Journal of Safety Research

32 (2001) 1 ± 16
www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr

Measuring road rage

Development of the Propensity for Angry
Driving Scale
Jason P. DePasquale*, E. Scott Geller, Steven W. Clarke,
Lawrence C. Littleton
Received 12 November 1999; received in revised form 1 June 2000; accepted 1 June 2000

Abstract

Problem: Recent reports indicate incidents of aggressive driving have risen 51% since
1990 (Vest, Cohen, & Tharp, 1997), and they continue to rise about 7% per year (Pepper,
1977). Current estimates attribute more than 218 deaths and 12,610 injuries to aggressive
driving since 1990 (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1997). Method: College students
as well as safety professionals were used in a four phase investigation to develop a
Propensity for Angry Driving Scale (PADS). The PADS was designed to identify
individuals with the greatest propensity to become angry while driving and subsequently
engage in hostile driving behaviors or acts of ``road rage.'' Results: Results of the
investigation reveal the PADS to be a unidimensional measure with acceptable alpha levels
(.88 ± .89) and adequate test ± retest reliability (.91). In addition, the PADS demonstrated
significant and positive correlations with the Buss ± Durkee Hostility Index (BDHI; r =.40)
and the trait subscale of the State ± Trait Anger Scale (STAS; r =.40). The PADS had a
modest but significant correlation with Eysenck's impulsivity scale (r =.28) and was
uncorrelated with Eysenck's venturesomeness scale, (r =.00). Summary: With the ability to
identify anger prone drivers, research can begin addressing the underlying emotional
mechanisms or thought processes that trigger angry and hostile reactions while driving.
Given the win/lose hostile climate present on our highways, the PADS is a timely instrument
that could be used to identify, study, and intervene on angry drivers prone to experience road
rage. D 2001 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hostility; Anger; Road rage; Survey development

* Corresponding author. Apartment 903, 1211 North Lasalle Drive, Chicago, IL 60610, USA.
Tel.: +1-312-828-9725; fax: +1-312-828-9742.
E-mail address: jasond@isrsurveys.com (J.P. DePasquale).

0022-4375/00/$ ± see front matter D 2001 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 2 2 - 4 3 7 5 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 5 0 - 5
2 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16

1. Introduction

As population density increases, more and more vehicles are occupying the
roadways. At the same time, highway construction lags far behind traffic
demands. For example, over the past 10 years the number of vehicle miles
driven in the United States has increased by 35%, while the number of new roads
has increased by only 1% (Berardelli, 1998). These overly congested highways
appear to be producing an environment that is conducive to violent driving
behaviors. In particular, crowded highways are more likely to result in crashes
and near-crashes due to tailgating, running red lights, speeding, and other
aggressive driving practices (Koch, 1998).
Recent reports indicate incidents of aggressive driving have risen 51% since
1990 (Vest, Cohen, & Tharp, 1997) and they continue to rise about 7% per year
(Pepper, 1997). Current estimates attribute more than 218 deaths and 12,610 injuries
to aggressive driving since 1990 (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1997).
The term ``road rage'' was first coined in 1988 (Fumento, 1998) and is defined in
the 1997 Oxford English Dictionary as ``violent anger caused by the stress and
frustration of driving in heavy traffic.'' Some researchers suggest this definition is
not entirely accurate. For example, road rage has been described as a cultural habit
of retaliation that occurs as a result of frustration and can occur independent of
heavy traffic (James & Nahl, 1998). Some have even gone so far as to label road rage
a mental disorder (Schmid, 1997). Classifying this cultural phenomenon as a mental
disorder may be a stretch, but there is substantial evidence that some drivers become
very angry when confronted with an aversive driving event. Elevated levels of anger
may prompt aggressive and other risk-taking behavior, behavior that can increase
accident risk, and risk of other deleterious behavior such as physical assault between
drivers or argument with passengers (Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994).
Given the reported prevalence of aggressive driving and the road rage it can
lead to, it seems critical to develop methods or instruments for identifying drivers
prone to becoming angry and engaging in dangerous retaliatory behaviors. The
ability to identify such individuals could contribute to the design of effective
interventions to prevent this increasingly prevalent problem. Besides pinpointing
those individuals in need of special attention with regard to road-rage prevention,
such an assessment tool could be used to research individual differences related to
angry driving and road rage. Eventually, this device could be used in social
marketing to identify subpopulations most in need of a road-rage prevention
message and to tailor the communication for that market segment (Geller, 1989).
As such, the purpose of this study was to develop an assessment tool to identify
individuals with the greatest propensity to become angry with others while driving.

