This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Anger amongst New Zealand drivers
Mark J.M. Sullman
Department of Human Resource Management, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Abstract This research investigated the types of situations that cause drivers to become angry while driving. The Driver Anger Scale [Deﬀenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a driver anger scale. Psychological Reports, 74, 83–91] was used to investigate driver anger amongst 861 drivers. The resultant data were factor analysed, producing four categories of anger provoking situations; progress impeded, risky driving, hostile gestures and discourteous driving. Overall levels of driver anger were higher than equivalent research in the UK, but appeared to be lower than that found in America. In line with overseas research, female drivers reported more anger overall and in two of the four categories of driver anger (risky driving and hostile gestures). There were also regional diﬀerences, with the drivers from the main urban areas reporting more anger than those from the secondary urban areas. Reported anger declined with age for all categories of anger provoking situations. Those drivers reporting a higher level of driving anger across all potential anger inducing situations tended to be; female, younger, from a main urban area, report a higher annual mileage, be less experienced (in terms of years driving) and prefer a higher speed. The overall level of driver anger was not related to crash involvement, and neither were any of the four categories of driver anger. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Driver anger; Driving behaviour; Anger; Driving
1. Introduction Recent research and media reports appear to indicate that incidents of angry drivers and road rage are becoming more common (Oliver, 2003; Parker, Lajunen, & Stradling, 1998; Pepper, 2003; Vest, Cohen, & Tharp, 1997). Oliver (2003), for example, cites research which found 87% of young drivers had been victims of road rage at least once, with 71% admitting they had been guilty of road rage themselves. Although road rage is the most extreme expression of driver anger and is relatively rare, to experience anger while driving is much more common. For example, using a diary approach to study driver anger, Underwood, Chapman, Wright, and Crundall (1999) reported that during a 2 week period, 85% of the 100 drivers studied experienced anger whilst driving.
Tel.: +64 6 350 5799x2387; fax: +64 6 350 5796. E-mail address: M.Sullman@massey.ac.nz
1369-8478/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2005.10.003
Deﬀenbacher et al. & Stradling. which were labelled: ‘‘progress impeded’’. & Lynch. while the ‘‘reckless driving’’ subscale consisted of a combination of items originally classiﬁed as illegal driving and discourteous driving. Participants were instructed to imagine the situations happening to them and to rate the amount of anger elicited by each. Deﬀenbacher et al..2. 1998. including. age. The ‘‘direct hostility’’ subscale contained the same items as the factor labelled by Deﬀenbacher et al.g. and experience more intense anger than those low in trait anger. are angered by a wider range of situations. 2005. One important question is what sort of situations provoke anger amongst drivers. (1994) as ‘‘hostile gestures’’. The factor structure of the DAS was also investigated. 1705 questionnaires were distributed and 861 responses were received. Ragan. ‘‘direct hostility’’.5%. holding up traﬃc). Driver anger was measured using the original 33-item version of the driver anger scale (DAS) (Deﬀenbacher et al. and near accidents. Lajunen.. Materials The data reported in this article were collected as a part of a larger survey of driving behaviour. . Participants are asked to read each of the 33 statements and to rate. this research investigated how much of a problem driver anger is in New Zealand and the situations which cause New Zealand drivers to experience anger. and also the factor structure of the DAS. Oetting. (1999) found a strong link between driver anger and subsequent near accidents. 1999). in order to develop an appropriate set of items for a New Zealand version of the scale. are more likely to become angry. 1994). it was correlated with crash related conditions. Parker. Luther. giving a response rate of 50. Deﬀenbacher. & Kuhlman. 2. loss of vehicular control. Alley. such as loss of concentration. In support of this. Ratings were made on a ﬁve point likert scale which ranged from 1 = Not at all to 5 = Very much. gender.. you hit a deep pothole) evoked very little anger amongst the British drivers (Lajunen et al. The driving anger scale (DAS) is one approach for measuring trait driving anger. Sullman / Transportation Research Part F 9 (2006) 173–184 Driving anger has been deﬁned as a situation speciﬁc form of trait anger (Deﬀenbacher. descriptive variables and crash involvement.M. Cluster analysis of the 33-item scale produced six subscales.. 2001. 1994. crash history over the previous 5 years and driver anger.1. slow driving. research has found that drivers with elevated levels of anger engage more often in aggressive and unsafe driving (Dahlen. Drivers who are high on trait anger.174 M. Therefore. For example. hostile gestures. the data were tested for relationships between driver anger. Underwood et al. Factor analysis of their data produced three factors. The main/secondary urban categorisation has previously been used to classify urban centres in New Zealand (Charlton. Lajunen et al. demographics. Participants Participants were surveyed in two main urban areas (Wellington and Auckland) and two secondary urban areas (Palmerston North and Hastings). 1998). annual mileage. illegal driving. Furthermore. 1998). and traﬃc obstructions. Lynch. 2.. & Yingling. discourtesy. The main diﬀerence between the US and UK results was that the situations without other motorists involved (e. Furthermore. 1998). Participants were drivers who had driven at least once in the last six months. 2002). In total. Newman. The ‘‘progress impeded’’ subscale consisted of a combination of items originally categorised as ‘‘slow driving’’ and ‘‘discourteous driving’’. The questionnaire measured a number of variables. & Baas. The original DAS questionnaire was developed in the United States by Deﬀenbacher et al. The DAS was subsequently used to measure driver anger in the UK (Lajunen et al. (2001) found that although driver anger was not directly correlated with crash involvement. preferred driving speed. The dissimilar ﬁndings made in the UK research raise some doubts as to whether all 33 situations would provoke anger amongst New Zealand drivers. someone is driving too slowly in the passing lane.. 1994). on a ﬁve point scale (1 = Not at all. 5 = Very much). and ‘‘reckless driving’’ (Lajunen et al. a 27-item UK version of the DAS was produced. (1998) found a number of the original items did not evoke anger amongst UK drivers. Oetting. (1994) and contains 33 potentially anger provoking situations (e. Martin. how angry each situation would make them feel. Method 2. police presence.J.g. With the removal of nonanger evoking situations. Underwood et al.
