Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 86 (2022) 345–355

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F:

Psychology and Behaviour
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

The mediation effect of mentalization in the relationship between

attachment and aggression on the road
David Herrero-Fernández a, *, Pamela Parada-Fernández a, Irene Rodríguez-Arcos b,
Laura Amaya-Carrillo a, María Esther González-Sáez a, Miriam Rubio-González a
a
Universidad Europea del Atlántico, Santander, Spain
b
Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Studies regarding aggression on the road are getting more frequent, due to the close relationship
Attachment styles of these variables with risky behaviour and crash-related events. Whereas most of research has
Driving aggression focused on both contextual and personality (proximal) variables, the current research aimed to
Mentalization
explore the relationship between attachment styles (distal variables) and aggressive behaviour on
Empathy, Alexithymia
the road, hypothesizing the mediation effect of mentalization. Then, a sample of 469 drivers
Mindful attention
(Mage = 35.60, SDage = 12.38; 66.1% female) taken from the general Spanish population
completed a set of measures about their attachment styles (secure, anxious, avoidant, and
disorganized), mentalization (alexithymia, mindful attention, empathy, and emotion recogni­
tion), and aggressive behaviour on the road (verbal, physical, vehicle-use related, displaced, and
adaptive aggression). The results showed that driving aggression variables were significantly
associated with self-sufficiency attachment style, as well as with empathy, alexithymia, and
mindful attention. A further SEM analysis suggested that mentalization did not mediate in the
relationship between self-sufficiency and driving aggression, but significant indirect effects were
obtained in the case of the association between preoccupation attachment style and each one of
the ways of aggression. Clinical implications of the results are discussed, in terms of the possible
effectiveness of mentalization-based therapies to reduce aggression on the road, especially those
which refer to alexithymia and mindful attention.

1. Introduction

Research on anger and aggressive behaviour on the road has increased for some decades, as they have been closely linked to both
risky behaviours and crash-related events (Herrero-Fernández & Fonseca-Baeza, 2017; Zhang & Chan, 2016). Different theoretical
perspectives have been used to conceptualize driving aggression. One of the most internationally validated theories is the Deffen­
bacher’s approach (Deffenbacher, Kemper, & Richards, 2007; Deffenbacher, Lynch, Deffenbacher, & Oetting, 2001; Deffenbacher,
Lynch, Oetting, & Swaim, 2002), according to which there are five main ways to express anger behind the wheel. For instance, at a
verbal level, calling names aloud; on physical terms, shaking one’s fist to express anger; while using the own vehicle, speeding up to
disturb another driver; displaced aggression, like screaming at the people who share the space in the vehicle, and adaptively or
constructively behaviour (i. e. adaptive aggression), such as breathing deeply to calm oneself. This theoretical approach has been

* Corresponding author at: Universidad Europea del Atlántico, C/ Isabel Torres, 21 39011, Santander (ESPAÑA - SPAIN). Tel.: 0034 942 24 42 44.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Herrero-Fernández).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2022.03.009
Received 14 May 2021; Received in revised form 28 February 2022; Accepted 13 March 2022
Available online 19 March 2022
1369-8478/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Herrero-Fernández et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 86 (2022) 345–355

validated in different countries such as Germany (Brandenburg, Oehl, & Hartwig, 2019), Brazil (Olandoski, Bianchi, & Delhomme,
2019), New Zealand (Sullman, 2015), China (Ge, Qu, Zhang, Zhao, & Zhang, 2015), or Spain (Herrero-Fernández, 2011; Herrero-
Fernandez, Oliva-Macias, & Parada-Fernandez, 2019).
Different factorial solutions have been found comparing these versions, although both verbal and adaptive ways of aggression are
the most common ones. In fact, the Spanish version of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory is the only one that maintained the
displaced aggression factor in the final model. This way of aggression is characterized by directing it against a different target than that
one which provoked the anger state in the aggressor (Denson, Pedersen, & Miller, 2006; Herrero-Fernández, 2013; Martinez, Zeichner,
Reidy, & Miller, 2008).
Then, predictors of driving aggression have been explored. First, regarding socio-demographic variables, the effect of age, gender,
and driving experience have been analysed. Whereas almost all studies have found a negative relationship between age and the
frequency of aggressive behaviour on the road (Deffenbacher et al., 2007; Herrero-Fernández, 2011), and a no-significant relationship
between driving experience (measured either by years after obtaining a driving license or taking the distance driven per week) and the
frequency of aggressive behaviour on the road (Brandenburg et al., 2019; Lajunen & Summala, 1995; Schwebel, Severson, Ball, &
Rizzo, 2006), the effect of gender is more controversial. For example, the studies carried out in China (Ge et al., 2015) did not find
significant differences by gender. Nevertheless, some studies have found that male drivers behave more maladaptively than female
drivers (Brandenburg et al., 2019; Sullman, Stephens, & Yong, 2015), and that female drivers behave more adaptively than male
drivers, (Olandoski et al., 2019). However, the most part of studies have obtained low effect sizes, suggesting that gender differences
could be irrelevant from a practical perspective.
Regarding psychological variables predicting driving aggression, most of the studies have focused on proximal variables, such as
trait general anger (Deffenbacher, Deffenbacher, Lynch, & Richards, 2003; Esiyok, Yasak, & Korkusuz, 2007) and trait driving anger
(Bogdan, Mairean, & Havarneanu, 2016; Bogdan-Ganea & Herrero-Fernandez, 2018; Herrero-Fernández, 2013). However, some
studies suggest that driving attitudes could be partially fixed from childhood (distal variables). One of the main distal variables is
attachment, which is stablished in the first childhood (Bowlby, 1969) and remains relatively stable throughout life (Main & Cassidy,
1988; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
The theoretical link between attachment and aggressive behaviour was stablished in Bowlby’s work several years ago (Bowlby,
1969, 1973, 1980, 1988). According to this author, the quality of the relationship between infant and caregiver lays the foundations for
later representational working models (beliefs about oneself and others which provide the basis for consistent ways in which children
and adults interact with the world, experience themselves and others, and regulate affect). Hence, a securely attached infant, whose
needs are typically met, may develop a model towards others as reliable and caring, and consider him- or herself to be loveable and
valuable. Alternatively, a neglected infant whose needs are not met may consider others to be undependable and untrustworthy, and
may build a negative model of him- or herself. This maladaptive view of themselves and others puts them at risk for aggression and
other problems such as poor impulse control, emotional dependency in personal relationships, and personality disorders (Fonagy,
Bateman, & Luyten, 2012).
Consequently, several studies have pointed out the relationship between insecure attachment styles, especially both anxious and
avoidant styles, and aggressive behaviour. Two of the studies found significant relationships between both of these insecure attach­
ment styles and different maladaptive behaviours characterized by emotion dysregulation, such as aggression (Clear, Gardner, Webb,
& Zimmer-Gembeck, 2020; Di Pentima et al., 2019). Other studies obtained similar findings, but presenting stronger relationships
between anxious attachment and aggression in the case of men, rather than women (Bekker, Bachrach, & Croon, 2007). Regarding the
secure attachment style, inconsistent results have been found. Whereas some studies have suggested the relationship between secure
attachment and the ability to manage negative emotions (Ditzen et al., 2008; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003; Parra, Miljkovitch,
Persiaux, Morales, & Scherer, 2017), another one has discovered no significant relationships between this kind of attachment and
externalizing symptomatology (Stefan & Avram, 2017).
Moreover, the relationship between attachment and aggression in specific fields has been explored, especially in the case of
romantic relationships. The results are in the same line as general-aggression studies, so anxious attachment is strongly related to
different ways of aggression, such as psychological and physical (Babcock, Jacobson, Gottman, & Yerington, 2000; Dutton & White,
2012; Dutton, Starzomski, Saunders, & Bartholomew, 1994), or even displaced aggression (Slotter, Grom, & Tervo-Clemmens, 2020).
However, a predominant secure attachment would decrease the chances of aggressing partners in frustrating situations (Babcock et al.,
2000).
In the specific field of driving, few studies have explored the effect of attachment on attitudes behind the wheel. On the one hand, it
has been showed that attachment could have a significant effect, so anxious attachment has been related to a willingness of driving in a
reckless way in adolescents (Taubman - Ben-Ari & Mikulincer, 2007). On the other hand, other study found moderate relationship of
both anxious and avoidant attachment with trait driving anger (Herrero-Fernández, Redondo, Parada-Fernández, Oliva-Macías, &
Rohwer, 2020).
However, considering that attachment is fixed during the first childhood and driving is a very complex behaviour which is learned
during the first adulthood, some different mediators could be acting between these two constructs. To date, this issue has been hardly
explored. To our knowledge, only a recent research found that both trait general anger and self-esteem mediated significantly in the
relationship between both anxious and avoidant attachment styles and trait driving anger (Herrero-Fernández et al., 2020). Therefore,
it is necessary to analyse other possible variables which could explain this relationship. Scientific literature regarding attachment and
emotion dysregulation problems have shown the mediating effect of mentalization (Parada-Fernández, Herrero-Fernández, Oliva-
Macías, & Rohwer, 2021).
In this sense, mentalization is an imaginative mental activity that allows the interpretation of human behaviour in terms of mental

