for international comparisons of driving behaviour.
Most of these DBQ studies have investigated the factor
structure of the DBQ by using exploratory factor analysis.
Based on these analyses, it has been concluded that the fac-
tor structure based on the distinction to errors and violations
is robust, although some individual items may not behave
as expected. In some cases, a new “national” DBQ scor-
ing key has been proposed. Despite these cultural nuances,
the distinction between errors as unintentional mistakes
and violations as deliberate acts has been supported by all
international studies.
However, although several international studies have
supported the universal nature of the DBQ factor struc-
ture based on errors and violations, these conclusions have
often been based solely on exploratory factor analysis of
data obtained in one country. Comparisons with the orig-
inal structure have been based mostly on visual inspection
of the rotated factor matrix. Although visual inspection
helps in the identification of problematic items, it is not
sufficiently rigorous for drawing conclusions about the
similarity between factor structures, because the degree of
congruence/incongruence cannot be measured. One of the
most powerful methods for investigating the cross-cultural
feasibility of an instrument’s factor structure is exploratory
factor analysis with target rotation. Using this method, the
“Ordinary” violations Errors Lapses
FIN NL FIN NL FIN NL
0.97 0.96 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.96
0.86 0.90 0.88 0.85 0.86 0.85
0.97 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.97
0.87 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86
degree of factorial agreement is established by comparing
the rotated factor structure obtained in one culture with a
target structure (the British factor structure in this case) and
calculating indices of agreement. Unlike structural equa-
tion techniques, target rotation techniques, used together
with agreement indices, are optimal exploratory techniques
when we do not have a strong a priori theory from which to
formulate hypotheses about cross-cultural differences and
similarities (McCrae et al., 1996; van de Vijver and Leung,
1997). In the present study, the objective was to investi-
gate if the DBQ functioned in the same way in Finland
and The Netherlands as in Britain where it was originally
developed.
The results of the factor comparisons show that the DBQ
four-factor structures (aggressive violations, “ordinary” vi-
olations, errors, lapses) found in Finland and The Nether-
lands were fairly congruent with the one found with the
British data. It should be noted, however, that the factorial
agreement was satisfactory rather than perfect. This find-
ing indicates that the four-factor structure of the DBQ can
be used in studies using Finnish and Dutch versions of the
DBQ. On the other hand, the fact that the agreement between
the structures was not perfect emphasises the importance of
taking cultural factors into account when applying an in-
strument in another country and language. As Blockey and
Hartley’s (1995) study shows, an instrument may function
differently even in two countries using the same language.
In the present study, all three countries were industrialised
Western European countries with relatively safe traffic and
superficially similar traffic cultures. The small differences
in DBQ structure show that different behaviours in gen-
eral, and questionnaire items in particular, can be interpreted
slightly differently even in countries as culturally similar as
Finland, The Netherlands and the UK. This finding empha-
sises the importance of thorough knowledge of the countries
and cultures involved and great care in the translation pro-
cedure. In the present study, the Finnish translation of the
DBQ was checked by a group of experienced traffic psychol-
ogists, who were fluent in both Finnish and English. Even
so, the Finnish translation of the item “forcing someone to
give way” (“ordinary” violations item) was ambiguous and
the item was open to interpretation either as an unintentional
error or as a deliberate violation. The use of a procedure
such as back translation by an independent translator might
have revealed the small but important difference between
the original item and translation.
 T. Lajunen et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 36 (2004) 231–238
Problems in translation procedure are not the only
reason for lack of equivalence between the original question-
naire and the translation. Often differences in factor struc-
tures reflect true cultural differences. Like general cultures,
traffic cultures vary from one region to another. The DBQ
item “brake too quickly on slippery road” has very different
meanings in countries with a long snowy winter and in coun-
tries where snow tires are never needed. Similarly, “failing
to notice cyclists” may be a very salient item in The Nether-
lands, a country with many cyclists, but less relevant, say, in
Turkey where cycling is not popular due to the hilly terrain.