3 21.70 7. and Lawson (1998). the average speed for the motorway was the highest.4%) were in the largest age category (26–59 years old). participants were oﬀered the chance of going into a draw to win one of ﬁve $50 gift vouchers.9 Mean (km/h) 102.3. they were asked to write their name and address on a separate sheet of paper which was sent in with the questionnaire.2 8.5 9. 3. with a mean of 105. In order to be entered into the draw. At the petrol stations the researcher(s) approached all drivers who parked beside a fuel pump and began Ôﬁlling upÕ a vehicle (a small number were missed when a large number of customers arrived at the same time). Participants had between 0. with just over a quarter being in the 15–25 year age group and 13. Stradling.6 34. If amenable.1 105.2 22.2 13. Procedure The questionnaires were distributed.3 and 69 years experience driving cars.6 43.4 52. but was immediately separated upon receipt. with the average being almost 22 years. For the remaining analysis the ﬁve speed items were combined to form a mean preferred driving speed.944 km/year. at petrol stations in four urban areas in the North Island of New Zealand. The vast majority of the participants (61.6% female. This was followed very closely by the ‘‘Open Road’’. The speed limit for the motorway.6 56.4 Maximum 200.08 9.7 3.8 69. The lowest average was for the ‘‘Busy Main St’’ with an average of 47.M.68 % 17. As would be expected.M. as done by Meadows. the customers were asked to take away the questionnaire. 15–29 30–44 45–59 60+ Total 147 137 115 82 481 Minimum Annual mileage (km) Age Years Preferred speed Open road Busy main st Residential Motorway Winding country road 80 15 0. along with reply paid envelopes. The researchers introduced themselves to the customers and informed them of the research. Participants were also asked to indicate their preferred speed on ﬁve diﬀerent types of roads (Table 1).3 30.4 km/h. The average annual mileage was 19.4% of the participants were male and 43.J. and return it in a reply paid envelope.1 13. ﬁll it out.3 Min (km/h) 50 15 20 45 15 % 17. Results 3. open road and most winding country roads is 100 km/h.2 SD 11.2% in the 60+ age group.14 8.7 SD 19.1 14.8 15.54 18. Table 1 also shows that overall 56.9 km/h. To encourage participation.283.8 km/h reported.2 100 Total (%) .000 84 69 Max (km/h) 140 80 80 160 130 Female No. 146 121 74 31 372 Mean 19. Demographic and descriptive variables Table 1 shows the number and percentage of respondents in each age group and their gender.7 15. while the speed limit for residential areas and busy main streets is currently 50 km/h. where the average was 102.1.0 39.2 16.944.9 47. Table 1 Demographic and descriptive variables Age group Male No. Sullman / Transportation Research Part F 9 (2006) 173–184 175 2.