346
 D. Herrero-Fernández et al.
Table 1
Mean and SD of all the variables, and bivariate correlation coefficients (Pearsoń s r) among them.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Security –
2. Preocc. 0.20*** –
3. Self-Suf. -0.45*** 0.16*** –
4. Ch. Trau. -0.54*** -0.07 0.46*** –
5. RMET 0.06 -0.02 -0.04 -0.01 –
6. PT 0.05 -0.11* -0.06 0.04 0.14** –
7. FS 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.14** 0.27*** –
8. EC 0.12* 0.33*** -0.03 -0.03 0.16*** 0.40*** 0.50*** –
9. PD -0.07 0.31*** 0.18*** 0.06 -0.02 -0.13* 0.21*** 0.25*** –
10. DE -0.20*** 0.27*** 0.35*** 0.22*** -0.03 -0.13** 0.12* 0.15** 0.45*** –
347

11. DIF -0.17** 0.17*** 0.33*** 0.10* -0.07 -0.20*** -0.04 -0.08 0.31*** 0.60*** –
12. EOT -0.03 0.19*** 0.17*** 0.00 -0.18*** -0.51*** -0.30*** -0.28*** 0.18*** 0.29*** 0.41*** –
13. MAAS 0.17*** -0.17*** -0.33*** -0.24*** 0.02 0.06 -0.17*** -0.08 -0.24*** -0.55*** -0.41*** -0.17***

Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 86 (2022) 345–355

–
14.Verbal 0.03 0.18*** 0.15** 0.01 0.07 -0.19*** 0.08 -0.02 0.12* 0.13** 0.15** 0.11* -0.14** –
15.Physical 0.02 0.05 0.14** 0.04 -0.02 -0.10* 0.00 -0.04 0.07 0.12** 0.11* 0.04 -0.15** 0.55*** –
16.Vehicle 0.09 0.07 0.13* -0.03 -0.01 -0.16** 0.09 -0.01 0.13* 0.15** 0.19*** 0.11* -0.17*** 0.47*** 0.55*** –
17.Displaced 0.00 0.04 0.10* 0.03 0.01 -0.09* 0.17*** 0.06 0.13* 0.17*** 0.12* 0.02 -0.22*** 0.36*** 0.49*** 0.49*** –
18.Adaptive 0.02 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.01 0.29*** -0.07 0.14** -0.09 -0.08 -0.06 -0.16** 0.03 -0.38*** -0.21*** -0.25*** -0.22***

Note. Security: Secure Attachment; Preocc.: Preoccupied Attachment; Self-Suf.: Self-Sufficiency; Ch. Trau.: Childhood Trauma; PT: Perspective-Taking (IRI); FS: Fantasy Scale (IRI); EC: Empathy Concern
(IRI); PD: Personal Distress (IRI); DE: Difficulties identifying emotions (TAS); DIF: Difficulties in verbal expression of emotions (TAS); EOT: Style of though oriented to external details (TAS); Verbal: Verbal
anger expression; Physical: Physical anger expression; Vehicle: Anger expression by using own vehicle; Displaced: Displaced aggression; Adaptive: Adaptive aggression.
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
D. Herrero-Fernández et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 86 (2022) 345–355