2. Phase I: Item development

Scale items for the Propensity for Angry Driving Scale (PADS) were
developed through brainstorming sessions and focus groups with graduate and
 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16 3

undergraduate research assistants, as well as literature reviews. During brain-

storming and focus group sessions, discussions focused on identifying driving
events in which individuals reported feeling angry with another driver. Also
discussed during these sessions were potential reactions to the aversive driving
event. Reviews of both the popular and academic literature were performed to
bolster the information gathered during brainstorming and focus group sessions.
A total of 27 driving scenarios were developed using the process described
above. Each scenario described an aversive driving event and was accompanied
by four potential responses. Responses were constructed to vary with regard to
the degree of emotional reaction and retaliation. Two sample items with the four
response choices follow.

1. You are in a full parking lot. You see a driver leaving and you put on your
blinker to indicate you intend to take the parking space. As the other driver
pulls out, a second driver cuts in front of you from the other side and takes
the parking space. How do you respond?
(a) Glare angrily at the other driver as you move on to find another
parking space.
(b) Shrug your shoulders and look for another space to park.
(c) Wait for the other driver to get out of the car and then scream out your
window at him/her for being an inconsiderate jerk.
(d) Stop your car, and approach the other car to express your anger to
the driver.

2. You are driving on the highway. The driver in the car in front of you throws
a cup of coffee out his/her car window. The cup hits your windshield. How
do you respond?
(a) Honk your horn and yell at the other driver from within your car.
(b) Speed up next to the car and make obscene gestures at the other driver.
(c) Shake your head in disbelief and turn on your windshield wipers.
(d) Speed up so that you pass the car and then throw something out your
window to hit the other car.

3. Phase II: Item scoring

The purpose of this phase was to develop a scoring scheme for the PADS. The
intention was to scale the four possible responses on a seven-point continuum,
from 1 = very mild to 7 = very extreme. A procedure similar to the development of
behaviorally anchored rating scales was used (Cascio, 1991).

3.1. Participants and setting

Participants were 51 undergraduate students (15 male, 36 female) at a large

university in southwest Virginia. They ranged in age from 18 to 42 (mean = 19).
4 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16

Student participants were given extra credit in a research methods course taught
by the second author.

3.2. Procedure

Participants were asked to read carefully each of the 27 driving scenarios and
the four accompanying responses. They were instructed to rate each of the four
responses independently using a seven-point Likert scale (from 1 = very mild
reaction to 7 = very extreme reaction).

3.3. Results

Table 1 reports the mean ratings and standard deviations for the four reactions
to each scenario. A complete list of the 27 items is available from the authors
upon request. An examination of Table 1 revealed acceptable range sizes and

Table 1
Mean and standard deviations for the four possible reactions to the 27 driving scenarios
Final survey
number Scenario Response A S.D. Response B S.D. Response C S.D. Response D S.D.
1 1 1.1 0.3 4.4 1.3 3.2 0.9 6.4 0.7
2 2 4.4 1.0 1.1 0.3 5.6 1.2 3.7 1.2
3 3 3.1 1.0 4.1 1.1 1.3 0.6 6.2 0.8
4 4.4 1.2 3.0 1.2 6.2 0.9 1.3 0.8
5 4.3 1.1 3.7 1.3 1.1 0.3 5.1 1.2
4 6 2.0 0.9 1.0 0.2 5.0 1.1 5.6 1.3
5 7 1.0 0 4.8 1.2 3.1 0.9 4.4 1.1
6 8 4.7 1.5 1.0 0.1 5.3 1.1 3.0 1.3
9 4.0 1.2 5.4 1.1 1.5 0.7 2.8 1.2
10 5.1 1.0 3.6 1.0 6.2 1.1 1.2 0.8
7 11 3.8 1.0 5.2 1.2 1.1 0.3 4.4 1.3
8 12 1.1 0.2 1.7 0.6 3.1 0.9 4.4 1.1
13 1.0 0 6.0 0.9 2.8 0.8 4.2 1.0
9 14 5.5 1.1 1.1 0.9 3.7 1.1 2.6 1.0
10 15 4.4 1.2 5.5 1.1 1.1 0.2 2.7 0.8
16 2.4 0.9 5.7 1.3 4.6 1.2 1.6 0.8
11 17 1.0 0.1 5.6 1.2 3.9 0.1 5.0 1.2
12 18 2.7 0.9 1.6 0.7 5.4 1.1 4.6 1.2
13 19 4.2 1.3 4.3 1.4 1.9 0.9 6.2 0.9
20 3.4 1.4 1.1 0.4 5.6 1.4 1.8 0.8
14 21 3.0 1.1 4.4 1.2 1.2 0.6 6.2 0.9
15 22 5.0 1.3 1.0 0.2 5.6 1.2 3.0 1.2
16 23 1.2 0.6 6.5 0.8 3.3 1.4 4.7 1.3
24 5.0 1.1 4.1 1.4 6.2 1.0 1.6 0.9
17 25 3.1 1.2 4.9 1.1 1.2 0.5 4.8 1.2
18 26 2.2 0.9 1.1 0.3 3.7 1.1 4.8 1.2
19 27 1.2 0.5 3.7 1.2 3.4 1.1 5.8 1.2
Items retained for final 19-item survey.
 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16 5

