Situational Driving Anger Effectiveness Analysis
The effectiveness of emotional induction affects the effectiveness of experimental results. In this study, we used the Jeon20 experiment method to ask participants to complete an emotional assessment (7 out of 1) of the intensity of the three emotions they felt before, after, and after the experiment (The score is 7, with 1 not at all and 7 very strong) and collect the relevant data. The emotion evaluation data from 16 participants were analyzed by using a 3(experiment phases)
Table 3: A variance analysis of emotional intensity at different experimental phase
Variables
|
|
|
Calmness
|
Anger
|
Experimental Phase
|
Pre-induction
|
Mean
|
5.34
|
3.25
|
|
SD
|
0.94
|
1.14
|
Post-induction
|
Mean
|
2.53
|
6.06
|
|
SD
|
1.14
|
0.92
|
Post-drive
|
Mean
|
3.19
|
4.09
|
|
SD
|
1.38
|
0.82
|
ANOVA
|
F
|
51.11
|
71.58
|
|
P-value
|
1.06E-15
|
1.51E-19
|
|
F-crit
|
3.09
|
3.09
|
P<a=0.05
*2(lighting conditions) mixed ANOVA for each participant. As shown in Table 3.
It can be seen in this table that compared to pre-experiment and post-experiment, the emotional intensity of participants during the experiment had changed significantly. Specially, we can find out that though participants had completed the experiment, the anger intensity of participants is still higher than they do not watch the video, this suggests that the anger that is aroused will last for some time, just as shown in Figure 2.
Our experiment focused on the intensity of participants' anger. We rated emotions 2(emotion state: anger/calm) *2(experiment phase: Pre-induction/post-induction) mixed ANOVA between the participants. In terms of the scores of calm emotion state, there were significant differences in emotional intensity between participants during different experiment stages (F(2,93)=51.11,p=1.06E-15,Fcrit=3.09), participants had lower levels of calm emotional intensity (5.34 vs 2.53) after watching the video compared to the emotional intensity before the experiment; there were also significant differences in anger intensity (F(2,93)=71.58,p=1.51E-19,Fcrit=3.09), participants had a higher intensity of anger (3.25 vs. 6.06) after watching the video compared to the pre-experiment emotional intensity. These results showed that the intensity of anger changed significantly after the participants began the experiment, and it proved the effectiveness of the film-induced method used in this paper in the study of situational driving anger. As shown in Figure 3.
Analysis of participants' emotional intensity
First, we analyzed the mixed variance of the emotional scores between the participants on gender and emotions 2(emotion state: anger/calm) *2(gender: male/female). In terms of calm intensity, the gender difference had a significant effect on the participants' emotional intensity (F(2,93)=12.19,p=0 .0007,Fcrit=3.94).Female participants had a higher level of calm than male participants (4.25 points vs 3.13 points); in terms of anger intensity, the gender difference also had a significant effect on participants' emotional intensity (F (2,93)=4.48,p=0.04, Fcrit=3.94). Male participants had a higher intensity of anger than female participants (4.79 points vs 4.15 points). These results showed that male participants were more likely than female participants to develop anger and have a higher intensity of anger. As shown in Figure 4:
At the same time, we also performed an ANOVA of light and emotion 2(emotion state: anger/ calm) *2(lighting conditions: day/night). In terms of calm intensity, the lighting conditions had a significant effect on the participants' emotional intensity (F(2,93)=10.26,p=0.002, Fcrit=3.94), participants in the daytime had a higher level of calm intensity (4.21 points vs 3.17 points) compared to participants in the night, and lighting conditions also had a significant effect on participants' emotional intensity in terms of anger intensity ( F(2,93)=12.06,p=0.0008, Fcrit=3.94), participants at night had a higher intensity of anger (4.98 points vs 3.96 points) than participants in the daytime. These results showed that participants were more likely to develop anger and have a higher intensity of anger at night. As shown in Figure 4.