states (desires, needs, beliefs or feelings, among others, Herrmann et al., 2018). Various forms of mentalization measurement have
been described, such as self-reports. For example, the Reflexive Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ) has suggested a strong relationship
between the constructs empathy, mindfulness and perspective taking (Fonagy et al., 2016). These questionnaires aimed at parents,
therapists or the child population. These are instruments that allow easy and quick access to the measurement of mentalization.
However, they basically measure impairment or severe difficulties in mentalization in the applied research setting (Fonagy et al.,
2016). On the other hand, interview-based measures have been validated to contextually assess mentalization or reflective function
(Fonagy, Target, Steele, & Steele, 1998). It is composed of implicit/explicit, self-/other-oriented dimensions and a cognitive/affective
aspect. In addition, mentalization, due to its broad conceptual nature, encompasses a number of overlapping elements ranging from
mindfulness, empathy, affective awareness, and psychological mentality that allow for the conformation of the three dimensions
mentioned above. In this sense, mindfulness focuses on the mental states of oneself, explicitly and with an emphasis on cognitive and
affective aspects of mental states, while empathy incorporates the imagination of the mental states of others, relating to affective
mental states and operating implicitly and explicitly. Psychological mindedness and affective awareness share both sides (Choi-Kain &
Gunderson, 2008). Mentalization is a socio-cognitive skill that is acquired in relation to secure attachment between parents and
children. Although mentalising is a skill that develops early in life, studies suggest that mentalising skills continue to develop at later
stages due to brain development and structural and functional changes (Clarke, Meredith, & Rose, 2020). Good mentalising skills can
contribute to individual and relational benefits. In addition, it enables the attribution of intentional mental states that facilitate the
understanding and anticipation of various behaviours, allowing individuals to regulate their own behaviour (Asen & Fonagy, 2017).
Moreover, mentalization allows individuals to establish and differentiate thoughts from affective reality and to move in representa­
tional space (Fonagy & Luyten, 2009). This aspect is an essential issue, as difficulty in mentalising contributes to non-mentalising states
(psychic equivalence, simulated or teleological mode) that could influence emotional dysregulation (Fonagy, Luyten, Allison, &
Campbell, 2019; Bateman & Fonagy, 2019).
Consequently, it plays an essential role in regulating intense emotional states and impulses. Indeed, there is evidence linking
insecure attachment styles and poor mentalization to various externalising behaviours (Adshead, Moore, Humphrey, Wilson, & Tapp,
2013), due to the fact that mentalization originates and develops within relational experiences, specifically those with attachment
figures. As a consequence, non-secure attachment styles would show greater difficulties around mentalising capacity. In this sense,
deficits in mentalization may increase aggressive behaviour on the road, since being aware of mental states has been observed to
contribute to a decrease in aggression levels (Kazemeini et al., 2013; Seydi, Rahimian Boogar, & Talepasand, 2019). Indeed, men­
talization is a relevant predictor of aggressive driving and, in addition, the presence of insecure attachment styles undermines the
acquisition of adequate mentalization (Seydi et al., 2019).
Therefore, the aim of the current research is to analyse the relationship among attachment styles, mentalization, and aggressive
driving. Based on the previous review, it is hypothesized that unsafe attachment styles (i. e. anxious, avoidant, and disorganized) will
be positively related to aggression on the road, whereas safe attachment will do so negatively. Likewise, mentalization will be
negatively related to both unsafe attachment and aggression on the road, and positively with safe attachment. Moreover, it is expected
that mentalization will mediate in the relationship between attachment and aggressive driving. The possible effect of age, gender, and
driving experience will be explored in order to statistically control these variables in the final model.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

First, 469 participants taken incidentally from the Spanish general population completed the measures (see Instruments section).
The inclusion criteria included having a valid driving license and driving at least once a week, completing at least 10 km per week.
Seventy-one participants were erased from the data set due to having reported driving less than the given criteria. Moreover, 3
participants were also removed due to having reported driving 7,500 km or more per week, and they were considered outliers. Then,
the final sample was composed of 395 participants, who cannot be considered as representative of the general population of Spanish
drivers. Of them, there were 135 (34.2%) male, 257 (65.0%) female and 3 (0.8%) non-binary gendered. Regarding age, it ranged from
18 to 76 (M = 36.34, SD = 12.48). Most of the participants (246, 62.3%) had a university degree, whereas 2 (0.5%) of them had not
finished their primary studies, 23 (5.8%) had completed their primary studies, 36 (9.1%) had secondary studies, and 88 (22.3%) had
vocational training. As far as their civil status is concerned, 184 (46.6%) were single, 173 (43.8%) were married, 35 (8.9%) were
divorced, and 3 (0.8%) were widowers. Finally, they drove from 10 to 4,500 km on average per week (M = 262.10, SD = 377.66). All of
the participants took part willingly and on a voluntary basis, and did not receive any compensation for participating.

2.2. Instruments

The internal consistency values reported here refer to the current sample.
CaMir-R. Attachment was measured with the Spanish reduced version of the CaMir-R (Pierrehumbert et al., 1996; Redondo &
Herrero-Fernández, 2019). It consists of 29 items which are answered with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally
agree) and are classified following these 6 factors: Security, Preoccupation (referring to anxious style), Self-Sufficiency (referring to
avoidant style), Childhood Trauma (referring to disorganized style), Parental Interference, and Value of Parental Authority. Two of the
factors are related to parental styles (Parental interference and Value of parental authority), and the other four to attachment (Security,
α = 0.93; Preoccupation, α = 0.82, Self-Sufficiency, α = 0.69, and Childhood Trauma, α = 0.86). In the current study only the

348
D. Herrero-Fernández et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 86 (2022) 345–355

attachment factors were applied, as both attachment and parental styles are related but different theoretical constructs. In that way,
the influence of parental styles on the development of attachment style in adults (Eldad & Benatov, 2018) has been proposed.
Moreover, whereas attachment is a dispositional variable that sustains the emotion processes across the life, parental styles refer to the
way in which parents relate with sons (Paez & Rovella, 2019).
The Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). This questionnaire consists of 3 subscales (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994): difficulty
identifying emotions and differentiating between corporal and physiological sensations (α = 0.90), difficulties in the verbal expression
of emotions (α = 0.85), and style of thought oriented to external details (α = 0.68). The tool consists of 20 questions with 5 possible
options (1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree), with the highest marks being those that demonstrate the highest levels of alexithymia.
The Spanish version of TAS-20 (Martínez-Sánchez, 1996) has shown very similar psychometric properties to the original version.
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, 2001; Redondo & Herrero-Fernandez,
2018). The RMET consists of 19 photos in grey scale of people in which only the area surrounding their eyes can be seen. Each picture is
surrounded by four mental status terminology and the participant is invited to choose the word that, on his/her opinion, better de­
scribes what the person in the picture feels or thinks. Only one of the four answers is taken as correct. Answers are codified as
0 (incorrect) or 1 (correct), with a maximum score of 19. Due to the dichotomous style of answering, the internal consistency of the
instrument was low (α = 0.44), similarly to the Spanish version.
The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Soler et al., 2012) consists of 15 items, with a 6-point Likert
response format (1 = almost always; 6 = almost never). It is a self-report that measures the capacity of the person to be attentive and
aware of the experience of the present moment. In addition, the MAAS seems to emphasize the element of mindfulness related to the
absence of this capacity (called “mindlessness”), through items written in reverse. The Spanish version of this scale has shown good
psychometric properties, good temporal stability and replicates the original unifactorial structure (Soler et al., 2012). The internal
consistency with the current sample was high (α = 0.87).
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). The IRI (Davis, 1980) is a self-report made up of 28 items distributed into four subscales that
measure four dimensions of the global concept of empathy: Perspective-Taking (α = 0.75), Fantasy Scale (α = 0.77), Empathic Concern
(α = 0.68) and Personal Distress (α = 0.72). In this case, the Spanish version of the IRI was applied (Perez-albeniz, Paúl, Torres, Montes,
& Etxebarria, 2003). Each dimension consists of 7 items, which are scored in a 5-point Likert scale (1 = does not describe me well; 5 =
describes me very well).
Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX). The original version of the DAX (Deffenbacher et al., 2002) was adapted with a Spanish
sample, and a short version composed of 22 items was developed (Herrero-Fernández, Oliva-Macías, & Parada-Fernández, 2019). This
short version was used in the current research. It is a four-point Likert scale (1 = Almost Never to 4 = Almost Always) that assess the
frequency of different ways of anger expression behind the wheel: Verbal (α = 0.90), Physical (α = 0.81), Own-Vehicle Usage (α =
0.82), Displaced (α = 0.75) and Adaptive (α = 0.88).

