Green Means Go

Green Means Go! Examining the effects of car stereotyping on road rage

Freny Dessai and Bryan Kennedy Santa Rosa Junior College Professor Lynch May 17, 2001

Green Means Go The purpose of this experiment is to understand the relationship between car stereotypes and driver aggression. Car stereotyping is an automatic process whereby drivers assume the behaviors of drivers around them will correspond with the types of cars they are driving. It follows that the driver of a more aggressive sports car such as a BMW would be stereotyped as driving more aggressively, while the driver of a less aggressive vehicle such as a Volvo would be considered more friendly and courteous. According to Davies (personal communication, March 30, 2001) of the University of Leicester in England, this process plays an influential role in car accident reports, in that witnesses tend to inflate the pre-accident speed of sports cars more than they do sedans. Based on the results of his yet unpublished study, Davies suggests that “drivers sometimes make judgments of the likely behavior and intent of other road users based upon stereotypes of drivers and their cars.” Driver aggression includes the wide range of violent, dangerous motorist behaviors on the roadways and is commonly referred to by the media with the alliterative term “road rage”. There have been several studies conducted regarding road-rage and driver aggression. Fewer studies, however, have dealt with the issue of car stereotyping and how it relates to driver aggression. A previous study suggests that driver aggression is influenced by the status of the car being driven (Doob & Gross, 1968). The participants for this experiment were introductory psychology students at a college in North Dakota. 2

At a designated stop sign, a male confederate who drove either a high or low status vehicle honked at the participant. The following actions of the participant were measured: rate of acceleration, duration of vacillation, presence of nonverbal gestures, and horn honk duration and latency. This study showed no sign that the sex of the driver had any effect on driver aggression, but a link was found between the type of car being driven and the behavior of the participants, showing that car stereotyping was indeed taking place. These car stereotypes are shaped by the mass media in their depiction of cars in advertisements. Stereotyping is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “a conventional, oversimplified conception, opinion, or image” of a person, place or thing. The advertising industry, in their attempt to target a specific consumer market, tend to oversimplify the product they are pitching by presenting images that appeal only to a certain type of buyer. These advertising images then work to shape our stereotypes about the cars we see on the road. In the case of the Mazda Miata, as noted by Bob Garfield of Advertising Age magazine (1998), the car is advertised as being quicker than it actually is. Mazda, in their attempt to attract the younger market, project an image of the Miata that is speedy and aggressive. Because of this, the driver of a Miata would generally be assumed by other drivers to be more aggressive, whether or not this is actually the case. Moreover, Connell and Joint (1996) suggest that our cars become a “statement of ourselves,” in that their shape, size, prestige, and value become an expression of how we wish others to perceive us. They assert that this is so because a car is such a major purchase in one’s life, represents one’s access to freedom, and is involved in much of the one’s livelihood. In their study on driver aggression, Hennessy and Wiesenthal (1997) attempt to 3

further define aggression by distinguishing between violent acts of road rage and mild aggressive behavior. Their results suggest that mild aggressive acts are exhibited by most people, whereas acts of violent road rage are typically confined to habitually violent individuals. This was expanded on in a study by Lajunen and Parkerb (1999) on the psychological triggers of violent aggression. They concluded that, while there are exceptions, aggressive drivers tend to act more aggressively in their daily lives. A recent study on red-light running behavior found that more than a third of the observed traffic light cycles involved at least one red-light violation (Porter & England, 2000). It was also noted that more red-light violations occurred with higher traffic volumes. The fact that such a large number of red light running behavior was observed, especially during times of high congestion, suggests that many drivers put their progress on the roadways ahead of the safety of those around them. Naatanen and Summala (1976) expand on this idea by offering that obstruction of forward progress is precisely what leads drivers to frustration and rage. They suggest that this link is not confined only to driving, but would be present in any means of transportation. From all accounts, incidents of driver aggression are on the rise. A study of 10,037 incidents of road rage collected by Mizell (1997) for the AAA Foundation of Highway Safety from 1990 to 1996, found that the amount of reported incidents rose by approximately 10% each year. Additionally, a survey conducted by the Automobile Association in 1996 found that 62% of people believe that other drivers on the roadways have become more violent (Connell & Joint, 1996). Driver aggression is playing an increasingly dangerous role on today's roadways. However, its cause remains largely unknown and little is being done to combat it (Byrne, 2000; Mizell, 1997). The purpose of this study is not to find a solution to this epidemic, 4

