Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sharon O'Brien Thesis PDF
Sharon O'Brien Thesis PDF
2011
i
Key Words
Aggressive driving, road rage, aggression, young drivers, driving, road safety, stress,
psychopathology, emotions, threat, negative attributions.
ii
iii
Abstract
about the other driver, some having additional thoughts of taking action.
Additionally, the results showed little difference between males and females in the
severity of behavioural responses they were prepared to adopt, although females
appeared more likely to displace their negative emotions. Following the self-
reported on-road incident, evidence was also found of a post-event influence, with
females being more likely to experience ongoing emotional effects after the event.
This finding was evidenced by ruminating thoughts or distraction from tasks.
However, the impact of such a post-event influence on later behaviours or
interpersonal interactions appears to be minimal.
Study Two involved the quantitative analysis of n = 926 surveys completed
by a wide age range of drivers from across Queensland. The study aimed to explore
the relationships between the theoretical components of aggressive driving that were
identified in the literature review, and refined based on the findings of Study One.
Regression analyses were used to examine participant emotional, cognitive and
behavioural responses to two differing on-road scenarios whilst exploring the
proposed theoretical framework. A number of socio-demographic, state and trait
person-related variables such as age, pre-study emotions, trait aggression and
problem-solving style were found to predict the likelihood of a negative emotional
response such as frustration, anger, perceived threat, negative attributions and the
likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behaviour in response to
Scenarios One and Two. Complex relationships were found to exist between the
variables, however, they were interpretable based on the literature review findings.
Factor analysis revealed evidence supporting Shinar’s (1998) dichotomous
description of on-road aggressive behaviours as being instrumental or hostile.
The second stage of Study Two used logistic regression to examine the
factors that predicted the potentially hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) within the
sample. These drivers were those who indicated a preparedness to engage in direct
acts of interpersonal aggression on the road. Young, male drivers 17–24 years of age
were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young
drivers (17–24 years) also scored significantly higher than other drivers on all
subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and on the ‘negative
problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive careless style’ subscales of the Social Problem
Solving Inventory – Revised (D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The
potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in
v
speeding and drink/drug driving behaviour. With regard to the emotional, cognitive
and behavioural variables examined, the potentially hostile aggressive driver group
also scored significantly higher than the ‘other driver’ group on most variables
examined in the proposed theoretical framework. The variables contained in the
framework of aggressive driving reliably distinguished potentially hostile aggressive
drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39).
Study Three used a case study approach to conduct an in-depth examination
of the psychosocial characteristics of n = 10 (9 males and 1 female) self-confessed
hostile aggressive drivers. The self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers were aged
24–55 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education
or better and average–above average incomes. As a group, the drivers reported
committing a number of speeding and unlicensed driving offences in the past three
years and extensive histories of violations outside of this period. Considerable
evidence was also found of exposure to a range of developmental risk factors for
aggression that may have contributed to the driver’s on-road expression of
aggression. These drivers scored significantly higher on the Aggression
Questionnaire subscales and Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised subscales,
‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive/careless style’, than the general
sample of drivers included in Study Two. The hostile aggressive driver also scored
significantly higher on the Barrett Impulsivity Scale – 11 (Patton, Stanford & Barratt,
1995) measure of impulsivity than a male ‘inmate’, or female ‘general psychiatric’
comparison group. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982), the
self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers scored equal or higher scores than the
comparison group of incarcerated individuals on the subscale measures of chemical
abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social tendencies and self-depreciation. Using the
Carlson Psychological Survey personality profiles, seven participants were profiled
‘markedly anti-social’, two were profiled ‘negative-explosive’ and one was profiled
as ‘self-centred’.
Qualitative analysis of the ten case study self-reports of on-road hostile
aggression revealed a similar range of on-road situational factors to those identified
in the literature review and Study One. Six of the case studies reported off-road
generated stress that they believed contributed to the episodes of aggressive driving
they recalled. Intense ‘anger’ or ‘rage’ were most frequently used to describe the
emotions experienced in response to the perceived provocation. Less frequently
vi
‘excitement’ and ‘fear’ were cited as relevant emotions. Notably, five of the case
studies experienced difficulty articulating their emotions, suggesting emotional
difficulties. Consistent with Study Two, these drivers reported negative attributions
and most had thoughts of aggressive actions they would like to take. Similarly, these
drivers adopted both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours during the self-
reported incident. Nine participants showed little or no remorse for their behaviour
and these drivers also appeared to exhibit low levels of personal insight.
Interestingly, few incidents were brought to the attention of the authorities. Further,
examination of the person-related characteristics of these drivers indicated that they
may be more likely to have come from difficult or dysfunctional backgrounds and to
have a history of anti-social behaviours on and off the road.
The research program has several key theoretical implications. While many
of the findings supported Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, two key
areas of difference emerged. Firstly, aggressive driving behaviour does not always
appear to be frustration driven, but can also be driven by feelings of excitation
(consistent with the tenets of the General Aggression Model). Secondly, while the
findings supported a distinction being made between instrumental and hostile
aggressive behaviours, the characteristics of these two types of behaviours require
more examination. For example, Shinar (1998) proposes that a driver will adopt an
instrumental aggressive behaviour when their progress is impeded if it allows them
to achieve their immediate goals (e.g. reaching their destination as quickly as
possible); whereas they will engage in hostile aggressive behaviour if their path to
their goal is blocked. However, the current results question this assertion, since many
of the hostile aggressive drivers studied appeared prepared to engage in hostile acts
irrespective of whether their goal was blocked or not. In fact, their behaviour
appeared to be characterised by a preparedness to abandon their immediate goals
(even if for a short period of time) in order to express their aggression.
The use of the General Aggression Model enabled an examination of the three
components of the ‘present internal state’ comprising emotions, cognitions and
arousal and how these influence the likelihood of a person responding aggressively
to an on-road situation. This provided a detailed insight into both the cognitive and
emotional aspects of aggressive driving that have important implications for the
design of relevant countermeasures. For example, the findings highlighted the
potential value of utilising Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with aggressive drivers,
vii
Table of Contents
2.5.6Sensation-Seeking .............................................................................. 41
2.5.7Self-Esteem ......................................................................................... 42
2.5.8Transfer of Stress to and from the On-Road Environment ................. 43
2.5.8.1 The Experience of Stress on the Road .................................. 44
2.5.8.2 Effect of Gender and Age on the Experience of Stress ........ 45
2.5.8.3 Driver Trait Stress Measures ................................................ 45
2.5.8.4 Individual Mood and Daily Hassles ..................................... 47
2.5.8.5 Life Event Stress................................................................... 48
2.5.8.6 Work Stress .......................................................................... 48
2.5.8.7 Fatigue .................................................................................. 49
2.6 Situational Contributors to Aggressive Driving ............................................... 49
2.6.1 On-Road Situational Factors .............................................................. 50
2.6.1.1 Type of Road ........................................................................ 50
2.6.1.2 Congestion ............................................................................ 51
2.6.1.3 Interim Summary .................................................................. 52
2.7 Issues Specific to At-Risk Drivers .................................................................... 53
2.7.1 Lifestyle .............................................................................................. 53
2.7.2 Education Attained ............................................................................. 54
2.7.3 Driving Experience ............................................................................. 54
2.7.4 Passenger Effect ................................................................................. 55
2.7.5 Motivation .......................................................................................... 56
2.7.6 Drugs and Alcohol .............................................................................. 57
2.8 Focus of Emerging Interventions ...................................................................... 58
2.8.1 Coping Styles in General .................................................................... 59
2.8.2 Driver Coping Strategies .................................................................... 62
2.9 Research Questions ........................................................................................... 63
2.10 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................. 65
Appendices
D SPSS Output Socio-Demographic and Driving Exposure Data-Study One .............. 367
I Internal Reliability Measures for Measures in the Study Two Questionnaire ........... 385
L PHA Driver results from the Study Two Sample ...................................................... 399
O Advertisement for Recruiting – Men’s Information and Support Association .......... 423
Q Published M and SD associated with CPS and BIS 11 Measures .............................. 426
List of Tables
List of Figures
Aberrant driving behaviours are those that deviate from normal, law-abiding
behaviours.
Anger
Behavioural Factors
This term is used to refer collectively to both the instrumental and hostile
behaviours identified in Study Two.
BIS – 11
Catharsis
In lay terms refers to any cleansing or purging of emotions (Reber & Reber,
2001). When considered in the context of Frustration-Aggression Theory
(Dollard et al., 1939), ‘catharsis’ or the expression of feelings such as
frustration or anger serves to return the frustration threshold to the ‘normal’ or
‘baseline’ level.
CBT
Cognitive-behaviour therapy.
CPS
Frustration
GAM
Impulsivity
A term used to refer to the trait tendency for an individual to react quickly on
the basis of the first thing that comes to mind (Reber & Reber, 2001).
Negative Attributions
Negative Emotions
This term was used to collectively refer to emotions that are likely to precede
frustration/anger.
Person-related Factors
A term used to refer to those factors that originate from within an individual.
For example, trait factors such as personality, and state factors such as stress
are considered person-related factors.
Post-event Influence
This term refers to the possible post-event influence that may result from an
on-road encounter considered aggressive. This influence was measured in
terms of the likelihood of the incident influencing a person during the rest of
their journey, in the performance of other tasks or in dealings with others.
Reactive Aggression
Situational Factors
SLES-S
SPSI-R
State Stress
Stereotypes
Trait stress
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or
diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or written by another
person except where due reference is made.
Signed: ……………………………………
Date: ………………………………………
xxx
xxxi
Acknowledgements
There are a number of people I would like to thank for their varied
contributions towards the completion of this thesis. Firstly, I would like to thank
CARRS-Q for the scholarship that I received during the first three years of this
process. Without funding it would not have been possible for me to undertake the
research project. Secondly, I wish to thank my Supervisor Dr Barry Watson for his
patience and guidance throughout the project. Other professionals that at some stage
have been identified as Associate-Supervisors include Dr Gavan Palk, Mrs Cynthia
Schonfeld, Dr Graham Fraine and Professor Richard Tay. I would like to thank these
individuals for their varied and valued contributions to the research program. I
would also like to thank Professor Mary Sheehan and Dr Robert Schweitzer for their
time and advice concerning the articulation of this research from a Masters to a PhD
and their further advice concerning the methodology for Study Three. I would also
like to take the opportunity to thank my fellow post-graduate students who have
given me tremendous support over the four years.
Finally, but most importantly, I wish to thank my family. The completion of
the project was only possible due to every contribution of childcare and/or assistance
made by my elderly parents. Also critical to my success is the fact that I have two
terrific children. Without their many personal sacrifices, most of the sacrifices made
in a good natured way, the completion of the project would not have been possible.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 1
data was examined it became obvious that most agencies do not identify claims as
resulting from aggressive driving or ‘road-rage’. Therefore, the cost was difficult to
quantify. Notwithstanding this, in 1997 the AAMI reported that more than 50% of its
claims were attributable to aggressive driving behaviour and the resultant vehicle
damage, the estimated total cost being $1.7 billion (VCCAV, 1999, p. 17, citing Herald
Sun, 12 April 1997). Therefore, the negative economic implications of aggressive
driving also appear to be real and further research is required to clarify the reasons some
drivers adopt aggressive, and sometimes lethal, behaviours whilst driving.
While aggressive driving appears to have real implications in terms of physical
harm and financial costs, road traffic researchers have identified a number of difficulties
hampering our understanding of the problem. When attempting to examine this issue
researchers have had considerable difficulty defining the phenomenon. Should it be
termed ‘road rage’ or ‘aggressive driving’? What is the difference between the two
terms? Hence, the beginning of Chapter Two will discuss these issues in greater depth
in order to formulate a working definition for the purpose of this research.
1.2 Research Focus to Date
A small number of researchers have focussed on the contextual/situational
factors that contribute to on-road aggressive behaviours (Shinar, 1998; O’Brien, Tay, &
Watson, 2005) while others have focussed on the individual driver characteristics
brought to the on-road environment (Deffenbacher et al., 1994; Lajunen & Parker, 2001;
Shinar, 1998). Much of this research has been conducted utilising psychological theory
relevant to the single contextual or person-related factors under investigation. For
instance, the study by O’Brien and colleagues (2004) examined two person-related
factors that were found to influence aggressive driving outcomes, namely the age and
gender of the ‘offending driver’. This study was based upon social information
processing theory (Zelli, Dodge, Lochman, & Laird, 1999) and examined the use of
negative attributions in the context of driving. Further, research suggests that the
availability and/or adoption of such thoughts can be the result of developmental
exposure to aggressive or negative role models. These factors are generally known as
risk factors for aggression.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 5
other theories may also assist in identifying groups that are at high risk of participating
in such behaviour.
Despite the commendable, though somewhat piece-meal, nature of research to
date, a number of papers proposing interventions for aggressive driving behaviour have
started to emerge (Deffenbacher, Filetti, Lynch, Dahlen, & Oetting, 2002; Galovski,
Blanchard, Malta, & Freidenberg, 2003). Although, some of these interventions are
based in well-established therapeutic methods, such as cognitive behaviour therapy
(CBT), the multiple causes of aggressive driving behaviour have not been explored in
terms of the underlying psychological components that contribute to the phenomenon.
Indeed, there appears to be a lack of data concerning the psychological processes that
characterise aggressive driving.
Examination of these processes would help clarify the type and extent of
countermeasures required for various levels of intervention. For instance, it is likely that
more serious offenders who face criminal charges would require a somewhat more
intensive ‘intervention’ than that possible through mainstream driver education
programs. Additionally, examination of these processes may assist in highlighting
psychological differences between those drivers who are more likely to adopt extreme
forms of aggression on the road than general road users.
1.3 Theoretical Approach for the Research
The General Aggression Model (GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002),
encapsulates a number of human aggression theories with potential relevance for
aggressive driving research. The GAM also emphasises the cognitive elements and
decision-making processes involved in human aggression. Consequently, the GAM was
selected as the theoretical framework for this research, with the hope that it would
provide a deeper understanding about the psychosocial processes involved in the
expression of aggression on the roads, thus enabling the development of research-based
recommendations for intervention and rehabilitation. Moreover, because it encapsulates
the major theories of human aggression, it may facilitate a more thorough understanding
of why certain drivers, in particular, are prepared to adopt aggressive driving behaviour.
The GAM is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Three.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 7
identified within the sample, who are prepared to engage in more extreme acts of driver
aggression. The theme of high-risk offenders is further examined in Study Three, which
reports an in-depth analysis of ten self-confessed hostile drivers. It should be noted that
all three studies were conducted in the State of Queensland. However, the findings
should remain generalisable to the driving populations in other Australian states, due to
the random selection of participants and the substantial cultural similarities between
states.
1.7 Methodological Approaches Used
This research will utilise a wide range of psychological and traffic-related research
methods that are both qualitative and quantitative in nature. Study One utilises a
qualitative approach to explore the aggressive driving experiences and perceptions of
young drivers. Focus groups were used to facilitate this process. In a quantitative
approach, Study Two uses self-report measures to explore aggressive driving from
within a psychological framework based on the literature review and Study One
findings. Additionally, Study Two explores the psychosocial differences between
younger and older drivers. The study also tested for differences between low and high
anger drivers in order to examine the characteristics of the potentially hostile aggressive
driver. Finally, contingent upon the findings of Study Two, Study Three was designed
to assist in the exploration of self-confessed highly aggressive drivers capable of
extremely hostile on-road behaviour. As noted above, using a case study approach this
study examined more intimate person-related details of the self-reported, highly
aggressive driver.
1.8 Outline of the Thesis
Chapter Two provides a foundation for the program of research by proposing a
‘working’ definition of aggressive driving to guide the research and reviewing the
empirical evidence relating to the phenomenon of aggressive driving, with specific
reference to high-risk groups, such as young drivers. This chapter then reviews the key
contextual and person-related factors that have been empirically found to influence the
likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour, though it is acknowledged that greater
emphasis is given to the relevant person-related characteristics. A brief review of the
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 11
Seven provides a synthesis of the research across the three studies. Recommendations
for further research and the possible implications of the findings are discussed.
1.9 Chapter Summary
This chapter has outlined the rationale and structure underlying this thesis. To
date, aggressive driving research in Australia has been limited by its focus upon the
frequency and nature of acts of on-road aggression (VCCAV, 1999; AAMI, 2003)
reflecting a failure to investigate the issue in a holistic way. Although this information
has assisted researchers in understanding the scale of the problem, the underlying causes
and internal processes have not been thoroughly investigated in terms of an Australian
sample (AAMI, 2003; DCPC, 2005; VCCAV, 1999). Additionally, the literature review
indicates that no Australian studies have been conducted from within a framework of
psychological theory, which would assist in better understanding the fundamental
processes underpinning the phenomenon.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 13
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 15
2.2 Defining Aggressive Driving ................................................................................. 15
2.2.1 The Distinction Between Aggressive Driving and ‘Road Rage’, and
Other Ambiguities ................................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Emotional Catalysts for Aggressive Driving ........................................... 17
2.2.3 Aberrant Driving Behaviours to be Considered ...................................... 18
2.2.4 Distinguishing Victims from Perpetrators ............................................... 18
2.2.5 Recurring Themes ................................................................................... 19
2.2.5.1 Emotion ...................................................................................... 19
2.2.5.2 Behaviour ................................................................................... 19
2.2.5.3 Intentionality .............................................................................. 20
2.3 The Scope and Nature of Aggressive Driving ........................................................ 23
2.3.1 Prevalence of Aggressive Driving ............................................................ 23
2.3.1.1 International Studies ................................................................... 23
2.3.1.2 Australian Studies ...................................................................... 24
2.3.2 Types of Aggression on the Roads ........................................................... 25
2.4 Factors Contributing to Aggressive Driving........................................................... 27
2.4.1 Empirical Evidence .................................................................................. 27
2.4.2 Theoretical Perspective ............................................................................ 29
2.5 Person-Related Contributors to Aggressive Driving .............................................. 33
2.5.1 Age, Gender and Aggressive Driving ...................................................... 33
2.5.2 Personality and Psychopathology ............................................................. 34
2.5.3 Trait Aggression ....................................................................................... 37
2.5.4 Driving Anger ........................................................................................... 39
2.5.5 Impulsivity................................................................................................ 41
2.5.6 Sensation-Seeking .................................................................................... 41
2.5.7 Self-Esteem............................................................................................... 42
2.5.8 Transfer of Stress to and from the On-Road Environment....................... 43
2.5.8.1 The Experience of Stress on the Road........................................ 44
2.5.8.2 Effect of Gender and Age on the Experience of Stress .............. 45
2.5.8.3 Driver Trait Stress Measures ...................................................... 45
2.5.8.4 Individual Mood and Daily Hassles ........................................... 47
2.5.8.5 Life Event Stress ........................................................................ 48
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 14
2.1 Introduction
This chapter integrates the existing literature concerning aggressive driving in
relation to drivers in general and high-risk groups such as young drivers. Consistent
with the objectives of this research, person-related and situational factors that may
influence the transfer of aggression to and from the road environment are also
emphasised.
For the purpose of the research it is necessary to determine a working definition of
aggressive driving. A review of the literature reveals little consensus regarding a
universal definition of aggressive driving. Some existing definitions have been
formulated in response to public demand for appropriate legislation governing
aggressive driving behaviours (Jarred, 2002; NSW Road Transport [Safety &
Management] Act 1999; Section 328A, Transport Operations [Road Use Management]
{TORUM} Act, 1995). Alternatively, some researchers have resisted formulating a
definition, as their main focus has been to understand the underlying processes involved
in specific aberrant driving behaviours. However, as this research examines the
phenomenon as a whole a working definition was considered necessary. As illustrated
in the following discussion, there is a range of considerations when determining what
behaviours constitute aggressive driving.
2.2 Defining Aggressive Driving
2.2.1 The Distinction Between Aggressive Driving and ‘Road Rage’, and Other
Ambiguities
Aggressive driving research is a complex issue hampered by many ambiguities.
The ambiguities are most apparent in the terminology used to describe the phenomenon.
‘Road rage’ is a term often used by both the media and the general population to
describe a wide variety of on-road incidents that involve acts of aggression or violence.
However, the media often focus on the more extreme cases of on-road violence, some of
which arguably represent cases of assault that happen to occur on the road (Elliott,
1999). As such, while the terms ‘road rage’ and ‘aggressive driving’ are often used
interchangeably by the media, and hence the general community, the term ‘road rage’ is
generally associated with more extreme acts of on-road violence.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 16
behaviours that are deemed to be aggressive, rather than develop a distinct conceptual
definition of the phenomenon. Such an approach is inherently circular in nature,
contributing to the inconsistent operationalisation of the concept (Deffenbacher, Oetting,
& Lynch, 1994; Mathews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991; Parker, Lajunen, & Stradling,
1998).
Finally, there has historically been a wide range of variability in the actual
definitions of aggressive driving that have been proposed by different researchers
(NHTSA, 2002; Elliott, 1999; Goehring, 2000; James & Nahl, 2000 Jarred, 2002). The
following examples illustrate the diversity of current definitions:
“aggressive driving…as the operation of a motor vehicle in a manner which
endangers or is likely to endanger persons or property.”(NHTSA, 2002)
“aggressive driving…the operation of a motor vehicle without regard to
others’ safety.”(AAA, 2008)
“aggressive driving is…an incident in which an angry or impatient motorist or
passenger intentionally injures or kills another motorist, passenger or
pedestrian…or…intentionally drives his or her vehicle into a building or other
structure or property…in response to a traffic dispute, altercation, or
grievance.”(Mizell, 1997, p. 5)
“aggressive driving…a syndrome of frustration-driven behaviours which are
manifested in…inconsiderateness towards or annoyance of other drivers and,
deliberate dangerous driving to save time at the expense of others.”(Shinar, 1998, p.
139)
Together, the above ambiguities have plagued much of the aggressive driving
research undertaken to date. Accordingly, the following sections will review some of
the key conceptual themes characterising previous definitions of aggressive driving, in
order to identify a working, provisional definition to underpin this program of research.
2.2.2 Emotional Catalysts for Aggressive Driving
Most aggressive driving research has adopted the view that immediately
preceding the expression of on-road aggression, an individual must experience a
negative emotional state, such as high levels of frustration or anger (Deffenbacher et al.,
1994; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar, 1998). Aggression research indicates that
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 18
aggressive incidents than accept responsibility for our own aggressive contribution
(Lamb, 1996). Instrumental on-road behaviours can also be misinterpreted by other road
users as aggressive. Indeed, attempting to merge onto a freeway may require decisive
action, however, this behaviour is not necessarily motivated by ‘anger’. In this instance,
if the attempt to merge is interpreted as ‘cutting-off’ by another road user, an on-road
incident may escalate in a ‘tit for tat’ manner. This example highlights the difficulties
inherent in distinguishing victims from perpetrators and also illustrates the difficulty of
distinguishing acts of intentional behaviour from mere on-road errors. It also illustrates
the need for behaviours such as speeding to be considered in aggressive driving research
due to its direct influence upon other subsequent road behaviours, such as weaving in
and out of traffic as a result of speeding.
2.2.5 Recurring Themes
Despite differences in definitions, a recent meta-review of aggressive driving
research (Dula & Geller, 2003) identified three common themes characterising previous
attempts at a definition of aggressive driving: emotion, behaviour and intention.
2.2.5.1 Emotion
Several researchers suggest that aggressive driving behaviour always appears to
be emotion driven, involving negative emotions such as anger, rage, sadness or
discontent (Dula & Geller, 2003; Tasca, 2001). Shinar’s (2001) Frustration-Aggression
model of aggressive driving also suggests that aggressive driving behaviour is driven by
frustration and/or anger. However, both views do not acknowledge that other emotions
may also lead to aggressive acts (Zillmann, 1971). For example, younger drivers in
particular may at times drive at higher speeds for exhilaration, engaging in on-road
behaviours that may be considered aggressive by others. Therefore, whilst negative
emotion is commonly associated with aggressive driving behaviour, this is an issue
requiring further investigation.
2.2.5.2 Behaviour
Traditionally, a wide range of behaviours has been considered to be
representative of aggressive driving research, including tailgating, weaving in and out of
traffic, cutting-off other vehicles, vehicle following and horn-honking. In light of the
commonalities identified across aggressive driving research, Dula and Geller (2003)
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 20
order to be considered dangerous on-road behaviour (Jarred, 2002). Consistent with this
thinking, researchers argued that aggressive driving is more closely associated with risk-
taking behaviour regardless of whether it is intentionally perpetrated or not
(Deffenbacher, Kemper, & Richards, 2007). This position appears to be based on the
view that certain risk-taking behaviours are generally considered by the community and
law enforcement agencies to be inherently aggressive, regardless of the ‘intent’ or
desired outcome of the driver. These behaviours would include speeding, tailgating, or
weaving in and out of traffic. However, other researchers have argued that an on-road
behaviour should only be classed as aggressive if it is perpetrated with the ‘intent’ to
physically or psychological harm another driver (Dula & Geller, 2003; Mizell, 1997;
Tasca, 2001). In this regard, a behaviour like tailgating would only be categorised as
aggressive if it was intended to cause some form of discomfort or distress to another
driver. Tailgating for other reasons would be better viewed as an example of careless
driving or risk-taking. In effect, this position holds that it is the intentions of the
perpetrator rather than the perceptions of the victim that most reliably and objectively
define aggressive driving. Consequently, the inclusion of ‘intent’ within a definition of
aggressive driving more clearly provides a means to distinguish what types of risk-
taking behaviours constitute examples of aggressive driving (Dula & Geller, 2003;
Tasca, 2001).
Once the central role of intent in aggressive driving is acknowledged, it becomes
evident that it and risk-taking are arguably overlapping concepts as shown in Figure 2.1.
While some aggressive behaviours (such as flashing lights and horn-honking) would not
be generally classed as risk-taking, others such as tailgating do increase crash risk.
However, those risk-taking behaviours which are not intended to harm other drivers,
such as using a hand-held phone, should arguably not be classed as aggressive.
Similarly, tailgating due to carelessness or inattention would represent an example of
risk-taking behaviour, but not an aggressive driving behaviour.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 22
On-Road
Aggressive Risk-Taking
Driving Behaviour
In keeping with the foregoing considerations, this research will therefore utilise a
‘provisional’ definition of aggressive driving that includes the elements of emotion,
behaviour and intent suggested by the foregoing research (Dula & Geller, 2003;
Tasca, 2001). This ‘provisional’ definition is:
“Aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is
intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and is
associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat.”
It should be noted that the concept of ‘harm’ inherent in the definition will be
interpreted in a broad manner ranging from attempts to cause discomfort to other drivers
through to more serious distress or physical harm.
Being consistent with available literature, this definition facilitates the scientific
investigation of the phenomenon of aggressive driving (Dula & Geller, 2003; Tasca,
2001). Additionally, it allows the concept of aggressive driving to be investigated more
fully from the perspective of popular perceptions of the phenomenon, which may allow
a more practical understanding of the behaviour. As a ‘provisional’ definition, the above
definition of aggressive driving will be used to guide the program of research and to
formulate relevant research questions and hypotheses. However, the final acceptability
of the definition will be subject to the findings of the research.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 23
identified certain road behaviours that they considered unsafe or aggressive: cutting-in,
speeding, and tailgating.
2.3.1.2 Australian Studies
In Australia, a police database search of 797 driving incidents deemed to be
aggressive by Harding and colleagues (1998) reported a steady increase in the number of
aggressive driving incidents reported over the period 1991–1995. Subsequent
aggressive driving research conducted by Elliott (1999) acknowledged the existence of
‘road violence’ in Australia, but suggested that so few incidents result in crash
involvement, injury or death, that little can be achieved by paying undue attention to
such behaviour. Indeed, Elliott (1999) suggests that part of the solution for ‘road rage’
is to put the problem back into perspective by reducing the media attention given to the
relatively few incidents of ‘road violence’ that are intentionally perpetrated. He also
maintains that ‘road rage’ is a product of pre-existing criminal tendencies in an
individual.
Distinguishing between on-road violence and lesser acts of hostility or selfish-
driving, the Victorian DCPC conducted an on-line survey of 85 instances of aggressive
driving (DCPC, 2005). Of the recounted instances, 15 individuals (18%) were able to
recall instances of road violence, however, the majority reported lesser acts. In contrast,
another Victorian study suggested that ‘road rage’ (or aggressive driving) behaviour is
indeed a significant problem on Australian roads, at least in terms of public perceptions
(VCCAV, 1999). The study found that 52% of the 801 participants surveyed believed
that the level of aggressive driving had increased over the last 12 months. Almost half
of the male participants reported that they would be prepared to shout abuse at another
driver, gesticulate at another driver (examples of interpersonal aggression), and drive
more slowly to deliberately antagonise the other driver. In comparison, female drivers
aged 25–34 years were found to be significantly more likely than the population as a
whole to perpetrate mild ‘road rage’ acts. Presented in the order of ‘most commonly’ to
‘least commonly’ adopted, these behaviours were: prolonged horn honking, flicking of
lights on and off, shouting abuse, making obscene gestures, braking or slowing
suddenly, and tailgating.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 25
Overall, the Australian studies suggest that the aggressive driving phenomenon is
on the increase, despite the fact that these studies used varying definitions of aggressive
driving which either include or preclude certain behaviours which may otherwise be
seen as risk-taking and therefore unintentionally directed at other drivers (AAMI, 2001,
2002, 2003; Harding et al., 1998 VCCAV, 1999). The Australian findings also appear to
be consistent with aggressive driving research conducted in other developed countries
(Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999; Lajunen, Parker, &
Summala, 1999; NHTSA, 2002; Shinar, 1997) . Further, though the number and
frequency of extreme cases of intentional acts of on-road aggression may be minimal
among the general driving population, the subsequent consequences can be severe.
Extreme instances of on-road aggression can result in physical and/or psychological
harm as well as property damage (Beirness et al., 2001; Mizell, 1997). Therefore, in
light of the perceived increase in societal frustrations and ever-increasing numbers of
road users, it would be prudent for traffic researchers to adopt a pro-active role in
determining the extent and causes of aggressive driving. Moreover, as Australian
drivers have indicated a perceived increase in aggressive driving behaviour, it is
necessary for research to continue, with a view to understanding the relevant
psychological processes involved. A better understanding of these processes would
assist in the development of evidence-based countermeasures.
2.3.2 Types of Aggression on the Roads
As previously stated, behaviours that have been commonly labelled ‘aggressive
driving’ appear to occur on a continuum from swearing under one’s breath to physical
assault (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Those that perpetrate acts of aggressive driving not
only use interpersonal aggression to manipulate the driving behaviour of others, they
also frequently use their vehicles to express aggression by using intimidatory tactics to
manipulate the driving behaviour of other road users. For example, tailgating could be
viewed as an intimidating use of the vehicle that also has the potential for serious
consequences such as physical damage to person or property and/or psychological
damage.
As a consequence of the complexity and range of behaviours involved in
aggressive driving, some traffic researchers have chosen to differentiate between
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 26
instrumental and hostile aggression (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar, 1998). Hostile
aggression is defined as behaviour that is primarily and purposefully aimed at physically
or psychologically harming the source of frustration. For example, verbal abuse,
physical attack and hand gestures. Instrumental aggression is considered to be driving
behaviour that is intended to assist a driver to move ahead or overcome the source of
frustration, e.g. horn honking, weaving, speeding, running red lights and tailgating
(Shinar, 1998). However, as previously discussed in Section 2.2.5 arguably these
instrumental behaviours can at times be perceived as hostile by other road users,
sometimes resulting in an escalation of the on-road encounter to severe consequences
(VCCAV, 1999; Yagil, 2001). Indeed, it appears that when considering aggressive
driving behaviours, even benign behaviours may have potentially severe consequences.
In an attempt to align the expression of aggression with existing psychological
theory (Berkowitz, 1990; Berkowitz, 1993) and to assess whether drivers actually do
become more aggressive whilst in their vehicles, recent road research has distinguished
between outward, displaced and suppressed aggression (Lawton & Nutter, 2002). For
these researchers, outward aggression is the overt behavioural expression of aggression
in the on-road environment; displaced aggression involves displacing feelings of
frustration/anger to the off-road environment; whilst suppressed aggression involves the
absence of behavioural expression either on or off-road. It was found that drivers were
no more likely to experience anger whilst driving than in other situations, but they were
significantly more likely to report the displacement of their anger in a driving situation
(Lawton & Nutter, 2002). Additionally, these researchers found a significant difference
between males and females in the types of on-road aggression adopted. Females were
more likely to adopt displaced or suppressed levels of expression, whilst males were
found to report higher levels of outwardly expressed aggression than females (Lawton &
Nutter, 2002).
In this thesis, the importance of distinguishing hostile on-road behaviours from
instrumental behaviours is acknowledged. However, as one of the aims of this thesis
will be to examine aggressive driving as it is experienced by drivers, particularly
younger and other at-risk ones, and also to consider the possible transference of anger to
and from the road environment, perhaps making the distinction between outward,
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 27
Legislation
Enforcement
Traffic Congestion
Frustration/
Aggression Deterrent Threat Task Conflicts Distractions
Psychopathology
Impairment
Attention/ Fatigue
Education Alertness
Knowledge
Driving Feedback
Boredom
Behaviour
Stimulus Needs Information
Skills Processing
Thrill Seeking Human Limits
Vehicle handling
Informal Social
Norms Habits Time Pressure
Figure 2.2 Conditions influencing driver behaviour (Lonero & Clinton, 1998, p.6)
factors are those factors that affect an individual’s current mood or emotional state, and
are relatively less enduring and short lived.
Further to the aims of this research, the review will frequently refer to the driving
behaviour of at-risk drivers in general, who appear to be more involved in aggressive
driving incidents and the associated consequences. It is widely accepted that although it
is not axiomatic for aggressive driving to equate to road crashes, many of the behaviours
widely accepted as aggressive in nature contribute to them (Dahlen, Martin, Ragan, &
Kuhlman, 2005; Underwood, Chapman, Wright, & Crundall, 1999; Wells-Parker,
Ceminsky, Hallberg, Snow, Dunaway, Guiling, Williams, & Anderson, 2002).
Therefore, some reference will also be made to aberrant driving behaviours associated
with aggressive driving and crash risk.
2.4.2 Theoretical Perspective
As stated in Chapter One, this literature review revealed only one comprehensive
model of aggressive driving based on psychological theory. In 1998, David Shinar
proposed a multi-factor approach to aggressive driving utilising the frustration-
aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939 – see Section 3.3.1), depicted in Figure 2.3.
In this model, Shinar (1998) proposes that frustrating road situations, such as
congestion or delays, mediated by an individual’s trait predisposition for aggression,
contribute to a driver’s aggressive disposition. In accordance with frustration-aggression
theory congestion or delays are ‘goal blocking’, interfering with driving progress. In
response to goal blocking, drivers experience an increase in frustration that in turn
lowers the driver’s aggression threshold increasing the likelihood of road aggression
(Shinar, 1998). Whether aggressive driving is displayed on the road or not, is influenced
by the driver’s interpretation of the situation, influenced by such things as ‘cultural
norms’ (Gnepp, 1979; Shinar, 1998). In the absence of aggressive driving outcomes, it
is believed that the expression of aggression is displaced to a later point in time (Lawton
& Nutter, 2002). For instance, such aggression could be displaced into the social or
work environment. However, the same research has also highlighted that
frustration/aggression may be suppressed never to manifest in an aggressive act. The
ability to suppress such emotion implies some internalised control or ability to cope with
frustration and/or anger. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Three.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 30
FRUSTRATING SITUATION
- Congestion
- Delays
PERSONALITY ENVIRONMENT
(Trait Factors) (Facilitating Factors)
- Hostility - Anonymity
- Extroversion - Legitimacy
- Type A/B - Poor Communications
AGGRESSIVE DISPOSITION
NO
AGGRESSION POSSIBLE?
DISPLACED
- Cultural norms AGGRESSION
- Enforcement
YES
PATH TO GOAL
YES BLOCKED? NO
increases in aggressive driving incidents in general may not be due to a surge in the
number of aggressive drivers, but rather to an increase in ‘societal frustrations’.
Specifically, increasing levels of congestion on the roads and pressure for the greater
economic use of time may be increasing societal frustrations (Connell & Joint, 1996;
Mizell, 1997; Shinar, 1998). Such frustrations lower the aggression threshold for the
general population, making ordinary people more likely to bring an aggressive
predisposition to the road environment (Shinar, 1998). Therefore, part of the appeal of
Shinar’s model is its capacity to explain the ‘little bit of road-rage in all of us’, which
has the potential for severe consequences (notwithstanding the distinction made by some
between ‘road rage’ and aggressive driving – see Section 2.2.1).
As stated in Section 2.3.2, the types of aggressive behaviours that may result
from frustrating or anger-provoking on-road events appear to range from relatively
benign acts of swearing under one’s breath to violent acts of physical harm to person or
property. Whilst Shinar proposes that aggressive driving behaviours represent a
continuum ranging from the less severe behaviours to the more severe, he suggests that
those at the less severe end are essentially instrumental in nature and those at the more
severe end are hostile in nature. Instrumental aggression is considered to be all driving
behaviour which is intended to assist the aggressor to move ahead or overcome the
source of frustration or ‘block’, e.g. horn honking, weaving, running red lights and
tailgating. Hostile aggression is defined as that behaviour which is primarily and
purposefully aimed at harming the source of frustration, physically or psychologically,
e.g. verbal abuse, physical attack and hand gestures (Shinar, 1998). However, perhaps
even the instrumental behaviour can be misinterpreted as hostile and escalate to a more
severe road incident (VCCAV, 1999; Yagil, 2001). Importantly, this dichotomous
definition of on-road aggression implies that engaging in either type of behaviour serves
a purpose or function for a driver. Therefore, this thesis will examine in greater detail
the function or purpose served by engaging in mild to extreme aggressive driving
behaviours.
Within Shinar’s (1998) model the type of aggressive behaviour displayed is
influenced by the level of frustration experienced (Dollard et al., 1939); the perceived
penalty for the expression of aggressive driving (Dollard et al., 1939; Berkowitz, 1988);
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 32
and the legitimacy of the frustrator (Dollard et al., 1939). The level of aggression
displayed varies directly with the level of frustration experienced which is dependent on
the level of interference with the frustrated response and the frequency of the frustration
(Dollard et al., 1939). The perceived penalty for expression of aggression on the roads
is related to the inhibition of aggressive acts (Dollard et al., 1939). For example, the
presence of road-side police may deter the majority of drivers from the expression of
aggression on the roads (Holland & Connor, 1996). Finally, when a frustrator is
perceived as ‘unjustified’, an aggressive outcome not only becomes more probable, but
the resultant aggression appears to increase in intensity (Anderson & Dill, 1995;
Berkowitz, 1988; Dollard et al., 1939).
In contrast to Shinar’s model of frustration-aggression on the road, Berkowitz
(1993) maintained that aggression is not always the result of frustrations, rather
aggression is only evident when the frustration or an aversive event is ‘unpleasant
enough’ to produce negative effect, such as ‘anger’. Aggressive driving behaviour,
therefore, only manifests if a frustrating road event provokes ‘intense’ emotion, namely
‘anger’ (Berkowitz, 1993). Further, despite multiple frustrations and intensity of
emotions that can be generated by a road incident, Berkowitz and other researchers
continue to suggest that aggressive driving behaviour may not necessarily result
(Berkowitz, 1993; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lajunen, Parker, & Summala, 1999).
Consequently, in keeping with the Berkowitz’ (1993) reformulation of the original
frustration-aggression hypothesis, perhaps it is the cumulative effect of multiple factors
known to affect feelings of anger on the roads which result in aggressive driving.
In Shinar’s (1998) multi-factorial approach to aggressive driving, rarely would a
single factor in isolation directly cause the experience of frustration and expression of
road aggression (Shinar, 1998). A review of the literature on person-related and
situational factors indeed suggests that perhaps congestion and delays, as detailed in
Shinar’s model, only result in the expression of aggressive driving in the presence of
particular person-related factors, including the subjective evaluation of the situation. As
such, perhaps the situational factor, ‘congestion’ does not cause sufficient frustration in
itself, due to the fact that it may be anticipated, particularly at certain times of the day
e.g. rush-hour.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 33
driving behaviour seems to decrease. He also reported that aggressive driving was more
common among men than women, particularly the more severe expressions of
aggressive driving.
These results have also been supported by the Australian VCCAV survey (1999)
which looked at the phenomenon of ‘road rage’ from the dual perspective of the victim
and the perpetrator. This study found that people aged 18–34 years, particularly males,
were significantly more likely to participate in ‘mild’ cases of aggressive driving than
the population as a whole (VCCAV, 1999).
Young males were also found to be over-represented in a study of New South
Wales police records of reported aggressive driving incidents (Harding, Morgan,
Indermaur, Ferrante, & Blagg, 1998. In contrast, Gordhamer, Martinex, Petrilli, Lynch
& Deffenbacher (1996), conducted a study of the characteristics of high and low anger
drivers. No significant effect was found for gender on ‘anger experienced’ within the
high anger group consisting of 28 males and 27 females. However, males and females
differed significantly in the expression of their anger with females reporting more
constructive/adaptive and less hostile/aggressive behaviour than males (Gordhamer et
al., 1996).
Overall, the findings of this review suggest that not only does age and gender
appear to influence the behavioural response to an anger-provoking road situation, it
appears to influence the subjective experience of frustration and anger on the roads
(Gordhamer et al., 1996). Specifically, young males appear to be more likely to
perpetrate acts of hostility and aggression on the roads. Considering the possible
individual differences between driver age groups,
some aggressive driving researchers have emphasised the individual or trait differences
that may increase or decrease the likelihood of aggression (Deffenbacher, Oetting, &
Lynch, 1994; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). These are reviewed in the following sections.
2.5.2 Personality and Psychopathology
A review of traffic literature indicates that several measures of a driver’s trait
predisposition for stress have been utilised (Gregory, 1996). The Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire Revised – Abbreviated (EPQR-A) (Francis, Brown, & Philipchalk, 1992;
Forest, Lewis, & Shevlin, 2000) has been used to assess personality traits and their
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 35
scenarios and asked to indicate the amount of anger they would be likely to experience
and then their most likely behavioural response (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). This
apparent lack of a significant contribution by the IVE subscales in the prediction of
aggressive reactions is understandable, as one would anticipate that the incidence of high
levels of ‘impulsivity’ or ‘venturesomeness’ would be relatively low in the sample used
(Eysenck et al., 1995). Further, high impulsivity has long been associated with poor
appraisal/decision making and risk-taking behaviour (D’zurilla, Chang, & Sanna, 2003;
D’zurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002).
Other traffic researchers have examined clinical differences between self-
referred and court-referred aggressive drivers in an attempt to profile aggressive drivers
and consider appropriate clinical interventions (Galovski & Blanchard, 2002a). In this
study, the researchers administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I
and II disorders. Of the 30 participants, 80% were found to meet the criteria for at least
one Axis I disorder (33% meeting the criteria for Intermittent Explosive Disorder – IED)
and 57% met the criteria for at least one Axis II disorder. The court-referred aggressive
drivers had significantly more Axis I and II psychopathology when compared to a
control group. Aggressive drivers were more frequently diagnosed with IED, alcohol
abuse, substance abuse, antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality
disorder (Galovski & Blanchard, 2002a).
In a 2001 study examining the relationship between psychiatric morbidity and
‘road rage’, researchers recruited both perpetrators, victims, and those that had
experience as both
the perpetrator and the victim of ‘road rage’ (Fong, Frost, & Stanfeld, 2001). The 131
participants were clinically assessed using the Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised
(CIS-R) (Lewis, Pelosi, Araya, & Dunn, 1992) the AQ (Buss & Perry, 1992), AUDIT
(Saunders, Aasland, Babor, De La Fuente, & Grant, 1993), Life Event Scale (LES)
(Holmes & Rahe, 1967) and Screening Test for Co-morbid Personality Disorders
(Dowson, 1992). Perpetrators were found to be predominantly young and male with
significantly less driving experience than all other groups. They also scored
significantly higher than the other groups on the trait aggression (AQ) and overall scores
on the CIS-R, suggesting psychiatric co-morbidity. However, there were no significant
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 37
differences found between the groups on exposure to major life events (LES), social
class, levels of alcohol abuse or prevalence of personality disorders.
Another study compared the prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses between self-
reported high and low aggression drivers with a mean age of 19.1 years (Malta,
Blanchard, & Freidenberg, 2005). This study found that the high aggression drivers had
significantly greater prevalence of current and lifetime diagnoses of Oppositional
Defiance Disorder (ODD), an alcohol and/or substance abuse disorder and personality
disorders across the three clinical clusters (A, B & C). Cluster A personality disorders
refer to Paranoid, Schizoid and Schizotypal diagnoses. Cluster B disorders refer to
Antisocial, Borderline, Narcissistic and Histrionic personality diagnoses, whilst Cluster
C disorders refer to Avoidant, Dependent and Obsessive-compulsive diagnoses. These
drivers were also found to have significantly greater current and lifetime prevalence of
Conduct Disorder, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and IED. In this
study, however, no significant differences were found between the two groups for
prevalence of mood or anxiety disorders (frequently associated with the neuroticism
scale of the EPQ-R).
In conclusion, the foregoing research provides evidence to suggest that the key
differences between aggressive drivers and non-aggressive road users occur at the
personality level. In particular, the evidence concerning the greater prevalence of
lifetime psychological disorders, such as Oppositional Defiance Disorder, Conduct
Disorder, ADHD, personality disorders and alcohol abuse disorders, suggests that
perhaps these individuals are not only predisposed to a greater likelihood for aggression
on-road, but ‘off-road’ as well.
2.5.3 Trait Aggression
As real-life instances of human aggression are difficult to record and to measure
as they occur (O’Connor, Archer, & Wu, 2001; VCCAV, 1999) aggression researchers
have explored indirect methods of measuring human aggression. These methods have
included the manipulation of anger-provoking scenarios that generate aggressive
responses and the use of measures of people’s trait propensity to act aggressively.
Various personality measures and subscales have been used to assess trait aggression.
At times, however, they tend to measure far more than the trait propensity to act
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 38
angrier they got. However, ‘verbal aggression’ was not significantly related to the level
of anger or aggression that results from having their progress merely impeded. The trait
tendency to resort to ‘physical aggression’ was found to directly increase the likelihood
of an aggressive behavioural response. Although this research did not elaborate on
specific differences between young and older drivers, the researchers did report that with
increasing age there appeared to be a decrease in the amount of anger experienced and
aggression adopted among males (Lajunen & Parker, 2001).
2.5.4 Driving Anger
In America, Deffenbacher, Oetting and Lynch (1994) devised a 33 item measure
of general ‘driving anger’, the Driving Anger Scale (DAS). Driving anger was
conceptualised as a personality trait related to trait anger, but specific to road situations
(Deffenbacher et al., 1994). The measure consists of a series of statements representing
road behaviours displayed by ‘others’, e.g. ‘someone is driving well above the speed
limit’ and specific driving related situations, e.g. ‘someone backs out in front of you
without looking’. The items formed six subscales, which were named hostile gestures,
illegal driving, slow driving, traffic obstructions, discourtesy, and police presence
(Deffenbacher et al., 1994).
In a study utilising the DAS, researchers have found young self-reported high-
anger drivers (median age 19 years) reported more anger whilst driving, more aggressive
behavioural responses on-road, greater aggression and risk-taking behaviour
(Deffenbacher, Filetti, Richards, Lynch, & Oetting, 2003). They were also found to
possess higher levels of trait impulsivity and aggression. Additionally, these drivers
reported less controlled forms of anger expression.
A recent study into the relationship between trait aggression, driver anger and
aggressive driving suggested that although the anger-provoking situations in the DAS
(UK) may evoke feelings of anger, they do not necessarily lead to the expression of
aggression (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Further, acknowledging that the DAS only
measures anger experienced and not expressed, Lajunen and Parker (2001) asked
participants to report their most likely resultant behaviour from a list of seven
possibilities, ranging from ‘no reaction’ to ‘physical/verbal assault of person or
property’. The responses of the participants revealed that the level of anger experienced
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 40
is related to the severity of the expressed aggression, with the various on-road situations
outlined in the DAS (UK), affecting the amount of anger experienced.
In an earlier study by Lajunen and colleagues (1999) investigating the
dimensions of driving anger (using the DAS) as experienced by UK drivers, factor
analysis yielded a three factor measure of driving anger i.e. reckless driving, direct
hostility and impeded progress by others (Lajunen, Parker, & Stradling, 1999).
Furthermore, young drivers were more likely to express all three types of driving anger
than older drivers. Interestingly, no gender differences were found between males and
females and the types of driving anger expressed.
Building on the construct of ‘driving anger’ some researchers have attempted to
characterise the differences between high and low anger drivers (Deffenbacher, Huff,
Lynch, Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000; Deffenbacher, Deffenbacher, Lynch, & Richards,
2003). Whether a driver was considered high or low anger was determined by high or
low total scores on the DAS (Lynch et al., 1999). In one study comparing students
seeking help for problems with driving anger, and two groups of students either high or
low on trait anger, researchers found that on certain characteristics there was very little
difference between either of the high anger groups (Deffenbacher et al., 2003). Both
high-anger groups reported greater frequency of intense anger, more aggressive ways of
expressing driving anger (as measured by the Driving Anger Expression Inventory -
DAX) and more risk-taking behaviour.
In a closer examination of high-anger drivers, research has found that not only do
high-anger drivers self-report higher levels of intense anger and anxiety (Deffenbacher
et al., 2000), but they also report greater anger in frequently occurring on-road
situations. They also experience more frequent near misses and a greater number of
moving violations (Deffenbacher et al., 2003). Young high-anger drivers (median age
19 years) were also found to drive at higher speeds in low impedance simulations with
shorter stopping times/distances (Deffenbacher et al., 2003). Additionally, these
researchers observed that these drivers were also more generally angry individuals.
Collectively, the foregoing findings indicate that aspects of trait driving anger
appear to influence the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour. Also, where the
research has examined a cross-section of high and low-anger drivers, the findings
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 41
suggest that the link between feelings of anger and the expression of aggression on the
road is quite complex.
2.5.5 Impulsivity
Impulsivity is a trait tendency to act spontaneously without considering all of the
relevant characteristics of a situation and the consequences of such behaviour (Lajunen
& Parker, 2001). Hence, high impulsivity is considered to have a strong association
with increased risk-taking behaviour, which is particularly prevalent among young males
(Deffenbacher, Filetti, Richards, Lynch, & Oetting, 2003; D’Zurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-
Olivares, 2002).
As traffic conditions change rapidly and communication is constrained in the
road environment, perhaps impulsive responses are more likely in today’s environment.
Lajunen and Parker (2001) hypothesised that impulsivity would be related to a readiness
to act aggressively in a frustrating road situation. Despite this, they found that
impulsiveness was not predictive of driver aggression in a self-report study. However,
perhaps this finding was due to the wide age range of the participants in the study, as
‘impulsivity’ is generally quite evident in the behaviour of young males (Eysenck et al.,
1995; Deffenbacher, et al., 2003; Karli, 1991). Further, the arousal levels often
associated with spontaneous ‘impulsivity’ were not meaningfully elicited by the use of a
self-report measure. The relevance of impulsivity to human aggression will be discussed
in greater detail in Chapter Three.
2.5.6 Sensation-Seeking
Sensation seeking is a personality trait or disposition characterised by the desire
to partake in novel or unconventional experiences, which involve a willingness to take
physical and social risks (Zuckermann & Neeb, 1980). For instance, sensation-seekers
are more likely to be involved in high-risk activities such as bungy jumping or
parachuting. Further, it has been found that these individuals are less inhibited than
most, are easily bored and more likely to engage in risky driving practices (Zuckermann
& Neeb, 1980). Specific to driving behaviour, the sensation seeking trait has been
found to be related to aggressive driving, running red lights and speeding (Jonah, 1997).
In a 1997 meta-analysis, Jonah found that 36 of the 40 studies reviewed reported
a significant positive relationship between sensation seeking and risky driving. Jonah
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 42
(1997) also reported that all studies involving risky driving measures reported a
significant positive relationship with sensation seeking. High sensation seekers have
been found to be more likely to follow other vehicles at a closer distance, whilst also
being more likely to judge their driving behaviour as less risky than it probably is
(Rimmo & Aberg, 1998). Therefore, perhaps sensation seeking contributes to on-road
behaviours which are interpreted as aggressive by other road users.
2.5.7 Self-Esteem
It has been found that males tend to have higher levels of self-esteem than
females, although this difference appears to diminish across time (Baumeister, Smart, &
Boden, 1996). Those individuals with high self-esteem have been found to react poorly
to criticism in general and may respond irrationally by raising the levels of their own
future performance at tasks (Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell, 2000; McFarlin &
Blascovich, 1981; Schlenker, Soraci, & McCarthy, 1976). Conversely, other research
de-emphasises the importance of self-esteem and highlights the larger, however, closely
associated psychological construct, i.e. ‘ego’ (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). ‘Ego’
may be conceptualised as the core of an individual, comprising “the collected
psychological processes that are concerned with one’s ‘self’” (Reber & Reber, 2001, p.