means and standard deviation Item no.28 SD 1.07 1.21 1.09 1.95 1.12 0.16 0.20 1.18 2.99 0.14 3.12 1.20 1.8% reported being involved in at least two crashes over the past 5 years.25 1.27 1. Seventeen respondents did not answer this question.09 1.97 Traﬃc obstructions 30 Driving behind a vehicle that is smoking badly or giving oﬀ diesel fumes 31 A truck kicks up sand or gravel on the car you are driving 22 You hit a deep pothole that was not marked 26 Driving behind a truck which has material ﬂapping around in the back 32 Driving behind a large truck and you cannot see around it 19 You are stuck in a traﬃc jam 33 You encounter road works and detours Average Hostile gestures 21 27 24 Slow driving 10 9 4 3 18 1 Police presence 29 11 16 23 Illegal driving 13 6 25 2 Someone makes an obscene gesture towards you about your driving Someone shouts at you about your driving Someone beeps at you about your driving Average A slow vehicle on a winding road will not pull over and let people pass Someone is driving more slowly than is reasonable for the traﬃc ﬂow Someone is driving too slowly in the outside lane.20 1.11 1. More than one quarter of participants (26.51 3.77 2.21 1.27 3.17 3.49 2.176 M.05 1.09 1.00 0.62 3.70 2.34 3.37 3.44 3.85 2.26 1.04 1.04 0.2% reported being involved in at least one crash during the past 5 years. more than 60% reported that they had not been involved in a crash.25 1.J.54 3.95 3.23 1.21 2.4%) reported being involved in one crash and 11.21 2.48 2.86 3.14 1.2.72 1.05 1.M.95 2.78 1.86 1.19 1.09 1. Table 2 Driving anger scale item scoring.16 3.59 3.52 3.10 1. Sullman / Transportation Research Part F 9 (2006) 173–184 3.96 0.02 2. Discourtesy 5 15 8 14 17 12 7 20 28 Item Someone is driving very close to your rear bumper At night someone is driving right behind you with bright lights on Someone cuts in and takes the parking spot you have been waiting for Someone coming towards you does not dim their headlights at night Someone speeds up when you try to pass them Someone backs out right in front of you without looking Someone cuts in right in front of you on the motorway Someone pulls our right in front of you when there is no-one behind you A cyclist is riding in the middle of the lane and slowing traﬃc Average Mean 3.18 1.82 1.94 2.69 3.64 1.24 2. Number of crashes Overall.44 1.77 3.02 2.17 0.73 3. while 39.85 3.85 0.13 1.77 1. and holding up traﬃc A pedestrian walks slowly across the middle of the street Someone is slow in parking and holds up traﬃc Someone does not move oﬀ straight away when the light turns green Average A police oﬃcer pulls you over You see a police car watching traﬃc from a hidden position You pass a speed camera A police car is driving in traﬃc close to you Average Someone Someone Someone Someone Average runs a red light or stop sign is weaving in and out of traﬃc is driving well above the speed limit is driving too fast for the road conditions .86 3.95 0.12 2.04 1.
. Unlike the British data (Lajunen et al.51 2. the police presence scale had the lowest mean. As there were a number of relatively large intercorrelations (À. meaning that New Zealand drivers report signiﬁcantly higher levels of anger than their UK counterparts.28 (±0. Driver anger The means and standard deviations of the 33 Driver Anger Scale items are presented in Table 2. Factor analysis The 33 DAS items were then subjected to principle component analysis (PCA) to determine the factor structure.0 2.2 3. For New Zealand drivers.3 3.3. followed closely by passing a speed camera. À. Using the six factors identiﬁed in the original DAS research (Deﬀenbacher et al. ranging from 0. . 1998).0 2. which accounted for 52.28 ± 0. ‘‘Hostile gestures’’ consisted .Õs (1998) ‘‘reckless driving’’ category.86) (±0. As with Lajunen et al. 3. the subscale means found here were compared with the USA and UK ﬁndings (Table 3). This factor. This factor was similar to Lajunen et al.88. 1998). parallel analysis recommended a four-factor solution. Unfortunately the author was unable to obtain adequate information about the US sample. the category of illegal driving was substantially higher than that found in the UK and also appeared higher than in the USA. The least anger provoking situation was having a police car driving in traﬃc nearby.69 2. 1994.77). Sullman / Transportation Research Part F 9 (2006) 173–184 Table 3 Means for USA (Deﬀenbacher et al. This factor showed a degree of similar with Lajunen et al.72) (±0. but report lower levels of anger than US drivers on all but one factor (Illegal Driving).382. The discourtesy scale was also the highest for both the USA and UK data (Deﬀenbacher et al.4% of the variance (Table 4). The single item with the highest anger rating was having someone driving very close to their bumper.Õs (1998) research.7 UK 2. there were no items with means less than 1. Although six factors were produced with eigenvalues above one. indicating all factors had good internal reliability. The slow driving items could easily be interpreted as discourteous driving behaviour (e.3. consisted of four police presence items. 1994).Õs ‘‘Impeded progress’’ factor.07) (±0.3 2. 