but rather, to shed light on one of the many triggers of driver aggression: car stereotyping. The researchers attempted to incite driver aggression by neglecting to respond to a stoplight recently changed to green. The researchers would then wait and record the number of seconds it took for the participant to respond to the delay in the form of a honk. Those quicker to the horn were assumed to be conducting themselves in a more aggressive manner than those who honked more slowly or not at all. The test car being driven by the researchers was varied between a sports car convertible and a small sedan, the purpose of which was to determine whether or not participant driver aggression would be influenced by the stereotypes formed about the test car. The researchers also noted the following variables: the sex and approximate age of the driver, whether or not there was a passenger in the car, and the type of car being driven. These variables were secondary to the main purpose of the experiment and were noted in order to find other patterns that may influence driver aggression.

Method Participants In this study, the behaviors of 70 individual drivers were observed. Participant drivers were selected non-systematically on the five days of study, as dictated by the natural flow of traffic, and were not intentionally made aware of the study. Only drivers of non-commercial motor vehicles were included in the study. Materials During the course of the experiment, two researchers drove inside both a 2000 model four-door Volkswagen Jetta sedan and a 1996 model two-door Mazda Miata sports coupe. It was assumed that the coupe would convey more aggressive vehicular 5

stereotypes than the sedan would convey (Byrne, 2000). Observations were made by both researchers using both mirror and direct rear-window observation and were recorded by hand by the non-driving researcher. An electronic stopwatch accurate to milliseconds was used to measure time; however, all results were rounded to the nearest whole second to accommodate for observational inaccuracies. Design and Procedure In the course of conducting the study, the researchers drove the test vehicle up to a red stop light. The driver of the vehicle immediately behind was accepted as a participant, and the following characteristics were recorded: gender (m/f), age group (<30, 30-50, >50), type of car (sport, luxury, sedan, SUV, truck, other), and whether or not there were any human passengers within the car. When the light changed from red to green, the test vehicle was kept motionless (signaling to the participant a lack of attention to the light change) and a stopwatch was used to determine how long it took for the participant to honk. It is assumed that more aggressive participants will honk more quickly than their less aggressive counterparts. In some cases, it was observed that the participant was not paying attention and thus had not noticed the light change, in which case the recorded time represented the latency to honk, minus the latency to attention. Once a honk was heard or after a maximum of 15 seconds had elapsed, the test vehicle was driven through the intersection. In an effort to reduce the adverse stress-related effects of the study on the participants and the potential for reactive road rage against the test car, the driving researcher hand-signaled a “thank you” wave to the participant immediately after the honk was issued. Observations were not recorded if: the stoplight did not turn red (the test car was 6