2.3. Procedure

The data gathering procedure was carried out through Google Forms by using the snowball technique with the general population
over the age of 18. This procedure is based on research suggesting the validity of data gathered via Internet, as psychometric properties
of instruments and scores are equivalent to those gathered via paper-and-pencil (Sullman, Stephens, & Taylor, 2019). The link to the
survey was sent out via different Internet-based applications, such as email, Facebook, WhatsApp and others, primarily reaching a
target population belonging to the authors’ environment.
The survey included an explanatory letter containing the following information: organisation supporting the study; content and
main general goals of the study; duration and elements to be measured; informed consent; willingness to do the study; confidentiality

Fig. 1. Path diagram representing the mediation effect of mentalization in the relationship between attachment and driving aggression. The dotted
arrow represents a non-significant relationship. * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001.

349
D. Herrero-Fernández et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 86 (2022) 345–355

Table 2
Analysis of the indirect effects in the mediation analysis. Non-standardized total and indirect effects are reported, as well as standard errors.
Independent Variable Dependent Variable Total Effect (SE) Indirect Effect (SE)

Preoccupation Verbal Agg. 0.15 (0.04)*** 0.03 (0.01)*

Physical Agg. 0.02 (0.02) 0.01 (0.01)*
Vehicle Agg. 0.04 (0.03) 0.02 (0.01)*
Displaced Agg. 0.02 (0.02) 0.01 (0.01)
Self-Sufficiency Verbal Agg. 0.16 (0.07)* 0.07 (0.03)**
Physical Agg. 0.08 (0.03)** 0.04 (0.02)**
Vehicle Agg. 0.12 (0.05)* 0.06 (0.02)**
Displaced Agg 0.05 (0.04) 0.03 (0.03)

Note. Verbal Agg.: Verbal anger expression; Physical Agg.: Physical anger expression; Vehicle Agg.: Anger expression by using the own vehicle;
Displaced Agg.: Displaced aggression.
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

and anonymity of the obtained data, as well as the contact information of the researchers should they have to be contacted. The
participant agreed to participate in the study by clicking the option “I agree to the conditions of taking part in the study”. No iden­
tification data were collected. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the European University of the Atlantic, and the
research meets all the ethical criteria of informed consent. Finally, there was no missing data, as the tool was designed with the
requirement of answering all the questions in order to submit the results to the server.

2.4. Data analyses

The data analyses strategy comprised two main steps. In the first one, bivariate relationships among the variables were calculated.
Firstly, the relationship between age, gender, and driving experience with driving aggression was tested. In the case of both age and
driving experience, Pearsoń s r coefficients were calculated. In the case of gender, t-test was used to analyse differences between males
and females. Secondly, bivariate relationships among all the variables involved in the study was tested through Pearsoń s r coefficient.
These analyses were conducted with the software IBM SPSS 22.0.
In the second step, the multivariate mediation effect of mentalization in the relationship between attachment and driving
aggression was tested through structural equation modelling (SEM). These results were interpreted through the global fit of the model,
considering five fit indices: the quotient between χ2 and the degrees of freedom of the model, which should be lower than 5 for the
model to be considered a good fit (Wheaton, Muthén, Alwil, & Summers, 1977); the Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) and the Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR), whose values should be close to 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999;
Steiger, 2007); and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), whose values should be above 0.90 (Bentler &
Bonnet, 1980). The Lagrange multiplier test (Breusch & Pagan, 1980) was applied in order to improve the fit of the final model. Finally,
once a well-fitted model was obtained, the specific mediation effects were analysed through the interpretation of the statistical sig­
nificance of the indirect effects. Then, whenever an indirect effect is statistically significant, a mediation effect can be concluded
(Hayes, 2013). These analyses were conducted with EQS 6.1 software (Bentler, 2005) following the maximum likelihood method of
estimation of parameters.

3. Results

Firstly, the possible effect of driving experience, age, and gender on driving aggression was explored. Regarding driving experience,
no statistically significant relationships were obtained. Regarding age, it was statistically significantly related to every expression of
driving aggression: verbal, r = − 0.22, p < 0.001; physical, r = − 0.19, p < 0.001; using the vehicle, r = − 0.25, p < 0.001, and displaced,
r = − 0.20, p < 0.001. Regarding gender, statistically significant differences were observed only in the case of displaced aggression, t
(3 8 5) = − 2.83, p = 0.005, female (M = 1.34, SD = 2.00) scoring higher than male (M = 0.79, SD = 1.40).
Secondly, the relationship among the variables was calculated. The results are detailed in Table 1. As it can be observed, security
attachment was not statistically significantly correlated with driving aggression, whereas preoccupied attachment was statistically
significantly related only to verbal anger expression, and self-sufficiency did it with each one of the four assessed ways of driving
aggression (verbal, physical, using the own vehicle, and displaced). Regarding the mentalization variables, RMET did not correlate
with driving aggression. In the case of the empathy (IRI), both perspective-taking and personal distress were correlated with driving
aggression. Finally, both every subscale of alexithymia (TAS) and mindful attention were related to driving aggression. All the sta­
tistically significant relationships occurred in the expected direction.
Thirdly, the hypothesis of the mediation effect of mentalization in the relationship between attachment styles and driving
aggression was tested. Then, a path model was built according to the previous correlational results, with both preoccupation and self-
sufficiency attachment styles as the predictor variables. The mediation variables were the MAAS score, the three subscales of TAS,
which were involved in a latent factor (labelled as “alexithymia”), and the four subscales of the IRI, which were also involved in
another latent factor (labeled as “empathy)”. Finally, the four ways of expressing aggression on the road were involved in another
latent factor (labelled as “driving aggression”). Age, gender, and adaptive aggression way of expressing aggression on the road were
introduced in the model as covariants of driving aggression. There was no correlation allowed between pairs of errors.

350
D. Herrero-Fernández et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 86 (2022) 345–355

The results showed a poor fit of the model to the data, with χ2/df = 6.80; RMSEA = 0.123 (90% I.C.: 0.114 – 0.132); SRMR = 0.124;
CFI = 0.67; GFI = 0.83. Then, the RMET variable, the empathy latent variable, and gender were removed, as their relationships with
driving aggression were non statistically significant. Besides, correlation between the pair errors of both MAAS and alexithymia was
allowed, following the Lagrange multiplier test. This new model attained a good fit to the data, with χ2/df = 3.39; RMSEA = 0.079
(90% I.C.: 0.066 – 0.092); SRMR = 0.058; CFI = 0.90; GFI = 0.94. The path analysis is detailed in Fig. 1. As can be observed, almost all
the coefficients were statistically significant, and their direction was as expected, according to the direction of the measurements.
Once a model was obtained, the specific mediation effects were analysed through the indirect effects. Considering each one of the
ways of aggressive expressions, the results showed statistically significant mediation effect in the case of both self-sufficiency and
preoccupied attachment styles with verbal, physical, and using the own vehicle. No mediation effects were obtained in the case of
displaced aggression. The results of both total and indirect effects are detailed in Table 2.