standard deviations (1.5 or less; Cascio, 1991) for the scenario responses. As
such, at this point in the investigation, no modifications were made to the 27
scenarios or the corresponding response alternatives.

4. Phase III: Factor analysis

4.1. Participants and setting

Participants were 318 safety professionals and industrial employees (189

males, 129 females) attending a nationwide safety conference in Lexington,
KY. Participants ranged in age from 22 to 67 (mean = 42). The surveys
were administered to participants on the final day of the safety conference.
The surveys were completed on the spot and returned directly to the
senior author.

4.2. Procedure

Participants were instructed to read each of the 27 driving scenarios and circle
the one response per scenario that most closely corresponded to what they
believed their actual reaction would be if they were to experience the particular
driving event. After all surveys were collected, the participants were debriefed
regarding the purpose of the research.

4.3. Results

Individual responses were scored using the mean response values displayed
in Table 1. In other words, Response C for item 22 was worth 5.6 points.
Maximum likelihood factor analysis was performed to determine the factor
structure of the 27 aggressive driving items. As expected, only one interpretable
factor emerged. The factor loadings varied from .73 to .27, with an internal
consistency of a=.88. Eight items with factor loading less than .40 were
dropped from the scale, resulting in an alpha of .89. The final 19-item scale is
found in Appendix A. In order to understand how the 19 items were scored, the
reader is referred back to Table 1.

5. Phase IV: Test ±retest reliability

5.1. Participants and setting

Participants were 38 undergraduate students (14 males, 34 females) at a large

university in southwest Virginia. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 34
(mean = 20). For their participation, students were given extra credit in an
undergraduate psychology class.
6 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16

5.2. Procedure

Participants were asked to complete the refined 19-item survey by circling the
response for each driving event that most closely matched how they would
respond if they were to experience the event. Four weeks after the first
administration, the same participants completed the survey a second time. After
the second administration, a debriefing was provided to all interested students.

5.3. Results

Observed alpha levels for the PADS was a=.88 for Time 1 and a=.89 for
Time 2 administration. The test ± retest reliability coefficient for the 19-item
PADS was r = .91.

6. Phase V: Validity assessment

6.1. Participants and setting

Participants were 96 undergraduate students (41 males, 55 females) at a large

university in southwest Virginia. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 54
(mean = 18). For their participation students were given extra credit in an
introductory psychology class.

6.2. Procedure

The final phase of survey development involved testing for convergent,

divergent, and criterion validity for the refined PADS. Participants were admin-
istered a 108-item survey battery, which included the refined PADS (19 items), as
well as the scales described below. All survey items except the PADS were
presented in a random order, and were measured on a seven-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The PADS was the last scale in the
survey battery.

6.3. Measures for convergent validity

At the time of this research, no other scales were available to directly assess
propensity for angry driving. For this reason we chose surveys that provided a
general measure of anger and hostility. We expected correlations to be attenuated
to some degree because these surveys are more global in nature and not specific
to driving.

6.3.1. Trait anger

The concept of anger refers to an emotional state varying in intensity from
mild irritation to rage (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983). Trait anger
 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16 7

was measured using the Speilberger et al. State-Trait Anger Scale (STAS). The
trait subscale of the STAS includes 10 items and has reported alpha levels as high
as .96. We expected scores on the PADS to correlate significantly with scores on
the trait subscale of the STAS.