Violation items seem to be especially problematic, because
the distinction between “ordinary” violations and aggressive
violations is solely based on the intention behind the act
(Lajunen and Parker, 2001; Lajunen et al., 1998). For exam-
ple, sounding one’s horn clearly reflects aggression in Scan-
dinavia whereas in Southern Europe the threshold for horn
use is much lower and it does not necessarily indicate ag-
gression. These kind of culturally sensitive items may need
to be removed from the DBQ. One possibility is to construct
two versions of the DBQ for each country: one for national
use only (including culturally relevant items) and a shorter
version for international comparisons. The items in the inter-
national version should form the core items of the longer na-
tional version to secure international comparability of data.
Originally, the idea behind the DBQ was to differen-
tiate deliberate violations from unintentional errors. Later
versions of DBQ have usually had between three and five
scales. Although these scales measure different types of er-
rors (lapses and errors) or violations (aggressive and or-
dinary violations) and in this way replicate the original
theoretical distinction, all previous studies have used only
first-order factor analyses. In most of the studies, the scales
have had relatively strong inter-correlations. This finding
indicates that second-order factors could emerge. In the
present study, factor analysis of the factor scores of the four
first-order factors showed that two second-order factors were
present in the British, Dutch and Finnish data. This shows
that the four factors (aggressive and “ordinary” violations,
errors, lapses) reflect the original distinction between delib-
erate violations and involuntary mistakes. However, despite
the theoretical importance of this finding, in every-day use
the scoring based on four scales may be more informative
for road safety practitioners.
The results of the present study showed that the Dutch and
Finnish DBQ factor structures are roughly equivalent to the
British one. This indicates that the translations were quite
successful and that drivers interpreted most of the items in
a similar way in all three countries. Although these results
show that the structure of the DBQ is about the same in three
countries involved and, therefore, make international com-
parisons possible, it does not indicate total absence of cul-
tural bias. It is still possible that in one country aggressive
drivers score lower on the DBQ aggressive violations than in
another country where expressions of aggression are socially
more acceptable. In addition to these possible differences in
237
the level of reporting aberrant behaviours in general, socially
desirable responding is likely to bias responses to different
DBQ items in different cultures. In their quasi-experimental
study, Lajunen and Summala (2003) compared the DBQ
responses given in public and private settings. Self-reports
of drinking and driving were biased by social desirability
whereas drivers filling the DBQ form anonymously did not
report more speeding than those in the public settings. This
reflects the fact that drinking and driving is one of the most
socially reprehensible behaviours in Scandinavia whereas in
some other European countries drinking small doses of al-
cohol might be considered as less condemnable. According
to SARTRE study, 71% of Swedish drivers report that they
never drive “after drinking even a small amount of alcohol”
whereas the same figure for Italians was 8% (SARTRE,
1994). Hence, the DBQ item about drinking and driving can
be expected to be very sensitive to social desirability bias
and local (drinking) culture. At the present study, the DBQ
item about drinking and driving was not used.
In conclusion, the factors structures of the DBQ were
very similar, but not identical, in three Western European
countries with relatively safe traffic and similar driving cul-
ture. These results indicate that DBQ can be used and the
scale scores compared with confidence at least in Western
European countries. In non-European countries with less
motorization, the DBQ might have worked very differently.
Therefore, proper adaptation studies are needed before
DBQ can be used outside the cultural group for which it
was originally developed.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Jolieke Mesken for her help
in data collection and translation of the questionnaires.
This research was supported by the grants of the European
Commission (contract no. ERBFMBICT972398), and the
Finnish Organisation for Traffic Safety (Liikenneturva).
Ajoneuvohallintokeskus is thanked for providing the names
and addresses of car owners in Finland.
References
Åberg, L., Rimmö, P.-A., 1998. Dimensions of aberrant driver behaviour.
Ergonomics 41, 39–56.
Blockey, P.N., Hartley, L.R., 1995. Aberrant driving behaviour: errors and
violations. Ergonomics 38, 1759–1771.
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1985. The NEO Personality Inventory manual.
Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Eysenck, H.J., Eysenck, S.B.G., 1991/1996. Manual of the Eysenck
Personality Scales (EPS Adult). Hodder & Stoughton, London.
Kontogiannis, T., Kossiavelou, Z., Marmaras, N., 2002. Self-reports of
aberrant behaviour on the roads: errors and violations in a sample of
Greek drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 34, 381–399.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., 2001. Are aggressive people aggressive drivers?: a
study of the relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness,
driver anger and aggressive driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 33, 243–255.
238 T. Lajunen et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 36 (2004) 231–238
Lajunen, T., Summala, H., 2003. Can we trust self-reports of driving?
Transport. Res. Part F, in press.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., Stradling, S., 1998. Dimensions of driver anger,
aggressive and highway code violations and their mediation by safety
orientation in UK drivers. Transport. Res. Part F 1, 107–121.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., Summala, H., 1999. Does traffic congestion
increase driver aggression? Transport. Res. Part F 2, 225–236.
Lawton, R., Parker, D., Manstead, A.S.R., Stradling, S., 1997. The role of
affect in predicting social behaviours: the case of road traffic violations.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27, 1258–1276.
McCrae, R.R., Zoderman, A.B., Costa, P.T., Bond, M.H., Paunonen, S.V.,
1996. Evaluating replicability of factors in the revised NEO personality
inventory: confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 552–566.
Mesken, J., Lajunen, T., Summala, H., 2002. Interpersonal violations,
speeding violations and their relation to accident involvement in
Finland. Ergonomics 7, 469–483.
Parker, D., Reason, J.T., Manstead, A.S.R., Stradling, S., 1995. Driving
errors, driving violations and accident involvement. Ergonomics 38,
1036–1048.
Parker, D., Lajunen, T., Stradling, S., 1998. Attitudinal predictors of
aggressive driving violations. Transport. Res. Part F 1, 11–24.
Parker, D., McDonald, L., Rabbitt, P., Sutcliffe, P., 2000. Elderly drivers
and their accidents: the Aging Driver Questionnaire. Accid. Anal. Prev.
32, 751–7599.
Reason, J.T., Manstead, A.S.R., Stradling, S.G., Baxter, J.S., Campbell, K.,
1990. Errors and violations on the road: a real distinction? Ergonomics
33, 1315–1332.
Rumar, K., 1985. The role of perceptual and cognitive filters in observed
behaviour. In: Evans, L., Schwing, R.C. (Eds.), Human Behaviour and
Traffic Safety. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 151–165.
SARTRE, 1994. European Drivers and Traffic Safety. Presses de l’Ecole
Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées.
Sullman, M., Meadows, M., Pajo, K., 2000. Errors, lapses and violation
in the drivers of heavy vehicles. In: Proceedings of the Paper Presented
at the International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology,
Berne, Switzerland.
Sümer, N., Lajunen, T., Özkan, T., 2002. Sürücü davranislarinin kaza
riskindeki rolü: ihlaller ve hatalar (The role of driver behaviour in
accident risk: violations and errors). In: International Traffic and Road
Safety Congress & Fair, Ankara, Turkey.
ten Berge, J.M.F., 1986. Rotatie naar perfecte congruentie en de Multipele
Groep Methode. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Psychol. 41, 218–225.
Thompson, B., Daniel, F.G., 1996. Factorial analytic evidence for the
construct validity of scores: a historical overview and some guidelines.
Educ. Psychol. Meas. 56, 197–208.
van de Vijver, F., Leung, K., 1997. Methods and Data Analysis for
Cross-cultural Research. Sage, London.
van de Vijver, F., Poortinga, Y.H., 1994. Methodological issues in
cross-cultural studies on parental rearing behaviour and psychopat-
hology. In: Perris, C., Arrindell, W.A., Eisemann, M. (Eds.), Parental
Rearing and Psychopathology. Wiley, Chicester, UK, pp. 173–
197.
Xie, C.-Q., Parker, D., 2003. A social psychological approach to
driving violations in two Chinese cities. Transport. Res. Part F,
in press.