The effectiveness of a brief psychological intervention on court-referred and self-referred aggressive drivers

This study tested the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral psychological intervention (CBT) targeting aggressive driving behaviors within both a court-referred (N=20) and a self-referred community (N=8) sample as compared to a symptom monitoring (SM) only control condition. Treatment outcome was assessed through the use of daily driving diaries, standard psychological tests, and a global rating of change scale. The CBT treatment condition improved more than the SM condition as assessed through the daily driving diaries. Although the court-referred and self-referred samples showed equivalent improvement on the driving diaries, the self-referred group improved more on measures of general anger. Standardized measures of driving anger, state anxiety and measures of general anger indicated significant change in the expected direction. Aggressive drivers who met criteria for Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) showed a trend to improve less than non-IED aggressive drivers. Treatment gains were maintained at the 2-month follow-up point.     

Intermittent explosive disorder and other psychiatric comorbidity among court-referred and self-referred aggressive drivers

We assessed possible Axis I and Axis II disorders in two groups of aggressive drivers (n=20, court-referred; n=10, self-referred) and 30 non-aggressive driver controls, using the SCID and SCID-II. Aggressive drivers were more likely than controls to be positive for any Axis I and Axis II disorders. They were also more likely to meet the criteria for Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED), current or past alcohol or substance abuse or dependence and Antisocial PD and Borderline PD. The self-referred aggressive drivers were more likely than court-referred aggressive drivers to meet the criteria for a current or past Anxiety Disorder. Re-analysis of aggressive driver data on the basis of presence or absence of IED revealed differences only in Axis II disorders: those with IED were more likely to meet the criteria for any Axis II disorder and Antisocial PD.     

Who’s more angry? Comparing driver anger and aggression within work and personal driving contexts

Anger and driver aggression increase crash risk. However, how these manifest according to the purpose of the journey (work vs personal) and the unique relationships between sources of anger and aggressive expressions of that anger is under-researched. The current study examined the relationships between different types of anger and aggression, recent crashes and infringements between drivers who drive mainly for work with those who drive mainly for personal reasons.Participants (N = 630) completed an online questionnaire reporting their driving anger tendencies across situations of travel delays, danger and hostility from others, frequency of aggressive driving (using the vehicle, verbal or physical) and crash and infringements in the previous year. Drivers were classified as work or personal drivers based on the percentage of the time they drove for each reason. Relationships between anger sources and aggression types were examined using Structural Equation Modelling, comparing models between the two groups. The relationships between aggression and safety outcomes were explored using Mann-Whitney U tests.The relationships between anger and aggression were similar across work and personal drivers. However, some group differences in the situations that contributed to anger and aggression were identified. Aggression was more frequent for drivers who drove mainly for work and had received a traffic violation, compared to those who had not received a traffic violation.These findings can inform the development of targeted interventions to manage the triggers of anger and aggression. Interventions are likely to impact work and personal drivers; thus, could target employers and road transport authorities.     

Anger,aggression, risky behavior,and crash-related outcomes in three groups of drivers

High anger drivers who acknowledged problems with driving anger and were interested in treatment were compared to high and low anger drivers who did not acknowledge problems with driving anger or want treatment. Although high anger drivers who acknowledged problems reported greater anger on two measures than high anger drivers who did not acknowledge problems, both high anger groups tended not to differ from one another and were more frequently and intensely angered when driving, reported more aggressive and less adaptive/constructive forms of expressing anger while driving, engaged in more aggressive and risky behavior on the road, and experienced more of some accident-related outcomes than low anger drivers. High anger groups did not differ from each other, but reported more trait anxiety and anger and more outward negative and less controlled general anger expression than the low anger group. The two groups of high anger drivers, however, require different types of interventions given their state of readiness for driving anger reduction. Results were also interpreted as supportive of the state-trait model of anger and construct validity of the Driving Anger Scale.     

Driving violations,aggression and perceived consensus

A questionnaire survey of 171 English drivers investigated the relationships between trait aggressiveness, self-reported driving violations, and perceptions of the commission of driving violations by others, using the extended violation scale of the Manchester Driver behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ). Drivers who were relatively high on trait aggressiveness reported committing more traffic violations than those who had lower scores. Both aggressive and non aggressive drivers believed that others committed the driving offences more often than they did themselves, although those with a higher score for trait aggressiveness had a greater tendency to do so. The commission of both aggressive and Highway Code violations was predicted by trait anger. Those high on anger and hostility were also more likely to have been involved in a road traffic accident. The implications for road safety interventions are discussed.     

When Is Believing “Seeing”? Hostile Attribution Bias as a Function of Self‐Reported Aggression1

Repeated exposure to adverse advents (e.g., risky driving) was thought to increase expectations for the recurrence of the event. Community‐based drivers (130 men, 133 women) were given scenarios depicting everyday road events that could be construed as benign, ambiguous, or malign by the degree of perceived provocation. Differences between levels of gender, ethnicity, age, aggressiveness, and provocation were measured by attributions of intent, hostility, and anger. Results showed that, overall, drivers accurately perceived provocation conditions. Hostile attributional biases were not evident among the sample as a whole, but were dependent on level of aggressiveness and provocation. Analysis of self‐reported driving behavior showed that young, aggressive majority group drivers who experience greater aggression on the road also were more likely to take more risks while driving. Controlling for miles driven, gender differences were not found.     