6.3.2. Hostility
Although the constructs of hostility and anger are similar, researchers make a
distinction between these constructs. While hostile people are angry, hostility has
the added connotation of propensity to emit aggressive behaviors toward
inanimate objects or other people (Spielberger et al., 1983). We expected scores
on the PADS to correlate significantly with scores on the Buss ± Durkee Hostility
Inventory (BDHI; Buss & Durkee, 1957). This scale contains five items and a
reported alpha of .82.

6.4. Measures for discriminant validity

6.4.1. Venturesomeness
High venturesomeness is reflected in people who ``are well aware of the risks
they might run but are prepared to chance it'' (Clift, Wilkins, & Davidson, 1993,
p. 404). Geller (1996, 1998) and others have referred to such acts as calculated
risks. In other words, individuals who score high in venturesomeness may be
more likely to engage in risky driving behaviors. This study conceptualizes angry
driving as being separate from risk taking. In other words, individuals who score
high on venturesomeness or risk taking might be more likely to practice at-risk
driving, but will not necessarily be angry drivers and react aggressively toward
other drivers. Venturesomeness was measured using nine items from the Eysenck,
Pearson, Easting, and Allsop's (1985) L7 scale, which has alpha levels in excess
of .80 (Clift et al., 1993).

6.4.2. Impulsivity
Impulsivity has also been investigated as a predictor of risk-taking behavior.
This characteristic is attributed to people who ``act on the spur of the moment
without being aware of any risk involved'' (Clift et al., 1993, p. 404). Similar to
venturesomeness, impulsive drivers might be more likely to take a risk in order to
get to a destination more quickly, but should not necessarily be more prone to
react emotionally and aggressively to other motorists' discourteous behaviors.
Nine items from the Eysenck et al.'s (1985) L7 scale were used to assess
impulsivity. This shortened scale has been shown to have acceptable reliability
estimates of a=.77 (Clift et al., 1993).

6.5. Measures of criterion validity

The PADS was constructed to assess an individual's propensity to become

angry with other drivers. Therefore, the PADS score should predict the occur-
rence of angry or hostile behaviors performed while driving. In this regard, the
8 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and alpha levels for individual difference measures
Variable Mean S.D. Alpha
Anger 3.7 1.1 .81
Hostility 4.5 1.2 .72
Impulsiveness 4.0 1.1 .82
Venturesomeness 4.1 2.0 .85
Obscene gestures 2.2 1.5 ±
Verbal confrontations 0.8 1.1 ±
PADS 50.0 13.2 .89

survey battery included two items concerning past confrontations with other
drivers: (a) How many times have you had verbal confrontations with another
driver because of your displeasure with their driving behavior? (b) How many
times have you used obscene physical gestures to indicate displeasure with
another driver's behavior? Responses were scored from 0 to 5 (0 = never, 1 = only
one time, 2 = no more than 5 times, 3 = no more than 10 times, 4 = no more than
20 times, 5 = greater than 20 times). We expected the PADS to predict both self-
reported verbal confrontations and obscene gestures directed at other drivers.

6.6. Results

Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations, and observed alpha coef-
ficients for each individual difference measure and Table 3 reports the zero-
order correlations among these measures. The correlations in Table 3 indicate
significant correlations between the PADS and gender (r =.30), anger (r =.40),
hostility (r =.40), impulsivity (r =.28), obscene gestures (r =.60), and verbal
confrontations (r =.52).
Separate regression analyses were performed to determine if the PADS could
predict the frequency of verbal confrontations and obscene gestures, above and
beyond the variance accounted for by anger and hostility. In both regression

Table 3
Zero-order correlations among individual difference measures
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Gender ±
2. Age .11 ±
3. Anger .10 .17 ±
4. Hostility .37 ** .10 .42 ** ±
5. Impulsiveness .03 .30 ** .39 ** .15 ±
6. Venturesomeness .33 ** .27 * .02 .02 .12 ±
7. Obscene gestures .30 ** .18 .27 .20 .11 .20 ±
8. Verbal confrontations .22 .04 .27 * .37 ** .05 .29 ** .34 ** ±
9. PADS .30 ** .18 .40 ** .40 ** .28 * .00 .60 ** .52 **
* P < .05.
** P < .01.
 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16 9