195). Considered in unison, these constructs may contribute to a better understanding of
why young males, in particular, appear over-represented in aggressive driving research.
For example, the acquisition of a vehicle and the obtaining of a licence may add to a
young male driver’s perception of self-importance, increasing their self-esteem and
inflating the ‘ego’. As such, a perceived threat to that ‘ego’ or self-esteem may result in
aggressive driving behaviours aimed at restoring their self-esteem, ‘ego’ and sense of
‘superiority’.
In sum, the above findings may suggest that in response to the external challenge
to their self-esteem, some male drivers may respond irrationally by pushing their limits
or engaging in risk-taking road behaviour which they believe they) can manage
(McFarlin & Blascovich, 1981; Schlenker et al., 1976). Perhaps it should also be
considered that stepping into the vehicle may indeed enhance a young driver’s self-
esteem and subsequent perception of their own driving abilities. The subsequent
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 43
related stressors that may influence the likelihood of aggressive driving. However, it is
first necessary to briefly discuss the experience of stress and road user behaviour.
2.5.8.1 The Experience of Stress on the Road
Under conditions of stress drivers are more likely to exhibit mild forms of
aggression and a greater number of errors and violations on the road (Aseltine et al.,
2000; Deffenbacher et al., 2000; Gulian, Matthews, Glendon, Davies, & Debney, 1989;
Hartley & Hassani, 1994; Wiesenthal & Hennessy, 1999). The original source of such
stress is not confined to the on-road environment. As in other stress research, exposure
to considerable stress has been found to spill over into other life situations (Hennessy &
Wiesenthal, 1997). In traffic psychology, it has been suggested that this is primarily due
to findings that stress negatively impacts on a driver’s coping abilities within the
complexities of the driving environment (Westerman & Haigney, 2000; Novaco,
Stokols, & Milanesi, 1990). As a consequence, many drivers experience feelings of
frustration, irritation and even anger, which can further enhance the likelihood of their
engaging in erroneous or aggressive driving (Aseltine et al., 2000; Deffenbacher et al.,
2000; Westerman & Haigney, 2000).
In general, driver stress is believed to be an internal, individual experience
influenced by personality ‘traits’, that may also occur in combination with
environmental or life stressors (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997; Arnett, Offer, & Fine,
1997). Environmental or life stressors, as ‘state’ stressors, affect an individual’s current
mood, whereas trait level stress is considered to be a relatively stable and enduring
individual predisposition to stress in general (Arnett et al., 1997). Therefore, not only do
drivers bring their enduring trait predisposition for stress to the road environment, they
also bring with them their current ‘mood state’. As stress levels are likely to build
across relatively short periods of time, it is possible that drivers may adopt risky driving
practices to release their stress or they may become angered more easily in response to
other driver behaviour increasing the likelihood of aggressive driving (Navaco et al.,
1990; Parkinson, 2001). For example, a road stressor such as congestion may add to
existing feelings of stress associated with work or home (Matthews, Dorn, & Glendon,
1991; Navaco et al., 1990). As such, some researchers believe that stress experienced on
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 45
the road may similarly transfer into the work or home environment (Navaco et al.,
1990).
2.5.8.2 Effect of Gender and Age on the Experience of Stress
As in other areas of traffic research, gender and age may influence the amount of
stress experienced on and off-road and the behaviour displayed. Research based on self-
report measures of general life stress and driving stress, found that stress both on and
off-road is positively correlated with traffic offending in both male and female drivers
(Simon & Corbett, 1996; Hartley & Hassani, 1994).
In a large UK study (Westerman & Haigney, 2000), researchers found that self-
report measures of trait driver stress levels (using the Driving Behaviour Inventory –
DBI) revealed no significant differences between the sexes. However, there was a
negative correlation with age. The researchers acknowledge that this finding may have
been potentially confounded by the reported driving experience of the participants
(Westerman & Haigney, 2000). Further, several studies indicate that older drivers tend
to report lower trait stress than younger drivers (Guilan, Matthews, Glendon, Davies, &
Debney, 1989; Matthews et al., 1991; Simon & Corbett, 1996). Although it was noted
by Simon and Corbett (1996) that generally female drivers offend less than males,
females experienced slightly more stress than males regardless of their level of
offending. However, as previously mentioned, male offenders scored significantly
higher on ‘extroversion’ (as measured by the EPQR-A) (Renner & Anderle, 2000) and
were more likely to behave spontaneously in a given situation than male non-offenders
(Renner & Anderle, 2000). Hence, these findings may suggest that young male drivers,
in particular, may be more prone to react overtly and impulsively when under stress on
the roads and therefore more highly reactive in their behavioural response.
2.5.8.3 Driver Trait Stress Measures
Traffic researchers have repeatedly reviewed the relationship between stress and
driving violations and/or errors. Many researchers have utilised the Driver Behaviour
Inventory-General (DBI) that was designed as a behavioural outcomes measure of a
driver’s trait susceptibility to driver stress (Glendon, Dorn, Matthews, Gulian, Davies, &
Debney, 1993). This questionnaire consists of 31 items that load onto five scales: driver
aggression; irritation when overtaken; driving alertness; dislike of driving; and
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 46
frustration in overtaking (Glendon et al., 1993). A high score on the DBI reflects high
stress levels whilst driving (Glendon et al., 1993). Quite often this measure has been
used in conjunction with the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) which gives a
measure of on-road behavioural outcomes that are classified as ‘lapses, errors and
violations’. Used in this way the DBQ has provided results that raise concerns about the
relationship between driver aggression and driver safety issues (Mizell, 1997).
Using the DBI, Hartley and Hassani (1994) reported that truck drivers with high
levels of traffic violations reported more general driving stress than low violation truck
drivers (Hartley & Hassani, 1994). Conversely, they reported that the reverse is true for
car drivers (Hartley & Hassani, 1994). In another study, with a sample of 2,806 United
Kingdom drivers, similar results were found: researchers reported that high levels of
driving stress were consistently found to be associated with increased self-reported
lapses, errors and violations on the roads. In particular, this study found a strong
positive correlation between the DBI ‘driving aggression/urgency’ factor and road
violations (Westerman & Haigney, 2000). The particular items that featured
predominantly in the ‘driving aggression’ measure highlighted the role of
interpersonal/social aggression tendencies (Westerman & Haigney, 2000).
However, other research provides a better explanation of stress and increased
involvement in road violations. Matthews and colleagues (1991) found high correlations
between high driver stress (measured by the DBI) and poorer self-rated ‘attention’ to the
road environment (Matthews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991). Other traffic research using the
DBI clearly shows sex differences for the levels of driving stress experienced (Simon &
Corbett, 1996). Also, several studies based on use of the DBI indicate that older drivers
tend to report lower levels of driver stress than younger drivers (Guilan, Matthews,
Glendon, Davies, & Debney, 1990; Matthews et al., 1991; Simon & Corbett, 1996).
In a study conducted in the United States, researchers found that drivers who
perceived the driving environment as more stressful reported a greater likelihood of
behaving aggressively on the road (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001). High stress drivers
were also found to report higher incidence of past road violence (Hennessy &
Wiesenthal, 2001).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 47
Collectively, the above findings suggest that high levels of trait and state driver
stress do contribute to lapses in driver attention, increased driver errors, increased rates
of violation of road rules and aggressive driving behaviour. As such, the importance of
stress levels and its impact upon road user behaviour is highly relevant when considering
on-road aggression.
2.5.8.4 Individual Mood and Daily Hassles
The experience of DBI measured driver stress has also been found to correlate
with stressed mood states and crash involvement (Matthews et al., 1991). Comparing
participant scores on the DBI and the UWIST (University of Wales Institute of Science
and Technology) mood measure, researchers found evidence to suggest that the ‘dislike
of driving’ and ‘overtaking tension’ scales of the DBI, were strong predictors of a
driver’s state mood (Matthews et al., 1991). Specifically, high scores on these two
scales were associated with low levels of arousal, high tension and a less pleasant mood
state (Matthews et al., 1991). However, the relationship between ‘off-road’ daily life
stress and driver mood appears more complex.
In a more general approach to the effect of daily stress on mood, researchers
DeLongis and colleagues (1988) found a significant positive relationship between life’s
daily hassles and reported stress levels, however, the negative effect of such was short
lived, usually less than a day (DeLongis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988). Therefore, young
drivers in particular, in light of this critical developmental period in their lives, may
experience similar effects. Certainly this literature review suggests that younger drivers
are more susceptible to on and off-road stressful events and mood disturbances than
older drivers.
Road researchers have also found that higher levels of ‘perceived’ impedance
(stress) in the work or on-road environment, in the form of perceived delays due to work
or congestion when driving home, are associated with greater negative mood states on
arrival at home from one’s place of work (Navaco et al., 1990). Higher levels of general
life stress have also been found to negatively impact cognitive information processing
ability in the workplace, as measured by reaction times based on task difficulty and
driver performance (Kolich & Wong-Reiger, 1999; Matthews et al., 1998).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 48
have been found to affect levels of satisfaction across the work/home domains (Stokols
& Novaco, 1981).
As fleet safety research expands in an effort to reduce the massive costs
associated with higher levels of crash involvement (Downs, Keigan, Maycock, &
Grayson, 1999), research has begun to focus on the specific effect of stress levels on the
incidence of road crash involvement among company car drivers. Using motor vehicle
claims data sourced from within a large retail company, Cartwright and colleagues
(1996) found that occupational stress is playing a role in predicting crash rates
(Cartwright, Cooper, & Barron, 1996). In particular, those company drivers involved in
traffic accidents were found to have significantly lower levels of job satisfaction
associated with feelings of achievement or growth, the job itself, the organisational
structure and processes, and with their employment overall, than accident involved
drivers from another company (Cartwright et al., 1996). This evidence suggests that
more stressful work environments are likely to result in a higher incidence of accident
involvement. Moreover, the above findings suggest work stress is capable of inducing
stress, which in turn may influence the behaviour of all road users. Therefore, the
potential for work related stress to influence aggressive driving behaviour should be
investigated further.
2.5.8.7 Fatigue
In a small meta-analysis of fatigue studies, Milosevic (1997) found that the
experience of fatigue by bus and truck drivers negatively influences mood state,
specifically increasing irritability. Consistent with the above findings, this may suggest
that fatigued drivers would therefore experience an increased likelihood of stress and
subsequent ‘impatience’ associated with traffic delays or the behaviour of other road
users. Hence, fatigue appears to exacerbate certain trait and state person-related factors,
which influence the onset of driver stress. In turn, this stress may increase the likelihood
of aggressive driving behaviour.
2.6 Situational Contributors to Aggressive Driving
As previously stated, the large number of context specific situational
characteristics that may contribute to aggressive driving makes it difficult to examine
them all in a systematic way. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge the influence
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 50
that situational factors can have on aggressive driving. The situational factors that
influence aggressive driving appear to fall into two broad categories: the specific
behaviours of ‘other drivers’, and the situational factors of the immediate driving
environment.
The behaviour of ‘other drivers’ most often associated with aggressive driving
are listed below. However, it should be noted that it is more often combinations of these
behaviours that have been repeatedly cited as comprising or contributing to aggressive
driving behaviour (AAMI, 2001, 2003; NHTSA, 2002; Mizell, 1997):
• Speeding • Cutting-off
judgement or driving errors. However, when these behaviours are coupled with a degree
congestion (Elliott, 1999; RACWA, 1997; VCCAV, 1999), potentially increasing the
possibility of aggressive driving behaviour via an exposure effect. ‘Congestion’ and its
effect on driving behaviour is reviewed below as an example of how situational factors
may influence aggressive driving.
2.6.1.2 Congestion
Congestion is often used in road research to operationalise the fast-paced,
stressful environment of today’s road systems (Shinar, 1997; Lajunen, Parker, &
Summala, 1999). In a study of causal factors associated with anger while driving,
drivers were asked to keep a diary of ‘near accidents’ whilst driving over a period of two
weeks (Underwood et al., 1999). Drivers were required to record any feelings of anger
they experienced during this period. Although this study revealed a strong positive
relationship between the number of near accidents and the number of occasions anger
was experienced (particularly when a driver felt they were not at fault), and drivers were
more likely to report anger where frustration was present, there was no evidence to
suggest that drivers who experience higher levels of congestion experience more anger
(Underwood et al., 1999). In another self-report study of driver-behaviour across three
countries, Great Britain, Finland and the Netherlands, it was found that there was little
evidence of a relationship between driver exposure to varying levels of congestion and
aggressive driving (Lajunen et al., 1999). Lajunen and colleagues (1999) had
hypothesised that ‘frequent exposure’ to traffic congestion (a source of frustration)
should lead to increased aggression on the roads. The results of their study showed that
the relationship between frequency of exposure and aggressive driving was, in fact,
weak. However, they acknowledge periods of increased congestion may often be
associated with peak-hour traffic, due to travel to and from work. As such, perhaps
drivers consciously anticipate delays associated with congestion, therefore, perhaps they
experience lower levels of frustration and anger.
Consistent with these findings, Gordhamer and colleagues (1996) found that high
anger drivers [those scoring > 53 on the trait Driving Anger Scale (DAS)] not only
reported greater levels of anger in rush hour traffic, but also reported significantly more
anger than low anger drivers [those scoring <42 on the trait Driving Anger Scale (DAS)]
under normal traffic conditions. Further, the analysis of expressed ‘driving anger’
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 52
revealed high anger drivers participated in more hostile aggression than constructive
instrumental behaviours in either traffic conditions (Gordhamer et al., 1996). Both of
these studies suggest there is a more complex relationship between feelings of
frustration, congestion levels and the expression of aggression on the road.
A series of studies conducted by Hennessy and Wiesenthal (1997, 1999)
reviewed driver trait dispositions for stress and their self-reported stress levels during
periods of high and low congestion on the roads. Regardless of an individual’s trait
disposition for stress, all drivers reported higher stress in the high congestion condition
(Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997). The highest stress levels were reported by individuals
‘high’ in trait disposition for stress (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997, 1999). Additionally,
aggressive driving behaviour increased from the low to high congestion, especially for
those measuring high in trait stress (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997). This study also
found that ‘time pressure’ predicted state driver stress in low road congestion, whereas
‘driver aggression’ (as measured by the Driving Behaviour Inventory [DBI]) best
predicted driver stress in heavy congestion (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999).
These findings suggest that congestion has the potential to influence aggressive
driving outcomes, primarily when mediated by person-related factors such as state stress
levels or trait driving anger. In keeping with the review at Sections 2.3.8 and 2.3.9, a
driver’s state driver stress levels are mediated by a driver’s trait disposition for stress in
general. The reported levels of state stress in congestion also appear to influence the
adoption of on-road behaviours. In high congestion conditions a wider range of
behaviours appear to be adopted by drivers, which include speeding and aggressive
driving (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999).
2.6.1.3 Interim Summary
It is not possible to review all of the situational factors that have reportedly
influenced aggressive driving outcomes. However, thus far, the review indicates that a
wide range of situational factors influence the likelihood of aberrant driving behaviour
and more specifically aggressive driving. It also appears that such behaviours may
result via two possible emotional states; either frustration induced anger or excitement.
The altered emotional state may have the potential to alter physiological arousal levels
resulting in ‘stress’. Resultant on-road behaviours, such as speeding, cutting-off,
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 53
tailgating or ‘hooning’ with peers may be observed by ‘other drivers’ and law
enforcement officials as ‘aggressive’ in nature. Further, for some drivers, off-road
factors may at times generate feelings of on-road stress e.g. running late for a meeting.
Therefore, the relative contribution of preceding off-road stressors and their potential
transfer to the on-road environment should also be considered in aggressive driving
research. The foregoing review has confirmed the importance of person-related factors
in aggressive driving research. It appears they mediate the impact of situational
characteristics upon arousal levels and subsequent driving behaviours. Consequently,
the following section will review issues relevant to risk-taking and aggressive driving
which appear specific to at-risk drivers.
2.7 Issues Specific to At-Risk Drivers
2.7.1 Lifestyle
Today, there is greater understanding of the developmental difficulties that face
young people (17–24 years). Not only do many young people at the lower end of this
age range continue to experience physiological changes (Berk, 1997), many experience
difficulty adjusting to changing psychosocial demands as they leave school, gain
employment and possibly leave home, for the first time (Mortimer & Shanahan, 1994).
For young drivers, driving is far more than a means of transport, for many it is
considered symbolic of status, a means for exerting a sense of independence and making
a statement of ‘masculinity’ for males, all of which may contribute to ego (Zimbardo,
Keough, & Boyd, 1997). High-risk driving behaviour by young drivers has also been
found to be associated with self-reported experimentation with drugs and alcohol,
delinquent behaviours and risky sex practices (Jessor, 1987).
In a longitudinal study into the lifestyle of young drivers that participate in high-
risk driving behaviours, it has been found that high-risk adolescents tend to originate
from backgrounds that offer multiple negative influences: low familial nurturance and
connectedness, low monitoring of adolescent activities, and permissive attitudes to
drinking (Shope, Waller, Raghunathan, & Patil, 2001). Further, Shope and colleagues
(2001) found that illegal substance use at 15 years of age is an important predictor of
serious on-road offences or crashes for both males and females.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 54
At this point, it should be noted that it is not only 17–24 year olds who engage in
risk-taking behaviours. Older individuals are also known to participate in such
behaviours. Therefore, it would be fair to suggest that a number of young individuals
continue to participate in risk-taking behaviour across the course of their lives. This will
be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Three (Section 3.5).
2.7.2 Education Attained
In a study of 18–64 year olds (n = 194), education level attained has been found
to have a negative relationship with individual tolerance for aggression (Harris &
Knight-Bohnhoff, 1996). In another large study of recorded crashes spanning 1988–
1994, young drivers (16–22 years) with minimal formal and/or a vocational education
were found to be over-represented in traffic accidents (Murray, 1998). Young males
involved in injurious traffic accidents were found to have a lower level of education than
females within the sample (Murray, 1998).
Specific to unsafe driving practices, education has been found to have a negative
relationship with such behaviours as speeding and drink driving, irrespective of age
(Shinar, Schechtman, & Compton, 2001). Harris and colleague (1996a) would suggest
that this may be due to higher levels of education teaching individuals to think laterally
when problem solving. Further, they suggest it may teach people to balk at ‘impulsive’
emotional responses and resort to more thoughtful, deliberate responses. Although these
findings do not suggest a distinct relationship between lower education levels and
aggressive driving behaviour, the trends identified by the foregoing research would
suggest that a relationship between education levels and aggressive on-road behaviours
may exist for at-risk driver groups.
2.7.3 Driving Experience
The distance a driver travels in a year is often used in traffic research as a
measure of driving experience and possible exposure to a wider variety of road
incidents. In America, annual mileage has been found to correlate positively with the
number of accidents a driver is involved in within the previous three-year period (West,
Elander & French, 1993). Conversely, inexperience has also been found to contribute to
a significant proportion of crashes on Queensland roads (Queensland Transport, 2003).
Focusing on the 17–24 year old age group, road crash involvement by young drivers has
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 55
been found to decline incrementally with each passing year that a licence is held (Elliott,
Waller, Raghunathan, Shope, & Little, 2000). In a self-report study of driving ability, it
has been found that driving experience, as measured by ‘number of years licensed’, is a
significant predictor of the effective use of safety behaviours on the road (Shinar et al.,
2001).
Specific to aggressive driving research, as annual mileage increases, anger
experienced and aggression decreases, especially among women (Underwood et al.,
1999). Also, older, higher mileage drivers report less irritability in response to other
driver behaviour whilst younger, low mileage drivers seem to be more easily irritated by
the road behaviour of others (Lajunen et al., 1998). As such, it appears that through
increased road exposure, the majority of the driving population become more tolerant of
the aberrant driving behaviour of others and may become less likely to feel as angry or
to have an aggressive response. However, a study comparing drivers identified as ‘high’
and ‘low-anger’ drivers revealed no difference in driving frequency or distance travelled
(Deffenbacher et al., 2000, indicating that regardless of driving experience a number of
drivers remain relatively more easily irritated or angered by the on-road behaviour of
others. Hence, there is a need to examine the characteristics of these drivers and how
they differ from other drivers.
2.7.4 Passenger Effect
Driving with passengers is not unique to the young driver population. However,
the probability of crash involvement for young drivers doubles when there are two or
more peers onboard, possibly due to distraction and increased risk-taking factors
(Doherty, Andrey, & MacGregor, 1998; Williams, 2003). In an earlier study, young
males reported the greatest detrimental effect on driving behaviour when passengers
were from their peer group (Rolls, Hall, Ingham, & McDonald, 1991). Conversely, they
also reported the greatest positive effect on driving behaviour when the passenger was a
parent or elderly person (Rolls et al., 1991). Females reported an adverse effect on
driving behaviour in the presence of a male (Rolls et al., 1991).
In a more recent study of ‘passenger effect’, 429 participants aged approximately
17–25 years were randomly targeted by a handheld radar when obviously unimpeded by
any other traffic (Waylen & McKenna, 2001). Careful observation was required to
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 56
determine the number of passengers present and an estimation of age was made (Waylen
& McKenna, 2001). This study revealed that young drivers aged 17–25 years,
regardless of gender, travelled faster when a male passenger was present than those
travelling without a passenger (Waylen & McKenna, 2001). The findings also suggest
an increased use of speed in the presence of passengers that may compound the possible
consequences of their on-road behaviour.
Of the several psychological constructs that have been used to explain this
phenomenon, one seems intuitively applicable to young male drivers, i.e.
‘competitiveness’ (Waylen & McKenna, 2001). Young males are believed to be more
competitive than females (Houston, Farese, & La Du, 1992). In this regard, speeding
may be considered a way of demonstrating perceived skill and superiority by young
male drivers. Consequently, it may be that the presence of a male passenger brings out
this competitive aspect in drivers. Alternatively, it may be that the presence of
passengers decreases the monitoring of travelling speed.
Although ‘competitiveness’ has more positive connotations than ‘aggression’,
‘competitiveness’ may result in instrumental, assertive behaviours that may easily be
viewed as ‘aggressiveness’ by others. Generally, one would anticipate a negative effect
in the form of aberrant driving behaviour, such as speeding, in keeping with the findings
about passenger effect. Additionally, another possible influence of the ‘passenger
effect’ may be in the young driver’s ability to accurately appraise the behaviour of ‘other
drivers’. Perhaps in an aroused state, they would be more likely to interpret ‘other
driver’ behaviours as discourteous, aggressive, or as impeding their progress. As a
consequence, the resultant on-road behaviours arising from this elevated state may be
more ‘impulsive’ and reactive than deliberate and thoughtful, due to the possible
demands of peer passengers.
2.7.5 Motivation
Much of existing aggressive driving research has focused upon the emotional
antecedents to the expression of aggression on the road such as frustration and anger.
However, more recent research has suggested that increasing attention should be paid to
driver attitudes and motivations associated with aggressive driving behaviour. For
instance, drivers motivated by ‘vengeance’ are more likely to perceive on-road errors or
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 57
violations as intentional and purposeful (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001) which increases
the likelihood of more extreme levels of aggression. In a study of 192 drivers (M age
26.22 years, SD 10.39), males reported higher levels of vengeful driving attitude
(measured by the Driver Vengeance Questionnaire) as well as higher levels of driver
violence (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2002). Therefore, perhaps the attitudes and
motivations preceding on-road behavioural responses, mediate the likelihood of
aggressive driving outcomes, possibly via more negative attributions and aggressive
thoughts being associated with more aggressive outcomes (Yagil, 2001).
The foregoing research highlights the role of ‘vengeance’ in aggressive driving.
Not only does this research refer to the young driver group, frequently cited in traffic
research, it also associates older male drivers aged 26 to 36 with on-road aggression
(Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001).
2.7.6 Drugs and Alcohol
The relationship between alcohol/drug abuse and aggressive behaviour is not
easily definable due to the relevance of multiple other factors such as social situation,
intake levels and prior social learning (Taylor & Hulsizer, 1998). However, general
human aggression research indicates that alcohol impairs social judgement by reducing
inhibitions or internal control processes (Volavka & Citrome, 1998), thereby increasing
the likelihood of aggressive behaviour. Furthermore, alcohol intoxication has been
associated with violent crime (Taylor & Hulsizer, 1998). Extensive research has also
been conducted on the effect of drugs on aggressive behaviour (Taylor & Hulsizer,
1998). To date, the most conclusive results have demonstrated a link between
psychostimulants such as cocaine and amphetamines and aggressive behaviour (Volavka
& Citrome, 1998). However, these results are also subject to consideration of other
factors such as dosage rates (higher dosage rates being associated with aggression),
method of intake, predisposition to aggressive tendencies and situational context
(Volavka & Citrome, 1998).
With higher levels of risk-taking behaviour prevalent in drivers aged 17–25
years, there may be an increased preparedness to partake in intoxicating amounts of
drugs and/or alcohol before driving (AAMI, 2001; Jonah, 1977). The AAMI research
found that 18% of young drivers aged below 25 years of age, believed it was safer to
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 58
drive after taking recreational drugs (marijuana and cocaine) than it was to drink drive.
In addition, 17% of young drivers surveyed believe that recreational drug use does not
make a driver behave aggressively (AAMI, 2001). A further 15% of young drivers
believed it was acceptable to drive after a few drinks as long as you feel ‘capable’
(AAMI, 2001).
A recent study into alcohol consumption and ‘road rage’ involved the telephone
survey of 2,610 participants aged 18 years and over. Of the sample, 32% admitted
shouting and gesticulating at another driver, 1.7% threatened another driver, and 1%
attempted or perpetrated physical damage to the other driver or their vehicle.
Problematic levels of alcohol consumption were found to have a significant relationship
with attempting or actually harming the other driver or their vehicle (Mann, Smart,
Stoduto, Adlaf, & Ialomiteanu, 2004).
These findings suggest that a proportion of drivers, particularly the young,
experiment with drugs and alcohol, and may underestimate the effects of these on
driving ability and subsequent decision-making processes. It is also clear that alcohol
consumption influences aggressive driving behaviour. However, it should be
acknowledged that problematic levels of drinking or drug-taking are not exclusive to the
young. This will be covered in more detail in Chapter Three (Section 3.2.2.1).
2.8 Focus of Emerging Interventions
Intervention programs for high-anger drivers or aggressive drivers in general
have only recently begun to emerge (Deffenbacher et al., 2000; Galovski & Blanchard,
2004; Larson, 1996). In the main, these programs are adopting a combination of
psychosocial, cognitive behaviour therapy techniques and are reporting some success.
However, this literature review would suggest that the phenomenon of aggressive
driving has yet to be understood sufficiently to facilitate the design of effective
programs. However, when considering aggressive driving perpetrators that have come
to the attention of the law, it should be considered that broad-based education relating to
the phenomenon of aggressive driving may better serve the community by reducing the
number of drivers that are prepared to initially engage in such behaviours.
A longitudinal study across the ages of 11 to 17 years concerning adolescent
predisposition to engage in risky or problem behaviours, has revealed that ‘impulsivity’
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 59
and an avoidant coping style are risk factors for participation in a variety of problem
behaviours, such as underachievement at school, substance use, delinquent behaviour
and sexual behaviour (Cooper, Wood, Albino, & Orcutt, 2003). The findings of this
study also suggested that emotionally driven behaviours and dysfunctional styles of
regulating emotions are core features associated with adolescent problem behaviours and
risk taking (Cooper et al., 2003).
Specific to aggressive driving behaviour, researchers have found evidence of a
relationship between the personality trait of ‘neuroticism’ and ineffectual coping
strategies (Dorn & Matthews, 1992). It has also been suggested that these ineffective
coping strategies mediate a driver’s ability to cope with driving related stress (Galovski
& Blanchard, 2002a).
With the emergence of interventions for aggressive drivers, some researchers
have focused upon reducing hostile, aggressive forms of anger expression on the road,
whilst increasing adaptive, constructive ways of expressing anger (Deffenbacher, Filetti,
Lynch, Dahlen, & Oetting, 2002). This was achieved by training participants in
relaxation and cognitive coping skills, resulting in reductions in the self-reported driving
anger, on-road aggression and frequency of risky behaviour.
Indeed, aggressive driving should be considered an emotion-based phenomenon.
Therefore, close examination of coping styles and strategies adopted by at-risk drivers,
in particular, is warranted. Clearer understanding of the coping styles and strategies
adopted by different drivers may inform the development of psycho-educational
packages aimed at reducing the probability of aggressive driving as well as enhance
interventions based on individual therapy for high-anger drivers.
2.8.1 Coping Styles in General
As aggressive driving research moves into the development of interventions,
researchers are looking more closely at internalised measures of coping (Deffenbacher,
Lynch, Oetting, & Swaim, 2002; Guilian, Matthews, Glendon, Davies, & Debney,
1989). Coping with stress, in general, may be conceptualised and measured in two
ways: in a more general approach, by the assessment of the internalised thoughts and
attitudes associated with stressful events; or in terms of the specific behaviours adopted
when placed under stress. The former approach is based on the assumption that an
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 60
The SPSI-R has also been found significantly related to the Aggression
Questionnaire (AQ) (Buss & Perry, 1992) (D’Zurilla et al., 2003). Specifically, the
three dysfunctional measures on the SPSI-R (NPO, ICS and ACS) were found to be
positively related to ‘physical aggression’. In particular, the ICS was reported as a
unique predictor of physical aggression, the NPO subscale was found to be a strong
predictor of anger and hostility, and the RPS was found to be a predictor of hostility.
Research has also shown that deficits in positive problem solving increase the likelihood
of youth delinquent behaviour and violence (Dahlberg, 1998). Therefore, considering
the findings of the foregoing research perhaps this measure may elaborate upon driver
individual coping styles in stressful road situations and the increased probability of their
involvement in aggressive driving outcomes.
Using the SPSI-R (n = 904) research indicates that young adults (ages 17–20) are
lower on positive problem solving, rational problem solving than middle aged
participants aged 40–55 years. Additionally, they scored significantly higher on
negative problem solving, ICS and avoidance style. Young men also scored higher than
young women on ICS. Middle aged males scored higher than elderly participants (aged
60–80 years) on rational problem solving and positive problem orientation. Overall,
men scored higher on positive problem solving and lower on negative problem
orientation than did women (D’Zurilla, Maydeau-Olivares, & Kant, 1998). Within
middle aged participants, women were found to be higher on positive problem-solving
orientation and lower on ACS than men.
Problem orientation, negative or positive, is often uniquely predictive of negative
affect under general and stressful conditions (Elliott, Herrick, MacNair, & Harkins,
1994). Further, it has been suggested that the problem orientation has mood regulating
properties (Elliott, Shewchuk, Richisson, Pickelman, & Franklin, 1996). However, in
another study positive and negative affect were measured along with measures of the
SPSI-R (Shewchuk, Johnson, & Elliott, 2000). The results indicated that negative
problem solving was predictive of problem-solving performance, although this was not
mediated by negative affect.
Consideration of the literature review so far would suggest that aggressive
drivers may be predisposed to poor problem-solving ability. For example, in response to
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 62
an ambiguous on-road incident, aggressive, at-risk drivers may be more likely to adopt
less rational and more negative or impulsive/careless problem-solving strategies. As a
consequence, their behavioural responses to such an event may be perceived as more
highly reactive and aggressive.
2.8.2 Driver Coping Strategies
Within the confines of a vehicle, there are fewer constructive behavioural coping
alternatives available to drivers than would be available in other life situations. For
instance, it is not always possible to remove oneself from the source of on-road
frustration. Research into coping strategies adopted whilst driving have tended to use
measures such as the DBI (Glendon et al., 1993) and more recently the Driving Anger
Expression Inventory (DAX) (Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Swaim, 2002). In such
research these measures have been utilised to focus upon the behavioural outcomes of
aggressive driving as measures of coping.
More specific information was obtained in a recent study of coping strategies
adopted whilst driving conducted by Hennessy and his colleague (Hennessy &
Wiesenthal, 2001). Using the DBI, these researchers found that most drivers preferred
direct coping measures such as ‘sticking to prearranged plans’, ‘listening to the radio’, or
‘watching for traffic changes’ especially, in high congestion conditions. However, it
was also noted that few drivers actually engaged in active preplanning. This study also
found that in high congestion conditions (considered a potentially stressful on-road
situation), aggressive driving behaviours such as deliberate tailgating and swearing or
yelling at other drivers increases. Another study found that listening to self-selected
music, serves to reduce self-reported stress levels particularly in high traffic congestion
(Wiesenthal, Hennessy, & Totten, 2000) which could be classed as a ‘direct coping’
strategy.
In the 2003 study conducted by Deffenbacher and colleagues of high-anger
drivers (median age 19 years) it was found that young male drivers reported more verbal
and physical aggression than did females in the same group. However, male and female
high-anger drivers reported less adaptive/constructive coping than low-anger drivers
(Deffenbacher et al., 2003a).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 63
Recent research has developed the DAX (Deffenbacher et al., 2002b). The DAX
is a measure of how drivers express ‘anger’ on the road that consists of five subscales:
verbal aggressive expression, personal/physical aggressive expression, use of vehicle to
express anger, verbal aggressive expression and adaptive/constructive expression. Using
the DAX on a sample of 290 participants (median age 19 years), males and females were
found to participate in similar levels of ‘verbal aggression’, ‘use of their vehicles to
express anger’ and ‘adaptive/constructive’ expression of anger, i.e. ways in which a
person copes positively with anger by relaxing or focusing on driving (Deffenbacher et
al., 2002b). However, males were more likely to express their anger towards other road
users rather than the offending driver, and also to express their anger through physical
aggression (Deffenbacher et al., 2002b). Males also scored significantly higher than
females on the overall ‘total aggressive expression’ score provided by the DAX.
2.9 Research Questions
The foregoing review of the literature indicates some important questions
relating to the scope and nature of aggressive driving which remain unanswered or
require further investigation. The following research questions (RQs) requiring further
examination are proposed to guide this program of research:
RQ1 What are the person-related and situational factors contributing to aggressive
driving?
The foregoing evidence highlighted a number of person-related and some of the
situational factors believed to contribute to aggressive driving. However, this review is
in no way exhaustive. Additionally, the review highlighted some potential differences
between drivers at-risk of aggressive driving and general road users in the way different
factors influence the likelihood of aggressive driving. Other than a recent international
review conducted by the Victorian Parliament (DCPC, 2005), little known research has
been conducted into the person-related and situational characteristics that have the
potential to influence aggressive driving behaviour in Australian. Therefore, there is a
need to explore the range of contributing factors specific to Australian drivers.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 64
RQ2 Are some drivers more likely to engage in aggressive driving and, if so, what are
their psychosocial characteristics?
The literature review suggests that young male drivers are a high-risk group for
aggressive driving behaviour (Harding et al., 1998; Lawton, et al., 1997; Reason,
Manstead, Stradling, Parker, & Baxter 1991; VCCAV, 1999; Yagil, 2001). However,
older drivers have also been cited in media reports of extreme on-road aggression within
Australia (DCPC, 2005). Therefore, more research is required in order to identify other
at-risk groups and personalities. Particular attention needs to be given to whether the
‘aggressive driver’ has certain person-related characteristics that increase the likelihood
of aggressive behaviours on the road.
RQ3 Is it appropriate to conceptualise aggressive driving as a continuum of related
behaviours?
A question also remains as to whether aggressive driving behaviours should be
conceptualised as a continuum of behaviours (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). The
instrumental/hostile distinction made in Shinar’s (1997) aggressive driving research
would suggest that these behaviours, though related, serve different functions. The
evidence would also suggest that the likelihood of adopting either instrumental or hostile
behaviours is influenced by a considerable number of other factors.
RQ4 What function does aggressive driving perform for drivers?
The distinction between the behaviours that constitute aggressive driving as either
instrumental or hostile as proposed by Shinar (1998) implies that on-road aggression
may be adopted in order to serve some functional purpose e.g. arriving at one’s
destination on time. However, for those drivers that are more likely to participate in
highly aggressive or hostile on-road behaviour, perhaps aggressive driving serves other
functions. Exploration of this issue warrants more attention in order to enhance
understanding of the nature and causes of aggressive driving, particularly among at-risk
drivers. In turn, such information may contribute to the growing knowledge base of
aggressive driving and eventually aid the design of effective driver education programs
and rehabilitation initiatives.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 65
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 69
3.1.1 Types of Human Aggression .................................................................... 69
3.2 Developmental Risk Factors for Aggression .......................................................... 71
3.2.1 Historical Factors...................................................................................... 73
3.2.1.1 Personal History of Violence and Delinquency ......................... 73
3.2.1.2 Family of Origin ......................................................................... 73
3.2.1.3 Victims of Abuse ........................................................................ 74
3.2.1.4 Negative Peer Relations ............................................................. 75
3.2.1.5 Schooling Problems.................................................................... 75
3.2.2 Clinical Factors ......................................................................................... 76
3.2.2.1 Substance Abuse ........................................................................ 76
3.2.2.2 Attitudes ..................................................................................... 77
3.2.2.3 Emotional Regulation Difficulties.............................................. 78
3.2.2.4 High Impulsivity ........................................................................ 80
3.2.2.5 General Life Stressors ................................................................ 82
3.2.3 Psychological Impact of Risk Factors ...................................................... 83
3.3 Psychological Theories Relevant to Aggressive Driving ....................................... 84
3.3.1 Frustration-Aggression Theory ................................................................ 84
3.3.2 Cognitive Neo-Associationistic Model .................................................... 85
3.3.3 Social Cognition Perspective.................................................................... 87
3.3.3.1 Social Learning .......................................................................... 87
3.3.3.2 Causal Attribution – Fundamental Attribution Error ................. 90
3.3.4 Excitation Transfer Theory....................................................................... 90
3.3.5 Social Interaction Theory ......................................................................... 92
3.4 Interim Summary .................................................................................................... 92
3.5 General Aggression Model ..................................................................................... 93
3.5.1 Schemas and Script Theory ...................................................................... 95
3.5.2 Situation and Person Factors as ‘Inputs’ for the GAM ............................ 95
3.5.3 The Process of Aggression According to the GAM ................................. 96
3.5.4 The Cognitive Appraisal Process in the GAM ......................................... 98
3.5.5 Behavioural Outcomes According to the GAM ....................................... 98
3.5.6 Applying Relevant Theory to the Phenomenon of Aggressive Driving... 99
3.6 Additional Research Questions............................................................................. 101
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 68
3.1 Introduction
In order to examine aggressive driving from an informed theoretical perspective
and to explore potential personal/psychosocial differences that may characterise
aggressive drivers, it is prudent to consider theories used to explain human aggression in
other contexts. This chapter will review current psychological theories used to explain
human aggression. Following an overview of each theory, this review will briefly assess
the potential applicability of each theory to aggressive driving. These theories have
been amalgamated in a model of human aggression i.e. the general aggression model
(GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). This model will be proposed as the guiding
framework for exploring aggressive driving in this research.
Although the theories outlined provide psychological explanation for why
aggression occurs in particular contexts, discussion of the theoretical basis of aggression
would be incomplete without examining other factors known to influence the
development of aggressive tendencies. It is widely accepted that during the years of
human development, exposure to a range of risk factors increases the likelihood of
developing aggressive tendencies (Farrington, 1991, 1999; McDonald & Brown, 1997;
NCV, 1990). Such tendencies appear to predispose an individual to respond
aggressively in the face of perceived provocation. Therefore, a brief review of
potentially significant risk factors is included.
At the outset it is noted that not all aggressive behaviour should be viewed in a
negative manner. Indeed, a certain amount of aggression is needed in order for species
to survive and for human beings to assert themselves in constructive ways (Geen &
Donnerstein, 1998; Renfrew, 1997). Nonetheless, within the driving context aggressive
actions can have significant impacts on other road users.
3.1.1 Types of Human Aggression
Within human aggression research many dichotomous descriptors have been
used to label behavioural outcomes, such as instrumental/hostile and proactive/reactive
aggression. These subtypes are based on the assumption that not all aggressive
behaviour has detrimental effects. Most of the definitions primarily distinguish between
instrumental, controlled aggressive behaviours and impulsive, hostile behaviours
(Vitiello & Stoff, 1997). For example, the distinction can be made between asserting
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 70
one’s self to achieve a goal, versus physical violence. In human aggression research,
however, a distinction is often made between pre-meditated and impulsive/reactive
aggression, distinguishing between intentional and unintentional acts respectively
(Barratt, Stanford, Dowdy, Liebman, & Kent, 1999; Stanford, Houston, Mathias,
Villemarette-Pittman, Helfritz, & Conklin, 2003).
Another distinction made in research concerning the psychology of human
aggression is that instrumental aggression is not often associated with strong emotional
triggers. However, more extreme, hostile aggression is associated with strong emotions,
namely anger or fear. Research has also suggested that behavioural responses based in
strong emotion are often impulsive and therefore, they have termed such behaviour as
‘reactive’ aggression (Dodge & Coie, 1987). These researchers also maintain that the
increased arousal levels associated with high emotion reduce the number and/or quality
of cognitive strategies available, possibly reducing the ability to inhibit the expression of
aggression.
In the context of aggressive driving, Shinar (1998) offered a dichotomous
representation of on-road aggression that had been based in frustration-aggression theory
(Dollard et al., 1939). As discussed in Section 2.1.7, he maintained that drivers either
engage in instrumental, constructive behaviours aimed at overcoming an obstacle or
source of frustration, or they engage in hostile aggression aimed at physically or
psychologically harming another driver. Hostile aggressive behaviours are believed to
stem from strong feelings of frustration/anger, whilst instrumental behaviours are less
emotional and more goal oriented.
In aggressive driving behaviour, there appears to be a consistent emotional
trigger to an on-road incident, i.e. frustration/anger. This emotion has been found to
precede a range of on-road, aberrant behaviours repeatedly considered as aggressive
driving, such as speeding, overtaking, tailgating and cutting-off (Lajunen & Parker,
2001; Shinar, 1998; AAA, 2008; NHTSA, 2000; VCCAV, 1999). Further, in keeping
with the findings of Dodge and colleague (1987), the on-road experience of such high
emotion increases arousal levels whilst incapacitating cognitive function within an
already cognitively demanding environment, therefore, potentially further reducing the
ability to inhibit aggressive behaviour. At such times, highly aggressive drivers may
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 71
deviate from their original aim/goal for driving in order to express such emotion.
However, lesser on-road behaviours, whilst perceived as aggressive by some, may not
generate sufficient emotion to warrant a deviation from the original goal.
Consequently, in terms of on-road aggression, this thesis considers aggressive
driving to be typically reactive aggression, as it appears to typify a basic assumption
underlying on-road aggression. That is, most aggressive driving behaviours are believed
to be a reactive response to other stimuli/triggers. In consideration of the range of on-
road behaviours that have been identified as potentially aggressive on-road behaviour,
they appear to occur on a scale of increasing severity from low level to highly reactive,
aggressive behaviour. Therefore, in keeping with Shinar’s distinction and the emphasis
on goal directed behaviour this thesis will further distinguish between instrumental (goal
directed) and hostile (goal-postponing) aggressive driving behaviour.
3.2 Developmental Risk Factors for Aggression
Researchers agree that there are multiple pathways to aggression. Upon each of
these paths an individual’s predisposition for aggression is influenced by multiple
factors. The factors include biological, neurophysiological/neurological, developmental
and social influences. Biological factors, or the contribution of genetics to aggression,
have been established through heritability and twin studies (Bergeman & Montpetit,
2003). The study of neurochemistry and aggression has identified the importance of
serotonin and testosterone levels (Eichelman, 2003). Neurological evidence for
aggression has been established with identification of higher levels of aggression being
associated with frontal lobe damage and brain lesions (Eichelman, 2003). Further, there
is substantial evidence for the influence of social and developmental factors, such as
peer group associations, characteristics of the family of origin and exposure to violence
(Borum, 2000; Caspi, 2000; Coccaro, Berman & Kavoussi, 1997; , 2003; Farrington,
1991, 2000; Farrington, Loeber, Yin, & Anderson, 2002; Loeber, Farrington,
Stouthamer-Loeber, Moffitt, Caspi, & Lynam, 2001). However, considering the
psychosocial emphasis of this research, the following literature review will focus on the
social and developmental risk factors that have been associated with an increased
likelihood for aggressive behaviour.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 72
emotional regulation difficulties, and negative attitudes including hostile attribution bias,
and exposure to significant life stressors.
3.2.1 Historical Factors
3.2.1.1 Personal History of Violence and Delinquency
A history of prior violent behaviour has been found to be the strongest single
predictor of future violence (Farrington, 1991). Further, the risk of future violence
increases incrementally according to the number of prior episodes (Farrington, 1991).
Specifically, prior arrest for violent criminal/delinquent acts increases the likelihood of
subsequent violent acts (Parker & Asher, 1987). Less ‘violent’ acts that are considered
anti-social, such as stealing, property damage, smoking and drug dealing are also linked
to later violence in males (Hawkins, Herron Kohl, Farrington, Brewer, Catalano, &
Harachi, 1998). The earlier and more frequent the individual initiation to violent
offending, particularly before age 14, the greater the likelihood of future violence,
involving more chronic and serious acts (Farrington, 1991).
3.2.1.2 Family of Origin
Evidence suggests that the family of origin has a significant impact upon the
development of aggressive tendencies. For instance, family attitudes to schooling,
authority figures and ethnic or minority groups influence a child’s development of
similar attitudes (NCV, 1990; McDonald & Brown, 1997). Much of the research
reviewed in these two reports supports the idea of attitudes transferring across
generations. Specifically, higher levels of negativity on such issues have been found to
be associated with greater violence towards minority groups and authority figures (NCV,
1990). This is achieved through the adoption of hostile attributions and deviant norms
(Dodge, Price, Bachorowski & Newman, 1990; Vaughan & Hogg, 1995). Similarly,
therefore, poor familial attitudes to schooling may increase the likelihood of low-school
achievement, high truancy levels and difficulty with authority figures.
Parenting styles have also been found to impact upon the likelihood of
aggression, delinquency and violence. The rejection of a child by their parents, strong
parental agreement with use of punishment and parental history of delinquency have
been found to be significant predictors of violent crime by age 30 (Huesmann, Eron, &
Dubow, 2002). Poor parent/child communications have also been found to be
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 74
significantly associated with adolescent delinquent behaviour and aggression (Fagan &
Najman, 2003). This study also found that the adolescent delinquent behaviour of one’s
siblings may influence the likelihood of delinquent behaviours at age 14. This influence
was particularly strong for males whose parents had also been arrested (Fagan &
Najman, 2003).
Other research suggests that children exposed to marital discord or family
violence are likely to be aggressive and participate in anti-social behaviours at age 14
(Bor, McGee, & Fagan, 2004). This research conducted by the Mater Hospital in
Brisbane has found that within the family of origin marital instability can double (or
even triple) the odds of anti-social behaviour in children. As adults, such individuals
may be more likely to participate in domestic violence themselves, as several bodies of
research have found associations between marital discord, partner-directed violence and
a likelihood of a youth engaging in violence (Dahlberg, 1998).
In other research, 14-year-old delinquent adolescents were significantly more
likely to be from middle to low income families and originate from poor housing (Bor et
al., 2001; Farrington, 2003). However, the influence of household income upon the
development of aggression and other anti-social behaviours is complicated by the
limitations that a low income can have upon the necessity to live in poorer
neighbourhoods.
3.2.1.3 Victims of Abuse
Widom and colleagues (1995) found ‘abused/neglected’ children have more
arrests for delinquency, criminality and violent criminal behaviour than a matched
control group. However, his 1998 research suggested that victims of ‘sexual abuse’
were slightly less likely than a no-sex abuse control group to commit violent offences
(Widom, Ireland & Glynn, 1995; Widom, 1998). Neglect in the form of low levels of
love, care, interest and/or attachment to a child has also been linked to delinquency
(Mak & Kinsella, 1996). Further, it seems that if they do commit offences earlier in life,
they often become repeat offenders (Widom, 1998).
Other research has also found that such experiences predispose an individual to
violent or criminal acts via the provision of less than ideal role models, and the
reinforcement and rewarding of violent or criminal behaviours (Klassen &
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 75
social feedback they are more likely to have hastier and more intense responses than
people with stable self-appraisal.
Negative emotional affect also serves a pivotal intervening role to the expression
of aggression (Berkowitz, 1989; Dollard et al., 1939). Hence, in the face of a challenge
to ego or self-esteem, an individual may experience strong negative emotion (not
exclusively anger) and seek to dispel or rebut such a challenge with aggressive or
defensive behaviours (Baumeister et al., 1996). Very high self-esteem, or narcissism,
has also been associated with psychopathic individuals, with such individuals being
associated with aggressive behaviour (Hare, Harper, Hakstian, Forth, Hart & Newman,
1990). These individuals are not socially sensitive i.e. sensitive to the needs or concern
for others, however, they remain aware or concerned with their own ego (Baumeister et
al., 1996). They also appear to lack remorse for socially unacceptable behaviour (Hare
et al., 1990). Indeed, many perpetrators believe their aggressive responses are justified,
taking a moralistic stance against the perceived provocation (NCV, 1990).
3.2.2.3 Emotional Regulation Difficulties
Though emotional reactivity may be a by-product of perceived challenges of
self-esteem, it is not the only cause of emotional reactivity. Much research shows that
difficulty regulating emotions may develop across the course of one’s life and may
contribute to aggressive tendencies (Berkowtiz, 1993; Dollard et al., 1939).
In the Pittsburgh Youth longitudinal study of male mental health problems,
psychopathology and personal traits, levels of physical aggression were examined
(Loeber et al., 2001). The level of physical aggression remained reasonably constant
between the ages 6–17 years. These researchers also distinguished between internalising
and externalising behaviours and aggression. Of the internalising behaviours examined,
only depressed mood at middle age was correlated with initiation of offending behaviour
(Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, Van Kammen, & Farrington, 1991). Externalising
behaviours that signify difficulties in regulating emotions, were also examined. These
included physical aggression levels, mental health problems and disruptive behaviour
disorders that may lead to later delinquency. Aside from the identification of multiple
conduct disorders in aggressive 6–17 year olds, these disorders were found to be
significant predictors of serious, stable anti-social behaviour in adolescents over other
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 79
known predictors (Loeber et al., 1991). Like others, these researchers also emphasised
the role of emotion in psychological maladjustment and, specifically, the possible
consequences of negative emotionality (Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, & McBride-Chang,
2003; Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2004; Loeber et al., 1991).
A study of 17-year-old twins revealed that in both male and female adolescents,
parental history of alcohol abuse was associated with greater negative emotionality,
aggression and stress reactions (Elkins, McGue, Malone, & Iacono, 2004). Adolescents
from such backgrounds had lower levels of personal constraint and control as measured
by the Multi-dimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) (Tellegen & Waller, 2008).
Another experimental study revealed that when individuals high on negative
emotionality (measured by the negative emotionality scale of the MPQ) are exposed to
strong airblasts, they become more aggressive than participants low on negative
emotionality (Verona, Patrick, & Lang, 2002).
More recently researchers examined the impact of everyday marital conflict and
levels of aggression in children aged 8–16 years (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp,
2004). These researchers found that exposure to personally destructive conflict tactics
and parental negative emotionality increases the likelihood of aggressive behaviour in
children, possibly through the development of emotional regulation difficulties. Harsh
parenting practices have also been found to be associated with the level of aggression
exhibited at school, mediated by the child’s emotional regulation ability (Chang et al.,
2003).
In other research, using different terminology, researchers have examined
emotional susceptibility and irritability and their influence on aggression (Caprara,
Gargaro, Pastorelli, Prezza, Renzi, & Zelli, 1987). Emotional susceptibility reflects a
tendency towards defensiveness and is also associated with a tendency to ruminate
(Caprara et al., 1987; Bushman, Bonacci, Pedersen, Vasquez & Miller, 2005).
Individual irritability is reflected in the tendency to react impulsively and
inappropriately to the slightest provocation (Chang et al., 2003). Both constructs are
believed to be related to an individual’s capacity, or ability, to maintain control over
their emotions (Caprara et al., 1987). Caprara and colleagues (1987) compared the two
constructs and found that emotional susceptibility and the tendency to ruminate were the
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 80
best predictors of delivering shocks at different levels of intensity. They found no sex
differences.
Finally, in a longitudinal study, researchers have demonstrated that negative
emotionality is a trait state that has the ability to persist across time (Murphy, Shepard,
Eisenberg, & Fabes, 2004). This study found that children low on social functioning at
ages four and six years, possessed higher levels of negative emotionality and lower
emotional regulation abilities at age 10 and 12 years, than were those originally high on
social functioning (Murphy et al., 2004). Hence, the foregoing research would suggest
that without positive influences (e.g. positive peer groups or positive parenting)
dysfunctional levels of negative emotionality may persist and compound across time.