Finally, a mixed ANOVA between light and gender 2 (lighting conditions: day/night) * 2 (gender: male/female) showed that there was no interaction between light and gender on the intensity of calm (F (2,93) =0.59, p=0.44, Fcrit=3.94); but a significant interaction between light and gender on anger intensity (F (2,93) =6.01, p=0.02, Fcrit=3.94). As shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Analysis of the variance between light, gender, and emotional intensity
Variables
|
Anger
|
Clam-ness
|
F
|
P-value
|
F-crit
|
F
|
P-value
|
F-crit
|
Light
|
12.06
|
0.0008
|
3.94
|
10.26
|
0.002
|
3.94
|
Gender
|
4.48
|
0.04
|
3.94
|
12.19
|
0.0007
|
3.94
|
Light*Gender
|
6.01
|
0.02
|
3.94
|
0.59
|
0.44
|
3.94
|
P<a=0.05
Regardless of lighting conditions, male participants had a higher intensity of anger than female participants (4.33 points vs 3.58 points;5.25 points vs 4.71 points). These results showed that male participants were more likely than female participants to have a higher intensity of anger. As shown in Figure 5.
Analysis of the effect of situational driving anger on left-turn behavior
The driving data from the 32 participants were analyzed by using a 2(emotional state)
Table 5: Participants' left-turn behavior variance analysis results
Variables
|
|
Gap acceptance
|
|
PET
|
Emotion state
|
Control
|
Mean
SD
|
5.97
1.28
|
4.25
1.19
|
Anger
|
Mean
SD
|
5.06
1.27
|
3.59
1.21
|
ANOVA
|
F
P-value
Fcrit
|
8.08
0.0006
3.99
|
4.76
0.032
3.99
|
Lighting condition
|
Day
|
Mean
SD
|
6.28
1.25
|
4.47
1.10
|
Night
|
Mean
SD
|
4.75
1.05
|
3.38
1.13
|
ANOVA
|
F
P-value
Fcrit
|
30.42
7.21E-07
3.99
|
15.32
0.0002
3.99
|
Emotion*Light
|
Mixed ANOVA
|
F
P-value
Fcrit
|
0.13
0.71
4.001
|
0.66
0.42
4.001
|
P<0.05
*2(lighting conditions) mixed ANOVA for each traffic experiment. As shown in Table 5.
First, we did a variance analysis of gap acceptance and post encroachment time (PET) between the subjects on the left-turn behavior 2 (emotion state: anger/control). The results showed that in terms of the gap acceptance of the left-turn task, there are significant post encroachment time (PET) cant differences in emotion (F (1,62) =8.08, p=0.006, Fcrit=3.99). In terms of the post encroachment time (PET), differences in emotion can also cause significant differences (F(1,62)=4.76,p=0.032,Fcrit=3.99). These results showed that participants who were in situational driving anger had shorter gap acceptance (5.06s vs 5.97s) in left-turn tasks and shorter post encroachment time (PET) (3 59s vs 4.25s). As shown in Figure 6:
Secondly, the results show that the difference in lighting conditions also has a significant effect on the left-turn behavior of the participants. From the gap acceptance of the left-turn task, there are significant differences in the different lighting conditions (F(1,62)=30.42,p=7.21E-07, Fcrit=3.99).In terms of the post encroachment time (PET) of the left-turn task, there are also significant differences in lighting conditions (F(1,62)=15.32, p=0.0002, Fcrit=3.99). These results showed that participants at night had shorter gap acceptance (4.75s vs 6.28s) and shorter post encroachment time (PET) (3.38s vs 4.47s) when turning left than participants in the daytime. As shown in Figure 7:
We also tested 2 (emotion state: anger/control) * 2 (lighting conditions: day/night) * 2 (behavior: gap acceptance/ post encroachment time) to investigate whether different emotions and light conditions interact on left turn behavior. The results showed that there was no interaction between different emotions and light conditions on gap acceptance of the participants' left turn behavior (p=0.72> a=0.05); there was also no interaction between the different emotions and light conditions on the post encroachment time (PET) of the participants' left turn behavior (p=0.42> a=0.05). These results indicated that participants showed no significant differences in left-turn driving behavior during daytime and nighttime anger. As shown in Figure 8:
Finally, to test the differences in gender in the experiment, we conducted four variables 2 (emotions: anger/control) *2(lighting conditions: day/night) *2(behavior: gap acceptance/ post encroachment time) *2(gender: male/female) mixed variance analysis. The experimental results show that the gender difference is not significant.