1998) and NZ No..0 1.77) (±0.73 2. Factor 2. This factor was labelled ‘‘Progress impeded’’.77 1.97). having no items in common. These were all signiﬁcant (p < 0. This appears to show that New Zealand drivers report more anger than UK drivers on all six factors. This was followed closely by someone behind with bright lights on and someone cutting in and taking the park they had been waiting for.5.2% of the variance.1.378). with the addition of only two additional items.g.82) (±1. In order to test for signiﬁcant diﬀerences between New Zealand and the UK. while in the US illegal driving was the lowest. The New Zealand data produced a factor structure which was largely diﬀerent from both the US and UK ﬁndings..86 3. In other words it would seem that NZ drivers appear to be angered more by illegal driving than both UK and US drivers. however. The ﬁnal factor. The number of factors was determined using parallel analysis. the oblimin method of rotation was used. UK (Lajunen et al. was unlike Lajunen et al. Table 3 also shows that the highest overall scale mean for the NZ sample was the discourtesy scale (3. The third factor was labelled ‘‘Discourteous behaviour’’ as it contained six items from the original discourtesy factor and ﬁve from the ‘‘Slow driving’’ factor.97) 177 3. 1994). six t-tests were calculated. of items Discourtesy Traﬃc obstructions Hostile gestures Slow driving Police presence Illegal driving 9 7 3 6 4 4 USA 3. as the majority of the items impeded the progress of the reporting driver.Õs ‘‘Impeded progress’’ factor.. except for the inclusion of three traﬃc obstructions and the omission of two discourtesy items.480.3 NZ (SD) 3.7 2.J.M.85 to 0... Factor 1 was labelled ‘‘Risky driving’’ and consisted of four illegal driving items.397. three traﬃc obstruction items and three discourtesy items.51 ± 0. which contained 8. All of the alpha coeﬃcients were high. .2 3. Hence all items were kept for further analysis.4 2. four traﬃc obstructions and one slow driving item.9 3.001). Lajunen et al. a slow vehicle on a winding road will not pull over and let people pass). followed closely by the illegal driving scale (3.M.
05). 1998).85 16 You pass a speed camera 23 A police car is driving in traﬃc close to you 29 A police oﬃcer pulls you over 11 You see a police car watching traﬃc from a hidden position 33 You encounter road works and detours 32 You are driving behind a large truck and you cannot see around it 31 A truck kicks up sand or gravel on the car you are driving 18 Someone is slow in parking and holds up traﬃc 19 You are stuck in a traﬃc jam Factor 3—Discourtesy 6.745 . eigenvalue = 10. 1998). eigenvalue = 1.520 À. Anger by age group Previous research has shown that reported anger varies with age (Lajunen & Parker.408 À.392 À.2% of variance.775 À. alpha = 0.1% of variance.381 À.584 . however there were signiﬁcant diﬀerences in the means.2.521 . eigenvalue = 2. Lajunen et al.669 .790 .3.864 À.3. by gender.86 25 Someone is driving well above the speed limit 2 Someone is driving too fast for the road conditions 6 Someone is weaving in and out of traﬃc 13 Someone runs a red light or stop sign 26 You are driving behind a truck which has material ﬂapping around in the back 5 Someone is driving very close to your rear bumper 30 You are driving behind a vehicle that is smoking badly or giving oﬀ diesel fumes 22 You hit a deep pothole that was not marked 7 Someone cuts in right in front of you on the motorway 15 At night someone is driving right behind you with bright lights on Factor 2—Progress impeded 8. 1.472 . The relative order of the four anger inducing factors was the same for both males and females.790 À. These ﬁndings are in line with previous research. which has also found that females report higher overall levels of anger than males (Lajunen & Parker. alpha = 0.04.35.636 .001). 3. and holding up traﬃc 17 Someone speeds up when you try to pass them 8 Someone cuts in and takes the parking spot you have been waiting for 3 A pedestrian walks slowly across the middle of the street 1 Someone does not move oﬀ straight away when the light turns green 20 Someone pulls our right in front of you when there is no-one behind you 12 Someone backs out right in front of you without looking 14 Someone coming towards you does not dim their headlights at night 28 A cyclist is riding in the middle of the lane and slowing traﬃc Factor 4—Hostile gestures 4.428 .578 À. Lajunen et al.923 À.376 .485 .J.548 À.6% of variance. Item M. 3.3.797 . 2001. alpha = 0.001) and being the recipient of a hostile gesture (p < 0. This factor was also found by both Deﬀenbacher et al. Sullman / Transportation Research Part F 9 (2006) 173–184 Factor loading . the average reported anger clearly declines with age overall and in three of the four .397 .459 . As shown in Fig..88 9 Someone is driving more slowly than is reasonable for the traﬃc ﬂow 10 A slow vehicle on a winding road will not pull over and let people pass 4 Someone is driving too slowly in the outside lane.178 Table 4 Factor structure of the DAS Item No.69. 2001.813 Factor 1—Risky driving 33.4% of variance.M.404 . Female participants reported signiﬁcantly more anger provoked by risky driving (p < 0.788 À.71. eigenvalue = 2. alpha = 0. Females also reported a higher overall mean level of anger (p < 0. (1994) and Lajunen et al.669 .541 À..370 À.542 À.660 .727 .88 27 Someone shouts at you about your driving 21 Someone makes an obscene gesture towards you about your driving 24 Someone beeps at you about your driving of the three items involving hostile gestures.807 . Anger by gender Table 5 shows the mean reported anger for the four diﬀerent factors.