3.2.2.4 High Impulsivity
High impulsivity has long been identified as a key indicator for a number of
diagnosable disorders (e.g. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – ADHD, Attention
Deficit Disorder – ADD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder – OCD, Oppositional Defiant
Disorder – ODD and Anti-social Personality Disorder – ASD). Further, those diagnosed
with these disorders have frequently been characterised with aggressive tendencies and
greater risk-taking behaviour (Bor, 2004; Fossati, Barratt, Caretta, Leonardi, Grozioli, &
Maffei, 2004; Iacano, Carlson, Taylor, Elkins, & McGee, 1999; Volavka & Citrome,
1998).
Researchers have noted that children with conduct problems often have
emotional regulation difficulties (Frick, 2004; Bushman, Baumeister, & Phillips, 2001).
Such emotional regulation problems often find the child experiencing ‘anger’ in
response to perceived provocation which in turn results in impulsive and unplanned
aggressive acts (Pardini, Lochman, & Frick, 2003). These children were also likely to
experience continued difficulty controlling their future responses (Pardini et al., 2003).
Impulsivity has also been associated with ‘irritability’, considered a trait stress
pre-disposition to react impulsively to the slightest perceived provocation (Caprara et al.,
1987; Stanford, Greve & Dickens, 1995). In a short-term longitudinal study researchers
have examined the relationship between impulsivity and anti-social behaviours such as
rule breaking, vandalism, theft, aggression and drug-taking (Luengo, Carillo-de-la-Pena,
Otero, & Romero, 1994). Collecting data in 1989 and again in 1990 from 1,226
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 81
seeking and impulsivity are related as both constructs are concerned with immediate
gratification rather than with consideration of future consequences (CFC). The
sensation seeking/impulsivity subscale of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality
Questionnaire (ZKPQ) (Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993) was
found to have an inverse relationship with CFC. Though both sensation seeking items
and impulsivity items on this scale were significantly correlated with CFC, impulsivity
items correlated more closely with CFC (Joireman et al., 2003). This study also
suggested that hostile cognitions and negative emotions may mediate the relationship
between sensation-seeking/impulsivity and aggression.
Using the BIS and the AQ in a study of premeditated versus impulsive
aggression, impulsive aggression was found to be characterized by ‘thought confusion’
(BIS measured) and post-incident feelings of remorse (Barratt, Stanford, Dowdy,
Liebman, & Kent, 1999). Not surprisingly, other research has found impulsivity to be
significantly but negatively correlated with social problem solving (D’Zurilla, Nezu, &
Maydeu-Olivares, 2002; McMurran, Blair, & Egan, 2002). These researchers suggest
that higher levels of impulsivity throughout development may leave an individual with
social problem solving deficits, or deficits in social information processing. Therefore,
impulsivity has an influence on cognitive functioning which in turn can result in
spontaneous and often aggressive expression.
A similar suggestion has been made in other research that focused on the
relationship between impulsivity and a larger range of higher order cognitive functions
such as attention, planning, abstract reasoning, mental flexibility and self-monitoring
ability (Hoaken, Shaughnessy, & Pihl, 2003). These researchers have yielded results
that suggest social information processing mediates the likelihood of these higher order
functions translating into aggressive behaviour.
3.2.2.5 General Life Stressors
Further to the familial and peer stressors discussed above, there are a number of
stressors that may influence the development of aggressive tendencies or clinical
disorders that have aggression as a characteristic. Importantly, these events would need
to be perceived as quite significant and stressful in order for an individual to be
psychologically or adversely affected. Evidence suggests that the more extreme, or
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 83
psychologically demanding an event is, combined with the availability of fewer problem
solving resources, the greater the risk of negative impact by the stressor (Goodman,
Corcoran, Turner, Yuan, & Green, 1998; Stamm, Rudolph, Dewane, Gaines, Gorton,
Paul, McNeil, Bowen, & Ercolano, 1996).
In 1995 a study of 276 Israeli army recruits (n = 276) examined appraisal and
coping in stressful situations. Specifically, they found higher levels of ‘hardiness’
(consisting of measures of commitment and control) improved mental health at the end
of recruit training by reducing the frequency of threat appraisal and use of emotion-
focused strategies (Florian, Mikulincer, & Taubman, 1995).
As discussed in Chapter Two (Section 2.5.8.1), stressful life events have been
previously assessed in their ability to influence driving outcomes (Navaco et al., 1990).
However, clinicians have also designed scales for the purpose of establishing potentially
significant life events upon the assessment and/or intake of clients. Assessments of this
nature are considered important not only clinically, but for research purposes, as such
significant events have the potential to confound assessments and research results
(Stamm et al., 1996). The immediacy or currency of such events is also highly relevant
as the passage of time may reduce the negative physiological and psychological affects.
Consequently, it is important to consider the individual background of each participant
when studying aggression in any context.
3.2.3 Psychological Impact of Risk Factors
The negative impact of the foregoing risk factors is experienced via two
pathways. Firstly, via the short-term or immediate experience of higher physiological
and emotion stress levels. However, if the event was profoundly violent or aggressive,
or is frequently repeated, this may alter long-term reactions to provocative situations.
Human aggression research has found that through prior exposure to prolonged periods
of stress and/or environmental threats such as physical or sexual abuse (Nash, Hulsey,
Sexton, Harralson & Lambert, 2000) or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Silva &
Marks, 2001) an individual may have a heightened tendency to detect potential ‘threat’
within their environment. Additionally, in response to an ambiguous though provocative
situation, aggressive children have been found 50% more likely to infer hostile intent
(Dodge & Coie, 1987). This hostile attribution bias is associated with the subsequent
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 84
displays of hostile rather than instrumental aggression (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Highly
aggressive children also have difficulty diverting their attention away from such cues
(Dodge & Coie, 1987).
The period, or point in time, in human development that one is exposed to such
events is also relevant. The findings associated with these risk factors would suggest
greater, long term, negative impact by them when initially exposed during childhood and
early adolescence. In keeping with frustration-aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939),
such events may serve to reduce one’s frustration threshold, increasing the likelihood of
aggression in the face of provocation. Consistent with the cognitive and social learning
theories embedded in the GAM (Bushman & Anderson, 2001), exposure to these risk
factors provides the opportunity for the formation of aggressive or emotional schemas.
As a result, an individual’s inability to regulate their emotional reactions in threatening
or provocative situations may be more likely.
3.3 Psychological Theories Relevant to Aggressive Driving
This review will focus upon social and bio-social explanations of aggression,
which emphasise the learning processes of aggression and causal factors within social
contexts. As the preferred approach for many psychologists, these theories maintain that
instinctive drives (or states of arousal) and learned behaviour underlying human
aggression can be unlearned (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994; Vaughan & Hogg, 1995).
Therefore, these theories may enhance our understanding of the psychology behind
aggressive driving behaviour, informing the development of effective education
packages for the general population, and rehabilitation strategies for court-referred
offenders.
3.3.1 Frustration-Aggression Theory
The original frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard, Doob, Mowrer, Miller,
& Sears, 1939) maintains that ‘aggression is always a consequence of frustration’ (p. 1)
and conversely that the existence of frustration or multiple frustrations always leads to
aggression in some form, whether it be suppressed, disguised or delayed from the
obvious goal or source of frustration i.e. displaced (Dollard et al., 1939). A frustration is
considered an external condition or factor that prevents a person from obtaining a goal
he or she had expected to attain (Berkowitz, 1989).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 85
contribution to the experience of intense emotions and its influence on the likelihood of
aggressive behaviour (Berkowitz, 1989, 1990, 1993). In this theory, when faced with
aversive, unpleasant events or physical discomfort in the form of high temperatures or
loud noise, basic instincts and thoughts to fight or take flight are activated (Berkowitz,
1993). These basic instincts result from feelings of ‘anger’ in the case of ‘fight’, or
‘fear’ in the case of ‘flight’ (Berkowitz, 1989, 1990, 1993).
Berkowitz (1993) maintains that these initial, virtually automatic feelings and
thoughts can be accompanied by expressive motor-responses, or reactions. Factors such
as prior learned responses to threatening or anger provoking situations, situational
factors and individual trait dispositions for aggression add to these initial feelings,
determining the strength of the inclination to fight or take flight (Berkowitz, 1993). The
resultant emotions are influenced at a deeper level of processing via the cognitive
evaluation/appraisal of attributions made about the threatening or anger provoking event,
the potential consequences, internalised rules of behaviour and pre-learned mental
responses established by life experiences i.e. nodes (Berkowitz, 1993).
This model suggests that bodily reactions/responses and emotional thoughts
activate networks of emotionally linked thoughts and mental schemas that reside in the
psychological construct, ‘memory’ (Berkowitz, 1990). In his theory, memory is treated
as a series of networks that consist of ‘nodes’ (Berkowitz, 1993). Each node can include
a number of thoughts and related emotions connected via linked associative neural
pathways. When a thought is activated it radiates outward along the associated
pathways activating other nodes concerning memories and/or related emotions, which
can lead to an increased probability of aggressive behaviour due to ‘priming’
(Berkowitz, 1984). The concept of ‘priming’ may be important when considering the
contribution of off-road stressors, as primers, to on-road aggressive behaviours
(Parkinson, 2001).
In summary, this rather complex process leads to the differentiation, suppression
or enhancement of feelings of annoyance, irritation, anger or fear resulting in
instrumental, or hostile behavioural responses (Berkowitz, 1990, 1993; Parkinson,
2001). Therefore, Berkowitz’ reformulation of the original frustration-aggression theory
appears to offer a framework for the potential contribution of cognitive processes to
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 87
suggests that a person’s behaviour in any given situation is learned both directly through
personal experiences and vicariously through the observation of others or by modelling
the behaviour of others (Bandura, 1977). This learning is believed to be stored in
‘memory’ as a set of mental representations called schemas/scripts, not dissimilar to the
‘nodes’ in Berkowitz’ (1993) cognitive neo-associationistic theory. These scripts are
believed to contain images of past events and behaviours which may be associatively
linked with other schemas/scripts (Bandura, 1977; Huesmann, 1988). The activation of
these scripts within a social setting is known as ‘social cognition’. Social cognition is
believed to be the mediating process between situational factors and resultant social
behaviour. To date, a number of social-cognitive researchers have explored the
‘appraisal’ processes in which an evaluation is made of a situation (Berkowitz, 1993;
Huesmann, 1988; Yagil, 2001).
Appraisal of a situation involves cognitive evaluations of the unpleasantness of
the event (Berkowitz, 1993), the characteristics of others (O’Brien, Tay, & Watson,
2005) and how much attention is to be given to situational cues (Huesmann, 1988). In
sum, when faced with social dilemmas individuals evaluate and interpret situational
characteristics, either consciously or subconsciously, by searching available memory
schemas/scripts for previously learned guides to behaviour (Huesmann, 1988). Once the
schemas/scripts are located they are evaluated, potential consequences are assessed and
a behavioural outcome results (Bushman & Andersen, 1998; Huesmann, 1988).
In terms of aggressive behaviour, to date, SIP research appears to have
emphasised the social influences on aggressive behaviours i.e. situational factors that
either enhance or inhibit the likelihood of aggressive behaviour (Huesmann, 1988;
Yagil, 2001). In aggressive driving research such factors would include
presence/absence of passengers, anonymity and type of vehicle as a social statement to
name a few. However, SIP in general, appears to lack emphasis on individual
differences such as personality, current mental state and the variation in behaviour that
can result (Bushman & Anderson, 1998). Consequently, this appears to limit the ability
of SIP processes alone to explain the aggressive behaviour of individuals.
Importantly, aggression research involving SIP includes an explanation for the
impact of stress, mood and subsequent emotional arousal on information processing,
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 89
which may prove relevant to aggressive driving research. Arousal due to stress and
mood has been found to negatively influence the cognitive evaluation process (Zillmann,
1988). For example, high levels of hostility have been found to reduce the amount of
attention and evaluation given to a situation (Crick & Dodge, 1994). In addition, high
levels of arousal were found to narrow the memory search and activate only those
schemas/scripts that are closely connected to those cues, resulting in a narrower range of
possible behavioural outcomes being available. Further, when feelings of stress are
coupled with situational cues activating feelings of fear or anger, Berkowitz (1998)
suggests that it is far more probable that only aggressive schemas/scripts will be
activated, resulting in more aggressive behavioural responses (Berkowitz, 1998;
Bushman & Anderson, 1998).
Specific to aggressive driving research, however, Parkinson (2001) found that
those drivers that reported negative affect prior to driving were less likely to report it as
an influencing factor on self-reported levels of anger in an on-road situation.
Unfortunately, the sample size of this study was relatively small (n=64) and the findings
may be indicative of the difficulties inherent in self-report methods of aggression (Boyce
& Geller, 2002). Therefore, in light of these findings, it would be prudent to revisit on
and off-road generated affect and any subsequent effects on driving behaviour.
Further, in a study of cognitive antecedents to aggressive road behaviour, Yagil
(2001) posited that attributions affect aggressive reactions to another driver’s
provocative road behaviour. Yagil’s study of 150 males found that negative attributions
applied to another driver are likely to increase the amount of driving related frustration
or anger with male ‘offending drivers’ attracting more negative attributions and
emotions than females. Further, such negative beliefs and expectations about another
driver, are more likely to result in evaluations of their behaviour as being inconsiderate
and aggressive (Yagil, 2001). This finding could be considered consistent with the
VCCAV (1999) findings that younger men (aged 18–24 years) are reported three times
more frequently than females as the perpetrators of ‘road rage’ incidents. Therefore it
seems that young male drivers attract more negative attributions about their on-road
behaviour than older drivers. Again, these findings emphasise the need to conduct
further study into the cognitive processes involved in aggressive driving behaviour.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 90
INPUT
PERSON SITUATION
Social
Encounter
Affect
ROUTE
Cognition Arousal
Thoughtful
OUTCOMES Action
Appraisal & Decision
Processes
Impulsive
Action
Figure 3.1 The General Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002, p. 34)
multiples of these factors (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). The situational factors that the
authors focus upon are generally aimed at guiding research into the catalysts for human
aggression. These include aggressive cues, provocation, frustration, pain and discomfort
levels, possible incentives and drug/alcohol abuse (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). In
terms of aggressive driving, a considerable number of situational factors have been
found to influence driving behaviour (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lonero & Clinton, 1998;
Shinar, 1998; Yagil, 2001) (refer to Section 2.3).
3.5.3 The Process of Aggression According to the GAM
According to the GAM, ‘input’ factors are believed to influence the outcome via
the ‘internal state’. The ‘internal state’ is generated through social cognition, affect and
arousal (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). In this model, the cognitive component refers to
the hostile/aggressive or negative thoughts and associated scripts mentally available to
an individual. ‘Affect’ concerns the current emotional state, or mood, of an individual
that has the potential to prime an individual for aggressive behaviour (Berkowitz, 1993).
In this model, the role of anger in aggression is considered complex, accounting
for the findings of many of the above theories (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Anger is
believed to reduce inhibitions controlling aggressive responses and provides internal
justification for aggressive retaliations (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Additionally,
anger is believed to interfere with high level processes, affecting reasoning and
judgement (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Anger is also believed to allow a person to
maintain aggressive intent over a period of time, increasing attention to the provocative
event and improving their memory of the event (Crick & Dodge, 1994). In an
ambiguous situation, the triggering of anger is also believed to reduce ambiguity,
generally in the direction of hostile interpretations (Anderson, Anderson, Dill, & Deuser,
1998). Thus, anger is believed to prime thoughts, scripts and associated behavioural
responses, guiding an individual’s response to the anger-provoking episode. Finally, it
is believed to intensify behaviour by increasing arousal levels (Zillmann, 1972).
‘Arousal’ refers to the physiological state of an individual. The influence of
arousal is believed to operate in three ways: heightened arousal resulting from an
unrelated source may activate a dominant script response; abnormal arousal levels
sourced from an unrelated source such as exercise can be mislabelled as anger in anger-
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 97
Yes
No
Outcome important
Resources
& unsatisfying? Impulsive
Sufficient?
Action
Yes
No
Figure 3.2 Expanded appraisal and decision-making processes of the GAM (Anderson
& Bushman, 2002)
potential for relatively minor incidents and on-road reactive behaviours to escalate to
extreme incidents of on-road aggression, their distinction may not prove beneficial in
explaining aggressive driving. This literature review would suggest that until more is
understood about the nature of aggressive driving behaviour, it may be wiser to consider
the full range of behaviours that have been identified as ‘aggressive’ in previous road
research.
As a result of the processes outlined in the GAM a wide variety of behavioural
responses is possible. This range of possible responses is due to the variation that exists
between individuals, especially in terms of variation in personality, their social learning
history and their current internal state at the time of provocation (Anderson & Bushman,
2002). Indeed, while the process is rather
complex, the cognitive appraisal processes involved in driving are perhaps complicated
further through a reduction in effective communication between road users due to the
confines of the vehicle itself. Arguably, the physical parameters of a vehicle may isolate
an individual driver from others, at times distorting one’s perception of the environment
and situational cues.
3.5.6 Applying Relevant Theory to the Phenomenon of Aggressive Driving
In light of the findings outlined in Chapter Two and the aforementioned human
aggression literature, there are several areas of driver aggression that demand greater
attention.
According to the literature reviewed in Chapter Two, it is feasible to assume that
exposure rates to ‘inputs’, or situational characteristics, that trigger aggressive driving
are relatively similar across age groups (VCCAV, 1999; NHTSA, 2002). However,
research indicates that young and other at-risk drivers are more likely to have a more
aggressive behavioural response than other drivers (Lajunen & Parker, 2001).
Consequently, the difference between drivers at risk of aggressive driving and those not
at risk of such behaviours would appear to exist at the intrapersonal level. For instance,
is there a difference in how these driver groups evaluate anger-provoking situations or
deal with their on-road emotion?
Referring back to the GAM perhaps differences do exist in the ‘appraisal and
decision-making’ processes outlined. Aggressive drivers, in particular, may have
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 100
difficulty in the immediate appraisal of on-road situations and perhaps the cognitive and
coping ‘resources’ available to them are less functional than those available to older,
more experienced drivers.
Also, psychological theories included within the GAM would suggest that
deficits in coping resources/strategies can include an increased availability of
hostile/aggressive schemata or scripts (Farrington, 2000; Vaughan & Hogg, 1995); a
reduced availability of overriding inhibitions which can alter behaviour (Standford &
Barratt, 1995; Vigil-Colet & Colorniu-Raga, 2004); and/or a reduced number or quality
of available constructive coping strategies or scripts in the face of provocation
(Berkowitz, 1998; Bushman & Anderson, 1998; Crick & Dodge, 1994). Hence, if a
young driver had insufficient ‘resources’ in the form of cognitions, then perhaps
aggressive driving behaviour would be more likely. This suggestion would also be
consistent with the review of risk factors for aggression, where it appears that exposure
to one or more of the factors may lead to the adoption of dysfunction/maladaptive
coping behaviours such as aggression (Chang et al., 2003; Cummings et al., 2004;
Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, Moffit, Caspi, & Lynam, 2001). Alternatively,
it may result in greater negative emotionality which may increase the risk of reactive
aggression in the face of perceived provocation (Cooper, et al., 1995).
Life-stress has also been found to influence the experience of on-road aggression
(Arnett, Offer, & Fine, 1997; Novaco, Stokols, & Milanesi, 1990). Therefore, perhaps
there are differences between drivers at-risk of aggressive driving and other road users in
the levels of state stress brought to the on-road environment. Aggressive drivers may
experience greater transfer of stress from the off-road environment to the on-road
environment. Aside from having immediate impacts upon stress levels, exposure to
aggression risk factors may also enhance an individual’s long-term susceptibility to
stress (Verona, Patrick, & Lang, 2002). Therefore, it would be helpful to look at driver
coping styles and strategies. This approach could broaden our understanding of
constructive and maladaptive ways of behaving on the road.
Findings relating to ‘sensation seeking’, ‘impulsivity’ and psychological
disorders, outlined above and in Chapter Two (Bor, 2004; Fossati et al., 2004; Iacano et
al., 1999; Karli, 1991; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Loeber et al., 2001; Zuckerman & Neeb,
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 101
1980) also provide evidence of additional trait factors that may distinguish aggressive
drivers from the general driving population. Therefore, they also warrant further
investigation in an Australian sample.
Interestingly, the review of the risk factors for aggression implies that although
aggressive tendencies are developed or acquired during childhood and adolescence, they
have the potential to persist across time (Farrington, 2000, 2004; Huesmann et al., 2002;
Murphy et al., 2004). Therefore, it is somewhat surprising there is less evidence of
aggressive driving by older drivers. Alternatively, are they more prevalent in more
extreme acts of on-road aggression? These questions will be explored in greater depth
throughout this body of research.
3.6 Additional Research Questions
The following review of theoretical issues has identified two further research
questions relating to aggressive driving that warrant further investigation. These
questions and a brief rationale for each are detailed below.
RQ5 What are the cognitive and emotional processes characterising aggressive
driving behaviour?
This review highlights the relevance of psychological processes and theory in the
likelihood of on-road aggression. In the main, literature to date has focussed on the
feelings associated with aggressive driving (Deffenbacher et al., 2002; Lajunen &
Parker, 2001; Shinar, 1998) specifically examining frustration and anger. However, this
literature review has established that perhaps other emotions, such as excitement, have
the potential to contribute to aggressive driving, especially for younger drivers.
To a much lesser degree, researchers have looked at the cognitive processes
associated with the behaviour, such as negative attributions (Yagil, 2001). However, no
research has yet attempted to examine the range of cognitions or decision-making
processes associated with aggressive driving. As CBT based interventions are beginning
to emerge for aggressive drivers, it would be prudent to expand research into the
cognitive and emotional contributors to on-road aggression.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 102
RQ6 Are there differences in the characteristics of those drivers who are prepared to
engage in hostile acts of aggressive driving compared to those who only report
engaging in instrumental acts of aggressive driving?
This research question represents an extension of RQ2, outlined in Section 2.9. RQ2
related to the need to investigate whether some drivers are more likely to engage in
aggressive driving and, if so, what their psychosocial characteristics are. However, the
foregoing discussion of risk factors for the development of aggressive tendencies
highlighted specific person-related factors that may predispose an individual to violence
or anti-social behaviours. It is also noted that the exposure to such factors has the
potential to manifest aggressive or anti-social behaviour beyond the ‘developmental
years’. Consequently, is exposure to one or more risk factors for aggression more
prevalent in drivers that engage in more extreme on-road aggression, thus distinguishing
them from general road users or those prepared to engage in ‘instrumental aggression’
only? Hence, RQ6 focuses on the characteristics of the subset of aggressive drivers who
are prepared to engage in more hostile acts, in order to determine whether they differ
from other aggressive drivers.
3.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter first reviewed psychological theories that have been previously used
to explain human aggression from differing perspectives, some of which have also been
empirically tested within the context of aggressive driving. It also looked at those
theories that have the potential to explain facets of aggressive driving not previously
considered. A review of general risk factors for aggression highlighted the relevance of
such factors in the conduct of aggressive driving research.
Finally, the GAM, as a synthesis of the above theories, was outlined and
discussed. For the purpose of this thesis, the GAM was proposed as a framework for
exploring aggressive driving within this program of research.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 103
4.1 Introduction
This study was designed to act as an exploration of aggressive driving from the
perspective of one of the key potentially at-risk groups for aggressive driving, young
drivers, as they are frequently over-represented in the findings of aggressive driving
research (Harding et al., 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lawton & Nutter, 2002; Shinar,
1998; VCCAV, 1999). In order to provide greater insight to the phenomenon, it was
considered pertinent to examine young driver perceptions of what behaviours constitute
aggressive driving and their recalled experiences of such driving behaviour.
Whilst investigating factors that contribute to aggressive driving behaviour, this
phase was also designed to explore the relevance of human aggression theory from
within the framework of the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The literature review
indicates that the GAM may assist in explaining aggressive driving behaviour arising
from the multiple person-related and situational sources, discussed in Chapters Two and
Three.
This study utilised a qualitative approach to facilitate a broad-based approach to
the phenomenon, providing ‘information-rich’ data from the perspective of Australian
drivers. In addition, a qualitative exploration may assist in explaining the possible
transfer of negative emotion to the road environment, as well as the possibility of
transfer to the off-road environment (i.e. home or work).
This study examined aspects of five research questions identified in Chapters Two
and Three:
RQ1 What are the person-related and situational factors contributing to aggressive
driving?
RQ2 Are some drivers more likely to engage in aggressive driving and, if so, what
are their characteristics?
RQ3 Is it appropriate to conceptualise aggressive driving as a continuum of related
behaviours?
RQ4 What function does aggressive driving perform for drivers?
RQ5 What are the cognitive and emotional processes which characterise aggressive
driving behaviour?
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 106
Being qualitative in nature, this study was not driven by specific hypotheses but
rather adopted a thematic approach to the research questions.
4.2 Method
4.2.1 Participants
To provide a cross-section of the young driver population, participants were
recruited from a variety of sources including the Queensland University of Technology
(QUT), the Queensland College of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) and via an
external agency (Northern Field Services [NFS]). QUT participants were granted credit
towards the completion of their first year Psychology program. Those participants
recruited through TAFE and NFS were paid $40.00 each for their involvement. A total
of 47 participants were recruited, comprising 23 males and 24 females. The selection
criteria required that participants were 17 to 25 years of age (M = 20.6 years) and were
the holder of a current driver’s licence.
4.2.2 Procedure
Six focus groups were conducted, each taking approximately 1.5 hours to
facilitate. Two focus groups were recruited from each participant pool. In an effort to
counteract any gender bias, equal numbers of males and females were allocated to each
group. Prior to commencing each discussion participants were made aware of the nature
of the study, assured of anonymity, and asked to read and sign an information/consent
package (see Appendix A). At the conclusion of the TAFE and NFS focus groups,
participants were financially recompensed for their time and travelling costs. All
participants were asked to complete a brief socio-demographic questionnaire prior to
commencement of the focus group (see Appendix B). Approval to conduct this study
was obtained from QUT’s Human Research Ethics Committee.
4.2.3 Materials
Bearing in mind that this study was an exploration of the applicability of the
GAM and the underlying constructs considered relevant to aggression (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002), the focus group protocols (see Appendix C) were tailored to explore
the relevant components of the GAM in the context of aggressive driving behaviour and
the transference of negative emotion to and from the road environment. Figure 4.1 is a
map of the main concepts explored during the study, which were informed by the
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 107
constructs within GAM theory (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) and earlier aggressive
driving research (Shinar,1998). They also provided the structure for the focus group
protocols.
Within this study, a two-fold approach was adopted to explore the research
questions. The first approach was macro in nature, examining general perceptions of
what factors were believed to contribute to aggressive driving. The second approach
involved exploring these questions from within personal, recalled encounters with
aggressive driving. The focus group questions were open-ended and participants were
actively encouraged to contribute:
• their perceptions of what constitutes, and causes, aggressive driving behaviour
in general;
• any personal experiences they have had with aggressive driving (either as the
victim or the perpetrator) and the effect this had on any subsequent behaviour;
• any emotions and cognitions they recall having experienced before, during and
after the event; and
• any off-road experiences that may have resulted in them driving whilst feeling
upset, tense or angry.
Types of Cognitions
Range of Emotions
Experienced
Behavioural Responses
Post-Event Behaviour
Figure 4.1 Map of concepts explored in accordance with the GAM (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 108
4.2.4 Analysis
Using qualitative reduction techniques, focus group transcripts were analysed
and sorted into themes and ideas associated with the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994).
This method involved recording and transcribing individual recollections of experiences
with aggressive driving including the roles of the victim and the perpetrator.
Commonalities in situational causes, emotions and thoughts experienced were identified,
reducing the phenomenon of aggressive driving as it is experienced by young drivers,
into repeated themes and concepts consistent with GAM factors. The qualitative
software package NVIVO was used to analyse participant responses to the protocol
questions.
4.3 Results and Exploration of the Qualitative Data
Before reporting the main results of this research, it is first useful to provide
details of the participants’ socio-demographic characteristics and driving exposure.
Following this, the wide range of situational and person-related factors that were
identified by participants as the main causes of aggressive driving will be reported and
discussed.
Finally, the results pertaining to the individual experiences with aggressive
driving will be reported. Note that participant quotes have been coded to assure
anonymity e.g. FG3. The code is based on the gender and first initial of the participant
followed by their focus group number. Where two participants in the same focus group
had the same initial a ‘1’ or ‘2’ was inserted before the focus group number.
“ Guys will typically not be dangerous but just drive aggressively…” (FJ4)
Arguably, such a view fails to account for the impact or possible consequences
of this behaviour upon themselves and other road users or pedestrians. It would also
appear that as long as there are no obvious, immediate negative consequences for this
behaviour then the behaviour is not considered a danger to other road users.
4.3.3 Perceived Causes of Aggressive Driving
In order to explore RQ1, participants were first asked two open-ended questions
that aimed to explore the perceived causes of aggressive driving behaviour:
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 110
• ‘What do you think are the main causes of aggressive driving?’; and
• ‘What things make you particularly angry on the roads?’
In response to the protocol questions outlined above (Section 4.3.2), participants
reported a large number of causes of aggressive driving behaviour. Most of these factors
lent themselves to being categorised in accordance with the GAM (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002) as either person-related or on-road situational factors.
Consistent with previous research and for the purposes of understanding the
person-related factors associated with aggressive driving behaviour, it was considered
appropriate to further divide this category into state and trait factors. State person-
related factors reflect those that are transient and subject to situational characteristics,
and trait person-related factors those that are mainly static and/or more enduring.
The situational factors identified by participants also appeared to consist of two
main themes: ‘direct causes’ (i.e. the behaviour of ‘other drivers’) and other ‘indirect
causes’ (i.e. those listed as facilitating factors) (see Figure 4.2). ‘Direct causes’ are
specific behaviours that result in the interpretation of a driver’s behaviour as dangerous
or careless, giving rise to feelings of threat, frustration and/or anger. Conversely,
‘indirect causes’ include a wide range of on-road situational factors that may not
necessarily lead to aggressive driving behaviour in their own right. These factors appear
to add to the likelihood of on-road behaviour being interpreted as aggressive.
At times throughout this study, the term ‘direct/indirect causes’ has been adopted
to refer to the two broad types of situational factors identified in the study. Figure 4.2 is
a diagrammatic presentation of the direct and indirect causes of aggressive driving cited
by participants according to the major themes identified. The number beside each factor
represents the number of citations across the six focus groups.
Person-Related Factors
Figure 4.2 Participant responses to the causes of aggressive driving behaviour by major themes identified
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 112
Importantly, it appears that a critical issue in aggressive driving is the need for
driver behaviour to be perceived as aggressive by other road users.
Of the specific behaviours cited as causing aggressive driving, it was noted that
some of the behaviours listed may not necessarily be deemed aggressive when
considered in isolation and out of context, e.g. slow driving, misuse of indicators or
speeding. Hence, the decision was made to title these contributing behaviours as ‘errors’
in judgement, and/or ‘violations’. For example, a driver exceeding the speed limit on a
highway by 10km/h, may not necessarily be considered aggressive. However, should
that driver then intentionally change lanes frequently without indicating, their behaviour
may be considered aggressive by others.
“Speeding itself doesn’t annoy me, if they are just going past…” (FT3)
“…but it does annoy me when they start to cut in and out…” (FG3)
“…Older slow drivers when you are at a green light and it takes them about five
seconds to realise (the light has changed). Ooh, that annoys me, oh I hate
that…” (MR3)
Through previous research many of these factors have been found to provide the
situational background for aggressive driving behaviour (Section 2.2 and 2.3).
4.3.4.2.1 Type of Vehicle.
A number of participants (n = 35, 74%) spoke about vehicle characteristics they
believe contribute to aggressive driving behaviour. General reference was made to the
size of vehicles typically involved in this behaviour. Their comments spoke of how the
size of a vehicle may enhance or detract from a driver’s personal sense of security as
well as influence the likelihood of involvement in aberrant driving behaviours.
Other participants also referred to instances of young drivers mechanically
modifying their vehicles to enhance speed and performance. In such cases, the activity
of mechanically enhancing vehicles appears to serve as a social interaction or hobby for
the young drivers involved.
Participant observations concerning vehicle appearance, the size of the vehicle
and enhanced mechanics were made with reference to young, male drivers only. A
number of participants made reference to the specific characteristics of vehicles and how
they may facilitate aggressive driving behaviours (see Table 4.1).
“…I think the type of car you drive will help you feel safe and maybe make it easier to
respond aggressively to another driver…” (MD1)
“I just think that it is because they are larger and they take advantage of the size of the
vehicle…” (MJ22) 8
Make of Vehicle “…if it is a Holden and I drive a Ford I really want to overtake them and I’ll speed up and
change lanes to do it.” (MJ12) 3
Modified Vehicles “My brother and his mates they just love cars. They are always doing something to them
and working on them to hot them up. I hate driving with them they drive really
recklessly…What they do to their cars to make them go faster and stuff is ridiculous.”
(MP2)
“...there is this group called ‘downshift’ that drive modified cars & every Sunday afternoon
they’d meet & drive down the Gold Coast & late at night when it’s not too busy…they line
up four cars across (the road) & have these massive races on the highway.”(MA2) 7
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 114
Several references were also made to the specific make or type of vehicle
influencing driver involvement in aggressive behaviours: four wheel drives, larger
vehicles such as trucks and buses, and taxis. These results are represented under
‘vehicle appearance’ in Figure 4.2. The quotes in Table 4.2 typify participant
comments. These findings are also noted to be suggestive of a lack of respect for other
road users.
Table 4.2 Types of vehicles identified as being more likely to be involved in aggressive
driving
Type of Quotes n
Vehicle
Four Wheel “…it is people with things to prove, like ‘four-wheel drives’ love driving up
Drive your (expletive) and just giving it to you. Proving they are bigger than you 6
are …”(MP2)
Trucks and “ …especially trucks. If you are in front of them, by law they are to let you in,
Buses but they just think I am 20 times bigger than you. I’ll just go straight over the
top of you.” (MR3) 6
Taxis “ …a lot of people, like cabbies, have no respect for you on the road or for the
road rules” (FM5) 5
“I was so pissed off from driving so far, and the traffic I had to contend
with, and the people I had to contend with.” (FC3) 9
City Roads “I hate driving in town and I go maybe once every three months. When I am
in town people cut me off and I get real fired up and drivers just make me
ropable.” (MS5)
“…when I first started driving it was just around home and I guess little
things people did would get to me, but now I do more city driving and I
guess you have to be an aggressive driver to drive in the city…I guess that
you get used to it…and if you need to get where you need to be I think you
have to be an aggressive driver…you just get used to bad behaviour 7
continuously.” (FK4)
Repeated Exposure “…I used to (have a response) when I first started to (drive in the city), but
now it’s frustrating. What really frustrates me actually is when you get
stuck in traffic and then there is somebody else behaving badly and all you
think is ‘will this ever end?’ … ‘wow, I have got to change jobs…’.” (FJ4)
Roadworks/Delays “It (frustration) goes up. Because when they were in H… Street, and they
are doing the whole road there, it took me a good hour to get up there and
back down and people will not let you in. It drives me mad… it’s 11
frustrating.” (FK5)
Another road condition that may give rise to feelings of frustration and/or anger
is delays caused by roadworks (refer to Table 4.3). A number of participants spoke of
their frustration and/or anger when confronted with roadworks and subsequent delays.
Four of these participants, however, also specified that had they known in advance about
the delays, they would not have felt as annoyed or frustrated. Perhaps this highlights
that it may be the unexpected nature of delays that contribute to feelings of anger and
frustration. Some participants also suggested they would have taken alternative routes to
avoid the delays if possible.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 116
“I knew there was going to be traffic. When they were doing the roadwork at
Bald Hills, I would quite often go through Albany Creek to get there…but half
the time I would forget and then I would be held up by roadwork, then be fuming
at myself more than anything.” (MA6)
Finally, participant responses also revealed that certain driving behaviours such
as speeding and tailgating may be considered particularly anger-provoking on specific
types of roads e.g. suburban roads (n = 2).
“Speeding. It’s the biggest one, it makes me angry, definitely. If I see it in the
suburbs, it makes me really angry.”(FS1)
“…I think it depends on the kinds of road…if it’s a country road you, you
(normally) let them pass you if you are out for a drive, by just slowing down a
bit. You wonder why so many people don’t just overtake you if they are that way
(in a hurry) and they sit so close to you and they are aggro.” (MA6)
Table 4.4 Perceived increase in number of vehicles on the road and increased pace of
living
n
Characteristics Quotes (15%)
Increase in “Maybe its just that there are more cars on the roads and having to go over the
Vehicles on Road same amount of roadway.” (FS1)
“… too many people using the road, too many people driving, so you get frustrated
…” (MA2) 4
Increased Pace of “I think that people are just really in a hurry these days and the roads are busy and
Living you drive like you are reacting to pressure, like you need to get somewhere in a
hurry.” (FT3)
“They are frustrated, hurried, pressured and in some people it comes out in the way 3
they drive.” (MD1)
Effect Quotes n
General “I think it is one of the main causes of aggressive driving…whether or not they are
late. I think that contributes to aggressive driving on the road.” (MD3) (Quote 1)
16
Behaviour “…time constraints. As well, people tend to be rushing so they drive aggressively
Influence or extremely, changing lanes etc...” (MJ3) (Quote 2) 8
Perception “I was running late the other morning …and that really annoys me that they don’t
of Goal travel the speed limit that they are supposed to.” (FN4) (Quote 3)
Blocking
“Especially, when you are in a rush to get somewhere and someone is holding
you up. You drive as quickly (as you can), and take every opportunity and space
to move quicker.”(FK3) (Quote 4)
5
“Like if I am running late for work and there has been someone that is pissing me
off by going really slow…” (MP6) (Quote 5)
“..If I’m doing the speed limit or even a little bit above and I’ve got someone right
behind me...right on my tail, I get really annoyed and I put my brakes on & slow
down & let them know (about the annoyance) in that way…” (FG3) (Quote 6)
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 118
Effect Quotes n
“It’s also like your friends and peers as well. I guess it’s like you
can’t actually let them see that your car is gutless, or that you are a
woosy driver.”(MA2)
10
“You might just drive faster if you’ve got your mates in the car, and
you are stuffin’ around and yelling out the window and stuff.” (MP6)
Others “…Dad was in the car so I wouldn’t dare speed. It made me a bit
nervous really. I wanted to overtake the truck, but I felt him looking 2
at me …he just wouldn’t approve.” (MA5)
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 119
4.3.4.2.6 Temperature.
Another factor cited by two participants as a contributing factor to aggressive
driving behaviour was temperature.
“…you get angry because you are hot and sweaty and feeling
uncomfortable so you just want to get out of there.” (FC22)
4.3.4.2.7 Music.
A few participants (n = 3) mentioned loud or up-beat music as possibly making a
contribution to the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviours (refer to Table 4.7). It
was observed that listening to such music may affect the speed at which a driver is
travelling, potentially through excitatory effects. Conversely four participants spoke of
the possible influence of music as a form of relaxation in traffic.
Effect Quotes n
Excitation “….maybe the music you listen to. If you listen to fast music
sometimes it makes me go a bit faster.” (MB26) 3
Calming “….if I am running late for work, I put some tunes on.” (MR4)
Further, it was suggested that one’s mood may influence the way in which one responds
to various on-road situations.
Table 4.8 Participant responses relating to influence of mood upon driving behaviour
Speeding “…if I have had a problem at home and I’m driving, I just try to go
as fast as I can to get from one place to another, and if I am in a
rough kind of mood I try to catch as many lights as possible as
quickly as possible.”(MA5) 7
Aberrant Driving “It’s also…the mood you are in. Sometimes if you are angry you
will just do whatever it takes to get to your destination.” (MB6) 2
Perception of “…like if you are trying to catch the train or something and you’re
Aggression late…you think everybody’s trying to hold you up and you get
really annoyed…only because you are coming from …the mood you
are in.” (FK2)
4.3.5.1.2 Life-Stress.
Whereas current mood may be a more transient state of being, life stress is
generally more persistent, although not normally permanent. A number of focus group
participants (n = 11) spoke of life-stress as a contributing factor/cause of aggressive
driving. Table 4.9 outlines the comments associated with the influence of life-stress and
its potential impact on aggressive driving behaviours.
A number of participant (n = 9) references to life-stress and its impact on driving
behaviour were of a general nature (see Table 4.9). Many of these suggested that life-
stress tends to make drivers less patient, increasing their preparedness for aggression on
the road.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 121
General “People that are constantly tense in their lives, constantly stressed.
That would effect their driving.”(FJ5)
“…frustration and anger coming out in all parts of people’s lives and
the road is just another way of showing it.” (MD1)
“I think people are stressed. Add a bad day they will be more agro on
the road…and more frustrated. People that are frustrated drive
erratically as well…” (FM5 11
General “If you have had a really bad day at work or something has just
happened and it really (expletive) you off, you tend to arc up really
quickly with people…” (MB26) 9
“ You’re tired, then going to work, then getting (expletive) off from
work, and then getting cut off …”(MA6)
The foregoing results suggest that under the affects of job stress, driver
behaviour may be negatively influenced. Perhaps this is due to ruminating about the
source of stress, which reduces attention to the on-road environment. Alternatively, it
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 122
may suggest that, due to stress, such drivers are more likely to participate in dangerous
driving behaviours such as speeding or cutting off, which may be considered aggressive
by other road users.
Quotes n
General “…I think driving in itself is a really stressful thing to do. I’m
always on the lookout for bad drivers”(MB26)
anger on the roads (see Table 4.12). Specifically, participants referred to elderly drivers
as driving too slowly or having reduced ability and judgement whilst driving. As such,
this may indicate a lack of tolerance by young drivers for elderly road users.
Theme Quotes n
Inexperience “I think it’s a general lack of tolerance by drivers. They don’t have
any patience…I think they should have more understanding and
patience for learner drivers.” (FN2)
Young Males “…a lot of my friends can drive aggressively without losing total
control, like there might be danger to others on the road, but I think
that is labelled as aggressive driving.” (MT4)
Older Drivers “And when you get stuck behind a car and they are old and they are
doing 40 and it’s a 60k zone and … …god that annoys me.” (FL5)
These findings suggest that many drivers make frequent use of stereotypes in the
interpretation of ‘other driver’ behaviour. Indeed, the young drivers in the sample
tended to maintain that they are more likely to be treated with intolerance and
impatience on the road.
4.3.5.2.2 Personality.
In keeping with previous traffic research, participants (n=8) also referred to an
innate propensity among some drivers to behave aggressively when driving (Table 4.13,
Quote 1) (Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000; Deffenbacher,
Lynch, Filetti, Dahlen, & Oetting, 2003). A trait disposition for aggression is considered
a facet of personality (Quote 2). It was also suggested by six participants that
personality may contribute to an individual’s willingness to interpret aberrant driving
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 124
2 “People who are aggressive…like people that are aggressive when they are
driving they don’t care about what they are doing and whether it might
hurt some other person or cause someone to have an accident.” (FN2)
Quotes n
Family “My dad is an angry man…and he was hard to live with, he was so angry all the time. Dad
is a redhead Scot, he is violent, so violent. He lashes out all the time.” (FL5) (Quote 1)
1
Other Aggressive “…I think it is if you have always driven with people who suffer road rage or are unruly
Drivers behind the wheel, then perhaps you are going to be as well.” (FC3) (Quote 2)
2
“He would watch sports on TV and probably learning from it…he would go and do
Television doughies and he got busted by the cops (once) and he never did that again.” (MG4) 4
(Quote 3)
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 125
General Attitudes
n n
Inattention 10 Impatience 12
Intimidating 7 Recklessness 12
Stupidity 10
Driving to Reduce “I can get in the car and I’m driving and I calm down.” (FN4)
Stress
“I find to go fast is good stress release.” (FJ5) 2
‘Bad day’ at Work “I had left Uni and I had had a really bad day. I just wanted to get
home, so I was speeding. I remember thinking I felt like I was driving 2
aggressively.” (FJ4)
Running Late for “When you are in a rush to get somewhere and someone is holding
Work/Appointment you up. You drive as quickly as you can, and take every opportunity
and space to move quicker.” (FK3) 6
Fatigue “I think sleep deprivation. People that work shift and don’t get
enough sleep. I think my driving ability went down when I was on
night shift and my tolerance for other drivers as well.” (MB26) 2
Among the off-road causes that were reported to have affected their on-road
behaviours were:
• having argued with a significant ‘other’;
• driving with the intention of reducing stress; and,
• having had a ‘bad day’ in general.
In many cases these factors resulted in feelings of tension and/or emotional
disturbance that resulted in the participant worrying or ruminating about the trigger
event whilst driving. The emotional upset and rumination, in turn, may have affected
their on-road driving behaviour with participants reporting the use of increased speed,
steering aggressively and subsequent sudden lane changes. Many of these participants
also admitted that they had paid insufficient attention to the on-road environment and
had little, or no, care for other road users.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 127
These reactions were also reported in response to feeling under pressure, when
running late for work/appointment (n = 6). Another two participants reported feeling
fatigued having worked for an extended period, resulting in heightened levels of
irritability.
Two participants indicated that although they believed they had transferred their
negative emotions to the on-road environment, they became more vigilant about the on-
road environment. They also reported attempts to reduce the negative affect. For
example:
“…but I think it actually made me more careful about my driving. I didn’t want
to have an accident. So I put the issue out of my head and tried to focus on the
road and the music on the radio.” (FJ1)
Eight participants believed they had not experienced any spill-over affect to the
off-road environment. However, a total of 28 participants reported that they had felt
upset, frustrated/angry after having finished a journey in which they had experienced
aggressive driving. Specifically, some of these participants (n = 13) suggested that the
on-road incident negatively affected their mood off-road. For example:
“…when I feel upset or angry on the roads I think I am grumpy also out of the
car.” (FS1)
Five of these participants suggested that the resultant negative affect had
impacted on subsequent interpersonal interactions, though not markedly. Three female
participants reported feeling ‘upset’ to the extent that they were reluctant to drive the
following day.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 128
Discussing with
Family or Friends “Usually, once I talk about it I am fine.” (MR3) 6
Arrival at “I think as soon as you get home you walk in the door and for me…it all
Destination goes over your head, you’re home, you’re safe, you’re happy. It’s your
home.” (FT14)
“Sometimes you might have a bit of road rage and you go home and shut 8
your door on your car and you are fine.” (MT4)
Commencement of “…you know, you go into routine (when you arrive at work) and start
Other Tasks your job…it’s only while I am in the car and it’s happening.” (FN4) 3
Finally, in the exploration of the transfer of on-road generated emotion to the off-
road environment, eight participants alluded to an accumulation of negative affect. For
example:
“The bad traffic on the way to work and then you have a bad day at work and
then traffic on the way home…it just adds up.” (FJ4)
likely to engage in aggressive driving. The following section is guided by the main
principles of the GAM as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
4.3.6.1 Victims or Perpetrators
When asked to contribute their personal experience with aggressive driving, 23
participants (9 males and 14 females) cited instances where they themselves were the
victim of aggressive driving behaviour. Twenty-one participants (10 females and 11
males) were able to recall instances where they perceived themselves the perpetrator.
The decision to categorise a participant’s role as either victim or perpetrator of
aggressive driving was based on the behaviour adopted and the level of intent to engage
in such behaviour. However, this was not difficult or demanding as the recalled events
and participant’s role in the incident were self-evident.
Fourteen participants initially attempted to reassure the researcher that they were
‘passive drivers’ or not at all likely to become aggressive on the roads, indicating a
desire to be perceived positively. However, despite their claims, use of probing
questions revealed that most of these participants had an experience to recount as either
the victim or the perpetrator. For example:
Tailgating 11
Cutting in/off 9
Speeding 8
Delay at lights/signs 3
Overtaking 3
Slow driving 2
High-beam flashing 2
Misuse/lack of indicator 2
Horn honking 1
by the focus groups. When one or more facilitating factors are combined, the likelihood
of these behaviours being perceived as aggressive by an observer appeared to increase.
There were some specific instances where participants perpetrated aggressive
driving without any apparent on-road provocation. These instances were explored by a
later question relating to the transfer of aggression from the off-road environment to the
on-road environment. Therefore, given the absence of specific on-road causes in these
cases, six personal accounts from the perpetrator perspective have not been included in
the results at Table 4.19.
Further to exploring the behavioural causes, participants were asked to recall
specifically what it was about the ‘other driver’s behaviour’ that prompted their feelings
of frustration or anger (see Table 4.19). A number of participants (n = 6) cited the actual
behaviour as the catalyst for their feelings. However, the majority of participants cited
factors that indicate a strong interpersonal element (refer to Table 4.19). For example,
three participants reported that their feelings of anger were triggered specifically by their
frustration with the inability to communicate adequately from within the confines of a
vehicle and associated feelings of being misunderstood (Table 4.19).
Other participants indicated their feelings were prompted by the dangerousness
of the situation (n = 6) (Table 4.19) and associated feelings of threat, fear or shock (n =
5). Another three participants reported similar feelings being triggered by the ‘other
driver’ intending to or actually alighting from his vehicle (Table 4.19).
Interestingly, ten participants spoke of their feelings of anger being triggered
specifically by the attitude of the ‘other driver’ (Table 4.19). They spoke freely of the
other driver being rude, ‘cocky’ or ‘pushy’. These attitudes were apparently detected by
participants through verbal abuse (n = 7) and by the facial expressions of the ‘other
driver’ (n = 6). Further, three of the participants spoke of feeling specifically harassed
or pressured by the ‘other driver’. For example:
“I feared for our safety and maybe a bit pressured by him.” (MA2)
“I felt pressured not to wait and I was a bit shaken after that…” (FT3)
These findings suggest that negative on-road interactions may trigger feelings of
frustration, anger, threat or fear in young drivers.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 132
Quotes n
Inability to “They finally moved over (lanes). They had been quite aggressive
Communicate toward me before that. …they thought I was trying to give them trouble.
Effectively I was just trying to communicate with them.” (FA1) 3
Sense of “Bit to do with anger and the fact that my adrenaline was pumping
Dangerousness because I was nearly involved in an accident…because 2/3km down the
road I started shaking a little bit.” (MN3) 6
Alighting from “…he was still going off at me for ages and I was going ‘oh, you
Vehicle shouldn’t have been speeding anyway’, and he said ‘pull over’, so I
pulled over. Then he went in front of me and stopped (to get out) and I
indicated to pull over but I just sped off instead, then I thought ‘oh, my
gosh he might come after me’, so I did 120.” (FQ6)
“Not so much the beeping and the flashing, but when he actually got out
of the car, it was really scary.” (MA2) 3
Perceived Attitude “Just that he was so smart and so sure (of himself), and I didn’t want a
of Other Driver bar of it…” (MP2)
“Apart from thumbing his nose at us…it was pretty much close to an
accident as well.” (MP6)
“…because he was flying around the roundabout and looked back and
smiled at me. So he knew what he had done, and he was just being a real
pig. That was pretty damn rude. The look is what made me really 10
angry.” (FM5)
positive emotion generated by a pending social event, singing along to music, and
‘cruising’ with others respectively, as shown in Table 4.20.
Table 4.20 Above average positive emotions reported prior to the event
Due to Quote N
Pending Social “I was coming home from work and I was going to a friend’s 18th
Event birthday party that night. So…(I felt) pretty good actually.” (FA1)
Listening to “(I felt) fine, the music was cranked and I was hitting the toe…so
Music great.” (MP6)
When participants reported a negative emotional state prior to the incident the
source of that stress was explored. Eleven participants reported being upset, tense or
angry prior to exposure to the provocative trigger and the generation of subsequent
feelings. Within this group, six respondents also spoke of feeling a little nervous about
driving prior to the on-road incident. Examination of their driving experience data
revealed that these participants were all newly licensed.
A further three participants reported feeling pressured as they were running late,
whilst four participants reported having had an argument with a ‘significant other’ prior
to the aggressive driving incident. This latter group reportedly experienced heightened
emotionality and/or anger, and these participants accounted for some of the more
extreme aggressive driving incidents.
shocked (10)
Combined “(It had) a bit to do with anger and the fact that my adrenaline was
Emotions pumping because I was nearly involved in an accident. About 2/3 km
down the road I started shaking a bit.” (MN3)
“My friends were hanging over the back thinking ‘oh he’s a bit cute’, so
there was a bit of that going on…like ‘speed up girls the guy in the back
is hot’. At the beginning it was a bit of fun, but it became something
else…I was quite livid.” (FC3)
N/A
Satisfaction or “…A bit smug, a little sense of pleasure. I didn’t think I was
Pride endangering them. I was just annoying them back.” (MD1)
source of danger (n = 2). For others the danger involved was their sole focus (see Table
4.23).