Table 4
Prediction of verbal confrontations and obscene gestures using the PADS
Variable Beta Total R2 DR2 t value
Dependent variable: verbal confrontations
Anger .01 .07 ± 0.05
Hostility .19 .16 .09 1.70
PADS .43 .30 .14 3.90 *

Dependent variable: obscene gestures

Anger .04 .07 ± 0.41
Hostility .07 .08 .01 0.65
PADS .60 .36 .28 5.60 *
* P < .05.

equations, anger was entered first, followed by hostility, and finally the PADS
score. Results of the two regression analyses are reported in Table 4. Results
indicated that the PADS significantly predicted both verbal confrontations and
obscene gesture after controlling for anger and hostility. For verbal confronta-
tions, the R2 increased from .16 to .30 using the PADS, and for obscene gestures,
the R2 increased from .08 to .36 using the PADS.

7. Discussion

In recent years the topics of road rage and angry drivers have received much
attention. To date, however, there has been little investigation of individual
differences related to these phenomena except that males may be more prone than
females to anger motivated behavior (Deffenbacher et al., 1994). The five phases
of this research project developed and evaluated a survey instrument to identify
angry drivers. Our findings appear quite promising. Specifically, results reported
in Phases 2 and 3 indicate the PADS is a reliable, unidimensional scale with
exceptional test ±retest reliability. The final phase found expected relationships
between scores on the PADS and other scales. As hypothesized, the strongest
relationships occurred between the PADS and measures of hostility and trait
anger (rs =.40).
There was no correlation between scores on the PADS and a measure of
venturesomeness (r =.00). Thus, the PADS did not identify thrill-seeking indi-
viduals taking calculated risks, at least not as measured by the venturesomeness
scale used in the current study. This suggests it would be a mistake to identify all
drivers who run red lights, weave in and out of traffic, or engage in other illegal
driving behaviors as necessarily angry or prone to road rage. Some of these
drivers may simply be sensation-seeking individuals. The PADS represents one
potential method for discriminating between these two populations.
The correlation between the PADS and impulsivity was significant (r =.28).
Although the correlation between the PADS and impulsivity was not as large as
the correlations observed between the PADS and hostility (.40), or the PADS and
10 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16

anger (.40), the difference between these correlations was not significant.
However, the relationship between the road-rage construct measured by the
PADS and impulsivity is not entirely surprising given the nature of the constructs.
Specifically, a more detailed examination of the correlation matrix shows a
relatively strong correlation between anger and impulsivity (r =.39). In other
words, while impulsivity alone may not be sufficient for producing hostile
responses to aversive driving events, an impulsive person who also scores high
on hostility or anger might be a special cause for concern.
Not only did the PADS demonstrate some convergent and discriminant
validity, it also predicted the frequency of a driver's self-reported confrontations
with other drivers, including obscene gestures and verbal confrontations. The
PADS predicted these criteria even after controlling for anger and hostility,
indicating the advantage of using a measure specifically designed to identify the
situation targeted for prediction or intervention.
These results suggest a variety of directions for follow-up research. For
example, it seems useful for both theoretical and practical reasons to continue
investigating the validity of the PADS. Future research could investigate the
relationship between an individual's score on the PADS and subsequent physical
confrontations with other drivers, or compare the PADS scores of individuals
who have actually been involved in road-rage incidences with those who have not
had such experiences. It would also be useful to study relationships between the
PADS and other personality constructs (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy, personal
control, optimism) and demographics (e.g., age, education, family size, geo-
graphic location of residence). This could help pinpoint subpopulations in need of
special intervention to prevent road rage.
Follow-up research might also investigate whether individuals who score high
on the PADS are more likely to violate traffic laws, or be at fault for a vehicle
crash. It might also be worthwhile to study relationships between angry drivers
and road courtesy. For example, are individuals prone to angry driving less likely
to engage in courteous road behaviors (such as yielding their right-of-way) or is
driving courtesy an independent construct? In other words, do personality
constructs that predict one's propensity to perform courteous driving practices
correlate negatively with the PADS? Finally, future research could investigate
whether individuals who score high on the PADS are more likely to exhibit angry
and hostile reactions in other situations that elicit frustration. Does the PADS
measure a generalized predisposition or only a state relevant to driving?
The PADS is an instrument that can be used to identify the characteristics of
individuals most likely to experience anger and retaliate against others while
driving. Such information could help prevention specialists design more effective
intervention strategies for reducing driver anger. Also, given the ability to identify
anger prone drivers, research can begin addressing the underlying emotional
mechanisms or thought processes that trigger angry and hostile reactions while
driving. In conclusion, given the win/lose hostile climate present on our high-
ways, the PADS is a timely instrument that could be used to identify, study, and
intervene on angry drivers prone to experience road rage.
 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16 11