Post Hoc tests found that overall.82) (±0.M. discourteous driving (F(3.01).001).96 (±0.850) = 3. Anger by age group.001. 2 shows that participants from the main urban areas reported higher levels of anger overall and across the ﬁve diﬀerent factors.16 2.001).72) (±1. progress impeded (F(3. but not the 45–59 year age group.16.01). factors.87 (±0. Fig.42 2.3. and hostile gestures (F(3.21 3. p < 0.18 2. Sullman / Transportation Research Part F 9 (2006) 173–184 Table 5 Anger by gender Males M (SD) Risky driving Progress impeded Discourtesy Hostile gesture Overall * *** 179 Females M (SD) 3.001).25 2.63) p < 0. this was not signiﬁcant .5 1 Risky Driving Progress Impeded Discourteous Driving Hostile Gestures Overall Fig. p < 0. 1998) the overall trend was for a signiﬁcant decline in anger with age. progress impeded (p < 0.01) and the 60+ age group (p < 0.73) (±1.850) = 6. the level of anger evoked by risky driving also declines with age. Lajunen et al. To test the signiﬁcance of these overall diﬀerences.001*** . 1 also clearly shows that the 15–29 year age group reported more anger overall and on three of the driving anger factors. In addition.01).001).658 .J. if the mean for the 15–29 year olds is ignored.64. Although risky driving did not clearly decline with age.M.69.001).849) = 14.76) (±0. and discourteous driving (p < 0.05.4. in line with previous research (Lajunen & Parker.262 À1. an ANOVA was performed.14 3.849) = 15. p < 0.001).037* 3. Therefore.33. 2001. 4 15-29 3. those in the 60+ age group reported the lowest overall level of anger and were lower than the other age groups for all four factors. the 45–59 year age group was signiﬁcantly higher than the 60+ age group (p < 0.5 45-59 30-44 60+ 3 2. Furthermore. drivers in the 15–29 year age group reported signiﬁcantly higher levels of anger than 45–59 year olds (p < 0.05). Although hostile gestures appeared to evoke a lower level of anger in the secondary urban areas.75) (±0.091 Sig. .66) t À3.715 À2.89 2.518 0.08) (±0. An ANOVA revealed that participants from secondary urban areas reported signiﬁcantly lower levels of anger for risky driving (p < 0. p < 0. but not the 30–44 year age group. 1.. Level of anger by urban centre size The data were analysed for diﬀerences in the level and situations provoking anger in the two types of urban centres.61 2. 3. p < 0. The 30–44 age group reported a signiﬁcantly higher level of anger than the 60+ age group (p < 0.001*** . The ANOVA revealed signiﬁcant age diﬀerences in overall levels of reported anger (F(3.19.129 . A comparison of the four diﬀerent anger factors also revealed signiﬁcant age diﬀerences for risky driving (F(3. Fig.73) (±0.001).443 À3.849) = 13. p < 0.05) (±0.5 2 1.