Five participants reported having what could be termed as ‘checking’ thoughts
(refer to Table 4.23). Such thoughts reflected that some participants were more likely to
reflect on their driving behaviour at the time of the incident, or upon their good fortune
at having avoided involvement in an accident. This may be an indication that some
participants tend to be more positive and/or reflective in their assessment of problematic
situations. A further five participants reported relatively neutral thoughts during the on-
road incident. These thoughts appeared to be non-personal, potentially reflecting a lack
of interest in blaming either party.
Cognitive Quotes n
Themes
Negative “Who does this idiot think they are, ‘moseying’ along and holding traffic up like this?”
Attributions (FJ1)
“Kind of like, ‘yeh, sucked in’. That is what was going through my mind…” (MR3) 28
Negative “…she kept sitting real close and following me and there was nothing I could do about it,
Actions but I thought to myself…alright, well I’m going to let her know that (she) has annoyed
me.” (FN2)
“He was going off and I was thinking, ‘oh (expletive)’. I was wondering if I could take 10
him…” (MA2)
Escape/Danger “I was thinking ‘what can I do to not get caught (by the ‘offending driver)?’ I was just 2
concentrating on trying to find the best way out of it, to get away.” (MJ22)
“I was just flooring it and I’ve never done anything like that before. Really fast…but
even then I was thinking ‘oh, this is so dangerous’.” (MR4)
2
“Just how dangerous it was.” (FC1)
Checking “I just thought I was pretty lucky I didn’t have a crash…” (MJ12)
Thoughts
“When it happened, I wondered what I was doing wrong, but I was driving a bit faster 5
than the speed limit so…” (MB16)
Neutral Thoughts “I wondered, ‘why would you bother chasing someone that much?’ …I just thought
‘why would you bother to go to that much effort when you can’t really do anything 5
about it?’” (MJ22)
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 136
Behavioural Quotes n
Themes
Displaced “I don’t really know (what I had done). I was trying to get over into the
Aggression other lane and she wasn’t going to let me. Next minute she was beside
me screaming at me…
(Behavioural Response) - I tried hard not to laugh because she looked 6
funny with her mouth moving. She was saying enough for both of us.”
(FC6)
Suppressed “ I just think ‘oh, you idiot’ and keep cruising along…” (MJ22)
Aggression
“ I don’t get aggressive very much, I’m pretty happy all the time. I just
say ‘good luck loser’.” (MC5) 10
Outward “I jumped on the brakes, threw my car down two gears to stop the wheels
Aggression locking up, threw my hand onto the horn and put my lights up onto
highbeam.” (MN3)
“…I was going about 50 up this hill and this guy came speeding up
behind me and sat right up my arse, and I looked in my rear-view
mirror…then when we came down the hill and I thought ‘hell yeh, I’m 30
going to get you so bad right now’ and went even slower then…so I
intentionally went really slowly...as he went passed I gave him the
forks.” (FB6)
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 137
Behavioural Responses n
Tailgating 3
Overtaking 5
Speeding 5
Slow driving 7
Verbal abuse 5
Highbeam flashing 2
Horn honking 7
Gesticulating 5
they adopted could be considered aggressive, six participants did not believe their
behaviour could be considered aggressive, and five participants were unsure.
These participants were also asked if their behaviour was intentionally aimed at
the ‘other driver’. Eighteen participants reported that their behaviour was ‘intentional’,
consistent with the inclusion of intention in the provisional definition outlined in
Chapter Two. A total of 27 participants expressed that they felt ‘justified’ in responding
as indicated.
4.3.6.8 Post-Event State
In an attempt to explore the duration of negative affect resulting from their on-
road aggressive driving experience and any possible influences upon subsequent
behaviour, participants were asked how they felt for the 15 minutes immediately
following the incident. They were also asked how they felt about the incident an hour
after the incident.
Four participants indicated that they had forgotten about the incident within 15
minutes of its occurrence. However, other participants reported a wide range of
emotions following the incident. In many instances participants reported that their
experience with aggressive driving resulted in the experience of more than one emotion.
For instance, 11 of the participants reported feeling annoyed or angry up to 15 minutes
immediately following the incident and six of them reported feeling simultaneously
upset, emotional or shaken during this time frame.
Three other participants cited feelings of relief at the potential danger having
passed, whilst two participants reported continuing to feel worried or frightened. A
further six participants reported feeling tense or ‘wound up’, and another two felt
‘excited’.
Three participants reported feeling ‘satisfied’ with having let the ‘other driver’
know they had behaved inappropriately on the road. It should be noted that as an
extension of these emotions, many participants (n=19) reported ruminating about the
event to some degree. For example:
When asked how they felt approximately one hour after the incident, a
considerable number of participants (n=25) reported not thinking of the incident again.
According to participant responses, this was primarily due to one or more of the
following:
“Oh, I was still upset, but I was…calmer…I could (still) see it happening.
Thinking everyone is going to die, because no-one would let me in.” (FJ5)
Finally, six participants reported no change in their feelings for some time.
Without exception these individuals, usually the victim (n = 4), were those who had
been involved in more serious aggressive driving incidents which resulted in the
participant experiencing more intense negative emotions such as emotional upset or
shock accompanied with anger. For example, one participant who had been the victim
of a particular incident stated:
“…I called my grandparents about twenty minutes later and I was quite upset
about it. That feeling lasted quite a while.” (FA1)
prompted an aggressive response. This participant pursued and verbally abused the
‘other driver’.
“(Whilst merging into one lane and travelling with four mates)…but he kept
going, to the point where I had to slam on my brakes…everyone in the car is just
hurling abuse at him, but he was gone. So we were driving along and about five
minutes later we saw him and we pulled up beside him. At that point the five
guys in the car are just ‘OOOH’…so the windows went down and abuse was
hurled and we followed him for a while just because we had nothing better to do.
It wasn’t like we had a destination to go to.” (MP6)
Four of the participants offered accounts that had been triggered by an off-road
argument with a significant other. The resultant emotional affect was high levels of
frustration/anger, that in turn resulted in speeding and erratic driving behaviour. Three
of these participants were subsequently involved in motor vehicle crashes resulting in
personal injury and property damage. Two individuals who reported being involved in a
crash (1 male, 1 female) had been under the influence of alcohol and recreational drugs
respectively. These participants also reported having had little regard for other road
users at the time of the incident:
“I nearly lost my life...I wrapped my car around a pole. I was on a lot of social
drugs, had an argument with my partner…a big argument. It turned physical
and I decided to take the car and go driving. I wiped out a couple of cars, nearly
hit a few people……I was pretty much just fried in my head… I was so angry,
frustrated, smashing my hands on the steering wheel and came around the
corner and wrapped the car around a pole……anyone that was in my way was
going to cop it.” (FL5)
“The major one. I had just had a fight with my girlfriend. I was drunk…at a
rodeo and I decided to take off and done a few things (…coppers followed me out
of the rodeo grounds and I didn’t pull over, I just kept going) and lost my licence
for quite a while over that. I stopped after I hit them (with his vehicle)…” (MS5)
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 141
4.4 Discussion
This discussion is structured in accordance with the concept map outlined in
Figure 4.1. Where applicable, reference will be made to the relevant Research
Questions and how they have been addressed. A brief overview of the findings in
relation to the Research Questions is also outlined at Section 4.4.9 below.
4.4.1 Situational Factors
In relation to RQ1, the situational causes identified by this research do not differ
markedly from those identified in previous research (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar,
1998; VCCAV, 1999). The findings suggest that a combination of one or more
direct/indirect on-road situational factors increases the likelihood of on-road behaviour
being perceived as aggressive.
With reference to the general nature of the behavioural causes of aggressive
driving, participants indicated that if the behaviours outlined at Figure 4.2 are to be
considered aggressive they must also negatively impact upon, or have the potential to
negatively impact upon other road users. Moreover, when these behaviours are
perceived as being intentionally perpetrated they are then considered aggressive driving
behaviours. Thus, the results suggest that these behaviours may be considered
aggressive when an element of ‘danger’ is involved and when the behaviour is perceived
to be intentionally adopted, consistent with the provisional definition of aggressive
driving at Section 2.2.5.3.
Driver perception of other vehicles is also a factor to be considered in aggressive
driving. Seventy-four per cent of participants spoke of specific types or characteristics
of vehicles they believe will be more readily identified with aggressive driving. For
instance, larger or mechanically modified vehicles were believed to increase the
likelihood of driver behaviours being identified as aggressive. Although some
participant comments could be considered no more than stereotypes, they are the
perceptions of the participants, and perception appears to play a pivotal role in
aggressive driving.
Fifteen per cent of young driver participants also perceived an increase in the
number of vehicles on the road, as well as a general increase in the pace of living,
suggesting that these perceptions contribute to the generation of frustration/anger
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 142
associated with road use and ‘other driver’ behaviours (Shinar, 1998). Participant
comments related to driving whilst under ‘time pressure’ indicated that young driver
behaviour may become more aggressive as they may use greater speed and overly
assertive behaviours to gain time. In addition, these drivers will more readily interpret
‘other driver’ behaviours as ‘goal blocking’, consistent with previous research (O’Brien,
Watson, & Tay, 2005. Finally, as in other traffic related research, substantial evidence
was found of young driver behaviour being negatively influenced by the presence of
peer passengers (Doherty, Andrey, & MacGregor, 1998).
appear to influence aggressive driving behaviour. This indicates that the assumption that
aggressive driving behaviour comes purely from feelings of frustration/anger may be
potentially limiting our understanding of this phenomenon.
For instance, the inclusion of excitation as a precursor emotion to aggressive
driving behaviour appears reasonable when considering the small, but relevant, number
of young male drivers who reportedly participate in social/recreational driving practices
with peers. It is not difficult to imagine that driving with peers may contribute to
elevated feelings of excitation or arousal. It would be consistent with Zillmann’s
excitation transfer theory (1972) that this elevated state may lead to the perpetration of
potentially dangerous or impulsive on-road behaviours such as driving at high speed,
that has the potential to be interpreted as aggressive by others. The elevated state
leading to the interpretation of other driver behaviours as aggressive and increasing the
likelihood of an aggressive response, would also be consistent with excitation transfer
theory (Zillman, 1972).
The results also indicate a small but noteworthy difference in the emotions
leading up to aggressive driving behaviour. Although a large number of females
reportedly experience similar levels of frustration/anger to males, the results suggest
more female victims than males are likely to experience fear and feelings of
intimidation.
discussed their experience with family or friends or after beginning other tasks. Some
young drivers (15%) spoke of the potential of music to enhance or mediate their internal
state whilst driving. Another 11% of participants demonstrated more rational responses
to aggressive driving by adopting ‘checking’ thoughts. This involved questioning the
accuracy or validity of their driving behaviour.
In summary, the findings of this study highlight coping strategies as an important
issue, which may assist in our understanding of the apparent over-representation of
young drivers in aggressive driving research. Perhaps it should be considered that
young drivers, as young adults, have a limited range of coping strategies available to
them when compared to older drivers. This is consistent with previous research into
young driver behaviours and risk taking (Jonah, 1997). As Jonah (1997) suggested, high
levels of on-road risk taking, more prevalent in young male drivers, may be a
developmental issue.
RQ1 What are the person-related and situational factors contributing to aggressive
driving?
Many person-related and direct/indirect situational factors were cited as potential
contributors to aggressive driving, most of which were consistent with those identified in
the literature review. Although less person-related factors were identified than ‘on-road’
situational factors, the results suggest they are extremely important to the perception of
other driver behaviours and ultimately the behavioural outcome adopted by drivers.
Several factors previously identified as contributing to aggressive driving were also
identified. Among them were characteristics such as vehicle appearance and/or
modifications (Evans & Wasielewski,1983), size of a vehicle and travelling with peers
as passengers. Within the person-related factors, young drivers emphasised ‘mood’,
possible prior exposure (i.e. prior learning through other driver behaviours), stereotypes
and general attitudes. As such this study has added to the knowledge of potential factors
influencing aggressive driving among the at-risk group of young drivers.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 149
RQ2 Are some drivers more likely to engage in aggressive driving and, if so, what are
their characteristics?
Although this study identified several young drivers who had reportedly engaged
in highly aggressive behaviour on the road, only socio-demographic data was collected
from each participant. However, the general person-related factors identified by
participants as influencing aggressive driving (see Figure 4.2), provide an insight into
the person-related characteristics that young drivers typically associate with aggressive
drivers. As such, these person-related factors require further investigation in the next
study.
emotionality (Chang et al., 2003; Cummings et al., 2004; Loeber et al., 2001; Verona et
al., 2002). Additionally, the results suggest that some young drivers use their vehicles
and the on-road environment as a venue, however inappropriate, for the expression of a
wide range of emotions from frustration to excitation. Why young drivers adopt
aggressive driving behaviours when travelling with peer passengers is speculative.
However, whilst surrounded by their peers, perhaps it serves to demonstrate their driving
abilities or to inflate their self-esteem.
RQ5 What are the cognitive and emotional processes characterising aggressive
driving behaviour?
As detailed in Section 4.4.3, frustration and anger may not be the only emotions
associated with aggressive driving behaviour. Young drivers also reported experiencing
fear, nervousness, anxiety and excitation during episodes of aggressive driving.
Additionally, when discussing their own experiences with aggressive driving, the young
drivers in the study appeared quick to make negative attributions about other drivers and
their abilities. A small number of participants also reported having thoughts about
taking action against the other driver. These findings will be investigated further in
Study Two.
years of age, generalisation of these results to the greater population of drivers is not
possible. In addition, there may also be limitations in the generalisation of these
behaviours to young drivers, as the majority of research participants were ‘city’ drivers
and relatively inexperienced. As such, these limitations need to be borne in mind when
interpreting the findings.
4.4.11 Implications of Findings for the Development of a Psychosocial Framework for
Aggressive Driving
Guided by the Research Objective One identified in Section 1.7, the results of
this study suggest that elements of the GAM are valid and applicable to aggressive
driving. To assist in better understanding this phenomenon, however, it would be useful
to modify some of the concepts included in the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).
Figure 4.3 outlines the key psychosocial factors identified in the literature review and
this study as influencing the likelihood and nature of aggressive driving behaviour,
drawing on key components of aggression encapsulated in the GAM.
On-road
Experience
Socio-demographic
and Driving
Exposure Factors Emotional Behavioural
& Response
Cognitive Post-event
Present Response Instrumental
Trait Person-related Influence
Internal
Characteristics
State Negative
Emotions Hostile
Threat
State Person-related
Characteristics Negative
Attributions
Consistent with the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), trait and state person-
related characteristics are proposed to give rise to a ‘present internal state’ that drivers
bring with them to the task of driving. For example, an individual who has high trait
aggression levels brings this predisposition to the on-road environment (Deffenbacher,
Huff, Lynch, Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000; Deffenbacher, Lynch, Filetti, Dahlen, &
Oetting, 2001). Similarly, a driver who is experiencing state stress generated from work
or home life, may also bring this to the on-road environment (Navaco et al., 1990;
Wiesenthal & Hennessy, 1999).
This study’s findings also suggest that within the ‘present internal state’ a driver
brings to the on-road environment, heightened levels of ‘emotional arousal’ or
‘excitation’ may pre-exist at the beginning of the journey being undertaken. The
findings are consistent with the GAM and suggest that high levels of excitation resulting
from extreme negative affect or the presence of peers as passengers, may contribute to
an increased likelihood for aggressive on-road behaviours in response to a perceived
provocation. In the absence of a perceived on-road provocation, highly aroused drivers
may engage in potentially dangerous or impulsive driving behaviours, such as excessive
speeding. Previous research also demonstrated that low to moderate levels of emotional
arousal, measured in terms of depression, may serve to increase the likelihood of a
reactive, aggressive response to perceived provocation (Cooper et al., 1995). Consistent
with human aggression research (Berkowtiz, 1993; Florian et al., 1995) this research
also found that greater feelings of ‘threat’ in response to on-road provocation may also
result in aggressive driving behaviour. As such, the experience of a range of emotions
and the subsequent arousal associated with them, appears to increase the likelihood of
interpreting the on-road behaviour of ‘other drivers’ as aggressive, increasing the
likelihood of an aggressive response.
Whether or not they are highly aroused, in response to the provocative or
ambiguous on-road behaviour of ‘other’ road users, drivers appear to undergo an
automated appraisal process consistent with elements of the GAM’s decision-making
model and as suggested by the authors (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). However, the
‘checking of available resources’ contained in the original GAM appraisal process
remains largely subconscious and therefore it seems highly improbable that accurate
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 153
recall of these processes can occur (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). For this reason,
therefore, focus in the current study turned to the cognitions that were able to be recalled
when participants recounted their personal experience of an on-road incident. Thoughts
able to be recalled primarily centred around negative attributions about other drivers and
their driving abilities and/or thoughts of danger or threat. Hence, little reference was
made to the subconscious cognitive processes proposed in the GAM, within the
proposed framework at Figure 4.3. However, the findings of this study did highlight
three key elements of the ‘situational response’ to an on-road incident depicted in Figure
4.3: negative emotions, perceived threat, and negative attributions.
These key elements appear to have considerable impact on aggressive driving
outcomes. The findings of this study suggest that, in the face of perceived provocation,
or as a result of highly aroused driving, some drivers experience a negative emotional
response that will often be accompanied by higher levels of physiological arousal. It
also appears that upon perceiving provocation, drivers infer positive or negative
attributions about the ‘other driver’ behaviour and their abilities (Yagil, 2001). Further,
the results of this study also indicate that drivers may experience cognitions about taking
action. However, it should be noted that most thoughts recalled by participants as being
associated with the aggressive driving incident were considerably less detailed than the
cognitive appraisal process outlined in the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).
Having had an initial response comprising emotions, cognitions and arousal, the
GAM indicates that drivers will respond with either impulsive or thoughtful (deliberate)
behavioural responses (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The current study was not
conclusive about this and it remains unclear whether participants were thoughtful or
impulsive in their responses. Notwithstanding this caveat, with reference to the
proposed framework, it could be that more impulsive behavioural responses are elicited
from participants who are more highly emotionally aroused prior to entering the on-road
environment. Alternatively, impulsive reactive behaviours may also originate within
participants high on trait impulsivity, not measured in this study (Caprara et al., 1987;
Stanford, Greve, & Dickens, 1995). Human aggression research suggests that drivers
who have low emotional arousal (or depression) and high levels of irritability, may also
experience high levels of frustration/anger when faced with an on-road provocation and
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 154
which were consistent with the available literature. Uniquely, this study also highlighted
elements of human aggression theory encapsulated in the GAM that appear relevant to
on-road aggression that have not previously been examined in other theory based
approaches to the phenomenon (Shinar, 1998). As such, a psychosocial framework
(Figure 4.3) for the further exploration of the psychological processes underlying
aggressive driving was proposed.
The research findings also suggested that aggressive on-road behaviour may
occur as a result of a wide range of on and off-road generated emotions including
excitation. Importantly, the study also suggested that for young drivers, adoption of
aggressive driving behaviour may serve several possible functions. However, more
research is required in order to confirm these findings. Due to the qualitative nature of
this study, it did not examine person-related factors in sufficient depth to reveal any
information about those drivers that are more likely to engage in the behaviour.
Therefore, there is a need to explore person-related factors in more detail in Study Two.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 156
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 157
5.1 Introduction
This chapter will outline the methods, findings and implications of Study Two.
The study aimed to explore the elements of the theoretical framework for aggressive
driving based on the General Aggression Model and the findings of Study One (refer to
Figure 4.3). Consequently, this study investigated a range of psychosocial influences on
aggressive driving consistent with the key factors proposed in this framework.
The literature review and Study One findings highlighted multiple situational and
person-related factors that are believed to contribute to aggressive driving. Study One
also highlighted the role of driver perceptions in aggressive driving behaviour.
Therefore, the role of driver perceptions during an on-road incident is also explored in
this study. Further, while Study One specifically explored young driver experiences
with the phenomenon of aggressive driving, this study adopted a more general driving
population perspective, in order to examine more general age and gender differences.
The examination of a more general sample of drivers within this study, also aimed at
providing a more comprehensive understanding of the aggressive driving phenomenon
whilst endeavouring to determine the potential value of the GAM in explaining
aggressive driving.
5.1.1 Overview of Research Questions and Relevant Hypotheses
The following is an outline of the relevant research questions and hypotheses
arising from the literature review and the findings of Study One that guided the study.
More particularly, the hypotheses are informed by the theoretical framework derived
from the GAM (refer to Section 4.4.11). A rationale underpinning each hypothesis is
also provided.
RQ1 What are the person-related and situational factors contributing to aggressive
driving?
H1 Drivers will report stronger emotional, cognitive, behavioural and post-
event influence in response to an intentionally anger-provoking incident
than to an ambiguous on-road incident.
The Study One findings suggest that when an on-road behaviour is perceived as
intentionally anger-provoking, a person is more likely to adopt an aggressive response.
Alternatively, aggression researchers have found that in an ambiguous situation that is
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 162
not necessarily intentional, some individuals become angered which serves to reduce the
situational ambiguity, increasing the likelihood of hostile interpretations of the situation
(Anderson, Anderson, Dill, & Deuser, 1998). Consequently, two potentially anger-
provoking scenarios, one of which was intentionally provocative in nature, are used in
the study to explore the influence of on-road situational factors on aggressive driving
outcomes. Specifically, analyses will be undertaken to examine whether drivers respond
differently when presented with a straightforward, intentional, anger-provoking situation
as opposed to an ambiguous situation.
H2 Driving exposure factors such as type of vehicle driven, exposure to
congestion and hours driven per week will be associated with driver
emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
Study One findings suggest that aggressive drivers are more likely to drive larger
or modified vehicles. Further, high levels of on-road congestion and a greater number of
hours spent driving have also been associated with the increased likelihood of
experiencing frustration and anger whilst driving (Gordhamer et al., 1996; Hennessy &
Wiesenthal, 1997; Underwood et al., 1999). In light of this, the experience of greater
levels of perceived threat, negative emotion and associated negative attributions may
also be more likely among these drivers, increasing the likelihood of either an
instrumental or hostile aggressive behavioural response.
H3 Socio-demographic factors will be significant predictors of emotional,
cognitive and behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
Hypothesis Three is based on the literature that maintains that young, male drivers
are more likely to participate in aggressive driving behaviours (Aberg & Rimmo, 1998;
Gordhamer et al., 1996; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; VCCAV, 1999). Human aggression
and traffic researchers have reported that as age increases aggression decreases (Aberg
& Rimmo, 1998; Harris & Knight-Bohnhoff, 1996a; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Based
on this information, young male drivers may experience greater levels of negative
emotions, perceived threat and negative attributions when faced with perceived
provocation. In turn, as suggested above higher levels of these emotions and associated
negative attributions would increase the likelihood of instrumental and hostile
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 163
relationship difficulties has the potential to negatively impact upon driving behaviour.
Therefore, for the purpose of this study, state person-related stress was assessed in
terms of ‘pre-study emotions’ immediately prior to completing the questionnaire (see
Section 5.2.4.2.1).
RQ2 What are the cognitive and emotional processes characterising aggressive
driving behaviour?
H7 Higher levels of negative emotion, perceived threat and negative
attributions will predict the likelihood of stronger instrumental and hostile
aggressive behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
H8 Higher levels of negative emotion, perceived threat, negative attributions
and an increased reporting of a behavioural response to on-road
provocation will increase the likelihood of a post-event influence being
experienced.
Hypotheses Seven and Eight are based on the premise that higher levels of
negative emotions, perceived threat and negative attributions experienced in an on-road
situation will increase the likelihood of an aggressive behavioural response that may
continue to influence the driver after the on-road event has passed (i.e. ‘post-event’)
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Additionally, human aggression research has found that
individuals who are provoked have a greater likelihood of responding aggressively in
response to a subsequent trivial trigger, than those individuals who were not initially
provoked (Pedersen et al., 2000). Traffic researchers also maintain that on-road
provocation increases the experience of on-road stress that may, in turn, influence
behavioural responses to subsequent on-road interactions (Navaco et al., 1990;
Parkinson, 2001). Navaco and colleagues (1990) also maintain that the experience of
this stress may transfer into the work or home environment. The Study One findings
also indicated that thirteen young drivers continued to experience negative emotion for
some time after an on-road incident (Sections 4.3.4.4 and 4.3.5.8).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 165
RQ6 Are there differences in the characteristics of those drivers who are prepared to
engage in hostile acts of aggressive driving compared to those who only report
engaging in instrumental acts of aggressive driving?
Chapter Three literature review findings and Study One findings highlighted a
number of potentially important socio-demographic, psychological and person-related
factors that increase the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour. Considering these
results, this study will also explore possible differences that can be found between
general road users and those drivers identified as potentially hostile aggressive (PHA)
who are prepared to engage in relatively severe acts of aggressive driving.
Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation into these PHA drivers,
specific hypotheses were not proposed. However, particular issues were examined,
including the extent to which PHA drivers differed from other drivers in terms of their:
• socio-demographic characteristics and general driving behaviour;
• trait aggression and problem-solving ability;
• self-reported crash and offence involvement; and
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 166
5.2 Method
5.2.1 Participants
Two participant pools were utilised for this research: 5,000 current members of
the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ) and students of the Queensland
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 167
University of Technology (QUT). The final sample consisted of 853 RACQ members
(350 male and 503 female) and 73 QUT first-year psychology students (12 male and 61
female). The only selection criteria applied was that participants needed to hold a
current driver’s licence.
Use of the RACQ membership pool allowed researchers to target a wide age
range of Queensland drivers. A stratified random sample was drawn from the RACQ
database consisting of equal numbers of male and female drivers aged under 25 years,
25–44 years, 45–64 years and 65 years and older (refer to Appendix E for more details
of the RACQ sample). In an effort to obtain a representative cross-section of the
Queensland driving population a range of areas was targeted, with those contacted being
drawn from Brisbane, Ipswich and surrounding geographic areas, the Gold Coast, South
West Queensland, Central Queensland, the Wide Bay area, North Queensland and Far
North Queensland (see Appendix E).
Considering the traditional over-representation of young drivers in aggressive
driving research and a possibility that younger RACQ members may be less likely to
participate in the survey, QUT students were also approached in order to ensure that
sufficient numbers of younger drivers were involved in the research. QUT participants
were recruited from the first-year psychology participant pool.
5.2.2 Design
For the purposes of Study Two, the adoption of a research design which involved
the provocation of participants in either a simulated or actual driving environment
presented several ethical and professional problems, as found in earlier human
aggression research (Baron, 1977). Additionally, observational methods were also
considered, however, it was considered that such methods would be inappropriate for the
exploration of the underlying emotional and cognitive processes involved in aggressive
driving behaviour. Alternatively, many traffic researchers have relied upon self-report,
diary or questionnaire methods to investigate the phenomenon of aggressive driving.
Adoption of such methodological approaches has raised questions concerning the
truthfulness of participant responses, particularly in terms of behavioural response, as
some participants may wish to present themselves in a socially desirable manner (Baron,
1977). However, the careful design and manipulation of the variables of interest (Baron,
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 168
1977, p. 42) may minimise the potentially negative effect of this phenomenon.
Therefore, given the inevitable practical and ethical problems with conducting on-road
studies, it was decided to use self-report measures in Study Two and to manipulate the
emotional, cognitive and behavioural response variables of interest using scenarios.
A self-report questionnaire was designed to examine the theoretical framework
of aggressive driving described in Section 4.4.11. Appendix F contains a copy of the
Study Two questionnaire. The cover page varied depending on the targeted participant
pool (Appendices G and H).
The first part of the questionnaire was designed to collect a range of socio-
demographic and driving behaviour information. This included age, gender, education
attained and various driving exposure variables, including the likelihood of engaging in
speeding and/or drink/drug driving behaviour (Appendix F). The second part of the
questionnaire contained standardised measures in order to ascertain participant scores on
trait characteristics (Appendix F). As such, participants were asked to complete the
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) and three subscales of the Social Problem Solving
Inventory – Revised (SPSI-R). Details of these standardised measures are provided in
Section 5.2.4.1.
The questionnaire was also designed to explore the emotional state of
participants prior to their participation. In particular, self-reported levels of stress,
agitation and positive affect were assessed (Appendix F). This check was considered
necessary due to the potential influence of emotional state on participant emotional and
behavioural responses to a potentially anger-provoking scenario, as suggested by
previous research and the GAM (‘present internal state’) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002;
Berkowitz, 1983; Carver, Sheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001;
Knight, Guthrie, Page, & Fabes, 2002; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Prior to the conduct
of the analyses, the variables were sorted into broader subject categories consistent with
the psychological components of the GAM (see Table 5.1).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 169
Variables
Broad Subject Categories
Age
Gender
Socio-Demographic
Driving Exposure Variables
AQ Scores
Trait Person-Related Characteristics
SPSI-R Subscales – NPO, ICS and RPS
5.2.3 Procedure
RACQ members were randomly selected and approached via mail to participate
in the study. The members were mailed the questionnaire directly by the RACQ, to
ensure their privacy. Completion of the questionnaire took approximately 20 minutes,
although no time limit was applied. Completed questionnaires were returned directly to
QUT by post. Completion and return of the questionnaire by RACQ participants was
deemed as their consent to participate. All RACQ members that chose to participate
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 170
were given the opportunity to enter into a competition for a free, one year RACQ
membership.
Of the 5,000 questionnaires distributed to RACQ members, 878 drivers returned
the questionnaire representing an 18% response rate. Upon examination, 25 of these
were missing substantial data and were therefore not used in the research.
Prior to completing the questionnaire the QUT participants were asked to read
the information package attached to the front of the document and sign the sheet
indicating their consent to participate (see Appendix H). These participants completed
their questionnaire on campus. Upon completion of the questionnaire, these participants
were granted credit towards the completion of their first year Psychology Program. Of
74 questionnaires obtained from QUT, only one questionnaire was unable to be used in
the study.
5.2.3.1 Scenarios
Two differing scenarios were presented to participants in the study questionnaire
in order to explore their likely responses to potentially provocative on-road incidents.
Specifically, the intentionality of the ‘other driver’ behaviour was manipulated in each
scenario. Scenario One was designed to present a clearly provocative on-road incident
which portrayed the ‘other driver’ behaviour as intentional:
“You are driving down a two lane road (one lane each way) travelling at the
speed limit and you notice that the car behind you is travelling very close to your
vehicle. Instead of waiting for an opportunity to overtake you, the driver
proceeds to flash his/her lights and beep his/her horn.”
In contrast, Scenario Two was designed to be more ambiguous, though
potentially anger-provoking. In this scenario, the intentionality of ‘other driver’
behaviour was intended to be unclear in nature.
“You have just had an argument with someone close to you, prior to getting in
the car. You then approach an intersection and the light changes to ‘red’. You
come to a stop behind another car. The light seems to take a long time to change
back to ‘green’. When the light finally changes the driver in front does not move
off, preventing you from moving forward.”
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 171
The dependent variables used to assess responses to each scenario were: negative
emotional response; perceived threat; likelihood of negative attributions; likelihood of
an instrumental and/or hostile behavioural response; duration of post event emotion; and
likelihood of a post-event influence.
The two scenarios were piloted prior to the finalisation of the questionnaire.
This process confirmed that Scenario One tended to be perceived as an intentional,
anger-provoking act, irrespective of the emotional state of the driver being tailgated.
However, the piloting did highlight differences in the interpretation of Scenario Two,
which prompted the inclusion of a pre-existing emotional state in the scenario (i.e. “You
have just had an argument with someone close to you, prior to getting in the car”) for
two reasons. Firstly, the participants in the pilot phase reported that, due to the
ambiguity of the situation, their response would likely vary based on how they were
feeling at that particular point in time. Secondly, some pilot participants indicated that
they would not necessarily experience anger in this situation, unless they were already in
a somewhat heightened emotional state. Hence the inclusion of a pre-existing emotional
state in the second scenario was designed to both ‘standardise’ the influence of this
factor across the participants and to ensure that a threshold level of anger was achieved
for at least some participants. However, it is recognised that the inclusion of the pre-
existing emotional state in Scenario Two introduced a factor not specifically addressed
in Scenario One. The implications of this are further discussed in the Study Limitations
Section (refer to Section 5.4.7).
5.2.4 Materials
5.2.4.1 Standardised Measures Used
5.2.4.1.1 Aggression Questionnaire. All four subscales of the AQ were
administered to participants: the physical and verbal aggression subscales, the general
anger scale and the hostility subscale (Buss & Perry, 1992). The overall reliability of the
full 29 items of the AQ has previously been estimated at Cronbach’s α = .92, in a sample
of 19–55 year old males (O’Connor, Archer, & Wu, 2001). Thus the overall measure of
trait aggression consisted of 29 items (refer to Appendix F). Participants rated how
characteristic the items were of themselves on a 5 point Likert Scale (1 = ‘extremely
characteristic of me’, 5 = ‘extremely uncharacteristic of me’).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 172
For the purpose of this study a composite score measuring trait aggression was
constructed for each participant in order to conduct further analysis. Items 7 and 19
were reverse scored.
5.2.4.1.2 Social Problem Solving Inventory – Revised. The SPSI-R is designed
to measure an individual’s general ability to solve problems, without emphasising
specific situations. Specifically, the measure assesses two constructive/adaptive
dimensions and three dysfunctional dimensions of problem solving. Five subscales are
used to measure these dimensions: positive problem orientation (PPO) and rational
problem solving (RPS) versus negative problem orientation (NPO),
impulsivity/carelessness (ICS) and avoidance style (ACS). These subscales focus on
two primary distinctions made in problem-solving research: positive versus negative
problem orientation. Problem orientation encompasses the ways in which problems and
events are perceived and interpreted by an individual. In two separate studies focusing
on the problem- solving styles of young adults (n = 1053) and middle-aged adults (n =
100) respectively, researchers have reported sound reliability estimates for the three
subscales used in this study: NPO (α = .83, n = 1053; α = .80, n = 100); ICS (α = .74,
n = 1053; α = .78, n = 100); and RPS (α = .78, n = 1053; α = .88, n = 100) (Kant,
D’Zurilla, & Maydeu-Olivares, 1997).
The SPSI-R requires that participants indicate how characteristic the items are of
themselves on a five point Likert Scale (1 = ‘not at all true of me’ to 5 = ‘extremely true
of me’). For the purpose of this study only three of the SPSI-R subscales were used, as
they have been found in previous research to have strong associations with aggression
(Kant et al., 1997): NPO, ICS and RPS (refer to Appendix F). Consequently, calculation
of a composite ‘problem solving’ score would not be appropriate or overly meaningful
as only three of the original five subscales were used.
5.2.4.2 Research Specific Measures
The following is a brief outline of the measures that were developed by the
researcher to assess the applicability of the components identified in the theoretical
framework of aggressive driving first proposed at Figure 4.3. Also included is a brief
outline of the logic behind their development. The internal reliability of each measure
will be dealt with in Section 5.3.3, in conjunction with the factor analyses.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 173
Items
a) What an idiot!
9. Stop the vehicle and get out prepared to engage physically with the other driver.
10. Shout or scream out loud but not at the offending driver.
11. Use your vehicle to physically damage the other driver’s vehicle.
* Items 3 and 7 were not included in the factor analysis of aggressive behavioural outcomes
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 175
Items
Nonetheless, the decision not to operationalise the ‘present internal state’ component of
the GAM is a limitation which needs to be borne in mind and is further discussed in
Section 5.4.7.
The stage two analyses examined the relationships between the drivers’ emotional and
cognitive responses and the likelihood of them adopting either an instrumental and/or
hostile behavioural response. The final, third stage examined the relationship between the
likelihood of behavioural response and a post-event influence.
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was not utilised as the aim of the study was not
to establish the structural integrity of the model itself, but rather to explore the
relationships between the various components in the framework. Furthermore, due to the
specific requirements of SEM, it would have been necessary to include additional
subscale items in the questionnaire which would have increased its length and possibly
reduced the overall response rate. Accordingly, it was considered that SEM would be a
more appropriate analytical method in future research, once the various components
within the framework had been explored and established.
Prior to conducting the multiple regression analyses, the following ratio of cases to
independent variable calculation was assessed: N ≥ 50 + 8m (m is the number of IVs)
(Tabachnik & Fidell, 1996, p.132). All regression analyses met this criteria. Many of the
variables that were measured by Likert scales, although not strictly representing interval
data, were treated as continuous variables to facilitate the use of parametric statistics.
This restrictive assumption should be borne in mind when interpreting the results. In
addition, the categorical age variable was recoded by utilising the mid-point of each of the
age categories, enabling it to be treated as a continuous variable in the multiple regression
analyses. Similarly, the education level variable was recoded into a dichotomous variable
to facilitate its inclusion in the multiple regression analyses.
In consideration of the order of entry of the variables into the analyses, the logic of
the research, causal priority, research structure and attempts to minimise spurious
relationships were examined (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). This choice of
cumulative sequencing of IVs was also made in advance and determined primarily by
structural properties of the GAM model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Notably, the
GAM sequence reflects relevant temporal considerations.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 177
Socio-
demographic
Characteristics
(Age, gender,
educational
attained, driving
exposure variables) Emotional Likelihood
& of
Trait Person- Cognitive Behavioural
related Response Response Post-event
Characteristics Influence
(Total AQ, SPSI-R Negative Instrumental
subscales) Emotions
Threat Hostile
Negative
State Person- Attributions
related
Characteristics
(Pre-study
Emotions)
Stages of Analysis
___ Stage One
- - - Stage Two
….. Stage Three
components
For example, one brings their socio-demographic, state and trait characteristics to the
on-road environment on each occasion. Subsequently, exposure to a potentially anger-
provoking scenario may result in an emotional and cognitive response, and in turn a
behavioural response. Therefore, the adoption of this three-tiered regression strategy
and subsequent entry of variables into the equation in ‘blocks’, was the preferred
analytic approach (refer to Figure 5.1). However, it is recognised that the use of
hierarchical regression inevitably gives more precedence to those variables entered
earlier in the model. As such, this is a limitation that needs to be borne in mind when
interpreting the results (see Section 5.4.7).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 178
The general significance level for the analyses adopted was α = .05. Where
necessary Bonferroni adjustments were made to control for Type I error. In addition,
given that a number of regression analyses were conducted a more conservative
significance level of α < .001 was chosen for these analyses to guard against
experiment-wise error. However, significant results at α < .01 and α < .05 are also
noted. Only significant correlation coefficients of .2 and above are generally reported.
For the exploratory analyses involving the potentially hostile aggressive (PHA)
drivers (Section 5.3.8), non-parametric tests were considered necessary to account for
the problematic skewness and kurtosis associated with a number of the variables
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). As a consequence, in an effort to determine where, if any,
differences exist between the PHA drivers (n = 88) and other drivers (n = 838) a series
of non-parametric tests were conducted comparing the two groups on the measured
variables.
In order to examine any differences between the PHA driver group and other
drivers on categorical data using Chi Square techniques, many of the variables needed to
be collapsed as some of the obtained cell frequencies were less than 5, contrary to what
is required for use of this statistical technique (Cohen et al., 1996). In these analyses,
when overall significance was found, post hoc analyses were undertaken within each
variable using the adjusted standardised residual (i.e. ê). This statistic assists in
identifying cells with observed frequencies significantly higher or lower than expected.
The adjusted standardised residuals can be interpreted as Z-scores (Haberman, 1978).
The strength of association between the categorical variables was assessed using the Phi
co-efficient (ø) for tables 2 x 2 or Cramer’s V (ø c ) for tables with more than 2 x 2 (Aron
& Aron, 1999).
For the purpose of the logistic regression analysis of the PHA driver group the
age variable was dummy coded and collapsed into four categories: 17–24 years; 25–39
years; 40–59 years and 60 years and over. The 17–24 year age group was used as the
reference group in this analysis. This approach was adopted as opposed to the recoding
used for the multiple regression analyses, to allow direct comparison of the different age
categories. As before, the categorical variable ‘education’ was collapsed to create a
dichotomous variable, i.e. 0 = ‘less than year 10 education’ and 1 = ‘greater than a year
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 179
5.3 Results
5.3.1 Data Cleaning and Testing Assumptions
Data cleaning was applied to all independent and composite variables.
Participant questionnaires with missing data for four or more items, were visually
examined. Those participants with missing values that represented a pattern, or
sufficient missing data in any one of the measures to render a whole measure unusable,
were deleted from the data set. Other missing items were replaced with the mean
response for that item.
Examination of Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance, assessed at p < .05 has
been considered extremely strict (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1996), therefore, the probability
for a significant breach was reduced to p < .001. Despite this, several variables appear
to have breached Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance.
In testing the assumptions prior to the conduct of regression analyses, the
multivariate data cleaning entailed examination of ‘z’ scores, Mahalanobis distances and
scatter plots for all variables. Inspection of frequencies and normal probability plots for
all variables including composites revealed a number of univariate outliers and some
skewness. Those variables that were somewhat affected were: trait aggression (AQ
scores), ICS and NPO problem-solving styles, negative emotions, and instrumental and
hostile behavioural response variables. However, by the very nature of this study and its
examination of aggression, it was anticipated that there would be a number of
participants whose responses would gravitate towards the extreme end of scores. As a
result, it was decided to retain the outliers.
5.3.2 Psychometric Properties of the Standardised Measures
The overall means and standard deviations of trait aggression as measured by the
AQ (Buss & Perry, 1992) and coping style as measured by the three SPSI-R subscales
are presented below (Table 5.5).
The internal reliability of the three SPSI-R subscales used in this study was
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 180
evaluated separately using Cronbach’s alpha: NPO (.84), ICS (.76), and RPS (.82) (refer
to Appendix I). The internal reliability of the full 29 items of the AQ was evaluated at
Cronbach’s alpha .90 (refer to Appendix I). Therefore, the internal reliability of the
three problem solving subscales and the AQ was considered sufficient.
Variable M SD
item was excluded from the scale. The three item factor was subsequently named
‘negative emotional response’. The internal reliability of the three item factor in
response to Scenario One was evaluated at Cronbach’s α = .79. This analysis was
repeated for participant responses to Scenario Two and the analysis were almost
identical, revealing one factor (eigenvalue = 2.3) explaining 65% of the variance, with a
Cronbach’s of α = .85 (refer to Table 5.6) (see Appendix I).
Table 5.6 Factor loadings for negative emotional response for Scenarios One and Two
Scenario One Scenario Two
Items Factor Loading Factor Loading
Angry .853 .831
Annoyed .707 .786
Agitated .674 .801
Cronbach’s α .79 .85
Table 5.7 Factor loadings for negative attribution factor for Scenarios One and Two
Items Scenario One Scenario Two
Factor One Factor One
Loading Loading
a) What an idiot! .898 .919
The exploratory factor analysis procedure was repeated with participant responses
to Scenario Two, yielding comparable results. Again, the principal axis factoring
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 182
revealed one factor (eigenvalue = 2.334) explaining 69% of the variance in this factor,
Cronbach’s α = .84.
It should be noted, however, that deletion of the first item ‘What an idiot!’,
resulted in a higher reliability estimate in response to Scenario One and Scenario Two (α
= .88 and α = .91 respectively). However, this item was retained in the calculation of
average scores of negative cognition in response to Scenarios One and Two, since the
original Cronbach’s α’s were considered adequate.
Table 5.8 Factor loadings of behavioural response set for Scenarios One and Two
Scenario One Scenario Two
Questionnaire Item α = .77 α = .74
Cronbach’s α
.76 .85 .74 .83
Scenario Two, r = .28, p < .001). Therefore, whilst it appears that instrumental and
hostile on-road aggressive behaviours fall into two distinct groups, they do appear to be
related constructs. The relevant items for each construct were subsequently computed to
produce an average ‘instrumental behavioural response’ and an average ‘hostile
behavioural response’ scores for each participant, in response to each scenario.
5.3.3.4 Post-Event Influence
Using Scenario One data, principal components analysis produced evidence of
one factor, eigenvalue = 2.295, explaining 77% of the variance in this factor. Table 5.9
details the factor loadings for the three relevant items. The internal reliability of the
measure was Cronbach’s α = .82.
Table 5.9 Factor loadings of items onto likelihood of post-event influence for Scenarios
One and Two
Scenario One Scenario Two
Items Factor One Factor One
Again, the analysis was applied to participant responses for Scenario Two. The
analysis also produced one factor with an eigenvalue = 2.370, producing highly
comparable results with a Cronbach’s α = .85. The three items were, therefore, used to
calculate an average ‘likelihood of a post-event influence’ score for each participant in
response to each of the scenarios.
5.3.4 Check of Pre-Study Emotions
A 2 x4 ANOVA evaluating age group (four levels) by gender (two) effects on
self-reported emotionality at the time of completing the questionnaire was significant, F
(7,918) = 14.652, p < .001, η2 = .10. However, only a simple main effect (SME) was
found between the age groups, F (3,918) = 28.496, p < .001, η2 = .09. No SME was
found for gender F (1,918) = .166, p = .577. Nor was there a significant interaction
between age and gender F (3,918) = .710, p = .546.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 185
Post hoc comparisons of the age groups found that 17–24 year olds reported
significantly greater levels of pre-study negative emotion than all other drivers, p < .05.
However, there was no significant difference between the 25–39 year old age group and
40–59 year olds, p > .05. Older participants aged 60 years plus reported significantly
less pre-study negative emotion than the other age groups, p < .05. As such, the results
suggest that the pre-study emotions need to be included in the regression analyses to
control for their potential influence on the other factors measured in the research.
sample. Full details of the chi-square analyses associated with the significant results
relating to driving behaviours are included at Appendix J.
The majority of participants (n = 797) reported that they drove mainly on city/town
roads, while 694 participants indicated that they drove more frequently in medium to
heavy traffic. Interestingly, 710 participants reported driving a mere 0–10 hours per
week. However, 241 participants reported driving 11 or more hours per week.
When asked whether they had been fined for speeding in the last three years, 173
participants reported having been fined once, 62 fined twice and 25 had been fined three
or more times. Chi-square analysis of age by the number of self-reported speeding fines
in the past three years revealed no significant difference between drivers aged 17–24
years and other drivers, χ2 (df2) = 4.456, p > .05 (Table J1). This result is not surprising
as a number of young drivers aged 17–24 years may have held a licence for less than
three years. However, female drivers were significantly less likely to have received a
speeding fine in the past three years than males, ê + 2.8, p < .01, whilst males were
significantly more likely to have received two or more speeding fines in the same period
than females, ê + 3, p < .005 (refer to Table J2).
When asked about behaviours such as driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI),
unlicensed driving or other unspecified on-road offences that resulted in a loss of points,
relatively small numbers indicated that they had been fined. Therefore, chi-square
analysis of this data was not possible (see Table J3).
A reasonably large number of participants (n = 234) reported having been involved
in between one and three vehicular crashes in the past three years. A small proportion of
participants (n = 3) indicated having been involved in four to eight crashes for the same
period. Young drivers aged 17–24 years (ê + 4.4, p < .001) were significantly more
likely to have been involved in a crash in the past three years than older drivers, χ2 (df1)
= 19.2, p < .001, ø = .15 (see Table J4). No significant gender differences were found,
χ2 (df1) = .157, p > .05 (see Table J5).
Table 5.11 details the statistical tests conducted to examine age and gender
differences in the behavioural intentions of the sample. Due to the skewed distribution
of participant responses to the four intention variables, non-parametric Mann-Whitney U
Tests were utilised. The tests revealed that young drivers aged 17–24 years of age were
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 187
Table 5.11 Driving behaviour characteristics and behavioural intentions of the sample
Drivers Drivers
Variable 17-24 ≥25 Male Female Significance
Years Years
Level
Driving Behaviour
Characteristics
% % % %
Speeding Fines in previous
3 years
Number of Crashes in
previous 3 years Age:
χ2 (df1) = 19.2, p < .001,
None 31.9 68.1 39.6 60.4 ø = .15
Gender:
One or more 48.1 51.9 38.1 61.9 χ2 (df1) = .157, p > .05, ø c =.03
Speeding 10km/h or more 582.47 397.00 470.11 459.24 Age: z = -10.521, p < .001
highways Gender: z = -.628, p > .05
Drink Driving 479.14 453.17 469.70 457.24 Age: z = -2.720, p < .05
Gender: z = -1.26, p > .05
Drug Driving 481.29 451.96 464.98 460.91 Age: z = -4.252, p < .001
Gender: z = -.600, p > .05
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 188
Table 5.12 Pairwise t-tests of mean emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to
Scenarios One and Two
Variables
by M SD
Scenario
Emotional & Cognitive Response
Negative Emotion
Scenario One 2.97*** 1.04
Scenario Two 2.50 1.09
Threat
Scenario One 2.53*** 1.31
Scenario Two 1.18 .52
Negative Attributions
Scenario One 3.36*** 1.15
Scenario Two 2.14 1.12
Behavioural Response
Post-Event Influence
Scenario One 1.51*** .74
Scenario Two 1.25 .55
the model was utilised, in accordance with the diagrammatic presentation at Figure 5.1.
The first stage of the exploration examined the relationships between the socio-
demographic, state and trait person-related characteristics of participants in relation to
their emotional and cognitive responses to Scenario One and Scenario Two. The second
stage involved an examination of the relationship of the socio-demographic, trait and
state person-related characteristics, and participant emotional and cognitive responses
with the likelihood of either an instrumental and/or hostile aggressive behavioural
response. The final stage examined how these variables relate to the likelihood of a
post-event influence. Prior to these analyses, the bivariate relationships between the
relevant variables were examined to identify those for inclusion in the regression
analyses.
5.3.7.1 Bi-variate Correlations of Variables for Consideration in the Examination of
the Components of the Framework
As detailed in Table 5.13, there were many person-related characteristics and a
small number of socio-demographic variables that were significantly correlated to a
participant’s emotional, cognitive and behavioural response to Scenarios One and Two,
p < .001. As previously explained, the initial response comprises negative emotions,
feelings of threat and attributions, whilst the behavioural responses consist of
instrumental and hostile aggressive behavioural responses. A number of significant
associations, with correlations approaching .2 or greater, are discussed below. In some
instances, however, significant associations with correlations below .2 are mentioned for
ease of reference.
5.3.7.1.1 Driving Exposure and Socio-Demographic Variables. The type of
vehicle driven had a small but significant relationship with negative emotions in
response to Scenario One only (r = -.11, p < .001). Therefore, it was not incorporated
into the regression analyses exploring the components of the model. Similarly,
congestion and hours driven per week were not significantly correlated with the DV. As
such, they were not included in the regression analyses. However, participant age,
gender and education level attained were included in the regression analyses as they had
multiple significant relationships with variables across Scenarios One and Two. These
relationships will be highlighted in more detail below.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 192
correlations for trait aggression indicate that in response to Scenario One, lower levels of
trait aggression were associated with the experience of ‘threat’. Conversely, for
Scenario Two higher levels of trait aggression were associated with reported feelings of
‘threat’.
The correlation of education levels with feelings of threat in response to Scenario
One was also significant (r = .07, p < .05) suggesting that as education level increases so
does the likelihood of perceiving ‘threat’ in such a situation. The type of vehicle driven,
levels of congestion most frequently encountered and hours driven per week also had
small to moderate, significant relationships with perceived threat in response to Scenario
One (r = -.11, p < .001, r = -.12, p < .001, r = -.13, p < .001 respectively). These results
indicate that those drivers more likely to perceive threat will drive smaller vehicles, will
more frequently drive in light–medium levels of congestion and drive approximately 1–
16 hours per week. However, as these variables were only significant with regard to
Scenario One, they were not included in the regression analyses that follow.
5.3.7.1.4 Negative Attributions. There was a significant relationship between
the total AQ scores and negative attributions (S1, r = -.26, p < .001 and S2 , r = -.25, p <
.001), as well as the two SPSI-R subscales, NPO and ICS in response to both scenarios
(NPO - S1, r = .15, p < .001 and S2 , r = .22, p < .001; ICS - S1, r = .12, p < .001 and
S2 , r = .16, p < .001). These latter results indicate that higher scores on negative
problem orientation and impulsive/careless style are associated with experiencing
negative attributions in response to potentially anger-provoking on-road incidents. Pre-
study emotions were also found to be positively, though weakly (S1, r = .16, p < .001
and S2, r = .21, p < .001) related to the likelihood of negative attributions, with higher
levels of negative, pre-study emotion being associated with a greater likelihood of
having negative attributions in response to an on-road incident.