never artificially stopped at a green light), the test vehicle was not the first in line, or no participant vehicle had pulled up behind the test car before the light turned green. In 3 cases, it was determined that the honk had been issued by a car behind the participant vehicle, in which case the results were discarded. The study was conducted over five days during March and April, observing approximately 20 participants per two-hour session: two sessions on Sunday, two on Tuesday, and one on Thursday. The Miata test car was randomly established as the test car for the first session on Sunday, March 11th, and the cars were systematically rotated for each subsequent session (based on available test days due to weather): The Jetta on Tuesday, March 20th and Sunday, April 1st; the Miata again on Tuesday, April 3rd and Thursday, April 26th (the second Miata week-day test was required to gather additional data for comparison). In the study by Kendrick and MacFarlane (1986), it was found that outside temperature does influence the amount of aggression displayed. So, the weather of all test days was purposely confined to sunny and temperate (>65°), in order to reduce the effects that weather might have had on the mood of the participants. The test sessions were conducted between the hours of 1 and 5 in the afternoon to avoid rush hour and noontime traffic congestion. This decision was based on the results of a study (Wiesenthal, Hennessy & Totten, 2000) that concluded that higher congestion levels led to greater driver stress. All observations were made at four-way, two-lane, stop-light-managed intersections. The experiment was never conducted at four-lane intersections in order to avoid the potential risks as a result of acts driver vengeance. This behavior is defined by Hennessy and Wiesenthal as retaliatory action in response to a perceived injustice on the roadways. It is probable that the artificial delay of movement at a stoplight might incite 7

such behavior, and would put both the participant and researchers at undue risk. Test intersections were all within the Santa Rosa city limits, a small city in Northern California. While great care was taken to evenly distribute the intersection locations used during each session, due to the many variables that prevented the researchers from knowing which intersection was to be used until it had been selected by natural randomization, the intersections used varied accordingly.

Results Null Hypothesis: The mean number of seconds it takes for the participant to respond in the form of a honk to the Miata test vehicle is greater (>) than the mean number of seconds it takes for the participant to respond to the Jetta vehicle. Alternative Hypothesis (claim): The mean number of seconds it takes for the participant to respond in the form of a honk to the Miata test vehicle is less (<) than the mean number of seconds it takes for the participant to respond to the Jetta vehicle. Calculations: Number of Miata trials: 35 Significance Level = .10 Mean of the Miata = 6.7 Mean of the Jetta = 8.2 Test Statistic: -1.47 Critical Value: -1.282 According to these results we can reject the null hypothesis; there is enough evidence to support the claim that the mean number of seconds it takes for the participant to honk when the test vehicle is a Miata is less than the mean number of seconds it takes 8 Standard Deviation: 4 Standard Deviation: 4.5 Number of Jetta trials: 35

for the participant to honk when the test vehicle is a Jetta.

Discussion The results of this experiment support the hypothesis, which states that more aggressive vehicles will induce increased levels of driver aggression. After completing 70 test runs, the results showed a link between the test car being used and the length of the delay until the participant honked. During this study the researchers were confronted with various confounding variables. First and foremost, it is acknowledged that the test car selection was limited to the cars immediately available to the researchers. A follow-up study conducted using an even more aggressive-looking sports car such as a BMW Z3 compared to an even less aggressive sedan such as a Volvo station wagon might allow for an even greater disparity to emerge in the results. Despite this limitation, it is assumed that further research in the area of car stereotyping as it relates to driver aggression will support the findings of this study. Secondly, time constraints disallowed the researchers from collecting the breadth of data originally planned. It is also noted that in each experimental trial the driver of the test car was male and the passenger, female. Since the sex of the driver was obscured in the Jetta but observable in the Miata, gender bias may have had an effect on the results. To account for this possible confound, future researchers may wish to systematically vary the gender of the driver or choose two vehicles of similar visual obstruction. Due to time constraints and a limited number of researchers, the study took place only in Santa Rosa, California, a small city with a population of 150,000 (Source: U.S. Census 2000). It is hypothesized that similar research conducted in a larger, more congested city, would yield quicker honk times and may change the results. Additional 9