4. Discussion

The aim of the current research was to analyse the relationship among attachment styles, mentalization, and aggressive driving.
Based on the previous review, it was hypothesized that mentalization would mediate in the relationship between attachment styles and
aggressive driving behind the wheel. The covariant effects of age, gender, driving experience, and adaptive aggression behind the
wheel were considered.
Regarding the bivariate relationships, the results showed that self-sufficiency attachment style (which is equivalent to avoidant
attachment style) was statistically significantly related to all the aggressive ways of expression behind the wheel, whereas preoccu­
pation (which is equivalent to the anxious attachment style) did it only so with verbal expression. Neither security nor childhood
trauma attachment styles attained signification. These results are partially consistent with previous research, which has suggested
positive relationships of both preoccupation and self-sufficiency with both trait general anger and trait driving anger (Herrero-
Fernández et al., 2020). Moreover, both of these attachment styles have shown positive relationships with general anger and
aggression variables (Brodie, Goodall, Darling, & McVittie, 2019; Houtepen, Sijtsema, Van der Lem, Van Hooydonk, & Bogaerts,
2019), although the self-sufficiency style seems to be more strongly related to aggression than the preoccupation style (Fuchshuber,
Hiebler-Ragger, Kresse, Kapfhammer, & Unterrainer, 2019; Haspolat & Sendag, 2018). The relationship between self-sufficiency and
driving aggression could be due to the effect of anonymity, as it implies that the driver does not perceive the victim, and therefore, the
aggressive behaviour is usually not perceived by the victim (Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher, 2001). In fact, previous research has
shown relationship between self-sufficiency and the search for anonymity (Danet & Miljkovitch, 2017).
Regarding the relationship between mentalization and different forms of aggression, the results suggest that mentalization deficits
decrease and hinder the ability to identify emotions, differentiate between bodily or physical sensations, greater difficulty in verbally
expressing emotions, as well as greater difficulty in taking the other’s perspective, less capacity for compassion and concern towards
the other, and less ability to reflect on one’s thoughts, feelings, actions and intentions in relation to oneself and the other person.
Similar data is observed in a study that reported that mentalization was a relevant predictor of aggressive behaviour (Seydi et al.,
2019). In this regard, it has been observed that aggressive and antisocial behaviours tend to show significant impairment in men­
talization. In particular, a difficulty in linking mental states to one’s own behaviour can be identified (Bateman, O’Connell, Lorenzini,
Gardner, & Fonagy, 2016; Levinson & Fonagy, 2004). This may suggest that individuals who show greater difficulty mentalizing may
be particularly changeable when experiencing interpersonal stress, as might be the case with aggressive driving (Bateman & Fonagy,
2008). Consequently, mentalization could reduce the risk of antisocial behaviour and act as a protective factor in people with violent
traits (Taubner, White, Zimmermann, Fonagy, & Nolte, 2013).
Based on the previous bivariate correlations, a multiple mediation model was built, so both preoccupied attachment style and self-
sufficiency were introduced as independent variables; both alexithymia and mindful attention awareness were introduced as medi­
ators, and the four ways of aggressive expression behind the wheel were considered as dependent variables. Both age and adaptive
aggression were considered covariants of the dependent variable.
The results suggested firstly that both attachment styles were directly related to displaced aggression. Considering that this way of
aggression implies the expression of anger against an innocent target, mentalization could be not as relevant as in the case of the direct
ways of aggression. However, future research should analyse the relationship between both general and driving displaced aggression,
and mentalization-related variables. Second, the current results showed a direct relationship of both self-sufficiency and preoccupation
attachment styles with the three direct ways of aggression assessed (verbal, physical, and using own’s vehicle) was mediated by
mentalization. More specifically, alexithymia seems to have more relevance than mindfulness attention, according to the path analysis.
This may be due to the fact that some studies indicate that antisocial profiles or those with a higher indicator of violence may show
better external than internal mentalization, better cognitive than affective mentalization, and higher impulsive-intuitive (automatic)
than reflexive (controlled) mentalization (Dimaggio, Lysaker, Carcione, Nicolò, & Semerari, 2008). Moreover, difficulty in under­
standing, identifying and expressing one’s emotions has been linked to an increase in aggressive behaviour (Velotti et al., 2016). In this
sense, affective and controlled mentalization could suggest the importance of inhibiting and regulating aggressive driving behaviour
(Hecht & Latzman, 2015). Likewise, a lack of understanding of emotional states may be associated with high emotional arousal, given
that people with high alexithymia scores tend to experience more negative emotions and less ability to understand their emotions,
increasing the likelihood of responding aggressively (Farah, Ling, Raine, Yang, & Schug, 2018).
These results should be replicated with samples from other countries. Despite the fact that research has shown the invariance of
measures related to driving aggression across different countries such as Spain, Romania, and Mexico (Herrero-Fernández & Bogdan-
Ganea, 2021), culture could influence the relationships that have been tested in the current study. Moreover, the current findings