5.3.7.1.5 Instrumental Behavioural Response. Of the trait characteristics
measured, AQ scores (S1, r = .57, p < .001 and S2 , r = .59, p < .001) and two of the
SPSI-R subscales, NPO (S1, r = .21, p < .001 and S2 , r = .28, p < .001) and ICS (S1, r
= .28, p < .001 and S2 , r = .24, p < .001) were found to have significant, positive
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 194
Table 5.13 Bivariate correlations of the person-related, driving exposure, emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses, and post-event
influence variables – Scenario One (S1) and Scenario Two (S2) (N=926)
Likelihood Likelihood
Negative Negative of of Likelihood
Emotions Feelings of Threat Attributions Instrumental Hostile of
Variable Behavioural Behavioural Post-event Influence
Response Response
S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2
Gender1 .12*** .03 -.30*** -.02 -.05 -.03 -.05 -.03 -.11*** -.06 .17*** .06
Agea -.44*** -.45*** -.19*** -.13*** -.41*** -.42*** -.41*** -.42*** -.08* -.04 -.23*** .18***
Total AQ Score .42*** .49*** -.12*** .21*** .57*** .59*** .57*** .59*** .32*** .19*** .32*** .29***
NPO .33*** .33*** .28*** .22*** .21*** .28*** .21*** .28*** .07* .19*** 29*** .25***
ICS .19*** .18*** .07* .08* .28*** .24*** .28*** .24*** .18*** .10*** .14*** .16***
RPS -.05 -.06 -.01 -.06 -.06 -.08* -.06 -.08* -.07* -.05 -.03 -.04
Pre-Study Emotion .32*** .34*** .18*** .14*** .31*** .31*** .31*** .31*** .11*** .10*** .31*** .21***
Education Levelb .16*** .19*** .07* .04 .19*** .23*** .19*** .23*** .05 .02 .10*** .11***
(< Yr 10 or > Yr 10)
Type of Vehiclec -11*** -.06 -.11*** -.01 -.06 -.04 -.06 -.04 -.08* .06 -.10*** -.04
c
Congestion -.04 -.01 -.12*** -.02 .05 .02 .05 .02 .05 .03 -.04 -.03
Hours Driven Per -.00 .01 -.13*** -.01 .05 .04 .05 .04 .06 .02 -.07* -.04
Week
*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
a. Age variable was recoded to reflect midpoints of original categories.
b. Education Level was collapsed.
c. The categorical variable, congestion was rank ordered from lowest to highest levels of each variable to enable Spearman’s rho measure of association (r s ). Also, the categorical variable ‘type of
vehicle’ was also rank ordered from small vehicles to larger vehicles such as trucks to enable Spearman’s rho measure of association (r s ).
1
In order to explore for any gender by age differences in participant responses, two way ANOVAs were conducted on the responses to Scenario One. A conservative probability of α = .008 (.05 ÷ 6 =
.008) was chosen consistent with the number of tests performed. Post hoc test used Dunnett’s C at p <.05. All of the overall ANOVAs were significant at p < .001, however, only one interaction was
evident between age and gender for likelihood of a hostile aggressive response [F (3,918) = 4.89, p < .008] although the effect size was small ή2= .02. Males were more likely to adopt a hostile
behavioural response than females (p < .001) and 17-24 year old drivers were significantly more likely to adopt such behaviour than drivers aged 25-39 and 60 years and over (p < .001). Significant
SMEs were also found for ‘perceived threat’ and ‘likelihood of a post-event influence’ (p < .05). In respect of both variables, females were significantly more likely than males to experience feelings of
‘threat’ and a ‘post-event influence’. Drivers 17-39 years of age were also significantly more likely to experience feelings of threat than drivers aged 40 years and over (p < .05). Of the other significant
SMEs, post host tests revealed that 17-24 year old drivers were significantly more likely to experience negative emotions and adopt instrumental behavioural responses than any other age group (p < .05).
However, there was no significant difference between drivers 25-39 and 40-59 years of age on the likelihood of adopting an instrumental behavioural response (p < .05). Examination of the means
generally indicate that as age increases the emotional and cognitive response, behavioural response and likelihood of a post-event influence decreases.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 195
The correlations for total AQ, NPO and pre-study emotions indicate that as trait
aggression levels, negative problem orientation and negative pre-study emotions
increase, the likelihood of a post-event influence also increases in response to both
scenarios.
5.3.7.1.8 Self-Reported Measures for the Two Scenarios. The bi-variate
correlations of the emotional, cognitive, behavioural and post-event influence variables
with the self-reported participant responses to Scenarios One and Two are included in
Table 5.14. As would be expected, multiple significant correlations (p < .05) were
found between the participant responses to Scenarios One and Two. Significant
correlations of .10, .30 and .50 have been interpreted as weak, moderate and strong
respectively, consistent with other behavioural science research (Green, Salkind, &
Akey, 2000).
Two of the emotional and cognitive response variables for Scenario One were
moderately to strongly related to the same emotional and cognitive response variables
for Scenario Two: negative emotions (r = .51) and negative attributions (r = .37).
However, there was evidence of only a weak to moderate relationship between the
perceived threat reported in Scenarios One and Two (r = .21). The behavioural response
variables for Scenario One were strongly associated with the behavioural response
variables for Scenario Two ranging from r = .48 to r = .65. Though the emotional and
cognitive variables in response to Scenario One appeared to have a significant
association with the likelihood of an instrumental behavioural response to Scenario Two,
there were no significant relationships between the Scenario One emotional and
cognitive response variables and the likelihood of a hostile aggressive behavioural
response to Scenario Two. The behavioural response variables for Scenario One were
also significantly associated with Scenario Two emotional and cognitive responses,
although the associations varied from weak to moderately strong.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 197
Negative
Attributions (S1) .29*** .09** .37*** .29*** -.01 .05
Behavioural Responses
Likelihood of
Instrumental Behavioural .45*** .17*** .39*** .65*** .19*** .14***
Response (S1)
Likelihood of a Hostile
Behavioural Response .12*** .24*** .19*** .31*** .58*** .15***
(S1)
Block One
Block Two
Block Three
5.3.7.2.1 Negative Emotions. The overall regression analyses for Scenarios One
and Two were significant, F (8, 917) = 44.82, p < .001, R2 = .28 and F (8, 917) = 54.15,
p < .001, R2 = .32 respectively (refer to Tables 5.15 and 5.16). Socio-demographic
variables contributed a significant amount of the variance in the negative emotional
responses reported by participants in response to both scenarios [F (3, 922) = 72.44, p <
.001, R2 = .19 and F (3, 922 ) = 78.18, p < .001, R2 = .20 respectively]. The trait, person-
related variables also contributed a significant amount of the variance over and above
the socio-demographic variables [S1 - F (4, 918) = 26.68, p < .001, R2 Change = .08 and
S2 - F (4, 918) = 37.84, p < .001, R2 Change = .11].
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 199
Block One
Block Two
Block Three
[F (1, 917) = 7.76, p < .05, R2 Change = .01 and F (1, 917) = 7.09, p < .05, R2 Change = .01 ].
As such, participants who reported higher levels of negative emotion prior to completing
the questionnaire tended to record higher levels of negative emotion in response to the
scenarios. However, the R2 statistics indicate that pre-study emotions added only a small
amount to the overall variance in self-reported negative emotions in response to
Scenario One and Two.
5.3.7.2.2 Perceived Threat. The overall regression of socio-demographic, trait
and state person-related characteristics on self-reported levels of perceived threat was
significant for both scenarios [F (8, 917) = 21.22, p < .001, R2 = .15 and F (8, 917) =
8.2, p < .001, R2 = .06] (refer to Tables 5.17 and 5.18). Socio-demographic data
contributed a significant amount of the variance in self-reported threat in response to
Scenarios One and Two [S1 - F (3, 922) = 36.73, p < .001, R2 = .11 and S2 - F (3, 922) =
5.61, p < .001, R2 = .02]. However, gender was the only uniquely significant predictor
variable of perceived threat in response to Scenario One, females being more likely to
experience the emotion (S1-β = .238, p < .001). None of the socio-demographic
variables listed contributed significantly to the likelihood of perceived threat in response
to Scenario Two.
In the second step, the trait person-related variables also contributed to a
significant proportion of the variance in perceived threat having controlled for the socio-
demographic variables [S1 - F (4, 918) = 12.04, p < .001, R2 Change = .05 and S2 - F (4,
918) = 11.91, p < .001, R2 Change = .05].
In the case of Scenario One, NPO uniquely added a significant proportion of the
variance in reported perceived threat (β = .212, p < .001), suggesting that those
participants with higher levels of negative problem orientation were more likely to
report feeling threatened in response to Scenario One. Similarly, in response to Scenario
Two, NPO scores contributed to a significant proportion of the variance in self-reported
threat (β = .155, p < .001). Notably, participant total AQ scores were also significant
predictors of the likelihood of perceiving threat in response to Scenario Two (β = .126,
p < .05). The latter result may suggest that in a more ambiguous, anger-provoking
scenario, higher trait aggression scores will increase the likelihood of detecting or
perceiving threat.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 201
Block One
Block Two
Block Three
In the final step, the entry of pre-study emotions added significantly only to the
likelihood of perceived threat in response to Scenario One, but only minimally [S1 - F
(1, 917) = 5.36, p < .05, R2 Change = .01 and S2 - F (1, 917) = .40, p > .05, R2 Change = .00].
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 202
Block One
Block Two
Block Three
Block One
Block Two
Block Three
The first step in the analyses for both scenarios was significant [S1 - F (3, 922) =
23.34, p < .001, R2 = .07 and S2 - F (3, 922) = 27.40, p < .001, R2 = .08], indicating that
socio-demographic factors contribute significantly to the variance in negative emotions
experienced on the road. However, participant age proved to be the only significant
predictor variable in both scenarios (S1 -β = -.172, p < .001, sr2 = .02 and S2 - β = -
.129, p < .001, sr2 = .01), indicating that younger drivers are more likely to make
negative attributions in response to the two scenarios. In response to Scenario Two,
gender was also found to be a significant predictor (β = -.106, p < .001, sr2 = .01);
males being more likely to make negative attributions in response to Scenario Two.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 204
Block One
Block Two
Block Three
(β = -.075, p < .05, sr2 = .01). These results indicate that higher AQ scores, higher NPO
scores and lower RPS scores are associated with an increased likelihood of negative
attributions in response to Scenario Two.
In the final step, pre-study emotion failed to contribute significantly to the
likelihood of negative attributions in response to either Scenario One or Two [S1 - F (1,
917) = .14, p > .05, and S2 - F (1, 917) = .56, p > .05].
Block One
Block Two
Block Three
Block Four
behavioural responses to both Scenarios One and Two [S1 - F (4, 918) = 28.75, p < .001,
R2 Change = .11, and S2 - F (4, 918) = 9.07, p < .001, R2 Change = .04]. Step three revealed
no significant contribution by pre-study emotions to the prediction of hostile behaviour
in response to either scenario [S1 - F (1, 917) = .63, p > .05, and S2 - F (1, 917) = .46, p
> .05]. Finally, having controlled for all other variables, the emotional and cognitive
response variables were found to significantly contribute to the likelihood of a hostile
behavioural response to Scenario Two only [S1 - F (3, 914) = .36, p > .05, and S2 - F (3,
914) = 34.6, p < .001, R2 Change = .10].
For Scenario One, there were two predictor variables that significantly
contributed to a proportion of the variance in the likelihood of a hostile behavioural
response: total AQ (β = .369, p < .001, sr2 = .07); and ICS (β = .102, p < .001, sr2 =
.01). These results indicate that higher levels of trait aggression and impulsive/careless
style problem solving are significantly associated with a greater likelihood of hostile
aggression in response to an anger-provoking on-road situation (i.e. Scenario One). In
comparison, analysis of Scenario Two revealed three statistically significant predictor
variables: total AQ (β = .178, p < .001, sr2 = .02); negative emotions (β = -.169, p <
.001, sr2 = .01); and perceived threat (β = .321, p < .001, sr2 = .09). Again, higher
levels of AQ were associated with an increased likelihood of adopting hostile
aggression. As can be seen in response to Scenario Two, significantly lower levels of
negative emotion were associated with an increased likelihood of hostile aggression,
whilst higher self-reported levels of perceived threat were associated with the increased
likelihood of hostile behaviour.
Upon examination of the unique variance (sr2) contributed by the predictors, the
results suggest that total trait aggression scores account for a larger proportion of the
variance in the dependent variable, especially in terms of Scenario One. However,
perceived threat accounted for a larger proportion of the variance in the dependent
variable in response to Scenario Two. Again, in the analysis of both scenarios a
considerable amount of variance remains unexplained.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 210
Block One
Block Two
Block Three
Block Four
Block One
Block Two
Block Three
Block Four
.01); total AQ (β = .174, p < .001, sr2 = .02); pre-study emotions (β = .129, p < .001,
sr2 = .02); and, perceived threat (β = .266, p < .001, sr2 = .05). These results indicate
that females are more likely to report a post-event influence than males. Also, higher
levels of pre-study negative emotions and perceived threat were associated with a
greater likelihood of a post-event influence. Perceived threat uniquely contributed a
greater proportion of the variance than the other two variables.
Block One
Age1 40.5 19.6 .000 .001 .002
Gender .128** .048 .085 .01
Education Level2 -.004 .062 -.002
.07***
Block Two
Total AQ 47 15.6 .008*** .002 .174 .02
NPO 5.2 .52 .104* .049 .074 .00
ICS 5.2 .54 .014 .044 .010
RPS 3.3 .87 .007 .025 .009
.16*** .09***
Block Three
Pre-study 2 .77 .124*** .032 .129 .01
Emotion
.18*** .02***
Block Four
Negative Emotions (S1) 2.5 1.1 .030 .029 .043
Perceived Threat (S1) 2.5 1.3 .149*** .019 .266 .05
Negative Attributions 2.1 1.1 -.046* .022 -.071 .00
(S1)
.24*** .06***
Block Five
Likelihood of Instrumental 3 1.1 .046 .041 .047
Behavioural Response (S1)
Likelihood of Hostile
Behavioural Response (S1) 3.4 1.2 .047 .068 .022
.24*** .00
1. Age variable recoded to reflect midpoints of original categories.
2. Education level was recoded into a dichotomous variable.
*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 214
Likelihood of Hostile
Behavioural Response (S2) 3.4 1.2 .216*** .062 .116 .01
.21*** .02***
1. Age variable transformed to reflect midpoints of original categories.
2. Education level was recoded into a dichotomous variable.
*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
Similarly, in the regression of Scenario Two data (Table 5.26) there were only
two significant predictors of the likelihood of a post-event influence worthy of mention.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 215
Perceived threat accounted for a significant proportion of the variance (β = .203, p <
.001, sr2 = .03), as did the likelihood of a hostile behavioural response (β = .116, p <
.001, sr2 = .01). Overall, the Scenario Two results indicate those more likely to perceive
threat and/or engage in hostile on-road behaviours in response to this scenario are more
likely to experience a post-event influence. Again, there was a lot of unexplained
variance.
5.3.8 Exploratory Analyses of Potentially Hostile Aggressive Drivers
5.3.8.1 Rationale
Using the available data, the researcher also endeavoured to explore the
characteristics of those participants who indicated a preparedness to engage in a hostile
aggressive response to the scenarios. For the purposes of these analyses these
participants are referred to as ‘potentially hostile aggressive’ (PHA) drivers.
5.3.8.2 PHA Driver Selection
In order to later explore the characteristics of the driver that has the potential for
more hostile aggressive acts on the road, participants with a mean score greater than
‘one’ on the three hostile aggressive behavioural response items in response to either
Scenario One or Two were distinguished (n = 88) from the larger sample (n = 926). An
average score of greater than one on these three items for either scenario was interpreted
as indicating that a participant was, to some degree, prepared to adopt more extreme
behaviours in response to a potentially anger-provoking on-road incident. Specifically,
these participants indicated their preparedness to engage in:
8. Stopping their vehicle and getting out ready to argue;
9. Stopping their vehicle and getting out ready to engage physically with the other
driver; and/or
10. Using their vehicle to physically damage the other driver’s vehicle.
The age and gender breakdown of the 88 drivers identified as PHA drivers is
presented at Table 5.27.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 216
Table 5.27 Breakdown of gender by age group for the PHA driver group (n = 88)
Gender 17-24 years 25-39 years 40-59 years 60 + years
Male 24 5 23 4
Female 18 4 6 4
TOTAL 42 9 29 8
between the PHA driver and ‘other driver’ groups [χ2 (df1) = 24.361, p < .001, ø = .162]
(refer to Table L2). Males were significantly more represented in the PHA driver group
(63.6%) than the ‘other driver’ group (36.6%) [ê = 4.9, p < .001].
Although a significant overall difference in the level of education attained by
PHA drivers and other drivers was detected [χ2 (df3) = 12.672, p < .01, ø c = .117], none
of the comparisons at each level of the variable was significant at p < .01 (see Table L3).
However, examination of the frequencies in the cells indicates that a large proportion of
PHA drivers (92%) had attained a Year 12 or higher education (i.e. either senior –
39.8%, TAFE or apprenticeship – 31.8%, or university – 18%).
Participants were asked to indicate the approximate number of hours they drive
per week in the categories outlined at Table L4. As can be seen, there were no
significant differences found between the two driver groups in the number of hours
driven per week [χ2 (df4) = 5.583, p > .01, ø c = .08].
Participants were also asked to indicate what type of vehicle they drove. As
some of the obtained cell frequencies were less than 5, various categories were collapsed
together. Utility vehicles, small/large trucks and all 4WDs were combined to be known
as ‘4WD, utility or truck’. Finally, as the number of participants that indicated use of
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 217
either a motorcycle or a van/people mover/ mini-bus was less than 5, these items were
excluded from the analysis. Thus, the number of participant responses under
consideration was reduced to ‘other drivers’ (n = 807) and ‘PHA drivers’ (n = 83).
The overall difference between the two driver groups of ‘other drivers’ and PHA
drivers [p = .017] was approaching significance at the predetermined alpha level, p >
.01. Examination of the frequencies at Table L5 suggests that PHA drivers may tend to
drive a medium-size vehicle or larger.
The measure of the type of road most frequently used distinguished between
urban, city, highway and open road. As can be seen in Appendix F, this measure made
simultaneous reference to the density of traffic to which a driver is most frequently
exposed, as traffic density is known to vary with type of roads travelled. For example,
the number of cars using a city/town road understandably varies from the number using
a country road. The categories were collapsed to reflect a measure of light, medium and
heavy traffic density, irrespective of type of road (see Table L6). However, no
significant differences between PHA drivers and ‘other drivers’ were found in relation to
exposure to traffic density [χ2 (df2) = 2.574, p = .276, ø c = .05]. Also, it is worth noting
that on the original scale, approximately half of the PHA driver group (n = 47 or 53.4%)
reported most frequently driving on city/town roads in medium density traffic.
5.3.8.4 PHA Driver Differences in Trait Characteristics
A series of independent sample, Mann-Whitney U t-tests was conducted (Table
L7) comparing hostile aggressive drivers to other drivers on the various trait
characteristics measured via the survey (see Appendix F). Comparisons were made
between the potentially ‘hostile aggressive driver’ (n = 88) scores and ‘other drivers’ (n
= 838) on the AQ (Buss & Perry, 1992) subscales: physical aggression, verbal
aggression, angry aggression and hostile aggression. The results of the tests indicated
that the PHA drivers scored significantly higher on all four AQ subscales, as well as the
total AQ scale, than the ‘other drivers’ (refer to Table L7).
Secondly, the PHA driver group was compared with other drivers on the three
SPSI-R subscales of interest in this study, i.e. negative problem solving (NPO),
impulsive/carelessness style (ICS) and rational problem solving (RPS) (refer to Table
L7). The Mann-Whitney U tests were significant for: NPO [ z = -2.882, p < .005]; and
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 218
ICS [z = -4.081, p < .001], with the PHA drivers having higher scores on both NPO and
ICS than ‘other drivers’. Although not statistically significant (p > .017), the PHA
drivers’ scores on rational problem solving were lower than the other drivers.
Finally, prior to completing the questionnaire participants were asked to indicate
their current stress, happiness and agitation levels. A total score of ‘pre-study emotion’
was subsequently calculated. A test comparing levels of pre-study emotion reported
prior to completion of the questionnaire between the PHA drivers and other drivers was
significant [z = -4.711, p < .001] (refer to Table L7). Interestingly, PHA drivers had an
average rank of 590.10, while other drivers had an average rank of 450.21, suggesting
that the PHA driver group may have higher levels of negative emotion than ‘other
drivers’ at any given point in time.
5.3.8.5 PHA Driver Self Reported Driving Behaviour and Behavioural Intentions
Examination of the frequencies for the PHA driver group across the original
response categories indicates that 21.6% (n = 19) of PHA drivers reported being
involved in one crash in the last three years (see Table L8). In a more thorough
breakdown of the nine PHA drivers involved in two or more crashes as outlined above,
four reported having had two crashes, three reported having three crashes and one
reported having been involved in four crashes in the past three years. Interestingly, one
of the PHA drivers reported having had eight crashes in the past three years. However, it
should be noted that there was no overall significant difference in the self-reported crash
involvement of the PHA drivers compared to the ‘other drivers’ (see Table L8).
Similar to the measure of crash involvement above, participants were asked to
indicate the number of speeding fines they had received in the past three years. To aid
interpretation of the data, the frequencies were collapsed into three categories (see Table
L9). Again, no significant difference was found between reported speeding fines for
other drivers and PHA drivers [χ2 (df2) = 1.927, p = .381, ø c = .05]. Examination
revealed that 34% (n = 29) of the PHA driver group and 27.3% (n = 221) of other
drivers had received one or more speeding fines in the past three years (Table L9).
Participants also reported whether they had been fined for any other offences
during the last three years. As shown in Table L9, these responses were recoded into
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 219
two categories. No significant difference was found between PHA drivers and other
drivers on this variable [χ2 (df1) = 1.885, p = .170, ø = .048].
When asked to indicate the number of drink-driving charges they have had in the
last three years, a significant difference was found between the obtained frequencies of
drink-driving charges for the driver groups [χ2 (df1) = 7.951, p < .05, ø c = .10] (see
Table L9). A significantly larger proportion of PHA drivers (4.1%) had reported one or
more drink-driving charges than the ‘other’ driver group (.7%). However, caution
should be exercised when interpreting these results as one of the cell frequencies was
below 5, potentially influencing the results.
Participants were also asked if they had driven unlicensed in the past three years.
Unfortunately, 120 participants chose not to respond to this question, while only four
reported engaging in such behaviour. Therefore, it was not possible to detect any
meaningful differences between the two driver groups.
The self-reported driving behaviour and behavioural intentions of the PHA and
‘other drivers’ were also compared using Mann-Whitney U Tests due to the skewed
distribution of participant responses to the four intention variables (refer to Table L10).
The PHA drivers reported significantly stronger intentions than other drivers in relation
to their preparedness to exceed the speed limit by 10km/h or more on urban roads [z =
2.993, p < .05] and on highways [z = 4.188, p < .001]. PHA drivers also indicated
significantly stronger intentions to drink drive and drug drive [z = 4.714, p < .001 and z
= 5.127, p < .001 respectively].
5.3.8.6 PHA Driver Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioural Responses
Using Mann-Whitney U tests, PHA drivers and other driver emotional, cognitive
and behavioural responses to each scenario were compared. The results of these tests
are outlined at Table L11. Considering five tests were conducted for each scenario a
Bonferoni adjustment was made (.05 ÷ 5) which resulted in the adoption of p < .01
value.
Significant differences were found between the driver groups on self-reported
negative emotions in response to both Scenarios One and Two [z = -3.509, p < .001 and
z = -3.973, p < .001]. PHA drivers reported higher scores in response to both Scenario
One and Scenario Two, than the ‘other drivers’.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 220
As can be seen in Table L11, the comparison of PHA drivers and ‘other drivers’
on the likelihood of perceiving threat was significant for Scenario Two only [z = -5.725,
p < .001]. In this case, the PHA drivers reported a strong perception of threat than ‘other
drivers’ in an ambiguous, though potentially anger-provoking, scenario. The non-
significant result between PHA drivers and ‘other drivers’ on perceived threat in
response to Scenario One [z = -.319, p >.01] indicates that there was no difference
between drivers in their tendency to perceive threat in an anger-provoking on-road
situation.
Though the comparison of the driver groups for Scenario One negative
attributions was not significant [z = -2.353, p > .01], the difference between the average
ranks for PHA [526.98] and ‘other drivers’ [456.83] was in the direction anticipated.
The comparison of the PHA drivers and ‘other drivers’ on Scenario Two responses was
significant [z = -4.711, p < .001]. Again, PHA drivers had a higher negative cognition
score in response to Scenario One than ‘other drivers’.
As previously detailed, six items on the behavioural response scale were used to
calculate a total score reflecting the likelihood of an instrumental aggressive response
for each participant. Similarly, the three items detailing more severe behavioural
responses were used to calculate the likelihood of having a hostile reactive aggressive
response. Mann-Whitney U tests comparing the PHA drivers and the ‘other drivers’ on
the likelihood of an instrumental aggressive response was significant for both scenarios:
Scenario One [z = -9.164, p < .001]; and Scenario Two [z = -8.702, p < .001]. In both
scenarios the PHA driver group had higher average ranks [Scenario One – 711.19,
Scenario Two – 698.69] than ‘other drivers’, average rankings 437.49 and 438.80
respectively. As such, not only did the PHA driver group report a higher score for an
instrumental aggressive response to an anger-provoking incident (Scenario One), but
also when the on-road incident is ambiguous (Scenario Two).
Mann-Whitney U tests also compared self-reported likelihood of a post-event
influence following an on-road incident between PHA drivers and ‘other drivers’
following Scenarios One and Two. Both tests were significant, Scenario One – z = -
3.695, p < .001 and Scenario Two – z = -3.362, p < .001. In response to Scenario One,
the PHA drivers [average rank = 556.91] were more likely to report stronger post event
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 221
influence than the ‘other drivers’ [average rank = 453.69]. This result was also reflected
in response to Scenario Two. That is, hostile aggressive drivers [average rank = 535.00]
were more likely to report a stronger post event influence following an ambiguous on-
road incident than the ‘other drivers’ in the sample [average rank = 455.99].
5.3.8.7 Ability of Variables to Predict PHA Driver Group Membership
The final step in the analysis of Study Two data was to assess the extent to which
the various discrete and continuous variables of the proposed model of aggressive
driving predict PHA group membership. Consequently, a logistic regression was
conducted utilising the person-related, emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses
and individual driving exposure variables as predictor variables (refer to Table L12).
Person-related predictors were gender, age (17–24 years, 25–39 years, 40–59 years and
60 years plus), trait aggression (as measured by the AQ), social problem solving
subscale score measures (NPO, ICS and RPS scores), pre-study emotions and education
(either < Year 10 or > Year 10). The emotional, cognitive and behavioural response
predictor variables were the total negative emotions, perceived threat, negative
cognitions and likelihood of an instrumental aggressive reaction, summed across the two
scenarios.
The majority of these variables are continuous and missing values were replaced
with the mean. Ninety-two cases with missing values on the categorical variables, age,
hours driven per week, type of vehicle and congestion exposure, were excluded from
analysis leaving 834 drivers for the analysis. There was no identifiable pattern to the
missing data.
A test of the full model with all predictors against a constant-only model was
statistically reliable [χ2 (df24, n = 834) = 170.99, p < .001, Nagalkerke R2 = .41]. The
predictors as a set reliably distinguished between PHA drivers and other drivers.
However, prediction of PHA group membership was relatively poor, with only 29.3% of
PHA drivers correctly predicted. Conversely, 98.4% of ‘other drivers’ were correctly
predicted. The overall prediction success rate was 91%.
As shown in Table L12, three person-related predictors, three emotional,
cognitive and behavioural response predictors and one of the driving exposure predictors
reliably predicted driver group membership. Gender [B = -1.04, p < .01, odds ratio =
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 222
.36, CI = .18 - .70] and total AQ scores [B = .04, p < .01, odds ratio = 1.04, CI = 1.01 –
1.06] were significant predictors. The gender indices indicate that being female
increases the likelihood of ‘other driver’ group membership, whilst the total AQ indices
suggest that higher trait aggression scores increase the likelihood of PHA group
membership. The categorical, person-related variable ‘age’ also yielded a significant
result for 25–39-year-old drivers [B = -1.13, p < .05, odds ratio = .32, CI = .12 – 1.07].
These indices indicate that drivers aged 25–39 years old are more likely to belong to the
‘other driver’ group. However, this could be a product of the fact that proportionately
less 25–39 year-old drivers were recruited than other age groups.
The three response predictors were negative emotions [B = -.83, p < .01, odds
ratio = .44, CI = .25 - .76], perceived threat [B = .32, p < .01, odds ratio = 1.37, CI =
1.09 – 1.73] and instrumental aggressive behavioural response [B = 2.08, p < .01, odds
ratio = 7.99, CI = 4.2 – 14.9]. These results indicate that greater negative emotions
and/or lower levels of perceived threat experienced by a driver increase the likelihood of
belonging to the PHA driver group. Finally, being more likely to engage in instrumental
aggressive behaviours rather than hostile behaviours increased the likelihood of
belonging to the ‘other driver’ group.
Of the categorical driving exposure variables, ‘type of vehicle’ yielded
significant results at p < .05:
• Medium vehicle – [B = 1.02, odds ratio = 2.78, CI = 1.18 – 6.53]
• Large vehicle – [B = 1.18, odds ratio = 3.25, CI = 1.18 – 8.96]
• Four Wheel Drive – [B = 1.39, odds ratio = 4.0, CI = 1.31 – 12.2]
These results indicate that drivers of medium/large vehicles and four wheel
drives are more likely to be categorised as PHA drivers than drivers of small vehicles
(i.e. reference group).
5.4 Discussion
The following section discusses the results of the study in terms of the relevant
research questions and specific hypotheses outlined in Section 5.1.1.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 223
hostile behavioural response, are consistent with human aggression research (Anderson
et al., 1998; Berkowitz, 1989, 1990; Dodge & Coie, 1987). For instance, Berkowitz
(1989, 1990) maintained that ‘fear’ is a basic instinctive response to a provocative
incident that will result in ‘flight’ or ‘fight’. This finding also lends support to the Study
One findings in which young drivers cited feelings of ‘dangerousness’, and/or more
explicitly ‘fear’, as a result of an on-road incident. Consequently, these findings also
support the inclusion of ‘threat’ in the theoretical model of aggressive driving behaviour
(see Figure 4.3) as a legitimate contributing factor to on-road aggression.
The findings concerning the increased likelihood of having negative attributions
associated with such an incident, are also consistent with the human aggression theories
incorporated in the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002. The GAM emphasises the
interplay between emotions and cognitions in response to environmental stimuli; in this
instance, an on-road incident. These results are further supported by subsequent results
involving either an instrumental or hostile behavioural response, whereby participants
reported an increased likelihood of either type of behavioural response in the face of a
clearly anger-provoking incident. From the literature review of aggression theory,
negative cognitions are frequently associated with reactive aggressive responses
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Berkowitz, 1989; Deffenbacher et al., 2003; Dollard et
al., 1939).
Finally, consistent with previous research into displaced aggression (Lawton &
Nutter, 2002; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2000; Pedersen et al., 2000), the results of the
pair-wise t-tests suggest there is an increased likelihood of a post-event effect having
been confronted with an intentionally provocative incident, compared with an
ambiguous one. Specifically, consideration of the items presented to participants
indicated an increased likelihood of the incident influencing subsequent on-road
behaviours, in other tasks performance and/or in their dealings with others. Therefore, it
appears there is evidence to support the potential for an anger-provoking on-road
incident to generate sufficient emotion to transfer to the on and off-road environment.
Although it should be noted that the relatively small effect size may be due to
participants responding to ‘artificial’ on-road scenarios and the effect in real-life may be
greater.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 225
Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that there are two areas of the GAM that
were not assessed in this study due to the use of scenarios and their lack of realism.
Firstly, this study was not able to measure physiological arousal levels that a driver may
bring to the on-road environment, suggested as important to aggressive behavioural
outcomes in the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Secondly, the decision-making
process as strictly outlined in the original GAM was not fully explored. The decision
not to explore this process fully was based on Study One findings that suggested many
of the decisions associated with aggressive driving behaviour are performed at a
subconscious level. Additionally, the participants were not physically situated in the
driving environment at the time of their responses and, therefore, would not be subject to
the ‘real-life’ temporal and environmental constraints.
5.4.2 Exploration of the Components of the Proposed Theoretical Framework of
Aggressive Driving
The results are discussed in keeping with the hypotheses formulated according to
the three stage exploration of the proposed theoretical framework derived from the
GAM, detailed at Figure 5.1.
H2 Driving exposure factors such as type of vehicle driven, congestion
exposure and hours driven per week will be associated with driver
emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
Only partial support was found for H2. Though significant correlations were
found between several of the driving exposure variables and the behavioural outcomes
(refer Table 5.14), the strength of these relationships were small, falling below r = .2.
As a result, none of the driving exposure variables were included in the regression
analyses. Despite this, some of the significant correlations are worth noting.
Examination of the correlations revealed that smaller vehicles are driven by those
who experience greater levels of negative emotion (r = -.11, p < .001) and perceived
threat (r = -.11, p < .001) in response to Scenario One. Smaller vehicles were also found
to be significantly associated with hostile aggressive responses to Scenario One (r = -
.08, p < .05) and an increased likelihood of a post-event influence (r = -.10, p < .001).
These findings are contrary to the Study One findings that suggested that aggressive
drivers are more likely to drive larger or modified vehicles. However, it should be noted
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 226
that these results may be the product of the large and diverse sample surveyed for the
purpose of this study. In other words, the survey did not specifically target hostile
aggressive drivers, rather it was aimed at a cross-section of the general driving
population. Alternatively, the greater proportion of young drivers surveyed may have
influenced the results, given that young drivers in general tend to drive smaller, possibly
more affordable vehicles.
H3 Socio-Demographic factors will be significant predictors of emotional,
cognitive and behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
In each of the relevant multiple regressions, socio-demographic factors
contributed a significant proportion of the variance in the emotional, cognitive and
behavioural responses of the participants in support of H3. However, of the socio-
demographic factors included in the regression on self-reported negative emotions in
response to Scenarios One and Two, participant age was the only individually significant
predictor (S1 - β = .046, p < .001 and S2 - β = -.263, p < .001). As such, younger
drivers appear more likely to experience greater levels of negative emotion when faced
with either on-road situation, in keeping with earlier aggressive driving research that
found that younger drivers are more likely to experience greater levels of frustration or
anger in response to an on-road incident (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; O’Brien, Watson, &
Tay, 2004; Shinar, 1998). The regression analyses also indicate that driver gender
contributes little to the level of annoyance, frustration or anger experienced in response
to on-road provocation.
In contrast, gender was the only significant socio-demographic variable for self-
reported feelings of ‘threat’ in response to Scenario One (β = .238, p < .001, sr2 = .05).
Therefore, it would seem that females are more likely to report feeling threatened in
response to more clearly provocative on-road incidents. This is consistent with Study
One findings that found that females were more likely to report experiencing fear and
feelings of intimidation when faced with a provocative on-road incident. None of the
socio-demographic variables were found to be individually significant predictors of
perceived threat in response to Scenario Two. However, there was some evidence of a
significant association between age and perceived threat in response to this scenario (r =
-.13, p < .001), suggesting that younger drivers may perceive greater threat in an
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 227
findings, gender was not found to be a significant predictor for adopting an instrumental
behavioural response, contrary to the same research that simultaneously reported that
males will be more likely to adopt such behaviours on the roads (Harding et al., 1998;
Lajunen & Parker, 1998; Shinar, 1998; VCCAV, 1999).
The education level attained by participants was also found to be a significant
predictor, but it only accounted for a minimal amount of variance. In this instance, those
drivers with a Year 10 education or better were more likely to adopt an instrumentally
aggressive response. This finding is contrary to human aggression research which has
long associated lower levels of education with greater levels of human aggression and
road safety research (Harris et al., 1996a; Murray, 1998; Shinar, Schechtman, &
Compton, 2001). This contrary result could be due, in part, to a societal trend to pursue
greater than a Year 10 education. Alternatively, it may be due to the nature of
aggressive driving behaviour itself. Perhaps, the anonymity experienced whilst driving
(Ellison, Govern, Herbert, & Figler, 1995) allows a greater range of individuals, with a
wider range of educational achievements, to adopt an instrumental aggressive response
to on-road provocation.
H4 Trait aggression will be a significant predictor of emotional, cognitive and
behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
H5 Higher levels of ICS and NPO and lower levels of RPS will be predictive
of emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to on-road
provocation.
The trait person-related variables of interest significantly contributed to the
prediction of negative emotions reported by participants in response to both scenarios
(S1 - R2 = .08, and S2 - R2 = .11), having controlled for socio-demographic variables,
lending support for H4 and H5. Total AQ scores and NPO were both individually
significant predictors of negative emotions in response to both scenarios (S1 - AQ, β =
.204, p < .001, sr2 = .02, and NPO - β = .139, p < .001, sr2 = .01; S2 - AQ, β = .271, p
< .001, sr2 = .04, and NPO - β = .141, p < .001, sr2 = .01). These results indicate that as
trait aggression and negative problem orientation increase so do the negative emotions
experienced as a result of exposure to provocative on-road incidents consistent with
other aggressive driving research (Buss & Perry, 1992; D’Zurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 229
Olivares, 2002; D’Zurilla et al., 2000; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Examination of the
semi-partial correlations would indicate that trait aggression accounted for more of the
unique variance in the case of Scenario Two than Scenario One. This finding is
indirectly supported by the research of Dodge and colleague (1987) that found that
aggressive children are more likely to experience anger in response to ambiguity in
social situations.
In regard to levels of ‘perceived threat’, trait person-related factors also
contributed a significant proportion of the variance (S1 - R2 = .05, and S2 - R2 = .05). In
response to Scenario One, NPO was the only predictor to contribute a significant
proportion of the variance (β = 212, p < .001, sr2 = .03), higher levels of negative
problem orientation increasing the likelihood of perceiving threat in an anger-provoking
scenario. In contrast, both total AQ and NPO were individually significant predictors of
perceived threat in response to Scenario Two (AQ, β = .126, p < .001, sr2 = .01, and
NPO - β = .155, p < .001, sr2 = .02). This result indicates that those individuals high on
trait aggression and/or negative problem orientation are more likely to feel threatened in
an ambiguous on-road incident. Other human aggression research suggests that many
individuals with aggression difficulties have, at some point in their lives, been exposed
to environmental/developmental stimuli that have served to increase their trait
aggression levels (refer to Section 3.2) (Anderson et al., 1998; Dodge & Coie, 1987;
Silva & Marks, 2001). This research proposes that such exposure has the potential to
predispose some individuals to the adoption of ‘anger’ and the detection of ‘threat’
within ambiguous situations.
Further, the regression analyses on negative attributions revealed that trait
person-related factors again contributed to a significant amount of the variation (S1 - R2
= .04, and S2 - R2 = .08). However, trait aggression was the only significant trait
predictor variable of negative attributions in response to Scenario One (β = .217, p <
.001, sr2 = .03). Conversely, for Scenario Two, trait aggression (β = .258, p < .001, sr2 =
.04), NPO (β = .084, p < .05, sr2 = .01) and RPS (β =-.075, p < .05, sr2 = .01) were
found to be individually significant predictors. In response to either scenario, these
results indicate that higher trait aggression levels are predictive of an increased
likelihood of negative attributions in the face of on-road provocation, consistent with
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 230
human aggression research (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Additionally, greater NPO levels are
also significantly predictive of more negative attributions in response to an ambiguous
on-road situation such as Scenario Two. This latter result may be considered consistent
with the human aggression research that has found a relationship between depression
and greater levels of irritability (Stanford et al., 1995), cognitive negativity being highly
related to depression (Caprara et al., 1987; Bushman et al., 2005).
Finally, as may have been anticipated by the human aggression and problem-
solving research (D’Zurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002), lower levels of RPS were
also predictive of negative attributions in response to this scenario. The previous
research found that ICS and NPO are more highly related to the adoption of aggressive
behaviours (D’Zurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). Collectively, these results
would suggest that when faced with situational ambiguity, individuals with higher levels
of trait aggression, lower levels of rational problem-solving skills and/or those with
higher levels of negative problem-solving orientation will have a tendency to interpret
the driving behaviour of others in a more negative manner.
It is also worth noting, that trait person-related factors were also found to
contribute a significant amount of the variance in the likelihood of adopting instrumental
aggression in response to both Scenarios One and Two (S1 - R2 Change = .18 and S2 -
R2 Change = .19). In response to Scenario One, trait aggression levels (β = .345, p < .001,
sr2 = .06), NPO (β = -.079, p < .05, sr2 = .00) and ICS (β = .088, p < .001, sr2 = .01)
were identified as significant predictors lending support for H4 and H5. In contrast, trait
aggression (β = .320, p < .001, sr2 = .05) was the only significant trait person-related
predictor in the case of Scenario Two. In response to both scenarios, higher trait
aggression scores were predictive of a likelihood of adopting instrumental aggression.
Furthermore, those drivers with higher levels of impulsive/careless problem-
solving style were also more likely to adopt instrumental behaviour in response to
Scenario One, consistent with other research into impulsivity and driving behaviours
(Eysenck et al., 1995; Dahlen et al., 2005; Deffenbacher et al., 2000; Karli, 1991).
Additionally, in response to Scenario One, lower levels of NPO were associated with a
greater likelihood of adopting an instrumental response. Upon reflection, these results
may suggest that those individuals that have less negative problem orientation and/or a
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 231
Two. Given that the prior contribution of pre-study emotions to other dependent
variables has been relatively small this result is not overly surprising. Conversely, it
may also be a product of the artificiality of the use of scenarios.
H7 Higher levels of negative emotion, perceived threat and negative
attributions will predict the likelihood of stronger instrumental and hostile
aggressive behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
In response to both scenarios, emotional and cognitive response variables added
significantly to the likelihood of adopting instrumental aggression (S1 - R2 Change = .12
and S2 - R2 Change = .17) in general support of H7. Participant self-reported negative
emotions (β = .356, sr2 = .07), perceived threat (β = -.091, sr2 = .01) and negative
attributions (β = .114, sr2 = .01) were significant predictors of the likelihood of adopting
instrumental aggression in response to Scenario One. Similarly, negative emotions (β =
.318, sr2 = .05) and negative attributions (β = .229, sr2 = .03), but not perceived threat,
were predictive of instrumental aggression in response to Scenario Two. As such, the
results indicated that higher levels of negative emotion accounted for a greater
proportion of the variance in the prediction of the likelihood of instrumental aggression
than the other emotional and cognitive response variables consistent with other human
aggression and traffic psychology research (Berkowitz, 1989, 1993; Lajunen & Parker,
2001; Shinar, 1998). Further to this, higher negative attributions were more predictive
of an instrumentally aggressive response in the ambiguous anger-provoking situation.
Overall, the contribution of emotional and cognitive responses to the likelihood
of instrumental aggression is consistent with GAM theory and other human aggression
research (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Berkowitz, 1989; Dollard et al., 1939; Shinar,
1998). In keeping with this research, higher levels of negative emotions and a greater
likelihood of negative attributions do appear to contribute to the likelihood of adopting
an instrumental response. In addition, these results also support the proposition by
Berkowitz (1989) that negative emotions and negative schemas are linked in a cognitive
manner and will increase the likelihood of an aggressive response.
As previously noted, in the regression analyses examining the likelihood of a
hostile aggressive response to Scenario One, socio-demographic variables (R2 = .02)
collectively contributed significantly to the prediction of hostile aggressive behaviour, in
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 233
support of H3. Consistent with H4 and H5, two trait person-related variables (R2 change =
.11) were identified as individually significant predictors of the likelihood of a hostile
aggressive behavioural response: trait aggression (β = .369, sr2 = .07), and ICS (β =
.102, sr2 = .01). In this intentionally anger-provoking scenario, those drivers higher on
trait aggression and/or impulsive/careless problem solving appear more likely to engage
in hostile on-road aggressive behaviours, similar to the results for the likelihood of
adopting instrumental on-road behaviours. Though the proportion of variance explained
by ICS is small, these results are consistent with human aggression and traffic
psychology research that has found high levels of impulsivity associated with young
males and their driving behaviour (Eysenck et al., 1995; Connor et al., 2003; Dahlen et
al., 2005; Deffenbacher et al., 2003b; Karli, 1991).
Interestingly, however, the emotional and cognitive response variables were not
significant predictors of the likelihood of a hostile aggressive response to Scenario One
(see Table 5.23). The adoption of hostile aggressive behaviours to this intentionally
anger-provoking scenario, therefore, appears to be contingent on the trait characteristics
of the driver, indicating a lack of support for H7.
In contrast, in response to Scenario Two, although the socio-demographic
variables contributed a significant proportion of the variance in the likelihood of a
hostile behavioural response (R2 = .01), the trait person-related factors (R2 change = .04)
and cognitive and emotional response factors (R2 change = .10) also contributed
significantly to the variance. Of these variables, total AQ (β = .178, sr2 = .02), negative
emotions (β = -.169, sr2 = .01) and perceived threat (β = .321, sr2 = .09) were
individually significant predictors of the likelihood of hostile aggression in response to
Scenario Two.
H8 Higher levels of negative emotion, perceived threat, negative attributions
and an increased reporting of a behavioural response to on-road
provocation will increase the likelihood of a post-event influence being
experienced.
The regression analyses relating to the likelihood of a post-event influence
following Scenarios One and Two were both significant (S1 – Adj R2 = .24, and S2 –
Adj R2 = .21). However, the results are complex and show mixed support for H8.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 234
Before discussing the influence of the emotional, cognitive and behavioural response
variables on the likelihood of a post-event influence, it is worth noting the impact of the
socio-demographic factors and pre-study emotions on this outcome.
In response to Scenario One, female drivers were significantly (p < .001) more
likely to report a post-event influence (β = .085, sr2 = .01). In response to the more
ambiguous situation posed by Scenario Two, females were again more likely to
experience a post-event influence (β = .066, sr2 = .00), however, the semi-partial
correlation indicates gender contributes only a minimal amount of the variance. Trait
person-related factors contribute a significant amount of variance having controlled for
the socio-demographic variables in response to both scenarios (S1 - R2 change = .09 and
2 2
S2 - R change = .08). Specifically, trait aggression (β = .174, sr = .02) and NPO (β =
2
.074, sr = .00) was identified as a significant predictor of a post-event influence in
response to Scenario One. However, in response to Scenario Two, NPO (β = .079, sr2 =
.00) was the only significant person-related predictor variable. As such, those high on
trait aggression and negative problem-solving style appear more likely to experience a
post-event influence. Perhaps this effect is due to the potential for aggressive or
negative individuals to ruminate about a provocative incident, as suggested in human
aggression research concerned with emotional susceptibility, ruminating and aggression
(Caprara et al., 1987; Bushman et al., 2005).
Pre-study emotions, as a measure of state factors, were also found to be
predictive of the likelihood of a post-event influence in response to Scenario One (β =
.129, sr2 = .01) (Novaco et al., 1990; Matthews et al., 1991; Parkinson, 2001).
However, the state person-related variable, pre-study emotions did not contribute to the
overall prediction of a post-event influence in response to Scenario Two.
Turning to the influence of the emotional and cognitive responses on the
likelihood of a post-event influence, in Scenario One they contributed a significant
proportion of the variance (R2 change = .06) having controlled for socio-demographic, trait
and state person-related variables. Of these variables, perceived threat (β = .266, sr2 =
.05) was the only notable significant predictor of a post-event influence. As such, it
would appear that feelings of threat appear to persist longer than other negative
emotions, thereby having the potential to influence subsequent interactions.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 235
well-known that a large range of variables have the potential to negatively influence on-
road behaviour (refer to Figure 2.1 for example).
5.4.3 The Nature and Purpose of Aggressive Driving Behaviours
The results of Study Two show considerable support for Hypothesis Nine:
H9 The response of drivers to an intentionally provocative on-road incident
can be categorised into two distinct but related types of behaviours,
instrumental or hostile, which serve different functions for drivers.
Consistent with the research of Shinar (1998) and Lajunen & Parker (2001),
factor analysis of the behavioural response items indicated two distinct types of
behavioural responses. As detailed in Section 5.3.3.3 (Table 5.8), the behaviours
labelled ‘instrumental aggression’, can be adopted with little or no loss of time or
without deviating from the original goal of driving. As such, the adoption of
‘instrumental’ on-road aggression appears to facilitate one’s journey. Alternatively,
those behaviours labelled ‘hostile aggressive’ were more extreme in nature, sometimes
involving interpersonal violence. These behaviours reflected a preparedness to deviate
from one’s original reason or goal for driving, investing the ‘time’ to personally express
anger or annoyance. Therefore, the function served by ‘hostile’ behaviours appears to
be personally, and intrinsically, important to the driver, suggesting the strong
involvement of person-related characteristics as confirmed by the foregoing research.
Finally, the total average participant instrumental and hostile aggressive
behavioural responses were found to be significantly associated (r = .36, p < .001). This
was largely anticipated, due to the role of ‘aggression’ in the adoption of many of the
behaviours. However, it is only a moderate relationship, where 13% (r = .36) of the
total variance in the likelihood of adopting ‘hostile aggressive’ behaviour is predicted by
the likelihood of adopting ‘instrumental aggression’. In summary, it would appear that
the behaviours adopted in aggressive driving fall into two distinct but related categories,
serving different functions for the aggressor.
5.4.4 Exploration of the PHA Driver Findings
5.4.4.1 Socio-Demographic and Driving Characteristics of the PHA Driver
Utilising the four age groups identified in earlier analyses, a significant age
difference was found between the PHA drivers and other drivers (p < .001). Young
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 237
drivers are proportionately more likely to be categorised PHA drivers than other drivers
(Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Harding et al., 1998; O’Brien, Tay, & Watson 2005;
VCCAV, 1999). Conversely, older drivers (60 years and over) were more likely to fall
in the ‘other driver’ category and there was no significant difference between drivers
aged 25–39 and 40–59 years of age. Thus this may be interpreted as being consistent
with the findings of Harris and Knight-Bohnhoff (1996), that an individual’s
aggressiveness may be susceptible to modification over the course of their life,
increasing age being associated with lower aggression levels. However, this result also
indicates that the increased likelihood of adopting hostile aggressive behaviours on the
road is not exclusive to young drivers.
A significant difference in gender representation was also found between the two
driver types (p < .001). Males were found to be significantly more represented in the
PHA driver group than females, in keeping with earlier aggressive driving research
(Aberg & Rimmo, 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lawton et al., 1997; Reason et al.,
1991, VCCAV, 1999). Interestingly, no statistically significant differences were
detected in education levels attained. However, inspection of the frequencies did
suggest that a large percentage (92%) of PHA drivers have attained a considerable level
of education. They have completed their higher school certificate, completed an
apprenticeship or finished TAFE and even university. These results are rather
surprising, considering earlier traffic research, that found a relationship between lower
education and aberrant driving behaviour (Shinar, et al., 2001).
Consistent with earlier research concerning congestion (Hartley & Hassani,
1994; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999; Lajunen, et al., 1999) and study one findings, it
was anticipated that increased exposure to on-road traffic and subsequent congestion
would increase the likelihood of a driver having the potential for hostile aggression on-
road. However, the results indicate there is no significant difference between the two
driver groups (p > .01), contrary to previous research (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999;
Lajunen, et al. 1999). There was no significant difference between the PHA and ‘other
drivers’ in the traffic density they were most often exposed to. Notwithstanding, the
frequencies infer that PHA drivers (53.4%) may drive more frequently in medium
density traffic than any other (see Table L6).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 238
The type of vehicle driven may also contribute to on-road aggression to some
degree, as the results approached significance. Inspection of the frequencies in Table L5
indicates that PHA drivers tend to drive a medium or large car, or a 4WD/Utility/Truck.
These results are consistent with the focus group findings, in which participants reported
vehicle presentation, mechanics, sense of security and size of car as potential causes of
aggressive driving. However, how the type of vehicle driven influences the likelihood
of on-road aggression remains unclear.
5.4.4.2 PHA Driver History of Driving Offences in the Previous Three Years
No significant differences were found between PHA and ‘other drivers’ in the
number of crashes they reported having had in the past three years. Similarly, no
significant differences were found between the two driver groups in the number of
speeding fines and other general driving related fines incurred in the last three years.
However, it is worth noting that within the PHA driver group 34% indicated having
received one or more speeding fines in the past three years. Finally, a larger, significant
proportion of PHA drivers than ‘other drivers’, reported having one or more drink-
driving charges in the last three years.
5.4.4.3 PHA Driver Self-reported Driving Behaviour
A significant difference was found in the preparedness of PHA and other drivers
to engage in speeding behaviour. Significantly more PHA drivers indicated they would
be ‘extremely likely’ to exceed the speed limit by 10km/h or more on an urban road than
other drivers (p < .05). Further, significantly more PHA drivers indicated they would be
‘extremely likely’ to exceed the speed limit by 10km/h or more on a highway than other
drivers (p < .001).
