Dimensions of driver anger, aggressive and highway code violations and their mediation by safety orientation in UK drivers

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(98)00009-6Get rights and content

Abstract

Aggressive behaviour on the roads is reported to be on the increase. This study administered Driving Anger Scale (Deffenbacher et al. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological Reports, 74, 83–91.), the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire, and the Driving Skill Inventory to a sample of 270 British drivers. Factor analysis of the Driving Anger Scale items yielded three factors measuring anger generated by the reckless driving, direct hostility and impeded progress by others—contrary to the six subscales found with the original US sample. Younger drivers and low mileage drivers were more likely to exhibit all three types of driving anger, but no differences between male and female drivers were found. In addition, a driver’s safety orientation predicted (negatively) anger evoked by impeded progress and direct hostility whereas self-assessed perceptual-motor skills were positively related to anger generated by impeded progress. Both Highway Code and aggressive violations were significantly related to the anger factors, and, using the procedure by Baron and Kenny (Baron & Kenny (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.), the prediction of violating behaviour (Driver Behaviour Questionnaire) by reported anger was shown to be mediated by the self-assessed safety skill scale but not the perceptual-motor skill scale (Driver Skill Inventory), and moderated by neither. Implications for driver education countermeasures are noted.

Introduction

Recent reports from Western Europe and the USA have suggested that anger, aggression and violent behaviours on the road are increasing (Johnson, 1997; Willis, 1998). In the UK a survey of lifetime prevalence reported that 49% of car drivers had been “bullied” while driving, 40% verbally abused, and 2% physically assaulted (Sample Surveys Ltd. (1996)), while another survey noted that 44% of drivers had experienced gestural or verbal abuse “in the preceding 12 months” (Lex Report on Motoring, 1996). In a study of 526 members of the UK Automobile Association, Joint (1995)found the most common driving manoeuvres interpreted as aggressive to be close following/tailgating (reported by 62% as experienced in the previous 12 months), headlight flashing (59%) and “obscene gestures” (48%), while 1% of drivers claimed to have been physically assaulted. Moreover, 60% of the drivers questioned admitted “losing their temper” while driving. Despite the cumulating evidence of aggressive behaviour on the roads, there is very little empirical knowledge of the factors that cause it. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the driver’s view of him/herself as a driver and irritability behind the wheel to aggressive driving behaviour.

Aggression can be defined as “any form of behaviour that is intended to injure someone physically or psychologically” (Baron & Richardson, 1994, p.7; Berkowitz, 1993, p. 3). Similarly, driver aggression can be conceptualised as any form of driving behaviour that is intended to injure or harm other road users physically or psychologically. Thus, driver aggression is intentional behaviour by a car driver and its target is another road user. By this definition, the intention behind the driving behaviour defines whether that behaviour is aggressive or just reckless driving without any intention to harm other road users. For example, a driver may drive very close to the car in front in order to overtake soon, or to show his/her annoyance with the other driver. In the former case tailgating cannot be defined as aggressive behaviour (although it is hazardous and may be interpreted as aggressive by the driver being followed) whereas in the latter case it is clearly aggressive behaviour. In the same way, many other forms of driving behaviour like speeding, flashing headlights, or risky overtaking can be either aggressive or just reckless driving, depending on the intention.

Aggression can be dichotomised along several different dimensions, e.g., physical vs verbal, active vs passive, direct vs indirect, consciously controlled vs impulsive, or instrumental vs emotional (or affective or hostile) aggression (for reviews see Baron & Richardson, 1994; Berkowitz, 1993). The latter distinction seems particularly relevant to the undertaking—and interpretation of—manoeuvres in traffic. Instrumental aggression refers to instances in which the aggressor uses aggressive behaviour as a means of achieving non-injurious goals, rather than out of a desire to harm other people (Baron & Richardson, 1994, p. 12; Berkowitz, pp. 11, 25–29). The goals of instrumental aggression may be psychological (e.g., preserving or enhancing one’s self-identity or sense of dominance) as well as material rewards. For instance, rapid, repeated lane changing in busy traffic may have the primary aim of gaining advantage or maintaining progress and, thus, serve instrumental ends. However, such behaviour may force other road users to change their planned behaviours and vary their trajectories and thereby violate their expectations and road space.

In cases of emotional aggression, the primary aim of the aggressor is typically to cause suffering and harm to the victim (Baron & Richardson, 1994, p. 12; Berkowitz, 1993, p. 11). For instance, giving chase to another motorist whose behaviour has annoyed you would be a clear example of such hostile aggression. However, extensive tailgating, which may have begun as an instrumental attempt to maintain progress driven by perceived time pressure, may develop into aggressive retaliation and be interpreted by the recipient as intended to cause psychological injury, especially if accompanied by sounding the horn and making rude gestures at a driver who fails to give way. Here the primary aim has shifted from bringing about a change in conditions which will facilitate the achievement of an instrumental goal (uninterrupted progress to one’s destination) to giving vent to feelings of frustration and anger.