351
D. Herrero-Fernández et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 86 (2022) 345–355

should be replicated with special samples taken from drivers, such as professional drivers, who could drive aggressively due to other
relevant variables, such as a larger exposition time to driving stress, job stress, or traffic sanctions (Montoro, Useche, Alonso, &
Cendales, 2018).
The current results could have several practical implications related to reduction of aggressive behaviour on the road. To date,
different training has been proposed to reduce driving anger and to manage driving aggression. More specifically, three types of in­
terventions have been distinguished: cognitive interventions, relaxation intervention, and behavioural interventions (Deffenbacher,
2016). Within cognitive interventions, mindfulness-based training programs have evidenced success in reducing driving anger and
aggression (Diebold, 2003; Kazemeini, Ghanbari-e-Hashem-Abadi, & Safarzadeh, 2013; Polizzi, 2008), as well as risky behaviour when
driving (Baltruschat et al., 2021).
Likewise, interventions aiming at the improvement of alexithymia have been proposed and validated in non-driving contexts. For
example, dialectical behaviour therapy providing affective regulation strategies facilitates the reduction of impulsive and aggressive
behaviours in different groups (Maffezzoni & Steinhausen, 2017; Zargar, Haghshenas, Rajabi, & Tarrahi, 2019). According to the
results of the current study, this kind of interventions could be appropriate for reduction of any way of direct aggression (verbal,
physical, and using own’s vehicle), due to the statistical signification of the indirect effects of both anxious and avoidant attachment
styles with the three ways of aggression. Otherwise, those drivers with either anxious or avoidant attachment style showing a pre­
dominance of displaced aggression on the road would not attain a reduction of aggression with the intervention on mentalization, due
to the direct effects observed. For those people, other interventions focused on attachment could have more success. In this sense, Levy
et al. (2006) have proposed an intervention related to it. In a randomized clinical trial, they identified that transference-focused
therapy significantly increased in those who displayed an insecure attachment style, enhancing the secure attachment relationship.
This is relevant as it reduced the characteristic dysregulation strategies (impulsivity, aggression, intense emotions) in some personality
disorders (Buchheim & Diamond, 2018). Therefore, future research should try to assess specifically the effectiveness of both kind of
interventions in aggressors with a predominance of displaced aggression.
Finally, the current study has several limitations. Firstly, attachment was evaluated through a self-report. Whereas the CaMir-R has
showed good psychometric properties in previous studies (Redondo & Herrero-Fernández, 2019), this implies measuring a construct
which is fixed during childhood, and therefore some bias could be affecting the results. Future research should verify the current results
by measuring attachment with other multidimensional tools which also consider both biological and behavioural parameters (Parra
et al., 2017). On the other hand, the transversal design of the current research does not permit to understand the development process.
Then, future studies should analyse longitudinally as attachment and mentalization determine the aggression in the specific field of
driving. In this sense, previous research has already shown the causal relationships among attachment, mentalization, and general
aggression (Taubner et al., 2013). Other studies have made this showing the relationship between attachment and mentalisation
(Debbané, 2019; Rosso, Viterbori, & Scopesi, 2015), and the relationship between mentalisation and aggression (Adshead et al., 2013).
However, future studies should analyse these variables longitudinally to properly measure the magnitude in which attachment and
mentalization determine the aggression in the specific field of driving, as it has some differences with respect to general aggression in
relation to the mechanisms underlying in both cases (Herrero-Fernández, 2013). On the other hand, the use of self-report measures of
mental capacity may be conditioned by the appraisal skills of those being assessed. This form of measurement may not capture the full
complexity of mentalization by measuring it in isolation from the context. Therefore, it is relevant for future studies to improve the
ecological validity of the instrument. The use of mixed measurement instruments that bring research work closer to the applied field
could make a significant contribution. Other forms of measurement, such as those based on in-depth interviews, require a lot of time
for application, correction and specialised assessment. As a result, they run the risk of not being applicable in a real context and of
overstretching the mentalization process. Therefore both forms of measurement show limitations and may not draw out the nature of
mentalization, as it is important to look at it within a relational context. Therefore, further research is needed to contribute to a better
approach to the measurement of mentalization in the field of research and applied practice.

5. Conclusion

The current study has shown that some mentalization-related variables (alexithymia and mindful attention) explain the rela­
tionship between unsafe attachment styles and driving aggression. The relevance of these results lies in the effectiveness of
mentalization-based therapies in comparison with the increased difficulty of modifying the attachment system. Therefore, those
drivers with an unsafe attachment style could reduce their aggressive behaviour with an intervention focused on the improvement of
the mentalization ability, especially in the competences of alexithymia and mindful attention.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

David Herrero-Fernández: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing –
original draft. Pamela Parada-Fernández: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft. Irene Rodríguez-Arcos:
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Laura Amaya-Carrillo: Investigation, Conceptualization. María Esther
González-Sáez: Investigation, Conceptualization. Miriam Rubio-González: Investigation, Conceptualization.

352
D. Herrero-Fernández et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 86 (2022) 345–355

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

References

Adshead, G., Moore, E., Humphrey, M., Wilson, C., & Tapp, J. (2013). The role of mentalising in the management of violence. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 19(1),
67–76. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp.110.008243
Asen, E., & Fonagy, P. (2017). Mentalizing Family Violence Part 2: Techniques and Interventions. Family Process, 56(1), 22–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12276
Babcock, J. C., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., & Yerington, T. P. (2000). Attachment, emotional regulation, and the function of marital violence: Differences between
secure, preoccupied, and dismissing violent and nonviolent husbands. Journal of Family Violence, 15(4), 391–409.
Bagby, R., Parker, J., & Taylor, G. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale–I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 38, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)90005-1
Baltruschat, S., Mas-Cuesta, L., Candido, A., Maldonado, A., Verdejo-Lucas, C., Catena-Verdejo, E., & Catena, A. (2021). Repeat Traffic Offenders Improve Their
Performance in Risky Driving Situations and Have Fewer Accidents Following a Mindfulness-Based Intervention. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.567278
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and
adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(2), 241–251.
Bateman, A., O’Connell, J., Lorenzini, N., Gardner, T., & Fonagy, P. (2016). A randomised controlled trial of mentalization-based treatment versus structured clinical
management for patients with comorbid borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. Article 304 BMC Psychiatry, 16(1). https://doi.org/
10.1186/s12888-016-1000-9.
Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2008). Comorbid antisocial and borderline personality disorders: Mentalization-based treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(2),
181–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20451
Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2019). Handbook of mentalizing in mental health practice (Second Edition). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.
Bekker, M. H. J., Bachrach, N., & Croon, M. A. (2007). The relationships of antisocial behavior with attachment styles, autonomy-connectedness and alexithymia.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(6), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20363
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance test and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6.1: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.
Bogdan, S. R., Mairean, C., & Havarneanu, C. E. (2016). A meta-analysis of the association between anger and aggressive driving. Transportation Research Part F-Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 42, 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.05.009
Bogdan-Ganea, S. R., & Herrero-Fernandez, D. (2018). Aggressive thinking on the road. The mediation effect of aggressive thinking in the relationship between driving
anger and aggression in Romanian drivers. Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 55, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trf.2018.02.028
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.
Brandenburg, S., Oehl, M., & Hartwig, C. (2019). Driving anger expression in Germany-Validation of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory for German drivers.
Traffic Injury Prevention, 20(1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2018.1493467
Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1),
239–253.
Brodie, Z. P., Goodall, K., Darling, S., & McVittie, C. (2019). Attachment insecurity and dispositional aggression: The mediating role of maladaptive anger regulation.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(6), 1831–1852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518772937
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personalitya and Social Psychology,
84(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Buchheim, A., & Diamond, D. (2018). Attachment and borderline personality disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 41(4), 651–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psc.2018.07.010
Choi-Kain, L. W., & Gunderson, J. G. (2008). Mentalization: Ontogeny, assessment, and application in the treatment of borderline personality disorder. The American
Journal of Psychiatry, 165(9), 1127–1135. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07081360
Clarke, A., Meredith, P. J., & Rose, T. A. (2020). Exploring mentalization, trust, communication quality, and alienation in adolescents. PLoS ONE, 15(6), Article
e0234662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234662
Clear, S. J., Gardner, A. A., Webb, H. J., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2020). Common and distinct correlates of depression, anxiety, and aggression: Attachment and
emotion regulation of sadness and anger. Journal of Adult Development, 27(3), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-019-09333-0
Danet, M., & Miljkovitch, R. (2017). The virtual world: Attachment-related issues and risks. Psychologie Francaise, 62(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psfr.2015.10.002
Davis, M. (1980). A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology., 10.
Debbané, M. (2019). 3 - Attachment and mentalization in contemporary psychodynamic psychotherapy. In D. Kealy, & J. S. Ogrodniczuk (Eds.), Contemporary
Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (pp. 33–45). Academic Press.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (2016). A review of interventions for the reduction of driving anger. Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 42, 411–421.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.10.024
Deffenbacher, J. L., Deffenbacher, D. M., Lynch, R. S., & Richards, T. L. (2003). Anger, aggression and risky behavior: A comparison of high and low anger drivers.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(6), 701–718.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Kemper, C. C., & Richards, T. L. (2007). The driving anger expression inventory: A validity study with community college student drivers. Journal
of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(4), 220–230.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Deffenbacher, D. M., & Oetting, E. R. (2001). Further evidence of reliability and validity for the Driving Anger Expression Inventory.
Psychological Reports, 89(3), 535–540.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Oetting, E. R., & Swaim, R. C. (2002). The Driving Anger Expression Inventory: A measure of how people express their anger on the
road. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(6), 717–737.
Denson, T. F., Pedersen, W. C., & Miller, N. (2006). The displaced aggression questionnaire. Journal of Perssonality Social Psychology, 90(6), 1032–1051.
Di Pentima, L., Toni, A., Schneider, B. H., Tomas, J. M., Oliver, A., & Attili, G. (2019). Locus of control as a mediator of the association between attachment and
children’s mental health. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 180(6), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2019.1652557
Diebold, J. (2003). Mindfulness in the machine: A mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for the reduction of driving anger. Doctoral dissertation. Hofstra University.
Hempstead, New York.
Dimaggio, G., Lysaker, P. H., Carcione, A., Nicolò, G., & Semerari, A. (2008). Know yourself and you shall know the other... to a certain extent: Multiple paths of
influence of self-reflection on mindreading. Conscious Cognition, 17(3), 778–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.02.005