These results are particularly noteworthy, as they suggest that PHA drivers are
more likely than general drivers to travel at excessive speed not only on highways, but
urban roadways. The suggestion that this behaviour may be indicative of PHA drivers is
consistent with the focus group findings where n = 27 young drivers reported speeding
as a contributing factor or behaviour that characterises aggressive driving behaviour.
Consequently, the inclusion of speeding in studies of aggressive driving appears
justified.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 239
problem solving, outlined above. As this study did not investigate individual ‘state’
stress in detail, it is recommended that more research be conducted in this area. Effort
should also be given to identifying the sources of such stress.
5.4.4.5 PHA Driver Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioural Responses
Recalling that the two scenarios presented to each participant involved a
potentially anger-provoking scenario (Scenario One) and an ambiguous, potentially less
anger-provoking scenario (Scenario Two), significant differences were found between
the two driver groups and their emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to each.
As detailed in L7, PHA drivers ranked significantly higher on emotional, cognitive and
behavioural responses in both situations.
Consequently, this suggests that PHA drivers experience stronger negative
emotional and more negative thoughts in response to an on-road incident, even a
relatively ambiguous one as represented by Scenario Two (p < .001). These results may
indicate that PHA drivers will have more difficulty controlling their emotions and as a
consequence greater difficulty controlling their behavioural responses. They are also
more likely to perceive threat than other drivers when faced with on-road ambiguity that
may have the potential to be anger-provoking as in Scenario Two (p < .001), consistent
with human aggression research that found that individuals high on trait aggression will
be more likely to detect threat in their surrounding environment (Dodge & Coie, 1987).
Further, the PHA driver is more likely to respond with instrumental aggressive
behaviour than drivers in general in either situation (p < .001). They are also more
likely to have such an incident influence their later on or off-road behaviour.
In light of the earlier findings concerning problem solving, perhaps this latter
result is due to PHA drivers having less constructive problem-solving strategies, which
in turn results in greater residual affect which these drivers appear to be unable to
regulate effectively. Also, as PHA drivers have been identified as being higher on ICS,
a number of them appear to be responding to these situations in an impulsive, reactive
manner involving little conscious thought. In the context of aggressive driving, these
findings would suggest that conscious decision making and evaluation of outcomes has
little to do with aggressive behaviour on-road, contrary to the GAM (Anderson &
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 241
Bushman, 2002). However, it would be wise to explore this concept further in Study
Three.
5.4.4.6 Prediction of PHA Group Membership
Overall, the factors contained in the theoretical framework of aggressive driving
reliably distinguished PHA drivers from ‘other drivers’ (Nagalkerke R2 = .39).
However, prediction of PHA group membership was not overly impressive, with only
29.3% of PHA drivers correctly predicted.
Of the person-related predictors, gender, age and trait aggression scores (as
measured by the AQ) were found to be significant. Females are more likely to be
identified with the ‘other driver’ group and higher trait aggression was predictive of
PHA group membership. The response variables, negative emotion, perceived threat
and likelihood of an instrumental aggressive behavioural response also proved to be
significant individual predictors of PHA group membership. PHA drivers are more
likely to experience more intense negative emotion and perceived threat in response to
an on-road incident and more likely to engage in instrumental aggressive behaviours on
the road. Finally, the results also suggest that PHA drivers are significantly more likely
to drive medium to large vehicles or four wheel drives than small vehicles. In short,
there appear to be a number of psychosocial differences between PHA and ‘other
drivers’.
5.4.5 Implications for the Proposed Theoretical Framework of Aggressive Driving
Overall, the findings of Study Two confirm the applicability of the factors
contained in the proposed theoretical framework of aggressive driving (Figure 4.3). The
sequencing of the relationships illustrated in Figure 4.3 also appears to be robust.
Indeed socio-demographic, driving exposure, trait person-related and state person-
related variables are brought to the on-road environment at any time. Previous Study
One and Two findings suggest that trait person-related factors contribute to a driver’s
initial interpretation of ‘other driver’ behaviour as intentional or benign. Further, the
findings of both the general driving sample and the PHA driver group indicate that when
exposed to an on-road incident, individual drivers experience negative emotions such as
frustration/anger, rage and feelings of threat. These emotions also appear to influence
the likelihood of making negative attributions about the ‘other driver’. Thus, these
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 242
findings show support for the ‘present internal state’ proposed within the GAM (Figure
3.1) that we inferred from the ‘emotional and cognitive responses’ depicted in Figure
4.3. Indeed, these elements appear critical to the study of on-road aggression.
A driver’s ‘emotional and cognitive’, encompassing negative emotions and/or
feelings of threat and negative attributions, influence the likelihood of adopting either an
instrumental or hostile behavioural response on-road. Although this study indicates that
the individual characteristics that a driver brings to the on-road environment contributes
more to the adopted behavioural response than other factors in the proposed model.
Finally, Study Two results appear to indicate that the possible ‘post event
influence’ of on-road aggression influencing the likelihood of behaviour in subsequent
encounters on or off-road, is minimal. However, this may have been due to the
artificiality of the scenarios. From another perspective, it fails to account for the
evidence concerning psychological and physical injuries that can be caused by
aggressive driving, especially from the victim’s perspective (DCPC, 2005). As such,
further research on the actual psychological impact that aggressive driving has on
victims is recommended. In the interim, the inclusion of the ‘post event influence’ in the
theoretical model of aggressive driving appears to add minimal exploratory value.
Notably, the factors included in the proposed theoretical framework did not
include all facets of the GAM ‘decision making model’ (Section 3.5.3), specifically an
explicit measure of the adoption of thoughtful or impulsive behavioural responses. As
Study One findings suggested that the decision-making processes associated with
aggressive driving behaviour appear difficult to recall. However, the use of the two
scenarios and measure of behavioural responses may be interpreted to infer some
element of ‘intentional’ or ‘impulsive/risky’ behavioural responses based on the
extremity of the behavioural response likely to be adopted. Conversely, however, the
use of scenarios lacks the situational, real-time, cues that have the potential to influence
the likelihood of intentionally or impulsively adopting behavioural response. Also, it is
noted that in Study One findings participants had difficulty recalling their behaviours as
deliberately decided upon, therefore, this would suggest that this area of the model
requires closer examination. This is not meant to imply that these processes do not
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 243
occur or are not important in the study of aggressive driving. On the contrary, this
merely indicates that more research is required in this area.
5.4.6 Overview of Findings and Theoretical Implications
In the exploration of the theoretical framework based on the GAM (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002) this study has shown significant support for the psychological
components included in the proposed framework. The study has also illustrated the
complicated relationships that exist between the various components. In addition, the
results have highlighted the significance of on-road situational factors and their
interaction with various socio-demographic and person-related factors in determining the
likelihood of a driver’s emotional, cognitive and subsequent behavioural response.
Indeed, the study of aggressive driving appears as complex as the study of human
aggression in other social settings.
The results indicate that socio-demographic, trait and state person-related
variables contribute to a driver’s interpretation of an on-road incident as anger-
provoking or not, consistent with Shinar’s (1998) model of aggressive driving as well as
the GAM model of human aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The use of the
two scenarios, one clearly provocative and the other ambiguous in nature, not only
highlighted driver differences in perception of on-road behaviours, but illustrated
differences in emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses in both cases.
Use of human aggression theory in the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002)
facilitated exploration of three main types of response to perceived provocation:
emotional, cognitive and behavioural. The study found that having perceived on-road
provocation, a driver will experience emotions such as frustration, anger and/or threat.
It is also likely that drivers that experience intense emotion will experience negative
attributions about the ‘other driver’. Subsequent to these responses, a driver may adopt
instrumental or hostile aggressive on-road behaviours. However, whilst the study found
some support for Shinar’s (1998) instrumental/hostile distinction of on-road aggression,
the characteristics of these behaviours require closer examination. In particular, there is
a need to further examine Shinar’s assertion that drivers will react in a hostile (as
opposed to instrumental) manner when the path to their goal is blocked. Indeed, the
results of this study raise the possibility that the decision to adopt a hostile behaviour
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 244
may reflect a preparedness by some to abandon their goals, at least in the short-term.
This issue is further discussed in Section 6.4.
In the study of the emotions associated with aggressive driving, the foregoing
analyses demonstrated considerable support for the inclusion of ‘perceived threat’ as a
motivating factor in aggressive driving behaviour. Thus, reference made to the
perception of on-road behaviour as ‘threatening’ in the provisional definition of
aggressive driving (Section 2.2.5.3) appears to be justified. This finding is also more
consistent with the GAM (Andersen & Bushman, 2001) that suggest feelings of threat or
dangerousness can result in aggressive behaviour, and contrary to Shinar’s solely
frustration-aggression based model of aggressive driving.
Importantly, the results also suggest that many of the psychological components
considered in the GAM based framework appear to be dependent on the trait person-
related characteristics of a driver. In the exploratory regression analyses, person-related
factors were repeatedly found to contribute a significant proportion of the variance.
Although, it should be acknowledged that the operationalised variables fell short of
explaining much of the variance and some researchers would suggest that this may be
explained, in part, by the order in which the variables were entered into the regression
equation (Cohen et al., 2003). As such, the results of this study and the review of human
aggression literature would suggest that a closer examination of the person-related
characteristics contributing to aggressive driving is warranted, particularly among
potentially hostile aggressive drivers.
5.4.7 Study Limitations
A primary limitation of the study centres on the possibility of social desirability
bias. As participants normally wish to present themselves in a favourable manner, there
is the possibility they will underreport on measures of aggression (McCloskey &
Coccaro, 2003). However, as detailed in Chapter One, due to the difficulties associated
with direct provocation and observational methods in the context of aggressive driving,
although the self-report is acknowledged as having its limitations, it has been found
useful in aggression research (McCloskey & Coccaro, 2003).
Other limitations centre around the use of, and design of, the scenarios. The
artificiality of presenting participants with on-road written ‘scenarios’ may lack realism,
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 245
but arguably most drivers are able to relate to this topical issue and are able to imagine
their behavioural responses. Additionally, as explained in Section 5.2.2.1, the results of
piloting prompted the inclusion of a sense of ‘off-road’ stress in Scenario Two.
However, it is possible that this may have introduced a potentially confounding factor
which may have unintentionally added another layer of complexity to Scenario Two.
Consequently, due regard should be given to this possibility when interpreting the
results.
Notably, future research may be able to measure actual participant responses in
terms of physiological changes such as heart rate and blood pressure, in response to
driving scenarios presented within a driving simulator. Such an approach combined
with qualitative information collected at the time may improve the reality of the use of
scenarios in driving research. Another limitation is that the use of tertiary students as
part of the sampling may have resulted in an overrepresentation of young drivers in the
final sample for Study Two. Further, this may have contributed to the slightly bimodal
distribution of the age groups as reflected in the 2 x 4 ANOVAs (Appendix I) and
regression analyses, the survey having netted greater numbers of 17–24 year olds and
40–59 year olds than the other two age groups. Therefore, due caution should also be
exercised in the interpretation of any age-related results.
Further, it is acknowledged that a number of the statistically significant loadings
for many of the variables in the regression analyses were quite low. It is acknowledged
that the order in which the variables were loaded into the regression equation may have
contributed to the relatively low variance accounted for by subsequent factors.
However, the order in which the variables were entered was driven by the GAM based
aggressive driving model that evolved from Study One and as outlined at Section 5.2.5.
Other limitations of note pertain to the theoretical framework of aggressive
driving proposed for this research (Figure 4.3). Firstly, the person-related and on-road
situational factors considered in this study, are only a small number that are considered
relevant to aggressive driving behaviour. Secondly, neither the theoretical framework,
nor the questionnaire, explored the decision-making process outlined in the original
GAM proposed by Anderson & Bushman (2001). In particular, due to the limitations of
the design, it was not possible to directly operationalise the ‘present internal state’
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 246
component of the model. Rather, the emotional and cognitive responses of the
participants were assessed as indicators of this construct. Further, the number of
measures employed needed to be limited in order to contain the length of the
questionnaire, increasing the likelihood of participant co-operation. Lastly, given the
role of driver perception of situational characteristics in on-road aggression (Lennon,
Watson, Arlidge & Fraine, under review), it was not possible to consider all the factors
that have the potential to trigger an aggressive behavioural reaction on the road (Lonero
& Clinton, 1998).
With regard to the examination of the identified PHA driver group, this study
demonstrated that person-related characteristics differentiate PHA drivers from general
road users. Unfortunately, in terms of person-related differences, the study only
examined trait aggression and problem-solving styles. As such, closer examination of
the person-related characteristics of the PHA driver is warranted. Additionally, many of
the strengths and weaknesses outlined above apply to the exploratory analysis involving
the PHA drivers.
5.4.8 Chapter Summary
This study has demonstrated the relevance of a number of psychosocial variables
to the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour. The findings also highlighted the
relevance of perception in the likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile
behavioural response. Importantly, consistent with human aggression theory, the study
highlighted a number of key psychological factors that contribute to the likelihood of on-
road aggression, over and above a driver’s trait aggression levels. Hence, for the
remainder of the research program a greater emphasis will be placed upon examining a
wider range of trait and state person-related characteristics of aggressive drivers.
In review, the foregoing results would suggest that the number of hours driven
per week, the traffic density experienced and the type of vehicle driven, do little to
identify the more aggressive driver. Contrary to some of the aggressive driving
literature, a history of crash involvement, speeding and/or other infringements also does
little to identify the more aggressive road user. However, the findings suggest that the
PHA driver is more likely to be 17–24 years of age and male. This driver is also more
likely to have been charged with drink-driving in the last three years. The results also
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 247
indicated that the more aggressive drivers may be more prepared to engage in risk-taking
behaviour such as speeding and drink/drug driving. They are also potentially more
likely than general drivers to have higher levels of trait aggression and poorer problem-
solving ability. As such the results suggest that the most significant differences lie at the
deeper, person-related level. Therefore, Study Three will approach the examination of
aggressive driving from the perspective of self-reported hostile aggressive drivers. In
this final study, significantly more attention will be paid to the person-related
characteristics of the hostile aggressive driver.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 248
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 249
6.1 Introduction
Study One explored the psychosocial factors contributing to aggressive driving
from the perspective of young drivers due to their over-representation in aggressive
driving statistics (Harding et al., 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lawton & Nutter,
2002; VCCAV, 1999). The results of this study also identified a number of ‘on’ and
‘off-road’ factors that may contribute to driver aggression. Additionally, they
identified a number of psychological processes encapsulated within the GAM
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002) that appear to influence the likelihood of aggressive
driving behaviour (refer to Figure 4.3). Study One also indicated that highly
aggressive drivers appear to engage in on-road aggression in two ways:
• Using a vehicle and the on-road environment as a means of expressing off-
road generated aggression; and/or
• Whilst driving, responding to provocative triggers that are encountered in the
on-road environment.
Study Two examined the explanatory value of the psychosocial factors included
in the theoretical framework outlined at Figure 4.3. The results indicated that a
number of person-related factors were significant predictors of both instrumental and
hostile aggressive behavioural responses. These include age, trait aggression, and
negative problem solving and impulsive/careless problem-solving styles. However,
only trait aggression and impulsive/careless problem-solving style were found to be
uniquely predictive of hostile aggression. Additionally, the emotional and cognitive
response variables (negative emotions, perceived threat and negative attributions)
were found to significantly predict self-reported instrumental aggression (Table
5.21), but not hostile aggression in response to Scenario One (Table 5.23).
In a set of exploratory analyses undertaken at the end of Study Two, 88
potentially hostile aggressive drivers (PHA) were identified and their responses
compared to the remaining drivers in the sample (n = 838). The analysis found that
while hostile aggressive drivers are more likely young drivers, 25–59 year old drivers
were no more likely to be categorised as hostile aggressive drivers. In response to
the two scenarios detailed in Study Two, hostile aggressive drivers also ranked
significantly higher on their emotional, cognitive and behavioural response scores
than the remaining drivers (refer to Table K5). As such, they appear to initially
experience greater negative emotionality and cognitions in the face of perceived
provocation. Subsequently, they appear more likely to respond with both
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 254
RQ6 Are there differences in the characteristics of those drivers who are
prepared to engage in hostile acts of aggressive driving compared to those
who report engaging in only instrumental acts of aggressive driving?
Study Three will explore in greater depth the psychosocial characteristics of self-
reported hostile aggressive drivers. Further to the findings of both Studies One and
Two, and the issues emerging from the Chapter Three literature review, it is
proposed that the self-reported hostile aggressive driver may:
• have a history of violence/aggression in areas of their life other than the
road;
• be more likely to exhibit signs of drink/drug abuse;
• have higher levels of trait aggression than the general population;
• have greater maladaptive problem-solving orientation than the general
population;
• exhibit distorted thinking;
• have had more close encounters with law enforcement officials;
• exhibit anti-social tendencies;
• exhibit difficulties with emotion management; and
• be more likely to engage in impulsive/reactive behaviours.
6.2 Method
6.2.1 Design
The use of a qualitative case-study approach to this study was considered
necessary for several reasons. Primarily, the exploration of trait person-related
characteristics and developmental risk factors for aggression warranted the
personalised attention of a qualified counsellor. Additionally, a case study approach
facilitates the comparison of similarities and differences between participants.
Consequently, a questionnaire was designed to facilitate the exploration of
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 256
participant exposure to developmental risk factors for aggression (see Appendix L).
In the first instance, participant socio-demographic data and history of driving
violations were collected. Participants were then assessed on several psychological
measures (refer to Section 6.2.4) in order to facilitate comparison between the
studies: Stressful Life Experiences Screening – Short Form (SLES-S); the Carlson
Psychological Survey (CPS); and the Barrett Impulsiveness Scale – 11 (BIS-11).
Participants were also assessed on several of the measures used in Study Two (refer
to Section 6.2.4). A semi-structured interview was also devised to explore
participant experiences as perpetrators of aggressive driving (see Appendix M).
Several methods of recruitment were considered. Firstly, recruitment of self-
reported highly aggressive drivers via a media release was considered. However,
this was discounted as the target group of interest may have been less likely to come
forward and/or continue to co-operate for the purpose of research. The researcher
had access to the Men’s Information and Support Association (MISA), a community
based counselling organisation, where a predominantly male clientele seek assistance
for a wide range of issues e.g. relationship and anger management difficulties.
Subsequently, a number of participants were recruited through MISA. It is
acknowledged that participants recruited from this source may result in a sample that
is not necessarily representative of all potentially hostile aggressive drivers in the
general driving population. However, the use of this sample allowed the researcher
to access a group who potentially may have experienced anger-management
problems on the road. The criteria for selecting participants for this study were
driven by the three behaviours which helped identify the hostile aggressive driver
group in Study Two (refer to Section 5.2.1). Specifically, the participants needed to
report engaging in one of the following behaviours within the last two years:
• having gotten out of their vehicle to physically or verbally abuse
another driver;
• using their vehicle to intimidate another road user; or
• using their vehicle to damage the vehicle of another road user.
The selection of the two-year period was designed to balance the likelihood
of identifying such drivers with the need to include sufficient recency to avoid
potential recall problems.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 257
6.2.2 Procedure
MISA participants were recruited via in-house advertising (Appendix N). If
interested in participating, MISA clients left their name and contact number with
reception for contact by the researcher. Similar advertising was also placed across
three Queensland University of Technology (QUT) campuses and the Northpoint
College of TAFE campus in order to attract interested staff or students. The
advertisement was also placed on the QUT internet noticeboard. In all cases,
interested parties were invited to contact the researcher by phone or email. Upon
contact, participants were screened by the interviewer to ensure that they met the
selection criteria.
Prior to commencing the interview participants were asked to read and sign a
consent package (Appendix O). The administration of this study was broken into
two stages: a survey stage and an interview stage. Firstly, participants were asked
socio-demographic questions as well as questions relating to their driving history.
They were then administered the SLE, AQ, SPSI-R subscales, CPS and BIS-11
respectively. At the end of the survey stage, they were asked if they had ever been
officially charged with any driving offences or other general offences. The full
survey was read to participants to account for the possibility of literacy difficulties.
Full administration of the survey and interview took approximately 1.5 hours.
During the interview stage of the process, participants were asked to recall
the aggressive driving incident that met the above selection criteria. At relevant
points throughout the interview participants were asked key questions consistent with
the factors identified in the theoretical framework at Figure 4.3, similar to the
questions that were explored in Study One (refer to Appendix M). This was
considered necessary in order to examine whether self-confessed hostile aggressive
drivers experience similar psychological processes as less aggressive drivers when
involved in an on-road incident. At the completion of the interview, participants
were reimbursed $60.00 for their time and travelling expenses. All interviews were
conducted within the confines of the MISA counselling premises, to ensure the safety
of the researcher.
6.2.3 Participants
From a total of 22 potential participants recruited through QUT and MISA,
10 participants met the selection criteria outlined in Section 6.2.1. Only one of the
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 258
6.2.5 Measures
As detailed in Section 3.2, such factors have been found to be associated with the
adoption of aggressive/antisocial behaviours.
The CPS requires participants to respond to 50 questions. Responses are
indicated on a graded scale (1 to 5) to allow participants to indicate the degree of
applicability of the item. Participants are also given space to comment on each of the
items should they wish to make any comments about each question. Scoring
involves totalling the items relevant to each subscale.
The items comprise four subscales: chemical abuse (CA); thought disturbance
(TD); antisocial tendencies (AT); and self-depreciation (SD). A ‘validity’ scale (V)
was also added to provide an indication of the participant’s ability/willingness to
maintain an appropriate test-taking attitude.
The CA scale reflects the degree to which a person abuses drugs/alcohol and
the relevance of this abuse to their antisocial behaviour. The TD scale reflects
disorganised thinking, confusion and perceptual distortions and feelings of unreality.
These traits manifest themselves in unusual affect and/or anxiety. High scores on
this scale indicate that the individual has problems dealing with reality as they have
difficulty organising themselves in their work or private lives. They may be
emotionally upset, moody and miserable (Carlson, 1982).
The AT scale is a measure of hostility and socially defiant attitude. It also
reflects the person’s willingness to be assaultive or threatening. This may or may not
manifest in the form of physical aggression, however, it is indicated by willingness to
engage in malicious conversation and a “mocking, unfriendly manner” (Carlson,
1982, p. 1). Receiving a high score on this scale indicates that the individual is likely
to be cynical of other people, interpreting their behaviour as unjust or self-serving.
They are also likely to be accepting of criminal behaviour, preferring the values of
those who commit crimes. They may act in unethical and untrustworthy ways,
feeling little or no guilt associated with this behaviour (Carlson, 1982).
The SD subscale indicates the degree to which the individual degrades or
belittles themself and their actions. Scores on this scale may be either a trait
disposition or a mood state. High scores on the SD indicate that the individual does
not value themself or their accomplishments, suggesting the existence of
despondency, depression and perhaps suicidal tendencies.
As part of the development of the measure, two groups of n = 216 male
offenders were tested to develop the validity of the instrument. In addition, the
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 261
validity of the measure was later verified with a group of 311 female offenders,
among other populations (Carlson, 1982). The measures of reliability associated
with these tests for males and females are reported at Table R1.
Participant scores on the five scales are plotted onto a profile sheet. The
graphic representation of their results indicates one of 18 profiles or offender types
that have been identified in the development of this measure. The range of scores on
each subscale and the type of offender they represent are outlined at Appendix S.
However, it should be noted that the CPS does not provide a brief descriptor of
offender types. Rather, it provides for numerical typing, i.e. Type 1 etc. As such, a
short descriptor of each offender type has been formulated in consultation with
another researcher who has extensive experience with the measure (refer to
Appendix S).
6.2.5.6 Collection of Socio-Demographic and Driving Behaviour Data and the Semi-
Structured Interview
In order to provide a contextual backdrop for the clinical and qualitative data
to be gathered, the following socio-demographic data was collected prior to the
administration of the above measures: gender, age, marital status, income, driving
experience (in years) and education attained were recorded (refer to Appendix N).
As an appropriate background question to some of the clinical data collected it was
also necessary to ask participants if they had any prior experience with mental health
professionals, and for what reason.
As participants were identified as self-reported hostile aggressive drivers, it
was also considered necessary to ask questions about their daily driving behaviour,
such as type of vehicle driven, hours driven per week and the density of traffic they
most often experience (Appendix N). Additionally, participants were asked
questions about their crash involvement and traffic offences in the previous three
years. They were also asked to report the likelihood of driving under the influence of
alcohol or drugs (Appendix N).
The second stage of the data collection process was qualitative and involved
the participant recalling their experience as a hostile aggressive driver. The protocols
exploring the hostile aggressive driver’s experience with aggressive driving were
based on the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) and also guided by the protocols
designed for Study One, where young driver experiences with aggressive driving
were explored. The exploratory questions were also guided by Study Two findings
that highlighted several psychological constructs/processes as potentially relevant to
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 263
physical abuse by a parent, (n = 7), and sexual abuse by a family friend or stranger (n
= 2). Two participants spoke of being raped as adults: one was raped whilst serving
time in prison, and one was reportedly raped whilst extremely drunk.
M M
AQ Subscales
Physical Aggression 26.00*** 10.48 t(df9) = 7.618, p < .001
SPSI-R Subscales
Negative Problem Orientation 5.88** 5.21 t(df9) = 3.405, p < .017
M M
AQ Subscales
Physical Aggression 26.00*** 16.42 t(df9) = 4.522, p < .001
Verbal Aggression 19.10 13.63 t(df9) = 2.844, p > .01
SPSI-R Subscales
Negative Problem Orientation 5.88 5.33 t(df9) = 2.714, p > .017
Impulsive/Careless Style 5.66 5.38 t(df9) = 1.106, p > .017
6.3.5.3 Impulsivity
As Study Two results did not include a measure of ‘impulsivity’, individual
case study scores on the BIS-11 were compared to previously published means
(Muller, Joseph, & Tudway, 2004; Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995). The results of
these analyses, using Z scores, are presented at Appendix V.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 269
Both male and female participants scores on the BIS-11 subscales were
compared to the published means of a ‘general population’ (n = 245, 108 male and
137 female) (Muller, Joseph, & Tudway, 2004). Tests of the individual scores
revealed no significant difference between participant scores and the ‘general
population’ on motor impulsivity. Two participants (CS1 and CS7) scored
significantly higher on non-planning impulsivity (z = 2.16, p < .05; z = 2.16, p < .05
respectively). Further, three participants (CS1, CS4 and CS6), scored significantly
higher on cognitive impulsivity than the ‘general population’ (z = 1.96, p < .05; z =
2.26, p < .05; and z = 1.96, p < .05 respectively).
There were no significant differences on the total BIS-11 scores, between the
male case study participants and the mean published for an inmate population (Patton
& Barrat, 1995). No significant difference was found between the female
participant’s total score on the BIS-11 and the mean published for a female general
psychiatric group (Patton & Barratt, 1995). The general psychiatric group mean was
chosen as a mean for female inmates was not available. Further, the female
participant reported that she had been previously diagnosed with a psychological
disorder (i.e. Bipolar Disorder). Therefore, this seemed an appropriate comparison
for exploratory purposes.
twice’. The remaining participant (CS2) reported having had this experience ‘often’,
however, this is consistent with his diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder.
6.3.5.4.3. Anti-Social Tendencies (AT). Again, only one participant (CS2)
scored higher on anti-social tendencies (AT) than the reference group (z = 1.99, p <
.05) (refer to Appendix T). There were no other significant differences between
participant scores on anti-social tendencies and the mean scores for the incarcerated
group. Again, the study examined individual participant responses to the items
concerning anti-social tendencies, to gain contextual insight into these results.
In response to CPS – Question 9, nine of the ten case studies advised that
they had ‘told others off’, ‘often’ (n = 3) or ‘many times’ (n = 6). Interestingly, four
of the participants said that they enjoyed fighting ‘a little’ (n = 1) or ‘some’ (n = 3).
Six of them indicated they did not enjoy fighting ‘at all’. When presented with ‘if
someone hit me, I would….’ (CPS – Question 37), only one person was unsure of
what they would do. The remaining participants responded: ‘hit him once’ (n = 3),
‘hit him several times’ (n = 4), and ‘beat him up’ (n = 2). Such results warrant
concern as participants indicated the number of times they have carried a weapon
(CPS – Question 50): ‘never’ (n = 2), ‘once or twice’ (n = 5), ‘some of the time’ (n =
1), ‘most of the time’ (n = 1), and ‘all of the time’ (n = 1).
When asked if they would be in ‘trouble again’ (CPS – Question 45), only
one participant suggested that he would ‘never’ again be in trouble. Three
participants answered that they ‘do not want to be’ in trouble again. Although,
whilst six of the participants did not want to be in trouble again, they ‘probably
would be’ (n = 5) or will be ‘once or twice more’ (n = 1).
However, when asked to reflect about the ‘illegal things’ that they have done
(CPS – Question 31), two individuals reported that they feel ‘very sorry’ and three
felt ‘sorry’. However, five participants reportedly were ‘not sorry, or never think
about’ the illegal things they have done.
Participant responses to CPS – Question 34, were informative. The item
posed: ‘if someone tried to cheat me, I would…’ Seven participants responded that
they would ‘forgive but not forget’ when faced with such a situation. The remaining
case studies (n = 3) reported that they would ‘make him/her sorry’. These results
suggest that as a whole this group are less likely to ‘forget’ wrongdoings and are
perhaps more likely to hold onto a grudge.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 272
Table 6.3 References made about the vehicles of the ‘other drivers’
Case
Study Comment
CS5 “He had a nice, black car, tinted windows and the rest.”
CS6 “I was driving a s…box and he was driving a nice Toyota ute.”
CS8 “I thought, what an a…hole. I’m in my shiny new car, you’ll give way,
I’m coming out (CS8 assuming the thoughts of the ‘other driver’).”
Table 6.4 Examples of primary behavioural trigger for aggressive driving incidents
Case Behaviour Comment
Study
CS2 Cutting Off “….I was driving along all mellow and I got cut off.”
CS6 Tailgating “..merging onto the highway….got onto the highway and
an old mate in a ute come flying up my a…e. He sat right
on my pickle for a kilometre.”
CS4 Slow Driving “This guy was doing 50 in a 70k zone and there were no
other restrictions.”
additional behaviour for the ‘other driver’ aside from the primary trigger, ‘slow
driving’.
Tailgating 1 CS10
CS5 Intimidating “…he wanted me to get out of his way, he was trying
to intimidate me.”
CS1 “I was tired….I had done a full day’s work….I just wanted to go home.”
CS3 “Stressed. I had just separated from my wife after 20 odd years and there
was a lot going on.”
CS4 “I was really p….off because (my partner) and I had had a verbal that
afternoon and I jumped in the car and took off.”
CS5 “My dad had recently passed away from a sudden heart attack…suppose I
was still pretty upset about it. I remember being pretty cut up.”
CS8 “I was upset because we had just got a phone call from my partner’s
daughter (in foster care) saying that she had just run away and she wanted
us to…pick her up. I was upset and I had my partner in the car who was
being a bit hysterical at the time.”
expressed a small amount of ‘fear’ associated with her experience. Table 6.8
illustrates the four main emotions experienced across the case studies at the time of
the aggressive driving incident.
Table 6.9: Examples of the negative cognitions associated with hostile aggressive
drivers
Negative
Cognitions N Comment
‘Actions to be taken’ 8 “I felt like running her off the road. You know, get
out of my way or I will put you out of the way. I
was really geed up.” (CS1)
Table 6.11 Range of behaviours adopted by the hostile aggressive driver group
Horn honking 2
Verbal Abuse 10 “I was fairly vocal behind the wheel..get out of my f…n way, you
blind b…ch.:” (CS1)
“I went round to his window and said a few choice words, told him
he was an f…g idiot.” (CS8)
Stopping and Alighting 8 “I grabbed my club lock from under the seat and I got out.” (CS5)
from vehicle (n=4 “We stopped at the next set of lights, so I got out of my car and
alighted from vehicle at a walked up to his window to give it to him.” (CS3)
set of lights)
Following the ‘other 3 “He eventually went around me and turned off, so I followed him.”
(CS5)
driver’
“He went around the corner and I followed him. I followed him home
actually. It was just around the corner.” (CS9)
Braking to cause a 1 “I chucked on the anchors and sent him far up my arse. He hit me at
90km per hour.” (CS6)
collision
Damaging another 6 “His whole front end was just smashed.” (CS6)
vehicle “Started laying into his car with the club lock…the bonnet, the
windscreen, his driver door and side mirror.” (CS5)
“I grabbed my big Maglite and smashed the mirror on the side of her
car.” (CS10)
Physical Assault 4 “…he cut me off. It was just a normal reaction. I’ve been taught not
to back down from anything. He’s got out of the car, so I just belted
him…I broke my knuckle.” (CS2)
“I said ‘mate, it’s on’..and so I just hit him and it was on…for a few
minutes, until they pulled us apart. I got a broken jaw out of it….and
three police cars turned up.” (CS7)
“When he went to open his door to get out, I slammed the door back
on his hand.” (CS8)
“He clipped me behind the ear…I hit him and he went down and hit
his head on the concrete. Over the fence he just went through, and
into the concrete…..(found out later) ambulance came and took him
to hospital.” (CS9)
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 281
Partial 2 “I went straight to the police station and reported it all for insurance. I
wrapped him up pretty good!” (CS6)
“You know, three police cars turned up. (When asked if either of them
wanted to press charges)…I said no, it’s not worth it. Lot of it was
self-defence.” (CS7)
Charges Laid 2 “…he must have got me rego…reported it to the police. I have been
charged with wilful damage of this bloke’s car, estimated at $1,000.”
(Case pending) (CS8).
“…as I drove away they got me number. I was stupid enough to ring
the police, when I heard they were looking for me…got 150 hours
community service, ‘no time’.” (CS9)
Post-Event
Influence
8 “…never gave it another thought. Went home and was happy to be
None home”. (CS1)
“…not at all, I went down the pub and had a celebratory drink!” (CS5)
Other 2 “I got to a friend’s place and I parked my car in his garage, because I
was worried that he would see it...in case the next day he was on patrol
or something and spotted my car.” (Incident involved an off-duty
policeman) (CS4)
CS9 “Yeh. But, I could have been a smartarse and put a hanky over it
the minute I pulled up.”
6.4 Discussion
Before discussing the results of this study, it is necessary to reiterate that the
small sample used was not randomly selected from the general population of
potentially aggressive drivers. Notwithstanding, the study allowed the researcher to
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 284
investigate whether individuals with potential anger issues are more prone to
transferring these difficulties to the on-road environment.
Under the relevant research questions, individual results are reported below
where appropriate. The discussion of the person-related results will not only focus
on the socio-demographic characteristics of the case studies, but on the various risk
factors for the development of aggressive tendencies. The latter will be discussed
from a historical, as well as a clinical, perspective.
6.4.1 Case Study Experiences as a Hostile Aggressive Driver
RQ5 What are the cognitive and emotional processes characterising aggressive
driving behaviour?
about the attributes or abilities of the ‘other driver’; and those about what aggressive
action they would like to take. A total of eight of the case studies had negative
thoughts about what action they would like to take in response to the situation. For
example: “I felt like running her off the road…” (CS1)
If negative thoughts about the attributes or abilities of the other driver have
the potential to influence driving behaviour, perhaps having thoughts of taking
aggressive actions further increases the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour.
After all, conscious and/or subconscious thought precedes action. Hence, perhaps
thoughts about positive or negative actions to be taken may be more apparent among
hostile aggressive drivers.
During the course of the interview, nine of the hostile aggressive drivers also
made reference to the perceived attitude of the ‘other driver’. Five of the case
studies reportedly felt the ‘other driver’ was trying to ‘intimidate’ them. Four of
them reported that the ‘other driver’ was inconsiderate, generally ‘angry’ or behaved
‘stupidly’. This suggests that hostile aggressive drivers may perceive more negative
attitudes emanating from the ‘other driver’.
Finally, whilst discussing the incidents, three of the hostile aggressive drivers
made reference to the ‘other driver’s’ vehicle. In all three cases the participants’
comments reflected their negative perception of the ‘other driver’. As can be seen in
Table 6.9, the participant comments appear to be underpinned by ‘jealousy’. This
finding was particularly interesting, as there has been little work done on aggressive
driving and attitudes other than ‘vengeance’ (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001, 2002).
Perhaps, hostile aggressive driving behaviours are at times also motivated by feelings
of ‘jealousy’ and ‘resentment’.
RQ6 Are there differences in the characteristics of those drivers who are
prepared to engage in hostile acts of aggressive driving compared to those
who report only engaging in instrumental acts of aggressive driving?
In light of the strict selection criteria used to assess participant eligibility for
this study the age and gender of the hostile aggressive drivers recruited resulted in
some interesting observations. Notably, the age of the hostile aggressive drivers
ranged from 24 to 55 years of age (M = 41.6 years). This finding may be interpreted
as consistent with the finding of Study Two examining the age and gender
differences in the larger sample (n = 926). As detailed in Section 5.3.6.5, there was
no significant difference in the likelihood of a hostile aggressive behavioural
response between drivers 17–24 years of age and those aged 40–59 years. Further,
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 291
the age of the participants is in keeping with the results of the comparison of the
hostile aggressive driver group (n = 88) in Study Two with the ‘other’ drivers (n =
838) from the larger sample (Table 5.2). In Study Two, the drivers in the groups
aged 25–39 years of age and 40–59 years of age were not significantly likely to be
categorised as belonging to either the potentially hostile aggressive driver group or
the ‘other driver’ (i.e. non hostile aggressive) group. Therefore, it would appear that
young drivers are not necessarily the only at-risk group for hostile aggressive driving
behaviour.
Despite the small sample size in this current study, the subsequent
recruitment of nine males and one female may be interpreted as consistent with the
previous studies in this research program and the foregoing literature review: male
drivers appear to be more likely to participate in hostile aggressive behaviours on the
roads (Aberg & Rimmo, 1998; Gordhamer et al., 1996; Lajunen & Parker, 2001).
However, a relevant confound in this finding is that the community health centre
from which the majority of participants were recruited is most frequently accessed by
males (i.e. MISA). Consideration of the other socio-demographic factors also found
some interesting findings concerning hostile aggressive drivers.
Contrary to human aggression research which has long associated lower
levels of education with greater levels of human aggression (Harris & Knight-
Bohnhoff, 1996; Murray, 1998; Shinar, Schechtman, & Compton, 2001) this study
found that a larger proportion of the self-reported hostile aggressive drivers had
attained a certificate level of education i.e. Year 10 or better (Shinar et al., 2001).
This was consistent with Study Two findings where higher education levels were
found to be significantly predictive of the likelihood of adopting instrumental
aggression (p. 196). The majority of subjects were married or living in a de-facto
relationship. Further, six of the drivers earned a reasonable to high level income,
ranging from $31,000 to income exceeding $70,000 per year.
A large proportion of the case studies reported driving for over 20 years. As
road users, the case studies reportedly drive most frequently on city/town roads, and
to a lesser degree, highways, in medium density traffic, consistent with Study Two
findings. Also consistent with Study Two findings, the hostile aggressive drivers
were more frequently identified as driving medium to large vehicles. The majority
also spend 6–15 hours driving per week.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 292
In the self-reported driving characteristics, half of the case study subjects had
attracted speeding fines in the past three years. Further, three participants admitted
to being fined for ‘unlicensed driving’. Although participants reported few other on-
road transgressions in the past three years, when asked about driving-related charges
outside of this period the results indicated extensive histories of violations (see
Appendix W). As detailed in the results, in addition to amassing considerable
speeding fines outside of this three-year period, the participants reported 10 drink-
driving charges, a number of ‘unlicensed driving’ charges, red-light running,
dangerous driving, ‘hooning’, and several other on-road offences.
These results support the proposal that hostile aggressive drivers may be
more likely to ‘exhibit signs of drink/drug abuse’, demonstrated by the relatively
large number of drink- driving charges amassed by these drivers. It also appears that
hostile aggressive drivers may be more likely to have a history of ‘other’ driving-
related offences consistent with the proposal that hostile aggressive drivers may be
more likely to have had more frequent ‘encounters with law enforcement officials’
(Appendix W). Upon review, the violations detailed may also be indicative of a
tendency towards ‘anti-social behaviours’.
alcohol abuse are more likely to develop negative emotionality, aggression and
negative reactions in response to stressors (Elkins, McGue, Malone, & Iacono,
2004).
Results from this sample also indicated that hostile aggressive drivers may be
more likely to have been subjected to child abuse or neglect than the general driving
population. Seven of the participants reported being subjected to physical abuse by
either their father or mother. Two participants reported sexual abuse within the
family of origin or by a family friend. Exposure to such negative experiences and
less than ideal role models is believed to have increased the risk of these participants
engaging in delinquent or aggressive behaviours in the off-road environment
(Klassen & O’Connor, 1994). As such, it would also seem feasible that this may
have the potential to apply to the on-road environment.
Six of these participants also reported having difficult relationships with the
non-abusive parent (CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5, CS6 and CS10). As a consequence, these
participants also experienced neglect in the form of low levels of love, care or
interest and were therefore at risk of participating in delinquent behaviours during
adolescence (Kensella, 1996).
A number of participants were involved in ‘gang’ activities. This finding,
again, demonstrates some support for the proposal that hostile aggressive drivers will
exhibit antisocial tendencies. Also, as gang membership can be conceptualised as a
way in which to enhance or develop feelings of belonging and identity (NCV, 1990),
it can be viewed as a maladaptive coping style, supporting the proposal that the self-
confessed hostile aggressive drivers will exhibit higher levels of maladaptive coping.
Additionally, the majority of participants reported associating with generally
‘less than positive’ peer groups during their adolescence. These peers came to the
attention of authorities to varying degrees. Thus the association of these participants
with peer groups that behaved in such a manner as to attract the attention of police,
shows partial support for the proposal that hostile aggressive drivers may have had
more close encounters with law enforcement officials than the general population.
As the findings of the National Committee on Violence (NCV, 1990) suggest,
perhaps involvement in such groups provides a refuge for such troubled youth, where
they were able to develop a sense of belonging and identity through participation in
delinquent behaviours.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 294
hostile aggressive drivers may have higher overall levels of trait impulsivity than
‘other drivers’.
levels of thought disturbance and validity between participant scores and the
reference group (i.e. an inmate population).
Individual responses to CPS questions relating to thought disturbance
suggested that the hostile aggressive driver in this sample is sometimes ‘a little down
some of the time’ to ‘sad a lot of the time’. These hostile aggressive drivers are also
likely to change from ‘happy one minute to sad the next’ from ‘some’ to ‘all of the
time’, suggestive of a susceptibility to sudden mood changes. Further, this driver is
likely to have ‘seen or heard things that were not there’, more than once or twice
(Carlson, 1982).
CS2 scored higher on antisocial tendencies than did the ‘inmate’ population
(Carlson, 1982). However, there were no other significant differences between the
hostile aggressive driver group and the reference group, demonstrating support for
the proposal that hostile aggressive drivers may exhibit higher levels of antisocial
tendencies. Thus, it would appear that hostile aggressive drivers may exhibit some
or all of the antisocial behaviours explored within the CPS questions including verbal
abuse, a degree of enjoyment for ‘fighting’, a preparedness to engage in physical
fighting, and carrying a weapon (refer to Questions 6, 9, 24, 28, 37 and 50 of the
CPS at Appendix N). Further, the increased availability of weapons and the higher
levels of trait aggression apparent in this group highlights the potential for extreme
violence (Miller, Azrael, Hemenway & Solop, 2002) (see individual case studies at
Appendix V). In addition, the AT scores and the self-reported histories of other
charges and offences outlined above supports Elliott’s (1999) viewpoint that ‘road
rage’ is a product of pre-existing criminal or anti-social tendencies.
When queried about the ‘illegal things’ that they have done, few felt ‘sorry’.
This suggests that this group may have little remorse associated with their anti-social
behaviours. Certainly, this lack of remorse is reflected in their individual case
studies as hostile aggressive drivers (Appendix W). Further, these drivers indicated
through their responses, that they would be less likely to ‘forget’ wrongdoings and
more likely to hold a ‘grudge’.
No significant difference was found between the hostile aggressive driver
group and the ‘inmate’ reference group on levels of self-deprecation. This result
suggests that either at trait or state level, the hostile aggressive driver degrades or
belittles himself to a similar degree to what would be expected in an ‘inmate’
population. Further, in the extreme, he may not value himself or his
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 298
however, that all participants had, for some period in their lives, experienced
problematic alcohol consumption.
Finally, all but two of the case study participants reported marginally higher
mean scores on anti-social tendencies than the mean of the inmate population (refer
to Appendix T). One participant scored significantly higher on anti-social tendencies
than the comparison group (i.e. CS2, as outlined above). As the comparison group of
inmates are understood to have high levels of anti-social tendencies than the rest of
the general population, the trend of these results would suggest that hostile
aggressive drivers may possess relatively high levels of anti-social tendencies.
Further, such tendencies appear to extend beyond the on-road environment.
The results indicate that the hostile aggressive driver may be more likely than
‘others’ to assume knowledge of a negative attitude on the part of the ‘other driver’.
Consistent with the findings of Studies One and Two, the hostile aggressive driver
may make strong negative attributions about the ‘other driver’. An observation
unique to this study is that hostile aggressive drivers may appear more likely to have
thoughts of negative actions to adopt, potentially increasing the likelihood of an
aggressive response (Berkowitz, 1993; Berkowitz, 1989). Further, it was observed
that a number of the case studies had difficulty recalling aspects of the incident. In
the main, they were able to recall ‘pieces’ of the event clearly, but at times
demonstrated difficulty with recalling some thoughts and feelings.
Like many in the general driving population, the hostile aggressive driver
experiences anger, and sometimes fear or excitement. However, the difference
between these groups appears to exist in the intensity of the emotion experienced.
The hostile aggressive drivers in Study Three appear to experience intense levels of
anger, rage or excitement, in response to a perceived on-road provocation. The
results of this study are consistent with other research (Geen, 1990; Zillmann, 1988)
which suggests that the hostile aggressive driver will be more likely to experience
heightened physiological arousal in conjunction with these intense emotions.
As a consequence of the hostile aggressive driver’s emotional and cognitive
response, there appears to be little or no conscious weighing up of consequences
attached to the behaviours adopted, consistent with Study One findings. Rather, the
hostile aggressive driver behavioural responses described by participants appear to
have been quite deliberate due to the vengeful thoughts associated with the
behaviour. Further, participant NPO and ICS scores are also consistent with their
impulsive or deliberate retaliations to provocation.
Study Three results indicate that the hostile aggressive driver also appears
more likely to readily adopt instrumental aggression in response to perceived
provocation, such as finger gestures, verbal abuse and horn-honking. However, they
are also more likely than the general driving population to adopt hostile aggressive
driving behaviours. There is a higher chance that they will ‘follow’ or ‘pursue’ the
‘other driver’. They are also more likely to remove themselves from their vehicle in
order to engage physically or verbally with those drivers. If physical aggression is
adopted by this type of driver, it is usually in an extreme form that may result in
injury.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 302
There is also a greater chance that they may cause damage to the ‘other
driver’s’ vehicle as a result of their intense emotions. For example, they may get out
of the vehicle and set upon the ‘other driver’s’ vehicle, or deliberately cause a
collision. The results of this study and Study Two illustrate that the factors that
determine the type of behavioural response exists at the trait and state person-related
level.
Contrary to Study Two, only two of the hostile aggressive driver group
reported having any ‘post-event’ influence as a result of the incident. Instead, the
majority gave the incident little or no thought shortly afterwards, potentially
indicative of a lack of remorse. Although a post-event influence does occur in some
instances, perhaps it does not add much to our understanding of the on-road
phenomenon of aggressive driving.
The findings of this research would suggest that policing strategies may be
problematic, as many of the differences between hostile aggressive drivers and ‘other
drivers’ exist at the person-related level. Although we have moved towards a better
understanding of the characteristics of a hostile aggressive driver, the majority of
them are not observable to external parties. Therefore, although the findings of this
study may not directly assist the policing of this illegal behaviour, the research offers
considerable information on the factors that may need to be addressed in court-
referred, individual, interventions. Additionally, in a modified form, this information
may serve to reduce aggressive driving behaviour, if included in driver education and
rehabilitation programs.
The final limitation that should be given consideration is the manner in which the
participants were recruited. Nine of the 10 participants were recruited via MISA,
where seven of these individuals were attending counselling for a variety of personal
issues. Given the fact that participants were seeking support at MISA for a variety of
reasons, including anger management in some instances, the method of recruitment
must be considered a potential confound for some of the findings contained within
the study.
As previously mentioned, use of such a small and non-random sample
prevented the generalisation of results to the wider population of hostile aggressive
drivers. However, the nature of the sample allowed the exploration of individuals
with potential anger issues and whether they are likely to transfer their anger
management difficulties to the on-road environment. Hence, the study provides
potentially useful information to aid in understanding the hostile aggressive driver.
Further, this study may assist in the design of larger, controlled studies into the
characteristics of hostile aggressive drivers.
7.1 Introduction
This research program has explored the psychosocial factors influencing
aggressive driving behaviour on Queensland roads, therefore providing insight into
the psychological and social nature of aggressive driving. The findings have also
shed light on the person-related and socio-demographic characteristics of those
drivers that are more likely to participate in both instrumental and hostile acts of on-
road aggression.
In this chapter the key findings from the research program will be brought
together, in order to consider the possible theoretical and policy implications. The
findings will also be discussed from the perspective of the GAM theory of human
aggression emphasising the relative contribution of the findings to our understanding
of the phenomenon.
The following review of the main findings of the three studies will be
discussed in terms of the key research questions. The remainder of the chapter will
focus on both the theoretical implications of the findings and their applied relevance
to road safety policy and practice.
age, gender and problem-solving styles in instrumental and hostile aggressive driving
outcomes. However, personality and driver attitudes associated with aggressive
driving have been explored to a lesser degree in previous research. With reference to
personality, much of the existing research into these factors has focused on specific
facets of personality, such as trait aggression and impulsivity levels (Deffenbacher et
al., 2003; Karli, 1991; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). The discussion of the findings
relating to the personality of drivers more likely to engage in hostile on-road
aggression is outlined under the sixth, and final, research question.
Existing research into driver attitudes and their potential to influence
aggressive driving behaviour has previously focussed on ‘driver vengeance’
(Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2002). However, this research program suggests that
although driver ‘vengefulness’ would appear to contribute to aggressive driving,
more can be understood about the phenomenon if the source and development of
such negative driver attitudes and stereotypes are identified and explored. In
particular, the focus group findings suggest that through exposure to less than
positive ‘prior learning’ experiences (i.e. social learning) a driver may be more likely
to develop negative attitudes and stereotypes that increase the likelihood of
aggressive driving behaviour. This possibility was further suggested by the finding
of Study Three which indicated that hostile aggressive drivers are more likely to
originate from dysfunctional, even problematic, childhoods.
The situational factors contributing to aggressive driving that were identified
in the program of research appeared to fall into two main categories: facilitating
factors and the observed, on-road behaviour of ‘others’. As facilitating factors,
participants identified the indirect factors that they believe contribute to the
likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour. Notably, several of the factors identified
by the young driver participants in Study One have not previously been associated
with aggressive driving, such as driving with peers as passengers, music, vehicle
appearance and mechanical modifications.
The focus group participants also identified multiple behaviours that they
believe directly contribute to episodes of aggressive driving behaviour. All of these
behaviours have been frequently cited as common triggers in aggressive driving
research (refer to Chapter Two). Admittedly, however, these behaviours may be
perceived by some drivers as mere errors in judgement. As such, the participant
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 309
journey, (thus temporarily abandoning their original goal) in order to send a message
to the perceived ‘offending driver’. Therefore, these behaviours serve no immediate
practical purpose in terms of a person’s trip goals. Consistent with frustration-
aggression theory, however, these behaviours may also serve a cathartic effect
(Dollard et al., 1939), since many potentially hostile aggressive drivers in Study Two
and Three reporting little post-event influence, having given the matter very little
afterthought.
Given the scenarios presented to the participants in Study Two (particularly
the ambiguous Scenario Two), the adoption of hostile on-road behaviours could be
interpreted as an ‘over-reaction’. In this sense, drivers prepared to adopt hostile on-
road aggression would seem to have some difficulty regulating their responses.
Based on human aggression research into emotional regulation (Chang et al., 2003;
Cummings et al., 2004; Loeber et al., 2001), this difficulty may stem from their
inability to regulate the emotions they experience when faced with on-road
provocation. Similarly, this inability to regulate emotions and subsequent
behavioural responses may stem from high levels of trait impulsivity generally
observed as being more apparent in young drivers (Deffenbacher et al., 2003). Study
of the potentially hostile aggressive drivers in Chapter Five and the self-reported
aggressive drivers in Study Three, would suggest that such difficulties are deeply
person-related and developed across the course of one’s life experiences. For some
of these drivers the adoption of hostile aggressive behaviour seems to be impulsive.