Research into aberrant behaviours on the road has distinguished violations from errors and lapses, defining road traffic violations as deliberate deviations from safe driving practices (Reasonet al., 1990) and demonstrating in a number of studies that violations, not errors or lapses, are statistically associated with enhanced crash-involvement (Åberg & Rimmö, 1998; Blockley & Hartley, 1995; Meadows, 1994; Parker, Reason, Manstead, & Stradling, 1995; Parker, West, Stradling, & Manstead, 1995; Reason et al., 1990; Rolls, Hall, Ingham, & McDonald, 1991). Lawton et al. (1997), (Study 1), used an extended version of the Violations scale of the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) and distinguished two classes of violations—Highway Code violations such as speeding and running red lights, and interpersonally aggressive violations such as sounding one’s horn or giving chase to another driver when angered. A follow-up study (Lawton et al. (1997), (Study 2) confirmed the distinction between Highway Code and interpersonally hostile violations, and further differentiated the former into driving behaviours motivated by “gaining advantage” (e.g. speeding, overtaking, racing away from traffic lights) and those motivated by a need to “maintain progress” (e.g. running red lights, forcing one’s way out from a minor road). The first aim of the present study was to investigate further the correlates of Highway Code and interpersonally aggressive violations.

According to Baron & Richardson (1994)and Berkowitz (1993), frustration, defined as the interpersonal thwarting of ongoing, goal-directed behaviour, is assumed to increase the likelihood of aggression. Frustration, however, leads to aggressive behaviour only when it is unpleasant enough to produce negative affect. Negative affect caused by frustration leads to aggressive behaviour only if it is interpreted as anger, not when interpreted as fear (Berkowitz). Hence, both emotional intensity and attributions influence the behavioural outcome of frustration. According to Berkowitz, displeasure about not reaching one’s goals is heightened when the frustrator’s thwarting behaviour is interpreted as an controllable, socially improper attack on one’s person. In this way, feelings of frustration may embrace feelings of personal insult as well as disappointment at not reaching the desired goals.

In the case of aggressive driving behaviour, this suggests that frustration behind the wheel will lead to aggressive behaviour toward other road users only when it provokes intensive hostile emotions, i.e. anger. Deffenbacher et al. (1994)conceptualised driving anger as a personality trait related to trait anger but more context or situation bound (Deffenbacher et al.). Deffenbacher and colleagues developed a 33-item Driving Anger Scale (DAS: the items are given in Table 1) to measure the anger induced by a range of traffic situations, producing six subscales: hostile gestures, illegal driving, police presence, slow driving, discourtesy and traffic obstructions. The scale was developed on an extensive sample of American college students. The second aim of the present study was to investigate the factor structure of the DAS with a UK driver sample, with a view to identifying an appropriate set of items for use in a British version of the instrument.

Previous research shows that a driver’s view of him or herself as a driver in terms of skilfulness and safety influences his/her driving style (Lajunen & Summala, 1997). Drivers who overestimate their perceptual-motor skills have a more emotional attitude to driving than do drivers emphasising safety (Lajunen & Summala, 1995Lajunen & Summala, 1997). In two studies by Lajunen & Summala (1995)and Lajunen et al. (1998)driving aggression was negatively related to safety orientation on the roads. It can therefore be supposed that the driver’s view of his/her driving skills is related to both the intensity of the negative emotion evoked by frustration and attributions related to that. We may hypothesise that those drivers who emphasise safety and have a realistic view of their driving skills may not become so frustrated when traffic conditions do not allow the satisfaction of their expectations, and so drive less aggressively (moderation effect of safety-mindedness). Moderation implies that the causal relation between two variables changes as a function of the moderator variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). It is also possible that safety-mindedness may work as a mediator between anger and behaviour. A variable can be said to function as a mediator to the extent that it accounts for the relationship between the predictor and the criterion (Baron & Kenny). In a mediator model an independent variable is able to influence the dependent variable through a third variable, known as a mediator. Safety-oriented drivers may not let their felt anger influence their driving behaviour even if they get frustrated and angry. Moreover, drivers with an unrealistically positive view of their driving skills compared to other drivers may even think that they have right to express their anger and frustration with any means. A final aim of this study was thus to examine the mediating and moderating effects of skill and safety scores on the relations between dimensions of driving anger and scores on Highway Code and aggressive violations, using the procedures recommended by Baron and Kenny.

Section snippets

Participants

The data reported in this article were collected as a part of a large questionnaire survey of aggressive driving. The aim of the survey was to collect the experiences and opinions of the driving public concerning aggressive driving. In order to reach those drivers who had experiences of aggressive behaviour on the road, advertisements in local newspapers and radio were used to solicit drivers who would be interested in taking part in a survey. In these advertisements drivers were asked to let

Factor structure and reliability of the Driving Anger Scale for a UK sample: three dimensions

Deffenbacher et al. (1994)developed the Driving Anger Scale (DAS) by collecting data among university students at Colorado State University. In the present study, the respondents were drivers from Northern England. Table 2 lists the means for the original DAS subscales for the US (Deffenbacher et al.) and British subjects. Table 2 indicates that these British participants scored lower in all DAS scales.

The means and standard deviations of the 33 Driving Anger Scale items are presented in Table 1

Discussion

Recent survey studies and media accounts have suggested that aggressive behaviour on the roads is becoming more common. Despite this popular perception there are few published studies concerning anger at the wheel. The 33-item Driving Anger Scale (DAS) of Deffenbacher et al. (1994)was developed to measure driving anger, which they defined as a personal trait. It contained six subscales measuring the anger induced by different potential sources of frustration and anger on the roads: Discourtesy,

Acknowledgements

Some of this research was supported by the grants of the British Council in Finland, the European Commission (Marie Curie Fellowship contract no. ERBFMBICT972398), and the Finnish Department of Education (CIMO) to the first author.

References (26)

  • J.L Deffenbacher et al.

    Development of a driving anger scale

    Psychological Reports

    (1994)
  • Johnson, K. (1997). Frustration drives road rage. Traffic Safety, July/August,...
  • Joint, M. (1995). Road rage. London: Automobile...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text