Although promising, further PADS research is warranted. For example,

the current investigation neglected to include any mechanisms to determine if
the PADS is susceptible to socially desirable response biases. In other words,
as indicated by one of the reviewers, individuals with the greatest propensity
to become angry may be the least likely to respond with what they perceive
as the most highly loaded responses. Further, the PADS would benefit from
administration to populations of individuals known to have driven angrily.
Specifically, it would be worthwhile to examine responses of individuals
who have been arrested as a result of their behavior during a driving
incident, or perhaps individuals currently receiving professional help for a
driving anger problem.

References

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (1997, November ). Aggressive driving: three studies.
Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Berardelli, P. (1998, February). Driving out your alter ego. In-Sync Magazine, 4 ± 9.
Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of
Abnormal Social Psychology, 52, 84 ± 86.
Cascio, W. F. (1991). Applied psychology in personnel management (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Clift, S. M., Wilkins, J. C., & Davidson, E. A. F. (1993). Impulsiveness, venturesomeness and sexual
risk-taking among heterosexual gum clinic attenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 15
(4), 403 ± 410.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale.
Psychological Reports, 74, 83 ± 91.
Eysenck, S. B. J., Pearson, P. R., Easting, G., & Allsopp, J. F. (1985). Age norms for impulsiveness,
venturesomeness and empathy in adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 613 ± 619.
Fumento, M. (1998). Road rage is merely media mayhem. Available at: http://junkscience.com/sep98/
roadrage.html.
Geller, E. S. (1989). Applied behavior analysis and social marketing: an integration for environmental
preservation. Journal of Social Issues, 45 (1), 17 ± 36.
Geller, E. S. (1996). The psychology of safety: how to change behaviors and attitudes. Radnor, PA:
Chilton Book.
Geller, E. S. (1998). Beyond safety accountability: how to increase personal responsibility. Neenah,
WI: J.J. Keller and Associates.
James, L., & Nahl, D. (1998). Road rage: emotional intelligence for drivers. Available at: http://
www.aloha.net/-dyc/rr.html.
Koch, K. (1998). Experts say ignorance contributes to road rage. CNN Online Interactive. Available
at: http://www.cnn.com/US/9708126/road.ignorance/index.html.
Pepper, M. (1997). What about road rage. US News and World Report, (April). Available at: http://
www.drivers.com/issues/roadrage/pepper.html.
Schmid, R. E. (1997). Road rage blamed for increase in fatalities. Detroit News. Available at: http://
www.detroitnews.com/1997/nation9707/18/07180104.htm.
Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: the State ±
Trait Anger Scale. In: J. N. Butcher, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assess-
ment, (2, pp. 161 ± 189). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vest, J., Cohen, W., & Tharp, M. (1997). Road rage. US News Online, (June). Available at: http://
www.drivers.com/issues/roadrage/2driv.htm.
12 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16

Appendix A. The Propensity for Angry Driving Scale

The following survey contains 19 different scenarios one might encounter

while driving. Please read each of the scenarios carefully and then decide
which of the potential responses most closely match how you would respond in
that situation.

What is your age: What is your gender:

1. You are driving your car down a two-lane road. Without warning, another
car pulls out in front of you from a parking lot. You had to brake suddenly
to avoid hitting it. How do you respond?
(a) Let out a sigh of relief and drive on.
(b) Lean out your window and yell at the other driver.
(c) Honk your horn to let the other driver know they almost caused
an accident.
(d) Follow the other car to its destination so you can give him a piece of
your mind.
2. You are driving your car down the interstate in the passing lane. You come
up to a car driving much slower than you are in the passing lane. Even
though you flash your high beams as a signal for the other car to move
over, it does not. How do you respond?
(a) Make an obscene gesture at the driver as you pass on the right.
(b) Shrug your shoulders and continue to wait for the other car to move to
the side.
(c) Start driving right on the rear bumper of the other car and lay on
your horn.
(d) Continue flashing your high beams at the car hoping the behavior will
cause them to move to the side.
3. You are driving on a single lane road. For no apparent reason the car in
front of you is constantly braking and accelerating causing you to drive in
the same manner. How do you respond?
(a) Honk your horn and loudly curse at the driver.
(b) Honk your horn and make a mean face at the driver causing
the disturbance.
(c) Slow down a little and keep a safe distance.
(d) Deliberately tailgate the car and occasionally lay on the horn.
4. You are in a full parking lot. You see a driver leaving and you put on your
blinker to indicate you intend to take the parking space. As the other driver
pulls out, a second driver cuts in front of you from the other side and takes
the parking space. How do you respond?
(a) Glare angrily at the other driver as you move on to find another
parking space.
(b) Shrug your shoulders and look for another space to park.
 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16 13