043 À. p < 0. The length of time a participant had been driving (experience) was also negatively correlated with progress impeded (À0. p < 0. and preferred speed (. p < 0. p < 0.968***).060). The overall level of anger was positively correlated with annual mileage (0.05) and discourteous driving (0. .001. but report lower levels of anger provoked by risky driving. Therefore.01).126*** À.126.5 3 2. p < 0.J.179*** . Table 6 Correlation coeﬃcients for driver anger and descriptive variables Risky Mileage Experience Speed * ** *** Impeded .3. p < 0. and hostile gestures (À0.281. those drivers with more driving experience reported less anger caused by having their progress impeded.M. overall anger and the remaining descriptive variables were examined through the calculation of PearsonÕs correlation coeﬃcients (Table 6). Anger by descriptive variables The correlations between the four driving anger factors. discourteous driving and hostile gestures.001).040 Overall .227*** . p < 0. The overall level of anger was also signiﬁcantly lower in the secondary urban area (F(1. and lower for those drivers who had held their drivers license longer (which could be due to a very strong correlation with age.968.180 M. 0.001).858) = 12.001). Sullman / Transportation Research Part F 9 (2006) 173–184 4 Main Secondary 3.001). p < 0. p < 0.281*** Hostile . 3.179.250*** .071* À. This means that overall driver anger was signiﬁcantly higher for those participants who prefer to drive faster and report more kilometres a year.093** À.093.071.001).5. while there was also a signiﬁcant negative correlation with risky driving (À. Annual mileage was also correlated with progress impeded (0. p < 0.01) and discourtesy (.099** .01).05. p < 0.5 Risky Driving Progress Impeded Discourteous Driving Hostile Gestures Overall Fig.54. Anger by urban classiﬁcation.191*** . 2.227. as those drivers who report higher preferred driving speeds are also likely to be the drivers engaging in the risky driving behaviour. (p = 0. p < 0. p < 0.104** Discourtesy . p < 0.01).001).01.120** p < 0. meaning that drivers who reported travelling more kilometres per year also report more anger from having their progress impeded and discourteous drivers. p < 0. Preferred driving speed had signiﬁcant positive correlations with progress impeded (.191.018 À.001). while the length of time a driver had been driving (experience) was negatively correlated with overall anger (À0.099. this may be due to the fact that those drivers who have been driving for a long time are also older (0.250.001).120.5 2 1. This is not particularly surprising. However. discourteous driving (À0.049 À.104. This means that drivers who report higher preferred driving speeds also report more anger from discourteous driving and having their progress impeded.
01) 2.65) Note: Standard deviation in brackets.028 .4.287+).035 F 9.15** 6.89 (0.18 (0.009 .74) Discourteous driving 3.68) 2. p < 0. In an attempt to conﬁrm or refute this in a larger.79) Progress impeded 2.243) and only two of the signiﬁcant relationship would be classiﬁed as large (.72) 2.008 .007 .147*** .. 2001.05.056).037 .148–.69) 3. To test this.M.022 .76 (1.79** 6. Therefore.73) Hostile gestures 2. p < 0.24 (0. 1999).91 (0.009 .72 (1. Table 8 Prediction of the driving anger factors Step Risky driving 1 2 3 Progress impeded 1 2 Discourtesy 1 2 3 4 Hostile gesture 1 * ** *** Variable Speed Centre size Gender Age Mileage Speed Age Centre size Mileage Age R2 . . Anger by crash involvement Research has found that anger was related to near accidents (Deﬀenbacher et al. centre size.3.50* 16.115 .06* 26. with a probability of F to enter of 0.086* À. 2001).19 (0.01.74 (1.48*** 30. Sullman / Transportation Research Part F 9 (2006) 173–184 181 Due to the relatively substantial sample size a number of the correlation coeﬃcients were signiﬁcant.096** . 3.013 .79* À.J. In each regression age. Predictors of the driving anger factors Multiple regressions were used to investigate the eﬀects of the background variables on the four types of driving anger.001.078 .115** À.12) 2. Drivers with less than 5 years experience were excluded (n = 753).124 . Although there appeared to be a signiﬁcant diﬀerence in the means for the risky driving factor. six were medium (. it was not quite enough to be signiﬁcant (p = 0. there were no signiﬁcant diﬀerences between crash involved and non-crash involved participants..M.187*** p < 0.76) 2. (2001) used a relatively small number (274) of introductory psychology students.035 Change in R2 . more diverse sample..201*** . the anger factors were compared between crash involved and non-crash involved drivers.6. annual mileage and preferred speed were entered into the model using the stepwise selection method.17 (0.32 (0.50*** Beta À.131 .006 .92 (0. Three could be described as small (0–0.092* . Table 7 shows the mean level of anger for the four factors by whether they had or had not been crash involved in the previous 5 years.17 (0.100).33* 62.19 (0.030 . 3.022 .75) 3.37 (0.82) 3. The large eﬀect sizes were found for the relationship discourtesy had with experience and the relationship discourtesy had with preferred speed.013 . but were not large.05. Underwood et al.08) Overall anger 2.60) 2.66*** 7.23*** 6.078 .280*** À.75) 3. gender. but that driver anger was not related to actual crash involvement (Deﬀenbacher et al.022 . Table 8 shows that the Table 7 Anger by crash involvement Crash involved No Yes Total Risky driving 3.87** 4. Deﬀenbacher et al.18 (0.094** .