Nonetheless, the decision to engage in hostile behaviours appears to be clearly
intentional, as suggested by Study Three findings.
RQ5 What are the cognitive and emotional processes characterising aggressive
driving behaviour?
The Study One exploration of potential contributing factors was guided by
the key elements in the original GAM (see Figure 4.1). In Study One, focus group
participants readily identified with these elements verifying the relevance of human
aggression theory to the phenomenon of aggressive driving. Focus group
participants identified how negative emotions prior to the on-road incident may have
influenced their driving behaviours. They also readily identified the negative
emotions they had during their recalled experience with aggressive driving, such as
annoyance, frustration, anger and fear. It also appeared that the more intense
experience of these negative emotions led to more aggressive on-road behaviours.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 313
However, a few participants spoke of feeling ‘excited’ during the incident. This
feeling of excitation, and its association with aggressive driving, was later confirmed
in the final study examining self-reported hostile aggressive drivers.
Notably, when asked what thoughts they had during their personal
experiences with aggressive driving, not one focus group participant spoke of
conscious decision-making processes, suggesting a lack of deliberate thought
processes associated with aggressive driving behaviour. However, in Study Three
the self-reported hostile aggressive driver reported having thoughts of taking specific
actions, intended to harm and/or take revenge, against the ‘other driver’. Although it
is acknowledged that the participant responses were limited by their recall abilities, it
does appear that conscious decision making appears to be obscured, or blocked,
during aggressive driving incidents, particularly those of a more hostile nature.
Indeed, perhaps the adoption of either instrumental or hostile behaviours is more
dependent on problem-solving abilities as suggested by the findings of Study’s Two
and Three. In Study Two the hierarchical regression analyses illustrated that
significance of problem-solving style as measured by SPSI-R subtests (NPO, ICS,
and RPS) in the likelihood of instrument and hostile behavioural outcomes. Further,
Study Three results also suggested that NPO style as measured by the SPSI-R is
more prevalent among self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers.
Following an aggressive driving incident, some young drivers in Study One
reported the continuation of emotions and thoughts of the incident for a short period
of time. However, the transfer of these thoughts and emotions to subsequent driving
behaviour and off-road environments appeared to have little impact upon their
subsequent behaviours.
RQ6 Are there differences in the characteristics of those drivers who are
prepared to engage in hostile acts of aggressive driving compared to those
who report only engaging in instrumental acts of aggressive driving?
Study Three examined the person-related characteristics of self-confessed
hostile aggressive drivers in considerable depth. These drivers appear to differ
significantly on a range of person-related characteristics from the general driving
population. Similar to the Study Two examination of potentially hostile aggressive
drivers (n = 88), Study Three self-reported hostile aggressive driver ages ranged from
24 to 55 years of age (M = 41.6 years). However, male drivers were more prevalent
than females in the hostile aggressive drivers identified in both Studies Two and
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 314
Three. The majority of participants in Study Three were married/defacto and had
reportedly completed Year 10 or better. The income of six of the drivers ranged
from $31,000 to $70,000 per annum.
Many of the Study Three participants also reported over 20 years’ driving
experience and driving most frequently on city/suburban roads. Consistent with the
findings in Study Two, the hostile aggressive drivers identified in this albeit small
study are also more likely to drive a medium to large vehicle. Additionally, the
hostile aggressive driver in the Study Three sample was found to be more likely to
have a history of driving offences such as speeding, drink-driving, driving unlicensed
and/or dangerous driving. The hostile aggressive driver in the sample was also more
likely to have a history of violence or delinquency in his earlier life.
Study Three drivers were also found to have higher than average trait
aggression and negative or impulsive/careless problem-solving styles than the
general driving population identified in Study Two (n = 838). Further, when
compared to the hostile aggressive drivers identified in Study Two (n = 88), they
again scored significantly higher on both characteristics. However, these results
need to be interpreted with caution due to the small and selective nature of the
sample used in Study Three.
In terms of personality, the Study Three drivers were found to have
statistically similar levels of chemical abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social
tendencies and self-depreciation to those in the comparison sample of incarcerated
individuals (Carlson, 1982). Also their impulsivity levels, as measured by the BIS-
11, did not significantly differ from the male ‘inmate’ or female ‘general psychiatric’
comparison groups, where considerably high impulsivity levels were apparent
(Patton et al., 1995).
Using the SLEs to explore life experience and prior exposure to trauma or
violence, the study showed that the individuals in the sample were more likely to
have come from dysfunctional families characterised by difficult childhoods. The
types of difficulties identified include child abuse/neglect, association with less than
positive peers, youthful exposure to law enforcement, parental alcohol abuse and
poor familial attitudes to school and authority. Not surprisingly, therefore, a
considerable number of the participants in Study Three had reportedly sought
counselling for a range of potential disorders ranging from depression through to
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 315
specifically, they appear to process on-road situational factors and potential triggers
for on-road aggression in different ways. Indeed, they also appear more likely to
respond impulsively. This finding is in keeping with the ‘impulsive’ behavioural
responses possible within the original GAM (Figure 3.1).
A number of findings in this research also support Shinar’s (1998)
frustration-aggression theory of aggressive driving. The person-related variables that
a driver brings to the on-road environment do appear to increase the likelihood of
aggressive behaviour on the roads. Shinar’s (1998) explanation of the
instrument/hostile distinction also warrants further research and clarification. His
distinction emphasised that the driver’s ‘path to goal is blocked’ precedes the
decision to respond with instrumental/hostile aggression. However, the results of
this research indicate that this process needs further consideration. The findings of
the current research suggest that it is whether a driver is prepared to abandon their
goal to engage in an aggressive action, which appears to characterise a hostile
behavioural response.
Furthermore, while the dichotomous, instrumental/hostile distinction made by
Shinar (1998) was supported by the factor loadings in Study Two, some of the
behaviours such as ‘muttering under one’s breath’ demands greater consideration as
to why they loaded onto each particular factor. As such, the results highlight the
need to better understand the function served by adopting these behaviours.
Another common theme emerging from the research is that aggressive
driving behaviour appears to serve an emotional function, although this relationship
is not at all clear. Also, in the case of hostile aggressive drivers, Shinar’s (1998)
suggested question of whether “aggression is possible or not” (Figure 2.3) seems
moot, as such drivers are likely to respond with aggression despite Shinar’s
suggested constraints (i.e. cultural norms and enforcement). Having considered the
behavioural factor loadings in Study Two, the adoption of instrumental behaviour
appears to be goal driven, in that the adopted behaviour will allow a driver to
continue with their original purpose for the journey. Alternatively, hostile
behaviours appear to require the abandoning of one’s goals in order to ‘right’ a
perceived ‘wrong’.
In addition, the research also found that aggressive driving behaviour is not
always frustration-aggression driven, differing slightly from Shinar’s theory (1998).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 318
Consistent with the GAM, it was found that aggressive driving behaviour may also
involve feelings of excitation (Zillman, 1988).
Lastly, the findings suggest that person-related factors influence one’s
perception of ‘other driver’ behaviour as aggressive or benign. The use of the two
scenarios in Study Two highlighted this finding. Those drivers with a predisposition
for aggression were more likely to perceive aggression or ‘wrong doing’ in an
ambiguous on-road situation and respond with instrumental and/or hostile behaviour.
Therefore, there is a need to explore further the perceptual processes involved in
aggressive driving behaviour. A perceptual stage has not been included in either the
GAM or the Frustration Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Shinar,
1998). Certainly, in terms of the GAM, a greater understanding of the way in which
drivers perceive their environment and potential provocation may assist in
understanding and addressing the behaviour of perpetrators.
the information needs to be elaborated upon and given personal relevance to the
offender and their driving behaviour. Finally, this research would suggest that such
drivers need to be introduced to alternative coping strategies for stress, both on and
off-road. Notably, the findings of Study Three suggest that it may also be necessary
to counsel these drivers on substance abuse issues.
Importantly, examining aggressive driving from within the framework of the
GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), highlighted many components of aggression on
the road that are consistently emphasised in cognitive behaviour therapy, such as the
need to reduce the experience of on-road stress and enhance cognitive coping
strategies (Deffenbacher et al., 2002a). Therefore, a cognitive-behavioural approach
to therapy would seem appropriate for the rehabilitation process.
There are, however, some anticipated difficulties with the introduction of
such a program. Firstly, the Study Three findings suggest that the hostile aggressive
driver has little personal insight and lower than average levels of remorse, which
may contribute to a less than ideal result from counselling. Secondly, these drivers
may be unco-operative and less likely to actively participate in the counselling
process due to the fact that they have been required to attend counselling. Hence,
rehabilitation programs in this area would need to be carefully designed and
evaluated.
should also examine the overall effect of the program on aggressive driving rates and
related repeat offending.
88). In Study Three, a case study approach was adopted to examine in greater detail
the psychosocial characteristics of self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers.
An additional strength was the theoretical foundations underpinning the
research. Use of the human aggression theories contained within the GAM
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002) throughout the three studies, provided a useful
framework for guiding the design of the research studies and for interpreting the
findings.
The final strength lies in the practical implications of this research. The
findings of each study may contribute to enhanced education and individual
rehabilitation programs discussed above or to inform further research. However, this
research program was not without its limitations. Although the specific limitations
of each study are outlined at the end of the relevant chapters, the following
limitations are summarised for ease of reference.
Study One did not endeavour to measure the state and trait characteristics of
the participants. Therefore, although the potentially hostile aggressive drivers
identified in Study Two were easy to identify by their reported behaviours, their
person-related characteristics were not explored in exhaustive depth. Additionally,
as Study One focused on young drivers the results of the study cannot be generalised
to the greater driving population. Finally, the Study One data was also obtained
primarily from ‘city’ drivers.
Study Two limitations stem primarily from methodological considerations.
Firstly, the use of scenarios lacks realism. Aggression research also shows that
participants tend to under-report on aggression measures and their likely responses to
scenarios (McCloskey & Coccaro, 2003). This is primarily due to the social
desirability bias, which maintains that people generally wish to present themselves in
a favourable light. The construct of the two scenarios may have also introduced a
potential confound to the findings. As outlined in Study Two, despite a pilot study,
Scenario Two included a contextual, off-road stress factor that may have influenced,
or added another layer of complexity to the findings.
An additional limitation of Study Two was the bi-modal distribution of the
age-groups represented in the sample (refer to Section 5.3.5.1). Despite targeting a
wide age range, the final sample yielded a bimodal distribution with more 17–24 and
40–59 year old drivers than other age groups, which may have influenced some of
the findings. Hence, the results should be interpreted with due caution.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 325
References
AAMI (2001). Young Drivers Index.
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (2008). 2008 Traffic Safety Culture Index. Washington,
www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/2008TSCIndexFinalReport.pd.
AAMI (2002). Road Rage on the rise. Sharing the road: Drivers concerns. Crash
AAMI (2003). Aggression and bad habits: Australian motorists confess. Crash
434-448.
Anderson, K. B., Anderson, C. A., Dill, K. E., & Deuser, W. E. (1998). The
Arnett, J. J., Offer, D., & Fine, M. A. (1997). Reckless driving in adolescence:
“state” and “trait” factors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 57-63.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 328
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1999). Statistics for psychology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
Aseltine, R. H., Gore, S., & Gordon, J. (2000). Life stress, anger and anxiety, and
Baron, R., & Bell, P. (1973). Effect of heightened arousal on physical aggression.
Barratt, E. S., Stanford, M. S., Dowdy, L., Liebman, M. J. & Kent, T. A. (1999).
(1), 26-29.
Baumeister, R., Smart, L., & Boden, J. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to
Beirness, D. J., Simpson, H. M., & Desmond, K. (2002). Risky driving. The Road
www.trafficinjuryresearch.com.
Beirness, D. J., Simpson, H. M., Mayhew, L., & Pak, S. (2001). Aggressive driving.
www.trafficinjuryresearch.com.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 329
psychiatric assessment and treatment, 19-40, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.
494-503.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences and control. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Berkowitz, L. (1998). Affective aggression: The role of stress, pain and negative
Theories, Research and Implications for Social Policy (pp. 49-87). Sandiego:
Academic Press.
Berman, M. E., Fallon, A. E., & Coccaro, E. F. (1998). The relationship between
Bernstein, I. H. & Gesn, P. R. (1997). On the dimensionality of the Buss and Perry
Bor, W., McGee, T. R., & Fagan, A. A. (2004). Early risk factors for adolescent
Bor, W., Najman, J. M., O’Callaghan, M. Williams, G. M., & Anstey, K. (2001).
and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 207. Australian Institute of
Criminology.
behavior and driving style: Do younger males really take more risks?
Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Finch, S. J., & Cohen, P. (1996). Young adult drug use
1592.
implications for social policy (pp. 24-44). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 331
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile
273-279.
17-32.
Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Pedersen, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., Miller, N. (2005).
Caprara, G. V., Gargaro, T., Pastorelli, C., Prezza, M., Renzi, P., & Zelli, A. (1987).
Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-
Carlson, N. R., & Buskist, W. (1997). Psychology: The science of behaviour, 539-
Cartwright, S., Cooper, C. L., & Barron, A. (1996). The company car driver:
Carver C. S., Sheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies:
Caspi, A. (2000). The child is father of the man: personality continuities from
158-172.
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh
Chapman, P. R., Evans, J., Crundall, D. E., & Underwood, G. (2004). Anger and
Proceedings of the ICTTP 2000 (pp. 155-185). London: Elsevier Science and
Publications.
Coccaro, E. F., Berman, M. E., & Kovoussi, R. J. (1997). Assessment of life history
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S., (2003). Applied multiple
Connell, D., & Joint M. (1996). Driver Aggression. Washington, DC, Road Safety
Connor, D. F., Steingard, R. J., Anderson, J. J., & Melloni, R. H. (2003). Gender
Cooper, M. L., Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Mudar, P. (1995). Drinking to regulate
Cooper, M. L., Wood, P. K., Albino, A., & Orcutt, H. K. (2003). Personality and the
191-202.
Dahlberg, L. L. (1998). Youth violence in the United States: Major trends, risk
Anger, aggression, and risky behavior: A comparison of high and low anger
Deffenbacher, J. L., Filetti, L. B., Richards, T. L., Lynch, R. S., & Oetting, E. R.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Filetti, L. B., Lynch, R. S., Dahlen, E. R., & Oetting, E. R.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Filetti, L. B., Dahlen, E. R., & Oetting, E. R.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Oetting, E. R., & Swaim, R. C. (2002b). The
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Thwaites, G. A., Lynch, R. S., Baker, D. A.,
Stark, R. S., Thacker, S., & Eiswerth Cox, L. (1996). State-trait anger theory
and the utility of the Trait Anger Scale. Journal of Counselling Psychology,
43, 131-148.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 335
DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. (1988). The impact of daily stress on health
Dodge, K. A., Laird, R., Lochman, J. E., & Zelli, A. (2002). Multidimensional latent-
14(1), 1040-3590.
Doherty, S. T., Andrey, J. C., & MacGregor, C. (1998). The situational risks of
young drivers: the influence of passengers, time of day and day of week on
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., Miller, N. E., & Sears, R. R. (1939).
Dorn, L., & Matthews, G. (1992). Two further studies of personality correlates of
Downs, C. G., Keigan, M., Maycock, G., & Grayson, G. B. (1999). The safety of
report questionnaire: The role of informants and a screening test for co-
344-352.
Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee (DCPC) (2005). Inquire into violence
associated with motor vehicle use: final report. Government Printer for the
State of Victoria.
D’Zurilla, T. J., Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2003). Self-esteem and social problem
D’Zurilla, T. J., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Kant, G. L. (1998). Age and gender
differences in social problem-solving ability. Personality and Individual
Differences, 25, 241-252.
D’Zurilla, T. J., Nezu, A. M., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2002). SPSI-R, Social
Elkins, I. J., McGue, M., Malone, S., & Iacono, W. G. (2004). The effect of parental
Elliott, B. (1999). Road rage: Media hype or serious road safety issue? Third
Queensland.
Elliott, T.R., Herrick, S.M., MacNair, R.R., & Harkins, S.W. (1994). Personality
Ellison, P. A., Govern, J. M., Herbert, L. P., & Figler, M. H. (1995). Anonymity and
Evans, L., & Wasielewski, P. (1983). Risky driving related to driver and vehicle
Fagan, A. A., & Najman, J. M. (2003a). The gendered and long-term relationship
Commission for Children and Young People, Issue Paper No.2. Retrieved on
546-558.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 338
Farrington, D. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence: Early precursors and
later life outcomes. In Pepler, D. & Rubin, K. (eds.). The Development and
Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Yin, Y., & Anderson, S. J. (2002). Are within-
Feindler, E. L., Marriott, S. A., & Iwatta, M. (1984). Group anger control training for
299-311.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to
mental health during a stressful real-life situation? The roles of appraisal and
Fong, G., Frost, D., & Stanfeld, S. (2001). Road rage: A psychiatric phenomenon?
Forest, S., Lewis, C. A., & Shevlin, M. (2000). Examining the factor structure and
Fossati, A., Barratt, E. S., Carretta, I., Leonardi, B., Grazioli, F., & Maffei, C.
A): Its use among students in England, Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia.
Galovski, T. E., & Blanchard, E. B. (2002a). Road rage: A domain for psychological
Galovski, T. E., Blanchard, E. B., Malta, L. S., & Freidenberg, B. M. (2003). The
research, and implications for social policy. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Glendon, A. I., Dorn, L., Matthews, G., Gulian, E., Davies, D. R., & Debney, L. M.
719-726.
Goodman, L. A., Corcoran, C., Turner, K., Yuan, N., & Green, B. L. (1998).
Gordhamer, S. A., Martinex, F. H., Petrilli, R. T., Lynch, R. S., & Deffenbacher, J.
Green, S., Salkind, N., & Akey, T. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows, 2nd Ed,
Gulian, E., Matthews, G., Glendon, A. I., Davies, D. R., & Debney, L. M. (1989).
Harding, R. W., Morgan, F. H., Indermaur, D., Ferrante, A. M., & Blagg, H. (1998).
Road rage and the epidemiology of violence: Something old, something new.
Hare, R. D., Harper, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D., & Newman, J. P.
Harris, M. B., & Knight-Bohnhoff, K. (1996a). Gender and aggression II: Personal
Hartley, L. R., & Hassani, J. E. (1994). Stress, violations and accidents. Applied
Hawkins, J. D., Herronkohl T., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., &
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (Ed). Serious and violent juvenile offenders:
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1999). Traffic congestion, driver stress, and
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2001). Gender, driver aggression and driver
28(5), 587-597.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale.
Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., & Dubow, E. F. (2002). Childhood predictors of adult
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Grossman, P. B. (1997). A positive view of self:
Psychopathology, 9, 75-94.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, (1998). Road Rage. Status Report. 33(10).
James, L., & Nahl, D. (2000). Aggressive driving is emotionally impaired driving.
http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/board/messages/25/47.html
Jarred, W. (2002). Police Powers and Responsibilities and Another Act Amendment
Bill 2002: Confronting bad and nuisance road behaviour. (No. 2002/18).
Joireman, J., Anderson, J., & Strathman, A. (2003). The aggression paradox:
Jonah, B. A. (1997). Sensation seeking and risky driving: A review and synthesis of
Kant, G.L., D’Zurilla, T. J., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (1997). Social problem solving
Karli, P. (1991). Animal and human aggression (pp. 138-151). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 344
Klassen, D., & O'Connor, W. A. (1994). Demographic and case history variables in
Knight, G. P., Guthrie, I. K., Page, M. C., & Fabes, R. A. (2002). Emotional arousal
28, 366-393.
Lajunen, T., & Parker, D. (2001). Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A
anger and aggressive driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 243-255.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Stradling, G. (1999). Dimensions of driver anger,
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Summala, H. (1999). Does traffic congestion increase
Behaviour, 2, 225-236.
93(3), 407-423.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 345
Lawton, R., Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1997). The role of
Lennon A., Watson B., Arlidge C., & Fraine G. (2011). You’re a bad driver but I just
Lewis, G., Pelosi, A. J., Araya, R., & Dunn, G. (1992). Measuring psychiatric
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., &
personality traits: Key findings from the first 14 years of the Pittsburgh
Youth Study. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4 (4), 273-297.
Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W., & Farrington, D. P. (1991).
Lonero, L. P., & Clinton, K. M. (1998). Changing road user behaviour: What
Mak, A. S., & Kinsella, C. (1996). Adolescent drinking, conduct problems, and
Mann, R. E., Smart, R. G., Stoduto, G., Adlaf, E. M., & Ialomiteanu, A. (2004).
Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, W. C., Miller, N., & Carlson, M. (2000). Displaced
Matthews, G., Dorn, L., & Glendon, A. I. (1991). Personality correlates of driver
Matthews, G., Dorn, L., Hoyes, T. W., Davies, D. R., Glendon, A. I. & Taylor, R. G.
McCloskey, M., & Coccaro, E.F., (2003). Self-report and interview measures of
21st century. (Coccaro, E.F. ed). 167-194. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 347
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp
Miller, E., Joseph, S., & Tudway, J. (2004). Assessing the component structure of
Miller, M., Azrael, D., Hemenway, D., & Solop, F. I. (2002). ‘Road rage’ in Arizona:
Foundation for Traffic Safety March 1997. Retrieved February 17, 2001 from
http://www.aaafts.org/Text/research/agdrtex.htm
Mortimer, J., & Shanahan, M. (1994). Adolescent work experience and family
Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, R. A. (2004). Concurrent and
Murray, A. (1998). The home and school background of young drivers involved in
Nash, M. R., Hulsey, T. L., Sexton, M. C., Harralson, T. L., & Lambert, W. (1993).
from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vda
from www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/22qp/how_to_pieces/how
_topl.html
Novaco, R. W., Stokols, D., & Milanesi, L. (1990). Objective and subjective
O’Brien, S. R., Tay, R., & Watson, B. (2005). Situational factors contributing to the
O’Connor, D. B., Archer, J., & Wu, F. W. C. (2001). Measuring aggression: Self-
Parker, D., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer Relations and Later Personal Adjustment:
357-389.
Parkinson, B. (2001). Anger on and off the road. British Journal of Psychology,
92(3), 507-526.
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt
Pedersen, W. C., Gonzales, C., & Miller, N. (2000). The moderating effect of trivial
Queensland Transport. (2003). Queensland Road Toll – a report on the road toll.
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources
Reason, J. T., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, S. G., Parker, D., & Baxter, J. S. (1991).
Reber, A. S., & Reber, E. S. (2001), Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 3rd ed.,
Penguin, London.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 350
673-678.
Rimmo, P., & Aberg, L. (1999). On the distinction between violations and errors:
Road Transport Legislation - Amendment Act. (1999). New South Wales Traffic &
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au.
Rolls, G. W. P., Ingham, R., Hall, R. D., & McDonald, M. (1991). Accident risk and
Research, Basingstoke.
Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., De La Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M.
Schlenker, B. R., Soraci, S., & McCarthy, B. (1976). Self-esteem and group
Selzer, M. L., & Vinokur, A. (1975). Role of life events in accident causation.
Shinar, D. (1998). Aggressive driving: The contribution of the drivers and the
Shinar, D., Schechtman, E., & Compton, R. (2001). Self-reports of safe driving
Shope, J. T., Waller, P. F., Raghunathan, T. E., & Patil, S. M. (2001). Adolescent
use and parental influences. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 640-658.
Silva, P., & Marks, M. (2001). Traumatic experiences, post-traumatic stress disorder
13(3), 172-180.
Simon, F., & Corbett, C. (1996). Road traffic offending, stress, age and accident
Stamm, B. H., Rudolph, J. M., Dewane, S., Gaines, N., Gorton, K., Paul, G., McNeil,
G., Bowen, G., & Ercolano, M. (1996). Psychometric review of stressful life
Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., Boudreaux, J. K., Mathias, C. W., & Brumbelow, J.
Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., & Dickens Jr, T. J. (1995). Irritability and
Tabachnik B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York,
http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/tasca/tasca.pdf
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 353
Taylor, S. P., & Hulsizer, M. R. (1998). Psychoactive drugs and human aggression.
research, and implications for social policy, 139-165, San Diego, CA, US:
Academic Press.
Tedeschi, J.T, & Felson, R.B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions.
Tillman, W., & Hobbs, G. (1949). The accident-prone automobile driver. American
Underwood, G., Chapman, P., Wright, S., & Crundall, D. (1999). Anger while
Prentice Hall.
Verona, E., Patrick, C. J., & Lang, A. R. (2002). A direct assessment of the role of
Vitiello, B., & Stoff, D. M. (1997). Subtypes of aggression and their relevance to
36(3).
Volavka, J., & Citrome, L. (1998). Aggression, alcohol, and other substances of
on Aggression and Impulsivity. (29-45). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Watson, M.W., Fischer, K.W., Andreas, J. B., & Smith, K. W. (2004). Pathways to
404-430.
Road Safety Semina, Paper 12. Retrieved June 30, 2002 from
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/behavioural/archive
Wells-Parker, E., Ceminsky, J., Hallberg, V., Snow, R. W., Dunaway, G., Guiling,
adolescents: the parent and peer influence scale. American Journal of Family
West, R. J., Elander, J., & French, D. (1993). Mild social deviance, type-a
driving style and traffic accident risk, British Journal of Psychology, 84 (2),
207-219.
Westerman S. J., & Haigney, D. (2000). Individual differences in driver stress, error
Widom, C. S., Ireland, T., & Glynn, P. J. (1995). Alcohol abuse in abused and
Canada.
Wiesenthal, D. L., Hennessy, D. A., & Totten, B. (2000). The influence of music on
Zimbardo, P. G., Keough, K. A., & Boyd, J. N. (1997). Present time perspective as a
1007-1023.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 356
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A
comparison of three structural models for personality: the big three, the big
five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 757–768.
Appendices
Appendix A:
Participant Information and Consent Package – Study One
Where Does Young Driver Aggression Begin and End? The ‘on’ and ‘off-
road’ Factors Associated with Aggressive Driving
The information gathered via this focus group, will be used to complete the Chief
Investigators, Masters of Applied Science (Research) thesis. The project is examining
the emotions experienced by South-east Queensland drivers and the range of behavioural
responses they engage in. In order to participate, you must hold a current driver’s
licence.
Participants are requested to participate to the best of their ability. The focus group
should take approximately 1- 1 ½ hours to complete.
Only aggregate data will be published and all information provided by you will be
anonymous and treated as strictly confidential. To ensure this, the signed consent sheet
shall remain separate from the completed demographic sheets.
Participation in this research is voluntary and you are free to withdraw from the study at
any time without comment or penalty. If the interview questions cause you any
discomfort, you are free to contact the QUT Counselling and Health Services, by
phoning 3864 4539, who have been informed about this study as a precaution and will
provide counselling support, free of charge.
Following the interview, if you have any queries I can be contacted on the number above
or via email. If you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of this research please
contact the Secretary, University Human Research Ethics Committee on 3864 2902.
Copies of the findings of this study shall be made available if you are interested.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 359
• Understand that you are able to withdraw from this study at any time without
explanation;
• Understand that any information you provide will be treated as confidential; and
Appendix B:
Socio-Demographic Questionnaire – Study One
Group No. ……
Exploration of Aggressive Driving in South-east Queensland
Please take a moment to fill out this questionnaire.
1. Please circle the number beside the length of time you have been driving.
1 year ……………………………….. 1
2 years ……………………………….. 2
3 years ……………………………….. 3
4 years ……………………………….. 4
5 years ……………………………….. 5
6 years ……………………………….. 6
7 years ……………………………….. 7
8 years ……………………………… 8
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 361
2. From the options below, please circle the number beside the approximate
Kilometres
0-5 000 ………………………………. 1
3. Below, please circle the number which best describes the types of roads you
generally drive on.
Mainly highway/country
driving …………………………………….. 4
0-5 ………………………………… 1
6-10………………………………… 2
11-15……………………………… 3
16-20……………………………….. 4
More……………………………… 5
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 362
5. Are you required to drive at all for work purposes? Please circle your
response.
Appendix C:
Focus Group Protocols – Study One
Introduction
Good morning/evening and thank you for taking the time to be here. Let me
introduce myself. My name is Sharon O’Brien and I am a researcher from QUT.
Assisting me is Susan Hart also from QUT.
We’ll base today’s discussion around a series of general questions about driving.
There are no right or wrong answers to these questions and I expect that we may get
quite different points of view from the various people in the group. Please feel free to
share your views even if they differ from what others have said. You don’t need to
agree with others, but I’d like you to let others share their views.
Please speak up and if possible speak ‘one at a time’. My role as moderator will
be to encourage everyone to speak and to keep us on track during the discussion.
We’ll be on a first name basis today/tonight, but please be assured that your
names will not be used at any stage in the research and complete confidentiality is
assured. We shall be recording the session and be assured that your input today shall be
kept safe and confidential. The recordings shall be kept in a locked cabinet accessible
only to the researchers.
Our session will last about an hour and a half. While we won’t be taking a
formal break, please feel free to use the toilets (indicate location) and refill your drinks if
you are thirsty.
Today we’ll be talking about some of your experiences with aggressive driving
on the roads. The media would suggest that aggressive driving behaviour is increasing
in Australia. So we shall consider: What is aggressive driving? What causes it? and,
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 364
What do people think of it? Without a doubt the behaviour of some drivers can certainly
be annoying, to say the least.
Are there any questions? OK, lets get into it. With the first two questions we’ll
have a short open discussion then we shall go around the table and afterwards open it up
for discussion. If you could say your name the first time around that would be great.
Q1: What do you think are the main causes of aggressive driving?
Q4: a) Can you think of an instance where you may have acted angrily on the
road or responded angrily to someone?
g) Can you recall having any particular ‘thoughts’ while it was happening?
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 365
d) Immediately after the incident (say for the next 15 minutes) how did you
feel?
e) Some time after the incident (say 1 hour later), did you feel any differently
about the incident?
Q7: Can you think of instances where you got into your vehicle feeling
upset/tense/under pressure?
Finish
Unfortunately we are running out of time, but today/tonight’s discussion has
been extremely valuable for us. As we come to a close I again want to remind you that
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 366
all the comments you have made will remain entirely anonymous, and ask that you also
keep the comments of other group members to yourself so that each person can remain
anonymous.
Are there any questions I can answer for you?
Once again thank you, we very much appreciate your involvement.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 367
Appendix D:
SPSS Output Socio-Demographic and Driving Exposure Data - Study One
GENDER
Statistics
GENDER
N Valid 47
Missing 0
Mode 2
Range 1
GENDER
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid male 22 46.8 46.8 46.8
female 25 53.2 53.2 100.0
Total 47 100.0 100.0
AGE
Statistics
AGE
N Valid 47
Missing 0
Mode 18
Range 7
AGE
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 18 12 25.5 25.5 25.5
19 9 19.1 19.1 44.7
20 2 4.3 4.3 48.9
21 9 19.1 19.1 68.1
22 4 8.5 8.5 76.6
23 5 10.6 10.6 87.2
24 1 2.1 2.1 89.4
25 5 10.6 10.6 100.0
Total 47 100.0 100.0
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 368
TIMEDRIV
N Valid 47
Missing 0
Mode 1
Range 7
TIMEDRIV
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 year 15 31.9 31.9 31.9
2 years 8 17.0 17.0 48.9
3 years 5 10.6 10.6 59.6
4 years 6 12.8 12.8 72.3
5 years 6 12.8 12.8 85.1
6 years 3 6.4 6.4 91.5
7 years 2 4.3 4.3 95.7
8 years 2 4.3 4.3 100.0
Total 47 100.0 100.0
DISTPYR
N Valid 47
Missing 0
Mode 3
Range 5
DISTPYR
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0-5 000 8 17.0 17.0 17.0
5 001-10 000 8 17.0 17.0 34.0
10 001-15 000 14 29.8 29.8 63.8
15 001-20 000 9 19.1 19.1 83.0
20 001-30 000 4 8.5 8.5 91.5
30 001 or more 4 8.5 8.5 100.0
Total 47 100.0 100.0
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 369
TYPE OF ROAD
Statistics
TYPEROAD
N Valid 47
Missing 0
Mode 2
Range 3
TYPEROAD
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid cityroadonly 1 2.1 2.1 2.1
citysomehwyorcn
30 63.8 63.8 66.0
tryroad
bothcity&hway/c
14 29.8 29.8 95.7
ntry
mainlyhwaycount
2 4.3 4.3 100.0
ry
Total 47 100.0 100.0
NOTIMPW
N Valid 47
Missing 0
Mode 3
Range 4
NOTIMPW
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0-5 3 6.4 6.4 6.4
6-10 12 25.5 25.5 31.9
11-15 14 29.8 29.8 61.7
16-20 6 12.8 12.8 74.5
more 12 25.5 25.5 100.0
Total 47 100.0 100.0
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 370
WORK
N Valid 47
Missing 0
Mode 2
Range 1
WORK
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 21 44.7 44.7 44.7
no 26 55.3 55.3 100.0
Total 47 100.0 100.0
PERCIEVED INCREASE
Statistics
PERINCRE
N Valid 47
Missing 0
Mode 1
Range 2
PERINCRE
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid yes 35 74.5 74.5 74.5
unsure 12 25.5 25.5 100.0
Total 47 100.0 100.0
DESCRIPTIVES
Descriptive Statistics
Appendix E:
RACQ Sample Details
RACQ Region Under 25 yrs 25-44 yrs 45-64 yrs 65 or older Total
Brisbane, Ipswich & surrounding 400 400 200 200 200 200 200 200 2,000
Appendix F:
Driving Questionnaire – Study Two
The first of our questions are about you and your driving. Please circle one
number to show your answer for each question. Remember – all the information you
provide is completely confidential and your anonymity is assured. If you decide you don’t
want to answer a question, that is OK. Please just go on to the next question.
1. What type of vehicle do you drive most often?
Please circle one number only. Small car…………..………………………………… 1
Medium car………………….……………………… 2
Large car………….………………………………… 3
Small/Medium 4WD……………………………….. 4
Large 4WD………………………………………….. 5
Utility/small truck…………………………………… 6
Large Truck…………………………………………. 7
Motorcycle…………………………………………... 8
Van/people mover/mini-bus………………………. 9
Other (please specify _____________________) 10
Other 0 1 2 3+
10. What is your highest level of formal education Primary…………………………………………………...1
you have completed? Junior (Grade 10)……..…..…………………………….2
Senior (Grade 12)………….……………………………3
TAFE/Tech College/Apprenticeship……………..…. .. 4
CAE/University .……………………………….………..5
Other (Please specify) ________________________6
11. On each of the scales below, could you please circle the appropriate number that best indicates how you
are feeling right now?
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 374
12. Please circle the number which best indicates how characteristic the following statements are about you, from‘1’ Extremely
Uncharacteristic to ‘5’ Extremely characteristic.
Extremely Extremely
Uncharacteristic Characteristic
If somebody hits me, I hit back 1 2 3 4 5
When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them
1 2 3 4 5
The remainder of this questionnaire will present you with two driving scenarios. Following
each scenario you will be asked to rate how you would feel in the situation and how likely
you would be to respond in different ways. Please circle the number which best describes
your level of agreement with the questions provided. Please give your most immediate
response.
Scenario One
You are driving down a two lane road (one lane each way) travelling at the speed limit and you notice that the
car behind you is travelling very close to your vehicle. Instead of waiting for an opportunity to overtake you, the
driver proceeds to flash his/her lights and beep his/her horn.
1. Please circle the number on the scale below which best rates how you may feel in this situation.
Not at All Very Much
a) Angry…………………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
b) Threatened ..……………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
c) Annoyed . ………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
d) Agitated…..……………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
2. How likely are you to have the following immediate thoughts about the other driver?
Extremely Extremely
Unlikely Likely
3. Thinking about the scenario again, please circle the number beside each of the statements below, that would best
indicate the likelihood of you responding to the situation in this way. The scale is as follows:
Extremely Extremely
Unlikely Likely
1. Swear or mutter to yourself or others in your car
1 2 3 4 5
2. Give a blast of your horn.
1 2 3 4 5
3. Carry on driving normally.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Gesture at the other driver.
1 2 3 4 5
5. Swear at and/or verbally abuse the other driver.
1 2 3 4 5
6. After they have overtaken you, drive close to/follow the
1 2 3 4 5
Other vehicle.
7. Ignore the driver/incident as if nothing has happened.
1 2 3 4 5
8. Stop the vehicle and get out of your vehicle, ready to
argue. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Stop the vehicle and get out prepared to engage
physically with the other driver. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Shout or scream out loud but not at the offending driver.
1 2 3 4 5
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 378
4. After this incident, how likely are you to have the following reactions?
Not at all Extremely
likely likely
Feel better once you have responded in the manner you have
1 2 3 4 5
indicated above.
Only feel better after having talked with a friend or relative upon
1 2 3 4 5
arrival at your destination.
Scenario Two
You have just had an argument with someone close to you, prior to getting in the car. You then approach an
intersection and the light changes to ‘red’. You come to a stop behind another car. The light seems to take a long
time to change back to ‘green’. When the light finally changes the driver in front does not move off, preventing you
from moving forward.
1. Please circle the number on the scale below which best rates how you may feel in this situation.
Not at All Very Much
a) Angry…………………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
b) Threatened ..……………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
c) Annoyed . ………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
d) Agitated…..……………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 379
2. How likely are you to have the following immediate thoughts about the other driver?
Extremely Extremely Likely
Unlikely
3. Thinking about the scenario again, please circle the number beside each of the statements below, that would best
indicate the likelihood of you responding to the situation in this way. The scale is as follows:
Extremely Extremely Likely
Unlikely
1. Swear or mutter to yourself or others in your car
1 2 3 4 5
Give a blast of your horn and/or flash lights.
1 2 3 4 5
3. Carry on driving normally.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Gesture at the other driver.
1 2 3 4 5
5. Swear at and/or verbally abuse the other driver.
1 2 3 4 5
6. Drive close to/follow the other vehicle.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Ignore the driver/incident as if nothing has
1 2 3 4 5
happened.
8. Stop the vehicle and get out of your vehicle, ready to
argue. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Stop the vehicle and get out prepared to engage
physically 1 2 3 4 5
with the other driver.
10. Shout or scream out loud but not at the offending
1 2 3 4 5
driver.
11. Use your vehicle to physically damage the other
driver’s 1 2 3 4 5
vehicle.
4. After this incident, how likely are you to have the following reactions?
Not at all Extremely
likely likely
Forget about it almost immediately.
1 2 3 4 5
Feel better once you have responded in the manner you
1 2 3 4 5
have indicated above.
Feel upset or irritable until later in the journey.
1 2 3 4 5
Forget about it once you have left the car.
1 2 3 4 5
Forget about it once you start on another task.
1 2 3 4 5
Feel upset or irritable for the rest of the day.
1 2 3 4 5
Only feel better after having talked with a friend or relative
1 2 3 4 5
upon arrival at your destination.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 380
Appendix G:
Questionnaire Information and Consent Sheet Study Two – RACQ Participants
Driving Questionnaire
Dear Sir/Madam,
This research will explore the emotions experienced by Queensland drivers and the
range of behaviours they engage in as a result of anger-provoking incidents.
If the interview questions cause you any discomfort, you are free to contact the
QUT, Family Therapy and Counselling Clinic, by phoning (07) 3864 4578, who
have been informed about this study as a precaution and will provide counselling
support, free of charge.
If you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of this research please contact
the Secretary, University Human Research Ethics Committee on (07) 3864 2902.
Alternatively, if you have any questions about the research please feel free to
telephone me on (07) 3864 4685.
Sharon O’Brien
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 382
Appendix H:
Questionnaire Information and Consent Sheet Study Two – QUT Participants
Where Does Driver Aggression Begin and End? The ‘on’ and ‘off-road’
Factors Associated with Aggressive Driving
The information gathered via this semi-structured interview, will be used to complete the
Chief Investigators, Masters of Applied Science (Research) thesis. The project is
examining the emotions experienced by Australian drivers and the range of behavioural
responses they engage in. In order to participate, you must hold a current driver’s
licence.
Participants are requested to answer all questions to the best of their ability. The
interview should take approximately 20 minutes.
Only aggregate data will be published and all information provided by you will be
anonymous and treated as strictly confidential. To ensure this, the signed consent sheet
shall remain separate from the completed interview sheets.
Participation in this research is voluntary and you re free to withdraw from the study at
any time without comment or penalty. If the questions cause you any discomfort, you
are free to contact the QUT Counselling and Health Services, by phoning 3864 4539,
who have been informed about this study as a precaution and will provide counselling
support, free of charge.
Following the interview, if you have any queries I can be contacted on the number above
or via email. If you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of this research please
contact the Secretary, University Human Research Ethics Committee on 3864 2902.
Copies of the findings of this study shall be made available if you are interested.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 383
• Understand that you are able to withdraw from this study at any time without
explanation;
• Understand that any information you provide will be treated as confidential; and
If you would like to receive feedback, please provide a phone number or e-mail address
where you would like us to contact you with the results.
(Phone/e-mail)________________________________________________
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 384
Appendix I:
Internal Reliability Measures for Measures used in the Study Two Questionnaire
Reliability - Aggression Questionnaire
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.900 .913 29
Item-Total Statistics
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.843 .844 5
Item-Total Statistics
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.765 .766 5
Item-Total Statistics
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.821 .823 5
Item-Total Statistics
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.786 .787 3
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.848 .848 3
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.812 .808 3
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.843 .855 3
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.769 .806 9
Item-Total Statistics
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.764 6
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.853 3
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.737 .795 9
Item-Total Statistics
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.744 6
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.826 3
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.817 .844 3
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.847 .865 3
Appendix J
Analyses of the Driving Behaviour Characteristics and Behavioural Intentions of the
Study Two Sample
Some of the variables were recoded to meet sufficient cell sizes (i.e. n > 5) to
enable Chi- Square (χ2) analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The effected variables
were self-reported speeding fines incurred in the past three years and crash involvement
in the past three years. Also, due to the overrepresentation of young drivers in on-road
aggression, special attention is given to those drivers aged 17–24 years of age in the
sample. In order to test for any significant age and gender differences the age variable
was reduced to ‘1’ - 17–24 year olds and ‘0’ – 25 years and older.
Table J1
Chi-square analysis of number of speeding fines in the previous three years by age
Number of Speeding Drivers Drivers
Fines in the Last 17-24 years 25 years and
Three Years of age over Significance Level
(n = 896)
Table J2
Chi-square analysis of number of speeding fines in the previous three years by gender
Number of Speeding
Fines in the Last
Three Years Female Male Significance Level
(n = 896)
Table J3
Self-reported number of participants fined for DUI of alcohol, unlicensed driving and
other offences in the past three years
Frequency Driving Under the Unlicensed Driving Other Offences
Influence Alcohol
1 7 3 42
2 0 0 5
3 or more 1 1 4
TOTAL 8 4 51
Table J4
years
Number of Self-
reported Crashes in 17-24 Year Older Drivers
the Last Three Years Old Drivers Significance Level
(n = 921)*
*The self-reported ‘number of crashes in the previous three years’ was recoded into a dichotomous variable, ‘no
crashes’ versus ‘one or more crashes’ so that the cell size requirement of > 5 was met (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).
Appendix K
Differences in Trait Characteristics of the Study Two Sample
Table K1
Results of gender by age-group ANOVAs on AQ and SPSI-R subscales with post-hoc tests
M M M M M M M M Overall
ANOVA
17-24y 17-24y 25-39y 25-39y 40-59y 40-59y 60+ y 60+ y
Sig.
Variable by Scenario Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Level
(n = 106) (n = 226) (n = 41) (n = 116) (n = 105) (n = 128) (n = 110) (n = 94)
Aggression
Questionnaire (AQ) 58.38 53.46 49.80 47.75 49.22 41.10 37.22 33.07 p < .001
Total AQ
Physical Aggression 14.84 11.58 11.93 10.02 11.83 8.72 8.20 6.40 p < .001
Verbal Aggression 13.27 12.48 11.95 10.98 11.59 10.01 9.91 8.49 p < .001
Angry Aggression 11.31 10.96 8.98 10.85 9.67 8.78 6.99 6.20 p < .001
Hostile Aggression 18.96 18.43 16.95 15.89 16.13 13.59 12.12 11.96 p < .001
Social Problem
Solving (SPSI-R)
Negative Problem 5.21 5.49 5.08 5.17 5.14 5.14 4.92 5.14 p < .001
Solving (NPO)
Impulsive/Careless
Style (ICS) 5.39 5.27 5.22 5.18 5.05 5.08 4.97 5.02 p < .001
Rational Problem
Solving(RPS) 3.19 3.25 3.39 3.41 3.40 3.39 3.43 3.16 p < .105
A conservative probability level of p < .006 was adopted to determine the significance of the ANOVAs, the multiple
tests performed (i.e. Bonferroni adjustment .05 ÷ 4 = p < .0125). Post hoc comparisons were conducted using
Dunnet’s C at p < .05.
plus, reported significantly less trait aggression than other age-groups, (p < .05). Drivers
aged 25–39 years and 40–59 years reported similar total trait aggression scores as each
other, (p > .05).
Physical Aggression Subscale
The overall ANOVA to evaluate the effects of age-group by gender on self-
reported levels of trait physical aggression was significant, [F (7,918) = 34.442, p <
.001]. Analysis revealed a significant simple main effect (SME) for gender, males (M =
11.7) reporting more trait physical aggression than females (M = 9.2) in the sample [F
(1,918) = 56.907, p < .001, η2 = .18].
Another SME was found for age-group [F (3,918) = 66.17, p < .001, η2 = .06].
Dunnetts’ C post hoc comparisons of the four age-groups revealed 17–24 year olds
reported significantly higher levels of physical aggression than the other three age
groups at p < .05. Although the means scores for physical aggression appear to reduce
as age increases, there was no statistically significant difference between 25–39 year old
(M = 11) and 40–59 year old drivers (M = 10.3), p > .05. Drivers aged 60 years plus
scored significantly less on the physical aggression subscale than all other drivers.
Verbal Aggression Subscale
The overall ANOVA evaluating age and gender effects on trait verbal aggression
levels was significant [F (7,918) = 23.036, p < .001]. Significant SMEs were found for
age [F (3,918) = 46.654, p < .001, η2 = .13] and for gender [F (1,918) = 22.655,
p < .001, η2 = .02].
The gender SME revealed that male (M = 11.7) participants scored significantly
higher on verbal aggression than females (M = 10.5), p < .05. Using Dunnett’s C post
hoc comparisons, young drivers 17–24 years of age scored significantly higher on verbal
aggression than the other age groups under consideration (p < .05), whilst there was no
significant difference in the verbal aggression scores reported by 25–39 and 40–59 year
old drivers (p > .05). Older drivers, 60 years and over, also reported significantly less
trait verbal aggression than other age groups, p < .05. Similar to the trait physical
aggression scores, the means suggest that as age increases verbal aggression decreases.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 397
the 25–39 and 40–59 year old age groups, p > .05. Post hoc comparisons also revealed
that 17–24 year olds reported significantly higher levels of ICS than those aged 40 years
and over, p < .05. There was no significant difference between 17–24 year olds and 25–
39 year olds on levels of ICS, p > .05. Examination of the means indicates that as age
increases levels of NPO and ICS appear to decrease.
A significant SME was also found for gender by NPO, F (1,918) = 16.73, p <
.001. Females (M = 5.2) reported significantly higher levels of NPO (p < .05) than
males (M = 5), though the difference seems minute.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 399
Appendix L
PHA Driver results from the Study Two Sample
PHA Drivers 42 9 29 8
(n = 88)
47.7% 10.2% 33% 9.1%
1. The cells with significant (p < .01) adjusted standardised residuals were bolded
1. The cells with significant (p < .01) adjusted standardised residuals were bolded
1. The cells with significant (p < .01) adjusted standardised residuals were bolded
1. The measure in its original state had a number of cells less than 5 (see Appendix F). As such, the
categories were collapsed to reflect a measure of light, medium and heavy traffic density,
irrespective of type of road.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 401
SPSI-R Subscales
Negative Problem
Orientation 5.21 .52 540.97 455.37 -2.882, p < .017
Impulsive/Careless
Style 5.16 .54 573.31 451.97 -4.081, p < .001
Rational Problem
Solving 3.32 .87 408.07 469.32 -2.049, p > .017
Pre-questionnaire
Negative Emotion 2.00 .77 590.10 450.21 -4.711, p < .001
Use of a conservative measure of significance was decided upon for interpreting the results to protect
against family-wise error. Specifically, for the testing of the AQ subscales the chosen p < .01, was
calculated using a Bonferoni Adjustment .05 ÷ 5 (number of subscales) = .01. Similarly, the significance
level of the tests involving the SPSI-R subscales was pre-determined at p < .017.
To facilitate the analysis of this data the number of crashes reported by participants was collapsed into three
categories.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 402
Table L9 Number of speeding fines and other fines in the past three years by driver
type
Speeding Fines, Other Fines and Drink Driving Charges Significance Level
in the Past Three Years
Likelihood of Speeding
Instrumental Aggressive
Response 1.96 .75 711.19** 437.49 -9.164, p < .001
Hostile Aggressive
Response 1.07 .35 815.84** 426.50 -27.630, p < .001
Scenario 2
Instrumental Aggressive
Response 1.87 .73 698.69** 438.80 -8.702, p < .001
Hostile Aggressive
Response 1.05 .30 639.67** 445.00 -19.142, p < .001
Age1
25-39 years -1.13 .57 3.96** .32 .12 1.07
40-59 years .29 .41 .50 1.34 .60 2.97
60 years and over -.25 .57 .19 .78 .26 2.39
SPSI-R Subscales:
NPO -.14 .34 .16 .87 .44 1.71
Driving Exposure
Hours Driven Per Week3
6-10 hours -.13 .37 .13 .88 .42 1.81
11-15 hours .35 .46 .57 1.42 .58 3.48
16-20 hours -.08 .63 .02 .93 .27 3.16
More than 20 hours -1.79 .98 3.31 .17 .02 1.15
Type of Vehicle4
Medium 1.02 .44 5.50* 2.78 1.18 6.53
Large 1.18 .52 5.18* 3.25 1.18 8.96
4WD 1.39 .57 5.93* 4.00 1.31 12.20
Truck/Ute .98 .73 1.80 2.67 .63 11.27
Congestion Exposure5
Medium .29 .51 .31 1.33 .49 3.62
Appendix M:
Semi-Structured Questionnaire – Study Three
The following information is personal in nature, however, it is necessary in order for this research to increase our understanding of
aggressive driving behaviour. Please be assured that no person, other than the researcher involved, will have access to the information
you provide.
The first of our questions are about you and your driving. Please circle one number to show your answer for each question. Remember
– all the information you provide is completely confidential and your anonymity is absolutely assured. If you decide you don’t want to
answer a question, that is OK. Please just go on to the next question.
2. Where do you most often drive your vehicle? City/Town roads light traffic…………………….…. 1
Please circle one number only. City/Town roads medium traffic…………….…….. 2
City/Town roads heavy traffic…………………….. 3
Highways/open roads light traffic…………………. 4
Highways/open roads medium traffic……………. 5
Highways/open roads heavy traffic………………. 6
4. During the last 3 years, how many crashes have you been involved in
Single .......................................................................... 1
8. What is your marital status? Married ........................................................................ 2
Defacto ........................................................................ 3
Separated .................................................................... 4
Divorced ...................................................................... 5
11. Have you ever visited a psychologist or psychiatrist? If so, please briefly outline the reason.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 409
I have witnessed or experienced a human made disaster like a plan crash or industrial disaster.
I or a close friend or family member has been the victim of a terrorist attack or torture.
I have felt responsible for the serious injury or death of another person.
As a child/teen I was hit, spanked, choked or pushed hard enough to cause injury.
As a child or adult I have witnessed someone else being forced to have unwanted sexual contact.
I have witnessed or experienced an extremely stressful event not already mentioned.
Please briefly explain:……………………………………………………………………………………………
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 410
Aggression Questionnaire
Please circle the number which best indicates how characteristic the following statements are
about you, from‘1’ Extremely Uncharacteristic to ‘5’ Extremely characteristic.
Extremely Extremely
Uncharacteristic Characteristic
If somebody hits me, I hit back 1 2 3 4 5
I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them 1 2 3 4 5
When frustrated, I let my irritation show 1 2 3 4 5
There are people who pushed me so far that we
came to blows 1 2 3 4 5
Almost Always
Rarely / Never
Occasionally
This is a test to measure some of the ways in which you act and think. Read
each statement carefully and DARKEN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCLE to the right
of the statement. Answer quickly and honestly.