353
D. Herrero-Fernández et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 86 (2022) 345–355

Ditzen, B., Schmidt, S., Strauss, B., Nater, U. M., Ehlert, U., & Heinrichs, M. (2008). Adult attachment and social support interact to reduce psychological but not
cortisol responses to stress. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64(5), 479–486.
Dutton, D. G., Starzomski, A., Saunders, K., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Intimacy anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(15), 1367–1386.
Dutton, D. G., & White, K. R. (2012). Attachment insecurity and intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
avb.2012.07.003
Eldad, R., & Benatov, J. (2018). Adult attachment and perceived parental style may shape leadership behaviors. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2),
261–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-06-2016-0155
Ellison-Potter, P. A., Bell, P. A., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (2001). The effects of trait driving anger, anonymity, and aggressive stimuli on aggressive driving behavior.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(2), 431–443.
Esiyok, B., Yasak, Y., & Korkusuz, I. (2007). Anger expression on the road: Validity and reliability of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory. Turkish Journal of
Psychiatry, 18(3), 231–243.
Farah, T., Ling, S., Raine, A., Yang, Y., & Schug, R. (2018). Alexithymia and reactive aggression: The role of the amygdala. Psychiatry Research. Neuroimaging, 281,
85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2018.09.003
Fonagy, P., Target, M., Steele, H., & Steele, M. (1998). Reflective-functioning manual Version 5: For application to adult attachment interviews. London: University College.
Fonagy, P., Bateman, A., & Luyten, P. (2012). Introduction and overview. In A. Bateman, & P. Fonagy (Eds.), Handbook of mentalizing in mental health practice (pp.
3–42). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Moulton-Perkins, A., Lee, Y.-W., Warren, F., Howard, S., … Lowyck, B. (2016). Development and validation of a self-report measure of
mentalizing: The reflective functioning questionnaire. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0158678. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ al.pone.01586.78
Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Allison, E., & Campbell, C. (2019). Mentalizing, Epistemic Trust and the Phenomenology of Psychotherapy. Psychopathology, 52(2), 94–103.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000501526
Fonagy, P., & Luyten, P. (2009). A developmental, mentalization-based approach to the understanding and treatment of borderline personality disorder. Development
and psychopathology, 21(4), 1355–1381. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990198
Fuchshuber, J., Hiebler-Ragger, M., Kresse, A., Kapfhammer, H. P., & Unterrainer, H. F. (2019). The Influence of Attachment Styles and Personality Organization on
Emotional Functioning After Childhood Trauma. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00643
Ge, Y., Qu, W. N., Zhang, Q., Zhao, W. G., & Zhang, K. (2015). Psychometric adaptation of the driving anger expression inventory in a Chinese sample. Transportation
Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 33, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.07.008
Haspolat, A., & Sendag, M. A. (2018). Predicting Anger: Early Maladaptive Schemas as Mediators between Attachment and Anger Dimensions. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 33
(82), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.31828/tpd.13004433.2018.82.02.03
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hecht, L. K., & Latzman, R. D. (2015). Revealing the nuanced associations between facets of trait impulsivity and reactive and proactive aggression. Personality and
Individual Differences, 83, 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.021
Herrero-Fernández, D. (2013). Do people change behind the wheel?. A comparison of anger and aggression on and off the road. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 21, 66–74.
Herrero-Fernández, D., & Bogdan-Ganea, S. (2021). Psychometric properties of the Mexican version of the Driveŕs Angry Thoughts Questionnaire and analysis of
invariance with the Romanian and Spanish versions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 161, Article 106329.
Herrero-Fernández, D., & Fonseca-Baeza, S. (2017). Angry thoughts in Spanish drivers and their relationship with crash-related events. The mediation effects of
aggressive and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 106, 99–108.
Herrero-Fernández, D., Oliva-Macías, M., & Parada-Fernández, P. (2019). Psychometric properties of a short version of the driving anger expression inventory in
spanish drivers. Acción Psicológica, 16(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.16.1.22364
Herrero-Fernández, D., Redondo, I., Parada-Fernández, P., Oliva-Macías, M., & Rohwer, H. (2020). Distal predictors of trait driving anger. The influence of attachment
styles through the mediation effect of general anger and self-esteem. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 73, 382–390. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.07.005
Herrero-Fernández, D. (2011). Psychometric adaptation of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory in a Spanish sample. Differences by age and gender. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14, 324–329.
Herrmann, A., Beutel, M., Gerzymisch, K., Lane, R., Pastore-Molitor, J., Wiltink, J., Zwerenz, R., Banerjee, M., & Subic-Wrana, C. (2018). The impact of attachment
distress on affect-centered mentalization: An experimental study in psychosomatic patients and healthy adults. PLOS ONE, 13, Article e0195430. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0195430
Houtepen, J., Sijtsema, J. J., Van der Lem, R., Van Hooydonk, I. C. J., & Bogaerts, S. (2019). Social support, attachment and externalizing behavior in forensic patients
with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 64, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.02.008
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Kazemeini, T., Ghanbari-e-Hashem-Abadi, B., & Safarzadeh, A. (2013). Mindfulness based cognitive group therapy as a treatment for driving anger and aggression in
Iranian taxi drivers. Psychology, 4(8), 638–644. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.48091
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.
Levinson, A., & Fonagy, P. (2004). Offending and attachment: The relationship between interpersonal awareness and offending in a prison population with psychiatric
disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis / Revue Canadienne de Psychanalyse, 12(2), 225–251.
Levy, K. N., Meehan, K. B., Kelly, K. M., Reynoso, J. S., Weber, M., Clarkin, J. F., & Kernberg, O. F. (2006). Change in attachment patterns and reflective function in a
randomized control trial of transference-focused psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6),
1027–1040. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1027
Maffezzoni, M., & Steinhausen, H. C. (2017). Ambulante dialektisch-behaviorale therapie für adoleszente (dbt-a) mit impulsiven und selbstschädigenden
verhaltensweisen [Dialectical-behavioral outpatient therapy for adolescents with impulsive and self-harming behavior]. Zeitschrift fur Kinder- und
Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 45(6), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1024/1422-4917/a000462
Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6: Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month
period. Developmental Psychology, 24(3), 415–426.
Martinez, M. A., Zeichner, A., Reidy, D. E., & Miller, J. D. (2008). Narcissism and displaced aggression: Effects of positive, negative, and delayed feedback. Personality
and Individual Differences, 44(1), 140–149.
Martínez-Sánchez, F. (1996). Adaptación española de la escala de Alexitimia de Toronto (TAS-20). / The Spanish version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20).
Clínica y Salud, 7, 19–32.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-
related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024515519160
Montoro, L., Useche, S., Alonso, F., & Cendales, B. (2018). Work environment, stress, and driving anger: A structural equation model for predicting traffic sanctions of
public transport drivers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030497
Olandoski, G., Bianchi, A., & Delhomme, P. (2019). Brazilian adaptation of the driving anger expression inventory: Testing its psychometrics properties and links
between anger behavior, risky behavior, sensation seeking, and hostility in a sample of Brazilian undergraduate students. Journal of Safety Research, 70, 233–241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.07.008
Paez, A., & Rovella, A. (2019). Attachment, parental styles and empathy in adolescent. Interdisciplinaria, 36(2), 23–38.