was due to the inclusion of a large number of items (12) which were omitted from Lajunen et al. 4. However. given the diﬀerences between the New Zealand and UK ﬁndings. (2002) also found that females reported more anger on four of the ﬁve factors they studied using a 22 item measure of driver anger. you hit a deep pot hole that is not marked). Age and annual mileage predicted anger evoked by ‘‘progress impeded’’. which has also found that females report higher overall levels of anger (Lajunen & Parker. as there were several diﬀerences in the variables which were included in the respective analyses (e. There were also a number of similarities between two other factors found here and the factor structure found by Lajunen et al. Anger caused by discourteous driving was predicted by preferred speed. this does not necessarily mean that the drivers will express the anger. also included safety skills and perceptual-motor skills. their conclusion that similar situations angered drivers in Britain.M. The drivers from the main urban areas (Wellington and Auckland) reported more anger than those from the secondary urban areas (Palmerston North and Hastings) both overall and across the four diﬀerent factors. research should be conducted to conﬁrm this. 1998). These ﬁndings are in line with previous research. nor does it tell us the form in which it might be expressed. Discussion This research found that the factor analysis of the driver anger scale using the New Zealand data produced a four-factor solution. 2001... although the UK research (Lajunen et al. Overall the greatest diﬀerence between the factor structure found here and that of Lajunen et al. This same pattern may also be expected in New Zealand.g. these differences were not statistically signiﬁcant. (2002) found more similarities than diﬀerences. Finland and the Netherlands may be limited by the fact that the drivers in Finland and the Netherlands did not have the opportunity to rate the anger evoked by situations which were omitted from the original scale. However.Õs factor solution loaded on the progress impeded factor in the present research. in the US sample females reported signiﬁcantly more anger induced by three of their six factors (Deﬀenbacher et al.g. as they used a 22 item scale (rather than the original 33 items) to measure driver anger in three diﬀerent countries. there were some diﬀerences between the three countries. The discomfort factor found here was very similar to the ‘‘impeded progress’’ factor found by Lajunen et al. There were also some similarities between the risky driving factor found here and Lajunen et al. Female drivers reported significantly more anger overall and in two of the four categories of driver anger (risky driving and hostile gestures). (1998). Furthermore. it would be interesting to test whether the items omitted from the original scale would have evoked anger amongst the Finnish and Dutch drivers. Lajunen et al. but not centre size or preferred speed). Although Parker et al. The main similarity between the two-factor structures was with the hostile gestures factor. Researchers have found that drivers are more likely to report anger when traﬃc congestion was present . Although this research has found which situations anger New Zealand drivers and the degree of anger each situation evokes. Therefore. and Summala (2002). The hostile gestures factor appears to be a relatively strong factor as it is the only one to be produced in all three samples (NZ. but appeared to be mostly lower than that found in America. 1994). 1998) found that females reported higher levels of anger on two of their three factors.. unlike the New Zealand drivers.Õs analysis or did not load on any of their factors. which contained the same three items as in Deﬀenbacher et al. However. The level of driver anger reported here was signiﬁcantly higher than that found in the UK on all six of the original factors. research by Parker et al. The majority of the items which were not included in Lajunen et al. age. Parker et al. the situations which evoked the most anger were also the situations that were the most likely to lead to a reaction. Unfortunately it was not possible to accurately compare these ﬁndings with those of Lajunen et al. which was considerably diﬀerent from the six factors found in the US research (Deﬀenbacher et al. and overall.Õs original research.. the gender diﬀerences found here are consistent with the ﬁndings from previous research. Lajunen et al. US and UK). centre size and annual mileage.J.Õs reckless driving factor. UK drivers did not report anger evoked by impersonal situations (e.Õs analysis because. The ﬁnding that all 33 items evoked driver anger in this New Zealand sample has implications for the later research carried out by Parker. Therefore. as they did in this sample of New Zealand drivers. Therefore. although there were ﬁve items which were diﬀerent. Lajunen. centre size and gender. They were omitted from Lajunen et al. Sullman / Transportation Research Part F 9 (2006) 173–184 anger evoked by risky driving was predicted by preferred speed.182 M. (2002) found that by and large. while anger evoked by hostile gestures was only predicted by age. 1994).