(c) Wait for the other driver to get out of the car and then scream out your
window at him/her for being an inconsiderate jerk.
(d) Stop your car, and approach the other car to express your anger to
the driver.
5. You are driving your vehicle in a traffic jam in the far right hand lane. Out
of nowhere, a car comes up from behind on the shoulder and attempts to
squeeze in front of you. How do you respond?
(a) Nothing, let the car squeeze in.
(b) Make obscene gestures, or yell ``jerk'' at the other driver as you close
ranks on the car in front of you to prevent the driver from cutting in
front of you.
(c) Let the car squeeze in but honk your horn to demonstrate your
disapproval to the other driver.
(d) Honk your horn and close ranks on the vehicle in front of you to prevent
the car from getting in front of you.
6. You are sitting in your car at a light controlled intersection. A car pulls up
next to you with its windows rolled down and the stereo playing music way
too loud. How do you respond?
(a) Yell out your car at the other vehicle occupants asking them to turn the
music down.
(b) Ignore it, the light will change shortly.
(c) Honk your the horn to get the other driver's attention and then angrily
yell at the driver for disturbing the peace.
(d) Turn your own music up loud so you do not have to listen to the music
from the other vehicle.
7. You are driving in the passing lane at 75 mph. The speed limit is 55 mph. A
car comes up behind you very quickly. Soon the other vehicle is right on
your bumper and the driver flashes his/her headlights and honks the horn.
How do you respond?
(a) Stay in the passing lane at your current speed intentionally preventing
the other car from passing.
(b) Give the other driver the finger and purposely slow down to aggravate
the driver behind you.
(c) As soon as possible change lanes and let the other car pass.
(d) Give the other driver the finger and stay in the passing lane at your
current speed.
8. You are driving on the interstate when another vehicle pulls up alongside
your car. You look over and see a total stranger making obscene gestures at
you. How do you respond?
(a) Ignore the other driver by looking straight ahead and minding your
own business.
(b) Look at the other driver and shake your head in disbelief, then slow
down and wait for the other car to drive on.
(c) Glare back at the driver with a menacing face.
(d) Make obscene gestures back to the driver in the other vehicle.
14 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16

9. You have been sitting in your car in a traffic jam for over 20
minutes. Suddenly, a car lightly bumps you from behind. How do
you respond?
(a) Step out of your car and yell at the other driver for being a
horrible driver and not paying attention.
(b) Ignore it, the bump was not hard enough to cause any damage.
(c) Yell out your window at the other driver to pay more attention.
(d) Yell out loud in your vehicle, but not to the other driver.
10. You are driving on the interstate. One of the cars in front of you keeps
switching lanes preventing other cars from passing efficiently. Thus traffic
is being slowed. How do you respond?
(a) Yell obscenities in your car and honk your horn numerous times to
show your displeasure.
(b) Pull up next to the other car so that you can honk your horn and scream
obscenities at the driver for blocking traffic.
(c) Let out a sigh and slow down with the rest of the traffic.
(d) Yell out obscenities in your car.
11. You are driving on a city street. Without warning, a pedestrian
suddenly runs in front of your car nearly causing you to hit him/her.
How do you respond?
(a) Do nothing except feel grateful no one was injured.
(b) Actually stop your car and get out to yell at the pedestrian for being
careless and stupid.
(c) Yell at the pedestrian out your window telling them to watch where
they are going.
(d) Curse loudly at the pedestrian out your window telling them next time
your not going to stop.
12. You are trying to exit off the highway. However, a car coming on to the
highway has failed to acknowledge a yield sign and their behavior has
caused you to miss the exit. How do you respond?
(a) Honk your horn at the other driver to demonstrate your displeasure.
(b) Throw your hands in the air in disbelief and drive to the next exit.
(c) Tailgate the car for a while then drive up next to the car, honk your
horn, and yell obscenities at the other driver.
(d) Drive up next to the car that cut you off, honk your horn, and give the
driver a mean look.
13. Your off ramp is quickly approaching. The driver next to you is driving in
a manner that is preventing you from changing lanes. You may miss your
exit. How do you respond?
(a) Honk your horn and yell out your window at the driver telling them to
get out of your way.
(b) Hit the gas to get in front of the other car, yell obscenities as you pass
the other car.
(c) Cursing under your breath, reduce your speed as necessary to make the
lane change.
 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16 15