354
D. Herrero-Fernández et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 86 (2022) 345–355

Parada-Fernández, P., Herrero-Fernández, D., Oliva-Macías, M., & Rohwer, H. (2021). Analysis of the mediating effect of mentalization on the relationship between
attachment styles and emotional dysregulation. The Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 62, 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12717
Parra, F., Miljkovitch, R., Persiaux, G., Morales, M., & Scherer, S. (2017). The multimodal assessment of adult attachment security: Developing the biometric
attachment test. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6898
Perez-albeniz, A., Paúl, J., Torres, E., Montes, M., & Etxebarria, J. (2003). Adaptación de Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) al español [Adaptation of Interpersonal
Reactivity Index (IRI) to Spanish]. Psicothema, 15(2), 267–272.
Pierrehumbert, B., Karmaniola, A., Sieye, A., Meister, C., Miljkovitch, R., & Halfon, O. (1996). Les modèles de relations : Développement d’un autoquestionnaire
d’attachement pour adultes. Psychiatrie de l’Enfant, 39, 161–206.
Polizzi, T. N. (2008). An examination of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for angry drivers. Doctoral dissertation. Hofstra University. Hempstead, New York.
Redondo, I., & Herrero-Fernandez, D. (2018). Validation of the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test in a healthy Spanish sample and women with anorexia nervosa.
Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 23(4), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2018.1461618
Redondo, I., & Herrero-Fernández, D. (2019). Validation of the CaMir-R attachment questionnaire in an adult Spanish sample. Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica,
28(5), 925–936.
Rosso, A. M., Viterbori, P., & Scopesi, A. M. (2015). Are maternal reflective functioning and attachment security associated with preadolescent mentalization?
Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1134). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01134
Schwebel, D. C., Severson, J., Ball, K. K., & Rizzo, M. (2006). Individual difference factors in risky driving: The roles of anger/hostility, conscientiousness, and
sensation-seeking. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(4), 801–810.
Seydi, M., Rahimian Boogar, I., & Talepasand, S. (2019). Determining risky driving according to the constructs of mentalization and personality organization with the
modifying role of aggressive driving. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 14(4), 274–282.
Slotter, E. B., Grom, J. L., & Tervo-Clemmens, B. (2020). Don’t Take It Out on Me: Displaced Aggression After Provocation by a Romantic Partner as a Function of
Attachment Anxiety and Self-Control. Psychology of Violence, 10(2), 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000279
Soler, J., Tejedor Vinent, R., Feliu-Soler, A., Pascual, Y., Cebolla, A., & Soriano, J. (2012). Propiedades psicométricas de la versión española de la escala Mindful
Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) [Psychometric proprieties of Spanish version of Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)]. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría,
40, 18–25.
Stefan, C. A., & Avram, J. (2017). Investigating Direct and Indirect Effects of Attachment on Internalizing and Externalizing Problems through Emotion Regulation in a
Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(8), 2311–2323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0723-7
Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898.
Sullman, M. J. M. (2015). The expression of anger on the road. Safety Science, 72, 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.08.013
Sullman, M. J. M., Stephens, A. N., & Taylor, J. E. (2019). Multigroup invariance of the DAS across a random and an internet-sourced sample. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 131, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.06.013
Sullman, M. J. M., Stephens, A. N., & Yong, M. (2015). Anger, aggression and road rage behaviour in Malaysian drivers. Transportation Research Part F-Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 29, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.01.006
Taubman - Ben-Ari, O., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). The effects of dispositional attachment orientations and contextual priming of attachment security on reckless
driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10(2), 123–138.
Taubner, S., White, L. O., Zimmermann, J., Fonagy, P., & Nolte, T. (2013). Attachment-related mentalization moderates the relationship between psychopathic traits
and proactive aggression in adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(6), 929–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9736
Velotti, P., Garofalo, C., Petrocchi, C., Cavallo, F., Popolo, R., & Dimaggio, G. (2016). Alexithymia, emotion dysregulation, impulsivity and aggression: A multiple
mediation model. Psychiatry Research, 237, 296–303.
Wheaton, B., Muthén, B., Alwil, D., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp.
84–136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zargar, F., Haghshenas, N., Rajabi, F., & Tarrahi, M. J. (2019). Effectiveness of dialectical behavioral therapy on executive function, emotional control and severity of
symptoms in patients with bipolar i disorder. Advanced Biomedical Research, 8, 59. https://doi.org/10.4103/abr.abr_42_19
Zhang, T. R., & Chan, A. H. S. (2016). The association between driving anger and driving outcomes: A meta-analysis of evidence from the past twenty years. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 90, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.02.009

355