& Baas. & Littleton. The author would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Darryl Reed.J. Ragan. Therefore. Personality and Individual Diﬀerences.. However. Lajunen. 1998) the level of overall anger. R. (1994). . Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A study of the relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness. B. J. main urban areas are more anger prone than individuals living in secondary urban areas in New Zealand. For example it may be that the type of individuals living in the main urban areas diﬀer signiﬁcantly from those living in the secondary areas of New Zealand. J. A. or residing in.. 74. Accident Analysis & Prevention. DePasquale. S. Driving anger: correlates of a test of state-trait theory.. J. & Littleton. Martin. (2005). L. As the main urban areas of Auckland and Wellington are more congested than the secondary urban areas the current research provides further limited support of a relationship between traﬃc density and driver anger. M. H. TERNZ technical report. from a main urban area. this study potentially suﬀers the normal limitations associated with self-report. S.. & Lynch. 83–91.. 32... Although there was a similar pattern with the ordering of the four categories of anger across the three age groups. Clarke. Driving anger. (2001). Brugha. busy and stressful lives and are thus more prone to anger. DePasquale. (2001).. R.. 2001).M. if the ﬁrst age category (15–29 year olds) is ignored there is also a clear decline in the level of anger on the risky driving factor. 2001. M. C. W. L. 37. who also helped with the data collection. 33. female. Research has shown that those residing in urban areas report greater life stress than those residing in more rural areas (Paykel. Surprisingly. impulsiveness. 1999). C. References Charlton. 341–348. and the level of three of the four categories. R. in line with previous research (Lajunen & Parker.. Auckland: TERNZ. Also in agreement with previous research (Deﬀenbacher et al. 1321–1331. As this research relied on self-reports. This study has found four diﬀerent kinds of anger. Alley.. 31... 1–16. except ‘‘risky driving’’. Luther. Sullman / Transportation Research Part F 9 (2006) 173–184 183 (Underwood et al. 2003). reported anger declined with age for all categories of anger provoking situations. In support of this proposition is the fact that research has found some individuals have a greater propensity to become angry whilst driving (Deﬀenbacher et al. progress impeded. Deﬀenbacher. S. Those living in the main urban centres may be leading more rushed. and boredom proneness in the prediction of unsafe driving. risky driving. D. K. D. R. Measuring road rage: development of the propensity for angry driving scale. P. Clarke. & Meltzer. overall levels of driver anger were signiﬁcantly higher than equivalent research in the UK. report a higher annual mileage. sensation seeking. E. Aside from the higher density of traﬃc in the main urban areas. Road user interactions: patterns of road use and perceptions of driving risk. 2001) this study did not ﬁnd a signiﬁcant relationship between the types of driving anger and crash involvement. younger. J.. 2001. Oetting. 243–255. Oetting. Lynch. and hostile gestures. R. there may be a number of other possible explanations for the diﬀerent levels of anger. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Kate Harris for her excellent work distributing the questionnaires and also entering the data into SPSS. Psychological Reports. Deﬀenbacher.. as all participants were assured of anonymity and their responses were completely conﬁdential. Lajunen et al.. but appeared to be lower than that found in America. Geller.. there were no external pressures preventing them from answering truthfully. P. declined signiﬁcantly with age.M.. Newman. Abbott. Journal of Safety Research. T. S. E. & Parker.. Accident Analysis & Prevention. It is possible that some participants exaggerated or were modest with the truth regarding the situations that provoked anger whilst driving. & Kuhlman. E. R. D. discourteous driving. It may also be that individuals attracted to. L. R.. Drivers reporting a higher level of driving anger across all potential anger inducing situations tended to be. E. E. Dahlen. (2002) reported that anger induced by their ‘‘impatient driving’’ factor was highest in the two countries with the highest traﬃc density. Development of a driver anger scale. E. S. Future research should be conducted to investigate more fully the relationship between centre size and driver anger. & Yingling. (2002). Parker et al. Jenkins. (2001). However. driver anger and aggressive driving. Moreover. G. Geller. be less experienced and prefer a higher speed.
S. Meadows. S. Abbott. Parker.J..drivers. Retrieved August 26.. & Tharp.M.com/article/169/. P... & Meltzer.. Road rage. (2002).co. D. 34. Attitudinal predictors of aggressive driving violations. Oliver. R. L.guardian. Urban–rural mental health diﬀerences in Great Britain: ﬁndings from the National Morbidity Survey. & Summala.. Anger while driving.. Lajunen. Available from http://www. G. Wright. (1998). Sullman / Transportation Research Part F 9 (2006) 173–184 Lajunen.. E. M.184 M.html.. 15. W. & Stradling. T. Dimensions of driver anger. R. Transportation Research Part F. D. . D.. K. M.cgi?type=ART& id=000000167&static=1. T.drivers. T. 1. Chapman. Available from http://www. International Review of Psychiatry. Parker. H.3604. 1. M. (2003). aggressive and highway code violations and their mediation by safety orientation in UK drivers. Transportation Research Part F. S. Brugha. T. Poll reveals prevalence of road rage. British Journal of Psychology. Jenkins. Parker. M. 97–107. D. (2003).. & Lawson. Retrieved 28 August. The role of social deviance and violations in predicting road traﬃc accidents in a sample of young oﬀenders. Cohen.uk/uk_news/ story/0. G. 229–235. (1998).. 2003. Paykel. 2. (2003). S. 417–431. 2003. G. 89. Stradling.. (1997). G. (1998). H.. Transportation Research Part F.. Lajunen. Road rage. Retrieved August 28.00. Pepper.. S. 11–24.com/cgi-bin/go. (1999). 55–68. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. Available from http://www. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Vest.. 2003. & Stradling. 107–121.1017254. & Crundall. Underwood.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.