Often
1. I plan tasks carefully ………………………………………………………..
2. I do things without thinking …………………………………………………
3. I make up my mind quickly …………………………………………………
4. I am happy-go-lucky ………………………………………………………..
5. I don’t “pay attention” ……………………………………………………….
6. I have “racing” thoughts …………………………………………………….
7. I plan trips well ahead of time ……………………………………………….
8. I am self-controlled ………………………………………………………….
9. I concentrate easily …………………………………………………………..
10. I save regularly ……………………………………………………………..
11. I “squirm” at plays or lectures ……………………………………………...
12. I am a careful thinker ………………………………………………………
13. I plan for job security ………………………………………………………
14. I say things without thinking ……………………………………………….
15. I like to think about complex problems ……………………………………
16. I change jobs ……………………………………………………………….
17. I act “on impulse” ………………………………………………………….
18. I get easily bored when solving thought problems ………………………...
19. I act on the spur of the moment …………………………………………….
20. I am a steady thinker ……………………………………………………….
21. I change where I live ……………………………………………………….
22. I buy things on impulse …………………………………………………….
23. I can only think about one problem at a time ………………………………
24. I change hobbies ……………………………………………………………
25. I spend or charge more than I earn …………………………………………
26. I have outside thoughts when thinking …………………………………….
27. I am more interested in the present than the future ………………………..
28. I am restless at lectures or talks ……………………………………………
29. I like puzzles ……………………………………………………………….
30. I plan for the future ………………………………………………………...
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 414
Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982)
COMMENTS
1. I drink alcohol:
1) _____ never
2) _____ once in a while
3) _____ about once a week
4) _____ more than once a week
5) _____ all the time
2. My thinking is:
1) _____ good, straight
2) _____ good, but a little mixed-up
3) _____ mixed-up but I can do O.K.
4) _____ mixed-up
5) _____ my head is all mixed-up
3. I trust:
1) _____ everyone
2) _____ most people
3) _____ some people but not others
4) _____ only my best friends
5) _____ no one
4. My life is:
1) _____ very interesting
2) _____ interesting
3) _____ both interesting and dull
4) _____ dull
5) _____ always boring and dull
5. I feel:
1) _____ O.K.
2) _____ a little down, but O.K.
3) _____ sad some of the time
4) _____ sad a lot of the time
5) _____ really sad and depressed
12. Have you been booked for any offences as a result of driving? If so, please provide brief details.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
13. Have you been booked for any offences that have not been related to driving? If so, please
provide brief details.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Stage Two
Protocol for Interviewing
Aggressive Driving Case Studies
Thanks for your continued support of this research project. For the purpose of
this stage of the research you are asked to recall one of your most vivid experiences with
aggressive driving behaviour. During the last 12-18 months you need to have been so
angry on the road that you verbally or physically abused another driver, or you have
been really angry and jumped in your car, driving off to let off steam. As a result of this
action, you must have left your vehicle and verbally or physically abused the other road
user, and/or caused property damage.
• Had you been drinking or taking recreational drugs prior to this incident?
• Can you describe how you were feeling within your body at the time?
• Can you recall having any particular ‘thoughts’ while it was happening?
Can you recall how the other driver reacted to your behaviour?
Probes:
• What went through your mind at this point?
o Did you feel guilty/ or remorseful?
o Did you feel that your actions were justified?
Do you think this incident affected your behaviour once you left the road?
Probes:
• How did this affect your behaviour?
_____________________________________________________________________
If you are interested, a follow-up appointment can be made to receive some feedback
• Have you ever felt so angry on the roads that you have ‘lashed out’
at another driver?
OR
• Have you ever felt really angry and jumped in the car and driven off
just to let off ‘steam’? AND
Would you like to earn $$$ for 1 ½ hours of your time, participating in road
safety research about aggressive driving?
Dear Participant,
The information gathered via your involvement in this project, will form part of the data
required for completion of the researcher’s Doctoral thesis. The project is examining
person-related and situational factors that may influence the expression of aggression on
the road. In order to participate, you must hold a current driver’s licence and be able to
recall an on-road incident where you were either physically or verbally abusive toward
an unknown driver.
Today’s process involves two stages, completion of a series of questionnaires with the
aid of the researcher and an interview. Participants are requested to answer the
questions to the best of their ability. The questionnaires should take approximately
1hour to complete. After a short break, you will be asked to recall one of your most
vivid experiences with aggression on the road. This interview should take
approximately 30 minutes. You will then be financially reimbursed for your time and
travelling expenses to the value of $60.00.
Please note, that information provided by you will be anonymous and treated as strictly
confidential. All records will be maintained in a locked filing cabinet accessible only to
the researcher.
Participation in this research is voluntary and you are free to withdraw from the
study at any time. If the interview questions cause you any discomfort, you are free
to contact QUT Counselling and Health Services, by phoning 3864 4539, who have
been informed about this study as a precaution and will provide counselling
support, free of charge.
Following the completion of the questionnaires, if you have any queries I can be
contacted on the number above or via email. If you have any concerns about the ethical
conduct of this research please contact the Secretary, University Human Research Ethics
Committee on 3864 4902. The results of the following questionnaires shall be discussed
with you during the next stage of the research, if you are interested.
Yours faithfully,
Sharon O’Brien
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 425
• understand that you are able to withdraw from this study at any time without
explanation;
• understand that any information you provide will be treated as strictly confidential;
• understand that the interview stage of the research shall be taped using a recording
device;
• are aware that you shall be paid $60.00 upon completion of the second stage of the
project (ie., the interview).
Date
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 426
Appendix Q: Published M and SD Associated with the CPS and BIS-11 Measures
Table Q1
CPS norms for female and male offenders (Carlson, 1982, p. 6)
N M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Female 311 20.1 2.7 23.2 6.4 30.4 7.8 32.4 9.2 20.5 4.9 3.55 .81
Male 412 19 3.3 24 7.1 29 8.3 36.3 9.9 20.6 5.4 3.8 1.2
Table Q2
Descriptive statistics and internal consistency coefficients for total BIS-11 scores on
four samples (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995)
Group M SD M SD M SD
Table Q3
General population means and standard deviations of the BIS-11 subscales (N = 245)
(Miller, Joseph & Tudway, 2004)
Appendix R:
Range of CPS Subscale Scores by Offender Type (Carlson, 1982)
Type 1
Self-Depreciation 18-24
Validity 3-4
Descriptive Summary
Drug and alcohol abuse is a major characteristic of the group. Although some of
these individuals are concerned about getting into trouble again, they exhibit little
motivation toward bettering themselves. Others deny any drug/alcohol problems and do
not appreciate the severity of their situations, maintaining a matter-of-fact attitude
toward the negative aspects of their past.
This type is generally seen as sociable and friendly, with few apparent hostile
behaviours. However, many have a quick temper that may result in impulsive and
destructive behaviour.
Type 2
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 18-21
Validity 3-4
Descriptive Summary
These individuals display an array of passive-aggressive features. They are
described as likable and friendly, yet they are also irresponsible, immature and
sometimes hostile. A major problem in the home environment appears to be a lack of
communication and guidance by parents. The individual of this type may have average
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 429
intelligence and possess good abilities. However, because of poor motivation, their
abilities are not used often for constructive purposes. These individuals also seem to be
sympathetic to the criminal way of life and are usually involved with socially
unacceptable peer groups. They use these gangs to gain recognition and tend to be
followers rather than leaders.
Type 3
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 12-20
Validity 3-5
Descriptive Summary
These individuals are usually described as immature and rebellious but not
decidedly anti-social. They commonly look for support from their peers and get into
trouble while looking for this approval if they think some anti-social act will be looked
upon with favour. That is, their offences are generally unplanned, impulsive reactions to
situations with little financial gain.
They are restless and, although they may start a project with great enthusiasm,
their interest quickly fades and they are unable to complete a task. At that time, they
may consider themselves confused and in need of assistance but within a few days, they
are involved in a new project. Generally their motivation for change is crisis limited.
Type 4
Self-Depreciation 22-26
Validity 3
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 430
Descriptive Summary
A major characteristics of this individual is his severe family problems.
Discipline or the lack of it may be a major contributor to this type’s criminal activities.
They were considered to be troublemakers at school with attendance being somewhat
irregular. Motivation for achievement is marginal. Immature personality is also
characteristic of this type along with restlessness, foolishness and poor judgement.
Type 5
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 16-24
Validity 3-5
Descriptive Summary
The individuals of this type are markedly antisocial. Their social adjustment has
been poor, demonstrating difficulties in relating to others. Real contacts are therefore
seldom made. They may on the surface appear as cooperative and charming, however,
beneath this exists characteristics of impulsivity, intolerance, hostility, aggression and
irritational behaviours. Depression is also apparent along with feelings of inferiority and
inappropriate affect. It is thus not uncommon for some of these individuals to entertain
suicidal thoughts.
Type 6
Self-Depreciation 17-24
Validity 3-4
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 431
Descriptive Summary
A passive-aggressive personality is indicative of this group. They are
cooperative, friendly, relate well with peers, are lacking in ambition and are somewhat
lazy. However, under the influence of alcohol they become belligerent, argumentative
and physically aggressive. Most realize that personal problems exist, yet there is little or
no motivation toward treatment. This group shows no remorse for their offences, often
denying responsibility for what happened.
Type 7
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 23-33
Validity 3-5
Descriptive Summary
These individuals reflect a disturbed personality and psychiatric treatment is
often recommended. They are immature and emotionally labile. This group is very
dependent on others and desperately need attention and emotional support; at the same
time they drive people away by being so irrational and demanding. Hypochondria is
often present in this type. Somatizations in response to life’s pressures are displayed in
the form of constant recurring pains. Judgement is poor and guidance is needed in order
to control impulses.
Motivation for treatment is low. They accept their behaviour on a
superficial level but recurring troubles may cause them to withdraw and become passive.
They lack purpose or direction of concern and they themselves see little hope for the
future. Their self-image is poor and they suffer from guilt, despair, anxiety, depression
and a confirmed state of mind. Suicide attempts are not uncommon in this type, but
these may only be a means of seeking attention rather than a true attempt at death.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 432
Type 8
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 25-29
Validity 3-4
Descriptive Summary
These individuals are marked by chemical (drug) abuse which may have resulted
in some brain damage. Home life was unsettled with hostility and resentment being
shown toward the father. Poor peer relationships were made which resulted in these
individuals being badly influenced by their associates. Prognosis for the future is poor
as this type lacks responsibility and interest. Recidivism is therefore high for this group.
Type 9
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 9-20
Validity 3-4
Descriptive Summary
Despite the fact that these individuals come from stable and good home
environments, they do display elements of emotional instabilities. There are apparent
feelings of inferiority and insecurity and there is the tendency to try to impress others
around them. They are somewhat passive, shy, serious minded and cooperative yet they
do display some negative type behaviours such as doing things for no apparent reasons.
There may also be elements of dangerous or hostile behaviour existing. There are also
some guilt feelings displayed over the offence.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 433
Type 10
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 9-22
Validity 4-7
Descriptive Summary
These individuals generally come from a good home environment where there
was lots of family support. Their social adjustment has been good and they are friendly
and cooperative with authorities. There may be a slight degree of pessimism and critical
outlook. However this is likely to be situational.
Type 11
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 15-24
Validity 3-4
Descriptive Summary
This type generally is described as emotionally passive but having a favourable
long term prognosis. They can be short-tempered but it is usually their impulsivity and
associations with undesirable characters that gets them into trouble. Those of this type
are at times restless and may display some immature and strange behaviour but they
usually they present as pleasant and cooperative individuals.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 434
Type 12
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 21-29
Validity 3-4
Descriptive Summary
Those from this type come from a non-supportive home environment which
resulted in a poor attitude toward the family, especially the father. They were a
discipline problem in school, especially resenting male authority. These individuals
seek affection and attention and a common way of achieving this is through superficial
suicide attempts and temper tantrums.
They tend to be self-righteous in nature, assuming that they are always right and
everyone else is wrong. Elements of immaturity, irresponsibility, non-motivation and
instability are also present.
Type 13
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 9-20
Validity 3-4
Descriptive Summary
This type presents himself as the victim of circumstances rather than the
offender. He rationalizes the offence and denies any guilt for it, with an excuse ready
for each crime committed. They are self-centered and do not listen to criticism or
advice. Their judgement is faulty and so is their impulse control, making them easy
targets for manipulative peers.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 435
Type 14
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 9-20
Validity 5-7
Descriptive Summary
Violence and aggressive behaviour are markedly characteristic of this type of
individual. Under stress, they tend to go into a panic reaction which leads to the
aggressive behaviour toward others as well as themselves. There is little emotional
involvement in the offence and they are quick to rationalize these behaviours to
themselves.
They suffer from a weak, immature personality and there is a serious lack of
foresight or responsibility. There is a history of drug abuse which may have begun as a
result of emotional problems in the past.
Type 15
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 29-34
Validity 5-7
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 436
Descriptive Summary
These individuals are described as having inadequate personality disorders. In
some cases there are indications of minimal brain damage. They are irritable, get mad
quickly, are impulsive, irresponsible and their behaviours are difficult to predict. They
have an anxious temperament and there is a nervousness or fear when they are around
people.
Temper tantrums, aggressiveness and some violence are also characteristic of
this type. In reality, this toughness may be just a front as they do suffer from a lack of
self-confidence with feelings of inferiority and insecurity. They find it difficult to adapt
to rules and regulations. There are indications however, that offences are committed so
that they will be arrested and returned to a safe place such as the jail or institution. This
may in part be a result of an unhappy and difficult home life where they were beyond the
control of parents.
Type 16
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 26-34
Validity 3-4
Descriptive Summary
A negative or ‘don’t give a damn’ attitude is predominant for those of this type.
They do not want or foresee any change nor do they care about themselves or what
happens to them. They are immature, explosive, irresponsible and short tempered
resulting in violent behaviour if provoked. Their belief is that one must establish one-
self through muscle power. They are thus contemptuous of others and have little regard
for anyone else’s feelings. They identify with a value system of revenge, fighting, and
hate for authority (especially that of males).
They are usually a product of a broken, pathetic and disturbed home situation. There is
also a history of excessive drug and alcohol abuse. These individuals usually lack
insight into their problems and refuse to believe that any do exist, making any type of
treatment difficult.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 437
Type 17
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 9-17
Validity 3-5
Descriptive Summary
Alcohol and drug abuse is predominant for this type. Their home life was
generally stable, although some of these individuals become too dependent on their
families. They are immature, antisocial and lack perseverance in their work.
Type 18
Applicable Range of Scores
Self-Depreciation 21-24
Validity 3-4
Descriptive Summary
These individuals are usually described as quiet and passive. They feel
uncomfortable around other people and may use drugs or alcohol to be more sociable.
When depressed they will drink excessively. Attempted suicides have been reported for
those in this type. Relationships with teachers, school peers and authority figures are
poor.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 438
Appendix S:
Brief Descriptor of Carlson Psychological Survey Offender Type
Brief Descriptors
Carlson Psychological Profile
(Gavin Palk & Sharon O’Brien, 22 Mar 05)
2 Irresponsible
4 Immature, troublemaker
5 Markedly antisocial
6 Passive-aggressive
7 Disturbed Personality
8 Dysfunctional/problematic
9 Insecure/Inferiority
11 Impulsive/Short tempered
13 Self-centered
14 Violent/Aggressive
16 Negative/Explosive
17 Immature/Substance abuser
18 Depressed
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 439
Appendix T:
Individual Participant Scores on the AQ and SPSI-R and Significance Levels – Study Three
Case CAa Z TDb Z ATc Z SDd Z VALe Z BISf Z MIg Z NPIg Z CIg Z
Number Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Total Score Score Score Score Score Score Score
Score
1 18 -.85 25 -.47 22 -1.45 13 -1.41 4 .15 87 .90 29 1.48 35 2.16* 23 1.96*
Appendix V:
Individual Participant Case Studies – Study Three
Whilst driving home after a long, hot day at work, CS1 recalls travelling on the highway.
He had moved into the right-hand lane to overtake a group of slower vehicles when he
drove up behind a female driver travelling in the right-hand lane, at approximately 85-
90km/h in a 100km zone. CS1 reported that he became so angry with her for blocking his
progress that he accelerated and “tapped” or “nudged” the rear of her vehicle. According
to CS1, the woman appeared shocked and quickly pulled over into the left-hand lane. The
incident was not brought to the attention of authorities.
CS1 is 47 years of age and currently undergoing counselling for assaulting his defacto
partner. He has been charged with ‘common assault’. He states that this is the first time in
his life he has lashed out physically at a woman. There is no reported history of violence
associated with his previous relationship to his wife of more than 25 years. His wife died a
number of years ago, which when discussed appeared to cause him some emotional
discomfort.
Over the last three years, CS1 has been involved in one road accident and been booked for
speeding once. He owns a four-wheel drive, which he drives most often on highways/open
road in heavy traffic. CS1 has been driving for over 20 years. He covers considerable
distances for work purposes, driving approximately 16–20 hours per week. He did not
report drink or drug driving in the last three years and further reported that it would be ‘not
at all likely’ that he would do so.
CS1’s scores on the total AQ (z=-.634), verbal aggression (z=-1.44), physical aggression
(z=.63), angry aggression (z=.068) and hostile aggression (z=-1.79) subscales were not
significantly different (p>.05) from the mean response for the previously identified hostile
aggressive drivers*. Further, his scores on the SPSI-R subscales, NPO (z=.066, p>.05),
ICS (z=1.07, p>.05) and RPS (z=1.216, p>.05) did not significantly differ from the hostile
aggressive driver group*. These results suggest that CS1’s trait aggression and social
problem solving scores are consistent with those drivers previously identified as hostile
aggressive.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 442
CS1’s total score on the BIS-11 (z=.90, p>.05) did not significantly differ from the
previously published mean for male inmates (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995)*.
However, his scores on non-planning-impulsivity (z=2.16, p<.05) and attentional-
impulsivity (z=1.96, p<.05) were significantly higher than the mean published for a general
population (n=245) (Miller, Joseph & Tudway, 2004)*. He did not score significantly
differently from this group on motor-impulsivity (z=1.48, p>.05)*.
Interestingly, CS1’s scores on the CPS subscales did not differ significantly from the
previously published mean for an incarcerated sample (n=412) (Carlson, 1982): CA (z=-
.85, p>.05); TD (z=-.47, p>.05); AT (z=-1.45, p>.05); SD (z=-1.41, p>.05); and, VAL
(z=.15, p>.05)*. When CS1’s total score for each subscale were plotted, the profile best fit
the classification of: Type 13 – ‘self-centred’. See Appendix R for a brief description of
type.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 443
Case Two – CS2
Driving in a built up area, CS2 says the vehicle travelling beside him changed lanes
suddenly, cutting him off. CS2 responded to this by gesticulating at the driver. In turn,
profanities were exchanged. The other driver indicated for CS2 to pull over. Both drivers
stopped and got out of their vehicles. They approached each other. Before the other driver
was able to speak, CS2 punched him once. The other driver went down and did not get up.
CS2 returned to his vehicle and drove off. He later realised that he had broken his knuckle
when he struck the other driver. CS2 heard nothing more about the incident.
CS2 is 39 years of age and has recently separated from his partner. He was born in New
Zealand, moving to Australia in his early teens. He works in the construction industry and
earns approximately $45,000 per year. He is currently attending counselling re his recent
separation and associated anger issues. He is also taking medication for depression.
CS2 outlined a troubled childhood during the interview. He described his childhood home
as a “combat zone”. His father regularly physically and verbally abused him. Further, he
had a detached relationship with his alcoholic mother. However, he enjoyed a close,
fatherly relationship with his grandfather. As a consequence of his troubled home life, he
repeatedly ran away from home and was eventually placed in a boys’ home. During his
childhood, CS2’s peer group often came to the attention of the police. He also reports
having caused considerable trouble at school. He left school in Year 10. CS2’s
involvement with negative peer groups continued into his early adulthood. He states that
he was involved in ‘gangs’ in New Zealand and after coming to Australia. Whilst involved
in these groups, CS2 says he was involved in multiple fights.
CS2 openly admits to being a heavy drinker, even though he claims to have been “dry” for
the past six weeks. He also admits to being involved in many fights in the “pub scene”. He
indicated that it would be ‘extremely likely’ that he would drink and drive. He also
indicated it would be ‘moderately likely’ that he would drive under the influence of drugs.
As a self-confessed car enthusiast, CS2 drives a medium sized vehicle most frequently. He
drives for approximately 11–15 hours per week on highways/open road in medium density
traffic.
In the past three years, CS2 has been involved in two road crashes. He has also been fined
for driving without a valid licence. Prior to this period, he has been charged for drink-
driving on three occasions. He has been advised that next time he will receive a jail
sentence and lose his licence for life. He has also been previously charged with ‘dangerous
use of a motor vehicle’, ‘driving uninsured’, ‘failing to stop during a police chase’,
‘hooning’, ‘driving with his arm out the window’, ‘failure to wear a seat belt’ and
‘excessive noise’ (caused by his muffler modifications). In the off-road context, CS2 has
been charged with ‘breaking and entering’, ‘assault’ and ‘vandalism’.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 444
During the course of the interview, CS2 repeatedly demonstrated difficulty identifying and
expressing his emotions. He also showed signs of dissociation. Specifically, he described
an incident where his ex-partner had stabbed him with a kitchen fork, to which he calmly
responded, “what are you doing?”. He stated that it did not hurt. Additionally, he did not
realise that he had injured himself during the course of the road altercation until some hours
later. Additionally, when asked his thoughts and feelings associated with the above on-
road incident, he was unable to identify the emotions he experienced. When asked how he
felt as he approached the other driver, he stated that his only thought was to “get him
before he gets me”. He also commented that the behaviour he adopted during the incident
was “normal” to him.
CS2 scored significantly higher on total AQ (z=3.17, p<.05), verbal aggression (z=2.69,
p<.05), physical aggression (z=2.91, p<.05), angry aggression (z=2.86, p<.05) and hostile
aggression (z=2.53, p<.05) than the previously identified hostile aggressive driver group*.
These results would suggest that CS2 has considerably high levels of trait aggression.
Considering his developmental history, this result is not that surprising.
CS2’s scores on the SPSI-R subscales did not significantly differ from those reported by
the hostile aggressive driver group*: NPO (z=-.066, p>.05); ICS (z=1.07, p>.05); and
RPS (z=-.216, p>.05). The results suggest that his problem-solving style is consistent with
other hostile aggressive drivers.
CS2’s total score on the BIS-11 was not significantly different from the comparison mean
for an inmate group (z=.90, p>.05) *. However, nor were his scores on the individual
subscales different from the general population*: motor-impulsivity (z=1.48, p>.05); non-
planning impulsivity (z=-.05, p>.05); and attentional-impulsivity (z=1.36, p>.05).
Consequently, it appears that CS2’s aggression appears to be emotionally and trait based,
rather than stemming from impulsivity.
On two of the CPS subscales, CS2 scored significantly higher than mean of the comparison
group, i.e. incarcerated individuals *: CA (z=1.98, p<.05) and AT (z=1.99, p<.05). This
would suggest that CS2 experiences considerable difficulty with chemical abuse, namely
alcohol, and that he has persistent anti-social tendencies. CS2’s total scores for each
subscale were plotted and the resultant profile best fit the classification of: Type 5 –
‘markedly anti-social’. See Appendix R for a brief description of type.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 445
Case Three – CS3
Driving on a busy, dual carriage road, CS3 was cut off by a driver. He responded by
beeping his horn and the driver, in turn, gave him “the finger”. Further down the road, the
other driver repeatedly sped up attempting to cut CS3 off. Stopped by a red light at the
next intersection, CS3 got out of his vehicle and approached the driver. At this point, he
states, he was “ready for action” The other driver wound up his window and CS3 began to
bash on the window. The other driver proceeded to drive through a red light. The incident
was not reported.
Whilst growing up, CS3 recalls that his parents were constantly verbally and physically
abusive toward one another. Both parents were alcoholics. Occasionally, he would
become involved in the physical abuse in his attempt to protect his mother. CS3 recalls
having caused a moderate amount of trouble at school. However, it should be noted that he
spent the minimum amount of time at school, leaving after primary school. As a young
person, several of his friends attracted the attention of the police. He also says that as a
young adult he was involved in many “bar fights” and one “gang fight”.
CS3 drives a small vehicle for approximately 11–15 hours per week. He most frequently
drives on city/town roads in medium density traffic. In the last three years, CS3 has been
fined twice for speeding. Prior to this period, he has received several speeding fines,
charged with “running a red light” and “overtaking on double lines”. Although, he had
admits to having been a heavy drinker in the past, he now drinks significantly less. He
states that these days it would be ‘not at all likely’ he would drink or drug drive.
At the time of the above incident, CS3 states he was under considerable stress due to his
separation from his wife of 29 years. When discussing the above incident he stated that, in
general, he was “not a patient driver”.
CS3’s scores on the AQ did not differ significantly from the previously identified hostile
aggressive driver group*: total AQ (z=-.022, p>.05); verbal aggression (z=-.67, p>.05);
physical aggression (z=-.2, p>.05); angry aggression (z=.068, p>.05); and hostile
aggression (z=-.09, p>.05). Nor, did his scores on the SPSI-R subscales differ from this
group: NPO (z=-.066, p>.05); ICS (z=1.07, p>.05); and RPS (z=1.14, p>.05). As such, it
appears that CS3 has similar trait aggression and social problem solving skills to other
hostile aggressive drivers.
446
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers
Further, his total BIS-11 score was not significantly different from the mean for an inmate
population * (z=-1.12, p>.05). His individual subscale scores also failed to be significantly
different from the general population*: motor-impulsivity (z=-.54, p>.05); non-planning
impulsivity (z=-.25, p>.05); and attentional-impulsivity (z=1.05, p>.05). Consequently,
CS3 appears to have similar levels of impulsivity to the general population. Therefore, his
driving anger appears to be sourced by his trait aggression. Such a suggestion is consistent
with his developmental history.
CS3’s scores on the CPS subscales, were not significantly different from the means for an
inmate population*: CA (z=.425, p>.05); TD (z=.62, p>.05); AT (z=.58, p>.05); SD (z=-
.85, p>.05); and VAL (z=1.8, p>.05). CS3’s total scores for each subscale were plotted
and the resultant profile best fit the classification of: Type 5 – ‘markedly anti-social’. See
Appendix R for a brief description of type.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 447
Case Four - CS4
CS4 was driving along a main road in a built-up area when he began to slow down for a red
light. A driver travelling in the parallel lane had realised that he was in the wrong lane and
reportedly “cut him off’, coming to a stop in front of him. CS4 became so angry with the
driver that he yelled abuse. The other driver responded with a hand gesture, which seemed
to exacerbate the situation. As a result, CS4 left the vehicle running and approached the
other driver’s vehicle on foot. A series of brief profanities were exchanged through the
driver-side window. As a result, CS4 punched the driver through the open window and
yelled at the driver to get out of his vehicle. The other driver wound up the window and
drove off quickly, through a red light. The incident was not brought to the attention of
authorities.
CS4’s background is complex. His parents were strict and quite religious. CS4 reports that
when he was young he was sexually abused by his Sunday School teacher. CS4 says that
when he tried to tell his parents about it, they refused to believe him. Subsequently, CS4’s
life became more complicated. He caused considerable trouble at school and completed
Year 10 with minimal grades. Shortly after leaving school, he became involved in a
‘skinhead’ (neo-nazi) gang. Further, his best friend, to whom he was very close, died in a
car accident at 16 years of age.
At the age of 17, CS4 was imprisoned for 11 years for the attempted murder of his parents.
In addition to being charged with two counts of attempted murder, he was charged with
two counts of arson. CS4 continued to have difficulties in prison. He was reportedly
raped whilst serving his sentence. Whilst in prison, he received counselling for the
childhood abuse and for the rape. He states that he was also diagnosed with Dissociative
Identity Disorder (DID).
Due to his period of incarceration, CS4’s driving experience has been limited i.e. only 3
years. He owns a large vehicle which he drives approximately 10–15 hours per week. He
most frequently drives on city/town roads in medium density traffic. In the last two years
since his release, he has faced one charge of unlicensed driving and been involved in one
road crash. When asked how likely he would be to drink and drive, CS4 did not rule out
the possibility. It should be noted that he had been drinking prior to the aggressive driving
incident cited above. He stated that he was “half way through his third stubby”. He
reported that it would be ‘not at all likely’ that he would drive under the influence of drugs.
CS4’s score on the total AQ, verbal aggression subscale and physical aggression subscale
were significantly higher than the mean of the hostile aggressive driver group*: z=2.45,
p<.05; z=2.65, p<.05; and z=2.14, p<.05 respectively. However, his scores on the angry
aggression and hostile aggression subscales were not significantly different from the hostile
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 448
driver group: z=1.86, p>.05 and z=1.91, p>.05. Also, his scores on the NPO and RPS
subscales of the SPSI-R were not significantly different from hostile aggressive driver
group: (z=.134, p>.05) and (z=-1.57, p>.05). However, he scored significantly higher than
this group on ICS (z=2.79, p<.05). These results would suggest that CS4 has high levels of
trait aggression, accompanied by an impulsive/careless style of problem solving.
Consequently, in the face of direct or perceived provocation, CS4 may be predisposed to
respond in an impulsive manner. This suggestion is consistent with his score on
attentional-impulsivity of the BIS-11. CS4’s score on attentional-impulsivity was
significantly higher than the mean for the general population* (z=2.26, p<.05). His motor
impulsivity and non-planning impulsivity scores were not significantly different from this
group: z=.81, p>.05 and z=-.45, p>.05.
CS4’s scores on the CA, AT, and SD subscales of the CPS did not significantly differ from
the mean for an incarcerated population*: CA (z=1.27, p>.05); AT (z=1.18, p>.05); and
SD (z=.65, p>.05). However, his scores on TD and VAL score did differ significantly*:
z=2.06, p<.05; and z=2.63, p<.05. These results would suggest that CS4 has similar
chemical abuse, anti-social tendencies and self-deprecation levels as other incarcerated
individuals. However, he has significantly higher levels of thought disturbance, consistent
with the reported diagnosis of DID. His inflated VAL score would suggest that he failed to
maintain an appropriate mind-set during the administration of the CPS. As Carlson (1982)
would suggest, perhaps CS4 became careless, facetious whilst answering the questions.
Alternatively, he did not understand the questions (Carlson, 1982). Indeed, the latter may
be a more appropriate evaluation of the situation, as a number of questions needed to be
restated and at times explained further, in order for him to respond.
When CS4’s total score for each subscale were plotted, the profile best fit the classification
of: Type 5 – ‘markedly anti-social’. See Appendix R for a brief description of type.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 449
Case Five – CS5
Driving in the right-hand lane of a dual carriage road, CS5 noticed a car speeding towards
him in his rear view mirror. The vehicle then continued to follow him very closely. The
vehicle eventually passed and turned-off into a side road soon after. At this point, CS5
decided to follow the vehicle. The side road had multiple traffic slowing islands, causing
the driver of the other vehicle to drive slowly. Having noticed that CS5 was following him,
the driver stopped at the second island and got out of his vehicle. CS5 stopped his vehicle,
grabbing his ‘club lock’. Profanities were exchanged and CS5 proceeded to use the ‘club
lock’ on the other driver’s bonnet, windscreen, side door and side mirror. The other driver,
quickly jumped into his vehicle and sped off. No charges were laid as a result of this
incident.
CS5 is a 44 year old, married, security guard. He earns approximately $45,000 per year.
During the course of his life, CS5 has been actively involved in many different lines of
work (e.g. military service, construction and volunteer fire fighters). In the past CS5 has
been counselled for severe depression. He is not currently in counselling.
CS5 had a difficult childhood. His mother and father were alcoholics and he frequently
observed violence in the family home. Further, his father physically abused him. CS5 was
once hospitalised as a result of the abuse. He became involved with a negative peer group.
Some of his friends were picked up by the police and he became involved in a ‘gang’
which was frequently involved in fights. He stated that he was frequently in trouble at
school for his conduct and, during that time, had “no respect for authority or the law”. He
frequently ‘skipped’ school. Despite this, he completed Year 10. During the interview,
CS5 stated, that as a young person he “was always right”. He also claimed to be
“emotionally reactive his whole life”.
CS5 currently drives a medium sized vehicle which he drives for approximately 11–15
hours per week. He drives most often on city/town roads in medium density traffic. In the
last three years, CS5 has not been involved in any road crashes. During this same period he
has been booked once for speeding. Asked if how likely it would be that he would drink or
drug drive, he did not rule out the possibility of drink-driving.
CS5 has had many driving and other charges during his life. As an adult, he has been
charged with ‘unlicensed driving’, ‘drink-driving’, multiple counts of speeding, ‘unlawful
right hand turns’ and ‘passing a vehicle on the inside’. Off-road charges include ‘breaking
and entering’, multiple counts of ‘theft’, ‘assault’ and ‘seriously affronting’. He claims that
all of these charges were incurred between 14 and 17 years of age.
CS5’s scores on the total AQ and its subscales did not differ significantly from the hostile
aggressive driver group*: total AQ, z=1.32, p>.05; verbal aggression, z=.61, p>.05;
physical aggression, z=1.45, p>.05; angry aggression, z=1.27, p>.05; and hostile
aggression, z=.98, p>.05. His scores on the SPSI-R subscales did not significantly differ
from the hostile aggressive group: NPO, z=.134, p>.05; ICS, z=-.65, p>.05; and RPS,
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 450
z=1.14, p>.05. Therefore, his trait aggression levels and social problem-solving style are
consistent with other hostile aggressive drivers.
His BIS-11 total score was not significantly different from an incarcerated comparison
group*, z=-.87, p>.05. Also, his scores on the BIS-11 subscales were not significantly
different from the general population*: motor-impulsivity (z=-.99, p>.05), non-planning
impulsivity (z=1.16, p>.05) and attentional impulsivity (z=.45, p>.05). Consequently,
CS5’s aggression appears to be sourced from trait aggression and less by impulsivity.
Examination of CS5’s scores on the CPS subscales, revealed no significant difference when
compared to the inmate means for the subscales*: CA,(z=0, p>.05); TD (z=1.58, p>.05);
AT (z=1.29, p>.05); SD, (z=-1.03, p>.05); and VAL, (z=-.68, p>.05). When plotted,
CS5’s profile best fit the classification of: Type 5 – ‘markedly anti-social’. Although, it
should be noted that his score for chemical abuse (x=24) fell slightly short of the range of
scores normally associated with this type (i.e. 27 to 38). See Appendix R for a brief
description of type.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 451
Case Six – CS6
CS6 was travelling down the left-hand lane of the highway at approximately 90km, when
the driver of a utility truck appeared to come ‘out of nowhere’. CS6 reported that the other
driver drove extremely close to the rear of his vehicle for the next kilometre. He also stated
that as he was in the left-hand lane and the driver had adequate opportunity to overtake
him. CS6 became extremely angry with the driver and decided to brake heavily, causing
the other driver to collide with the rear of his vehicle at approximately 90km. Both
remained on the road and continued driving for a short time. CS6 then pulled over and the
driver of the other vehicle kept going. Consequently, CS6 got back into the vehicle and
followed him.
Eventually, the other driver pulled over to the side of the road and CS6 pulled over 50
metres behind him. Profanities were exchanged and the other driver climbed back into his
vehicle and drove off. After recording the details of the vehicle, CS6 pursued him for some
time before losing him. He then went straight to the police station and reported the incident
for “insurance purposes”.
CS6 is 29 years of age and married. He earns approximately $36,000 per year. Although
not currently in counselling, CS6 has previously attended counselling for marital
difficulties and job related stress.
Whilst growing up CS6, his siblings and mother, were physically abused by his alcoholic
father. He also reported that his father had essentially taken the family hostage one time.
Consequently, he describes his childhood home as “disruptive”. He reported that he had
caused trouble at school a number of times and most of his peers came to the attention of
the police. Despite his difficult background, CS6 successfully completed a certificate level
course at TAFE and has gained responsible positions e.g. Council parking officer.
CS6 currently drives a small car. He reportedly drives most frequently on city/town road in
heavy traffic for 6–10 hours per week. In the past three years, CS6 has been involved in
three road crashes. He has not been charged with any traffic-related offences in the last
three years. However, prior to this period he was charged on three separate occasions with
speeding and red light running. CS6 has no history of other, off-road charges against him.
Interestingly, CS6 reported that he would be moderately likely to drive under the influence
of alcohol and/or drugs. It should be noted that CS6 had been drinking at the time of the
above incident.
CS6s scores on the total AQ, angry aggression and hostile aggression subscales were found
to be significantly higher than the hostile aggressive driver group*: total AQ, (z=2.09,
p<.05); angry aggression (z=2.26, p<.05); and hostile aggression (z=2.22, p<.05). He also
scored significantly higher on the RPS subscale of the SPSI-R, than this group (z=2.49,
p<.05). Thus these results would suggest that CS6 has considerably high levels of trait
aggression, particularly angry and hostile aggression. Despite this, he has a higher degree
of rational problem solving than most hostile aggressive drivers.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 452
CS6’s total BIS-11 score did not differ significantly from the mean of the comparison
group* (i.e. an inmate population) (z=.39, p>.05). Further, he scored significantly higher
than the general population* on non-planning impulsivity (z=.65, p>.05) and attentional
impulsivity (z=.65, p>.05). Therefore, these results suggest that CS6 has some difficulty
with impulsivity.
His CPS subscale scores were not significantly different from the mean for the incarcerated
group*: CA (z=.85, p>.05); TD (z=.86, p>.05); AT (z=.68, p>.05); SD (z=1.02, p>.05);
and VAL (z=-.68, p>.05). Profiling of CS6’s total score for each subscale resulted in a
profile that best fit the classification of: Type 16 – ‘negative/explosive’. See Appendix R
for a brief description of type. However, it should be noted that his score on anti-social
tendencies (x=43) was outside of the range for this type (i.e. 46 and above).
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 453
Case Seven – CS7
CS7 was driving a truck through a heavily built up area when he noticed a sedan that was
speeding up behind him and cutting in and out of traffic. The vehicle came alongside of
him and indicated to cut in front of him. However, a set of lights turned red and the other
driver was forced to slow down and pull in behind his truck. At this point, CS7 was so
annoyed that he got out of his vehicle and walked back to the other driver’s vehicle.
Profanities were exchanged whilst the other driver also got out of his vehicle. CS7 struck
the other driver and a fist-fight ensued. Several other drivers who witnessed the incident
got out of their vehicles and pulled them apart. Shortly afterwards, several police cars
arrived. No charges were laid.
CS7 is a 46 year old, professional truck driver. He earns over $70,000 per year. CS7 is
currently attending counselling after recently separating from his wife of 23 years. In the
past, CS7 has attended counselling for an attempted suicide. CS7 was born and raised for
much of his childhood in New Zealand. He is of Maori descent.
As a youth, CS7 has a difficult relationship with his mother. As the disciplinarian in the
family, CS7’s mother physically abused the children. CS7’s relationship with his father
was estranged. CS7 successfully completed Year 10. He also stated that he got into a little
trouble at school. During the interview, it was noted that CS7 had also suffered great loss
during his early adulthood. His mother, sister and a close friend died within one year of
each other.
Due to his profession as a truck driver, CS7 drives on all types of roads, in varying levels
of traffic density. CS7 drives more than 20 hours per week. In the past three years, he has
not been involved in any road accidents. During this same period, he has been booked
twice for speeding. Although, CS7 has lost count of the number of speeding fines he has
received over the years. Due to his profession as a truck driver, CS7 stated that it would be
‘not at all likely’ he would ever drink or drug drive. However, CS7 does drink socially.
CS7’s scores on the AQ were not significantly different from the previously identified
hostile aggressive driver group*: total AQ, z=.343, p>.05; verbal aggression, z=.86,
p>.05; physical aggression, z=.49, p>.05; angry aggression, z=-.132, p>.05; and hostile
aggression, z=.06, p>.05. His ICS score was also significantly higher than the mean for the
hostile aggressive diver group (z=2.79, p<.05). Therefore, these results suggest that CS7
has reasonably high levels of trait aggression and high levels of impulsive/careless problem
solving style.
CS7’s scores on the CPS subscales did not differ significantly from the mean of the
comparison group of inmates*: CA (z=.-.14, p>.05); TD (z=.74, p>.05); AT (z=.48,
p>.05); SD (z=.65, p>.05); and VAL (z=.15, p>.05). Plotting of the subscale total scores
resulted in a profile that best fit the classification of: Type 5 – ‘markedly antisocial’. See
Appendix R for a brief description of type. Although, it should be noted that his chemical
abuse score (x=23) was outside of the range for this type (i.e. 27 to 38). However, his
lower score would be consistent with the need to maintain sobriety for the purpose of
driving professionally.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 454
Case Eight – CS8
CS8 and his partner were driving along a main road with businesses either side. A four
wheel drive, coming off private property, pulled out in front of his vehicle with little room
to spare. CS8 states that he had to “jump on his brakes” to avoid hitting him. Further up
the road, he and the other driver were stopped at a red light. At this point, CS8 got out of
his vehicle and approached the driver of the four wheel drive. He states that he leaned on
the driver side mirror of the vehicle and profanities were exchanged for a while. The other
driver shook his fist at him, and in response CS8 started to “wriggle his side mirror from
side to side”. The other driver opened his driver-side door in order to get out. At this time,
CS8, forced the door shut, jamming the driver’s hand in the door. The lights turned green
and the other driver drove off.
The other driver reported the incident to the police and CS8 has been charged with ‘wilful
damage’ of the four wheel drive. The damage is valued at $1000. The court case is
pending.
As a youth, CS8 reported being repeatedly physically abused by his alcoholic father. He
reported having caused considerable trouble at school and association with a less than
positive peer group. Some of his peers came to the attention of the police for reasons
unspecified, and two of his close friends committed suicide in their teens. He successfully
completed Year 10. CS8 reported having been a heavy drinker in the past and maintains
that he no longer drinks. It was noted that CS8 was slightly evasive with his responses to
questions relating to alcohol consumption or drink-driving.
CS8 drives a medium sized vehicle and reportedly drives most frequently on city/town road
in medium density traffic. He drives approximately 16–20 hours per week. CS8 reported
that he had not been involved in any road crashes, or received any speeding or drink-
driving fines in the past three years. However, during this same period, he had been fined
with ‘driving an unregistered vehicle’. He reported that it would be ‘not at all likely’ that
he would drink or drug drive. Interestingly, prior to this period he had been fined for
‘drink-driving’ and ‘drink-driving whilst disqualified’. As a youth he was also charged
with ‘theft of a motor vehicle’ and more recently he was charged with ‘wilful damage to
property’ as outlined in the case above.
At the time of the aggressive driving incident outlined above, CS8 states that he had been
under considerable stress and strain associated with his partner’s young daughter. Further,
his partner was travelling with him at the time and was quite “hysterical” about her
daughter’s situation.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 455
CS8’s scores on total AQ, verbal aggression and angry aggression were significantly higher
than the means for the hostile aggressive driver group*: total AQ (z=2.29, p<.05); verbal
aggression (z=2.91, p<.05); and angry aggression (z=2.66, p<.05). His SPSI-R subscale
(NPO, ICS and RPS) scores did not differ significantly from the hostile aggressive group*.
Therefore, the results suggest CS8 has considerably high levels of trait aggression,
particularly verbal and angry aggression.
His total BIS-11 score was not significantly different from the mean for an incarcerated
group* (z=-1.37, p>.05). Also, his BIS-11 subscale scores were not significantly different
from the general population*: motor impulsivity (z=.36, p>.05); non-planning impulsivity
(z=-.45, p>.05); and attentional impulsivity
(z=-.77, p>.05).
On the CPS subscales CS8’s scores did not differ significantly from the mean of the inmate
group*: CA (z=-1.84, p>.05); TD (z=1.94, p>.05); AT (z=.98, p>.05); SD (z=1.39,
p>.05); and VAL (z=-.68, p>.05). Profiling of CS8’s total score for each subscale resulted
in a profile that best fit the classification of: Type 16 – ‘negative/explosive’. See
Appendix R for a brief description of type. However, it should be noted that his score on
chemical abuse (x=11) is considerably below the range for this type (i.e. 26-37). However,
he has openly stated that he does not indulge in alcohol as much as he used to.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 456
Case Nine – CS9
CS9 was driving to the vet with his dog, when a car reversed out off commercial premises
in front of him. He was forced to brake heavily and flashed his lights at the other driver.
The other driver responded with “the finger”. At the next set of lights the other driver
turned off. At this point, CS9 decided to follow him. The other driver lived in the street
and pulled into his driveway. CS9 pulled up in front of his home. Both drivers got out of
their vehicles and started exchanging profanities. CS9 claims that the other driver tapped
him behind the ear first. In response, CS9 hit the other driver. The other driver went over
the fence and struck his head on the concrete. CS9 returned to his vehicle and drove off.
CS9 was later advised that an ambulance was called to the address. The other driver was
hospitalised for approximately 24 hours. Witnesses provided the authorities with CS9’s
registration details. When he became aware that the police were looking for him, he
approached them of his own volition. He was subsequently charged with “actual bodily
harm”. The Court instructed that he complete 150 hours community service for this
offence and attend counselling for his anger.
CS9 is 52 years old and living in a defacto relationship. He currently earns approximately
$15,000 per year. CS9 is currently attending court order counselling as outlined above. He
states that his family doctor has diagnosed him with “late onset – ADHD” and depression.
He is currently taking medication for both disorders.
Whilst growing up, CS9 enjoyed a relatively close relationship with his mother and father.
He describes his, recently deceased father as a ‘chronic hypochondriac’. As a teen, he says
he was involved in a number of fights. During his adulthood he also states that he was
involved in “pub fights”. He readily admits to having been a heavy drinker, prior to his
diagnosis with cancer. As a result of treatment for the cancer, CS9 claims he suffered
severe damage to his kidneys. Hence, he does not drink anymore. At one time, he claims
he was ‘raped’ by a male, whilst he was extremely drunk.
At school he caused considerable trouble and he describes the peer group of his youth as
“either dead or in jail”. Despite this he completed Year 12 and went on to complete a
TAFE certificate.
CS9 currently drives a medium sized car, 6–10 hours per week. He most often drives on
highways or open road in medium density traffic. In the past three years, CS9 has not been
fined for speeding, drink-driving or unlicensed driving. However, he has been charged
with ‘actual bodily harm’ as outlined in the above aggressive driving incident. Prior to this
period, he has incurred an unspecified number of speeding fines, been charged three times
for ‘drink-driving’ and once for ‘driving whilst disqualified’. As an adolescent, he was
charged with ‘criminal damage’, ‘assault’ and ‘shoplifting’.
At the time of the above incident, CS9 says that he was under considerable stress, as he was
in the middle of moving house. He also claims that his behaviour may have been due to the
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 457
fact that he had not taken his medication over the preceding 36 hours. In addition, he had
consumed a bottle of wine the evening beforehand. He described that he was feeling quite
“seedy” at the time. During the interview, CS9 was observed to have difficulty recalling
the thoughts he had whilst the incident was in play. When asked if he felt guilty or
remorseful about his behaviour he stated “ no, I should have killed him”. Also, he stated
that he regretted being “caught” and that next time he will “cover his number plate with a
hankie” before he takes such action.
Although CS9’s total AQ score, physical aggression and hostile aggression scores did not
differ significantly from the previously identified hostile aggressive driver group*, his
verbal aggression and angry aggression subscale scores did differ significantly (z=2.91,
p<.05 and z=2.06, p<.05 respectively). On both scales scored significantly higher than the
mean for the hostile group. His scores on the SPSI-R subscales were not significantly
different from the means for the hostile group: NPO (z=.14, p>.05); ICS (z=1.07, p>.05);
and RPS (z=-.216, p>.05). In general, these results suggest that CS9’s trait aggression
levels are quite high, particularly for verbal and angry aggression.
CS9’s total BIS-11 score did not differ significantly from the mean for the comparison
group of inmates* (z=-.11, p>.05). Comparison of his BIS-11 subscale scores with the
means for a general population* did not yield a significant difference:
motor-impulsivity (z=1.03, p>.05); non-planning impulsivity (z=.36, p>.05); and,
attentional-impulsivity (z=1.66, p>.05). These latter results were a little surprising in light
of CS9’s reported diagnosis of ADHD. However, perhaps the administration of medication
has confounded these particular results.
All of CS9’s CPS subscale scores did not significantly differ from the mean for the inmate
comparison group*: CA (z=-1.56, p>.05); TD (z=.98, p>.05); AT (z=1.29, p>.05); SD
(z=1.39, p>.05); and VAL (z=-.68, p>.05). CS9’s total score for each of these subscales
were plotted, and the resultant profile best fit the classification of: Type 5 – ‘markedly
anti-social’. See Appendix R for a brief description of type. It should be noted that CS9’s
chemical abuse score (x=13) falls below the range for this subscale. However, he admits to
having been a heavy drinker, but now he has a reduced capacity to do so due to kidney
damage.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 458
Case Ten – CS10
CS10 and three friends were returning from late-night shopping one evening, when a
vehicle came up behind them with its lights on highbeam. She states that the vehicle was
also driving fairly close to her bumper and appeared to be following her. In response,
CS10 repeatedly braked. She states that the vehicle stopped following them, at which time
she decided to pursue them. She followed the vehicle until they were both stopped at a red
light. At this point, CS10 took a large, metal torch from her vehicle and approached the
vehicle on foot. The female driver of the other vehicle wound up her window as CS10
proceeded to verbally abuse her and ask her why she had been following them. CS10
became so frustrated and angry that she smashed the side mirror off the vehicle with her
torch. When CS10 had returned to her car, the woman got out of her vehicle and recorded
her number plate.
CS10 found out later that one of the backseat passengers in her vehicle had flicked a lit
cigarette out the window onto the woman’s vehicle. CS10 speculated that perhaps that is
why she was driving closely.
CS10 is 24 years of age and currently living in a defacto relationship. She is currently
employed and earns approximately $35,000 per year.
Although CS10 is not currently in counselling, she has had counselling in the past and has
been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder for which she is currently taking medication. CS10
states that she often feels “very angry” and “depressed”. During the interview, she
appeared to be rather heavily medicated, demonstrating slow speech and difficulty recalling
her thoughts and feelings concerning major life events. In addition, she reported having
difficulty removing the above incident from her thoughts. She stated that she kept going
over it in her mind and that it ruined the rest of her day.
CS10 had a difficult childhood. Her mother and father were both alcoholics and she
frequently witnessed physical violence between them. She, also, was physically abused by
her father. Although CS10 completed Year 12, she reported that she was repeatedly in
trouble at school. She also reported that some of her peers were picked up by police.
CS10 currently drives a medium sized vehicle, which she most frequently drives on
city/town road in medium density traffic. She drives approximately 11–15 hours per week.
In the past three years, CS10 has been fined once for speeding and has not been involved in
any road crashes. However, prior to this period, she reports that she has been charged
twice for drink-driving and once for speeding. When asked about any non-driving related
offences, she reported that she had been previously charged with ‘assault’.
CS10 openly stated that she was a heavy drinker. However, she recently decided to abstain
from alcohol because it was causing problems with her medication. Consequently, she
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers 459
reported that it was ‘not at all likely’ that she would drive under the influence of alcohol or
drugs.
CS10’s total AQ score, physical aggression score and angry aggression score were
significantly higher than the hostile aggressive driver group*: total AQ (z=2.4, p<.05);
physical aggression (z=2.42, p<.05); and (z=2.46, p<.05). Her social problem solving
subscale scores did not differ from the hostile group*: NPO (z=.134, p>.05); ICS (z=.256,
p>.05); and RPS (z=-.216, p>.05). These results indicate that CS10 has relatively high
trait aggression levels, particularly for physical aggression and angry aggression. The latter
result is consistent with her persistent self-reported feelings of ‘anger’. Thus it appears that
CS10’s on-road aggression is sourced from emotional and trait related aggression.
Additionally, CS10’s total BIS-11 score did not significantly differ from the mean for a
female, general psychiatric group* (z=-.06, p>.05). This result is consistent with her
reported diagnosis with a clinical disorder (i.e. bipolar disorder). Surprisingly, her scores
on the BIS-11 subscales differ significantly from a general population means*: motor-
impulsivity (z=.81, p>.05); non-planning impulsivity (z=.15, p>.05); and, attentional-
impulsivity (z=1.36, p>.05).
CS10’s CPS subscale scores were not significantly different from the means for a sample
of female inmates*: CA (z=.132, p>.05); TD (z=.97, p>.05); AT (z=.83, p>.05); SD (z=-
.51, p>.05); and VAL (z=-6.79, p>.05). Profiling of CS10’s total score for each subscale
resulted in a profile that best fit the classification of: Type 5 – ‘markedly antisocial’ (refer
to Appendix R for a brief description of type). It is acknowledged that CS10’s score on the
chemical abuse scale (x=24) is outside of the range normally present in this type (scores
ranging from 27-38). However, her lower CA score is consistent with her recent decision
to abstain from alcohol.