(d) Follow the car to its destination so you can yell obscenities at the
other driver.
14. You are driving on the highway. The driver in the car in front of you
throws a cup of coffee out his/her car window. The cup hits your
windshield. How do you respond?
(a) Honk your horn and yell at the other driver from within your car.
(b) Speed up next to the car and make obscene gestures at the
other driver.
(c) Shake your head in disbelief and turn on your windshield wipers.
(d) Speed up so that you pass the car and then throw something out your
window to hit the other car.
15. While making a left-hand turn you accidentally cut off another car. In
response, the other driver follows you to the next intersection at which
point he/she pulls up to your car and proceeds to yell obscenities at you
until the light turns green. When the light turns green the other driver takes
off in a hurry. How do you respond?
(a) Follow the car to the next intersection so that you can yell
obscenities back.
(b) Sigh in relief that the whole ordeal is over.
(c) Get behind the car and tailgate it to the next intersection, then pull up
next to the car and yell obscenities back at the other driver.
(d) Yell back at the other driver telling him to relax because it was
an accident.
16. You have been stuck in a traffic jam for nearly 40 minutes. While not
paying attention you accidentally bump the car in front of you. The driver
in the car in front of you leans out the window and curses at you very
loudly. How do you respond?
(a) Shrug your shoulders to indicate it was not intentional.
(b) Intentionally ram the car again.
(c) Yell back at the other driver telling him to relax because it was
unintentional and there is no damage.
(d) Give the other driver the finger and yell back.
17. You are driving on the highway in the passing lane. You come up behind
another car in the passing lane. You flash your headlights as an indicator
for the other car to move over. Instead of moving over, you see the driver
in the other car give you the finger and remain in the passing lane. How do
you respond?
(a) Start flashing your lights with greater frequency hoping to influence the
driver to move over.
(b) Get right on the rear bumper of the car, flash your lights, and honk your
horn in order to intimidate the other driver into moving over.
(c) Roll your eyes in disbelief and wait for the car to move over or exit.
(d) Get right on the rear bumper of the other car and lay on your horn.
18. You are in the left-hand lane behind another vehicle. When the left turn
light is given, the vehicle does not move because the driver is not paying
16 J.P. DePasquale et al. / Journal of Safety Research 32 (2001) 1±16

attention. You tap on your horn to get her attention and she gives you the
middle finger in her rearview mirror. How do you respond?
(a) Tap on your horn again.
(b) Fume inside a bit, but do nothing.
(c) Lay on your horn.
(d) Lay on the horn and return the finger gesture.
19. You are traveling in a single-lane road late at night and the vehicle coming
at you in the other lane has on high beams. You flash your lights, but the
bright lights of the other vehicle do not change. How do you respond?
(a) Grit your teeth in frustration and wait for the car to pass so you can
see again.
(b) Put on your high beams and honk your horn.
(c) Put your high beams on in retaliation.
(d) Turn around and follow the other vehicle with your high beams on.

Jason P. DePasquale is an associate project director with the International Survey Research (ISR).
He received his PhD in Industrial Organizational Psychology from Virginia Tech in May of 2000.

E. Scott Geller is a professor of psychology and director of the Center for Applied Behavior
Systems at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, where he has been a faculty member
since 1969. He recently published his seventh book on managing behaviors and attitudes for
occupational health and safety.

Steve Clarke works in the office of the VP for Student Affairs at Virginia Tech. He is a special
assistant to the VP on matters concerning alcohol use and abuse. He is also responsible for developing
university-based interventions to curtail the alcohol abuse problem. Steve received his MS in I/O
Psychology from Virginia Tech and is currently working on his PhD.

Lawrence Littleton earned his BS in Psychology from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. During his time at VPI and SU, Larry worked for the Center for Applied Behavior Systems
and spent the majority of his time examining transportation-related issues. Larry is currently employed
by a large consulting firm in the Washington, DC area.