testing in other regions may work to increase the external validity of the findings of this experiment. The researchers did try to limit the number of confounds related to congestion by conducting the study at approximately the same time of day (between the hours of 1 p.m. and 5 p.m.) and on similar days of the week, and attempted to minimize the effect that weather might have on the results by limiting test days to temperate weather. In 12 of the 70 runs, the participant did not honk after 15 seconds, in which case the test car was driven away from the intersection to minimize traffic disruption. While the researchers feel this figure is significant, especially since twice the number of drivers did not honk in response to the Jetta's delay than the Miata's, there are many other explanations of such a result. In informal questions asked of several people about why they might not honk at a stoplight, some suggested that they feel that honking at a stoplight is rude and would rather wait than offend. This study is important because it sheds light on car stereotyping, a possible trigger for driver aggression. In general, people are less patient to the actions of vehicles that they perceive to be more aggressive. This perception of aggressiveness is largely based on messages conveyed by the mass media and commercials. When one thinks of a sports car, such as the Mazda Miata used in this study, the first thing that typically comes to mind is that it goes fast. This is reinforced by commercials depicting the Miata speeding along a race track. On the other hand, a sedan such as the Volkswagen Jetta is typically portrayed as a family car and is linked to stability and safety, not speed. In traditional materialistic western societies, the car is viewed as an extension of one's social image, partly because of the enormous amount of time we spend in them each day, but also as a result of how advertising portrays them. We are taught through the 10

mass media that our car not only projects an image of ourselves in the eyes of others, but is also capable of changing this preexisting image. This is similar to the way that advertisers construe clothing. These messages lead to the formation of stereotypes about what type of person drives a particular type of car. Thus, drivers tend to assume that the drivers around them will behave in a manner consistent with the car they are driving, based on these pre-established stereotypes. It follows that some drivers will unconsciously respond with less patience to cars they perceive as more aggressive. While far from conclusive, the results of this study suggest that this automatic process is taking place on the roadways. Driver aggression and road rage is a serious concern in today's society. By better understanding what triggers driver aggression, we can work to reduce its occurrence. Stereotyping, in all its many forms, will forever be a part of human society, but can be reduced with knowledge and information. When people are made aware of their own stereotypes, and are given tools to help reduce them, the cycle can be stopped. Based on the results of this experiment, it is hypothesized that car stereotyping, and thus a trigger of driver aggression, can be minimized through increased driver education and awareness. As Andrew Ferguson of Time magazine puts it: while everyone seems to have an idea for a cure for road rage, “is there a cure for thinking everyone else on the road is an idiot?”


References Byrne, Gerry (2000). Road Rage. New Scientist, 168: 38. Connell, D. and Joint, M. (1996). Driver Aggression: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Online. Internet. 20 Apr. 2001. Available: Davies, G. Personal communication. Interview. 30 Mar. 2001. Doob, A., and Gross, A. (1968). Status of frustrator as an inhibitor of horn-honking responses. Journal Social Psychology, 76: 213-18. Ferguson, A. (1998). Road Rage. Time, 151(1): 64-7. Garfield, B. (1998). Mazda gives Miata unnecessary muscle. Advertising Age. Online. Internet. 21 Apr. 2001. Available: Hennessy, D., and Wiesenthal, D. (1997). The relationship between traffic congestion, driver stress and direct versus indirect coping behaviours. Ergonomics, 40 (3): 348-61. Kenrick, D., and MacFarlane, S. (1986). Ambient temperature and horn honking: A field study of the heat/aggression relationship. Environment and Behavior, 18: 179-91. Lajunein, T., and Parkerb, D. (1999). Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A study of the relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness, driver anger and aggressive driving. Accident Annual Preview 2001, 33(2): 243-55. Mizell, L. (1997). Aggressive Driving: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Online. Internet. 20 Apr. 2001. Available: Naatanen, R. and Summala, H. (1976). Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co. Porter, B. and England, K. (2000). Predicting Red-Light Running Behavior: A Traffic Study in Three Urban Settings. Journal of Safety Research, 31(1): 1-8. “Stereotype.” The American Heritage Dictionary: Third Edition. 1994. U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Survey 2000. Online. Internet. 4 Apr. 2001. Available: 12

Wiesenthal, D., Hennessy, D., and Totten, B. (2000). The Influence of Music on Driver Stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8): 1709-19.