Driving aggression in forensic and non‐forensic populations: Relationships to self‐reported levels of aggression,anger and impulsivity

A series of four questionnaires — the Buss‐Perry Aggression Questionnaire (AQ), the Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS‐11), the Driving Anger Scale (DAS) and a Driving Violence Inventory (DVI) — were administered to a sample of 473 British drivers consisting of undergraduates (N=185), members of the public (N=106) and offenders (N=182) serving sentences in closed prisons in England (violent=82, non‐violent=100). Offenders consistently rated acts of driving aggression as less severe compared with other drivers. Offender attributions of driving violence differed to other drivers in that they were equally likely to perceive obscene gesturing as high or low intensity responses; they also viewed assault as a high intensity response whereas members of the public rated it more severely. Trait levels of anger and aggression were the predictors of driving violence in all groups but previous aggressive behaviour was only a predictor for the offenders. Gender and age were found to be predictors of aggressive driving in non‐offenders. Even with the effects of age controlled, offenders (and violent offenders in particular) scored higher on measures of driving anger and aggression. These data suggest that offenders differ in their perceptions of aggressive behaviours experienced in everyday driving and as a consequence are more likely to commit acts that other drivers perceive as violent. As offenders are known to display similar perceptual biases in other domains, identified as precursors to their aggressive behaviour, it seems likely that experience effects (as reflected in the trait measures) underpin differences in driving aggression between offenders and non‐offenders.     

The relationship between impulsive verbal aggression and intermittent explosive disorder

Intermittent explosive disorder (IED) is the sole psychiatric diagnostic category for which aggression is a cardinal symptom. IED focuses on physical aggression, but researchers have argued for the inclusion of verbal aggression (VA) (e.g., arguing, threatening) as a part of the IED criteria set. The utility of VA in identifying clinically relevant aggression, however, is unknown. IED participants were compared to individuals without a marked history of physical aggression, but who report frequent (two or more times a week) VA, and non-aggressive personality-disorder individuals on behavioral and self-report measures of aggression, self-report measures of related constructs (e.g., anger, affective lability), and a clinician assessment of psychosocial impairment. Both the IED and VA groups were more aggressive, angry, and clinically impaired than personality-disorder individuals, while the IED and VA groups did not differ from each other on these measures. These results support the clinical importance of frequent VA for future iterations of the IED criteria set.     

A matter of style? Driver attributional ‘style’ in accounting for the driving of others as protective or as predisposing drivers towards retaliatory aggressive driving

Driver cognitions about aggressive driving of others are potentially important to the development of evidence-based interventions. Previous research has suggested that perceptions that other drivers are intentionally aggressive may influence recipient driver anger and subsequent aggressive responses. Accordingly, recent research on aggressive driving has attempted to distinguish between intentional and unintentional motives in relation to problem driving behaviours. This study assessed driver cognitive responses to common potentially provocative hypothetical driving scenarios to explore the role of attributions in driver aggression. A convenience sample of 315 general drivers 16–64 yrs (M = 34) completed a survey measuring trait aggression (Aggression Questionnaire AQ), driving anger (Driving Anger Scale, DAS), and a proxy measure of aggressive driving behaviour (Australian Propensity for Angry Driving AusPADS). Purpose designed items asked for drivers’ ‘most likely’ thought in response to AusPADS scenarios. Response options were equivalent to causal attributions about the other driver. Patterns in endorsements of attribution responses to the scenarios suggested that drivers tended to adopt a particular perception of the driving of others regardless of the depicted circumstances: a driving attributional style. No gender or age differences were found for attributional style. Significant differences were detected between attributional styles for driving anger and endorsement of aggressive responses to driving situations. Drivers who attributed the on-road event to the other being an incompetent or dangerous driver had significantly higher driving anger scores and endorsed significantly more aggressive driving responses than those drivers who attributed other driver’s behaviour to mistakes. In contrast, drivers who gave others the ‘benefit of the doubt’ endorsed significantly less aggressive driving responses than either of these other two groups, suggesting that this style is protective.     

Predicting aggressive driving behavior from anger and negative cognitions

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the anger experience and expression, as well as cognitive distortions, of individuals who self-report higher and lower levels of driver aggression. Fifty-seven higher driver aggression participants and 73 lower driver aggression participants completed measures of trait anger, driving anger, anger expression, angry thoughts while driving, hostile thoughts, and dysfunctional attitudes. The present study results suggest that higher aggression drivers demonstrate a different pattern of affective experience, problematic cognitive tendencies, and subsequent negative outcomes in comparison to those reporting lower levels of aggression. Future research should continue to investigate patterns of negative cognitions for aggressive drivers, in order to inform treatment and prevention strategies for this societal concern.     

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

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.     

Psychometric adaptation of the driving anger expression inventory in a Chinese sample

The purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties and the factorial structure of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX) in a Chinese sample. We also explored the relationships among driving anger expression, general anger expression, and driving outcomes. Three hundred and fifty-eight drivers completed the Chinese version of the DAX, the Anger Expression Scale (AX), the Dula Dangerous Driving Index (DDDI) and a questionnaire about several types of traffic violations. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Chinese DAX yielded a four-factor solution with 20 items. This solution showed the best goodness of fit of the data and acceptable reliability. The validity of the revised DAX was also verified. The aggressive expression forms were positively correlated with dangerous driving behaviors. Using the vehicle to express anger was associated with fines. The aggressive forms were also positively correlated with general anger expression-out and negatively correlated with general anger control. The adaptive expression of anger was positively correlated with anger control but negatively correlated with dangerous driving behaviors, penalty points and fines. Furthermore, young drivers (<30 years old) reported more personal and physical aggressive expressions of anger than other drivers. Gender differences were only found in some age groups. Thus, the revised DAX was confirmed to be a reliable and valuable instrument to measure forms of driving anger expression in traffic environments in China.     

Getting mad may not mean getting even: The influence of drivers’ ethical ideologies on driving anger and related behaviour

The current study explored the influence of moral values (measured by ethical ideology) on self-reported driving anger and aggressive driving responses. A convenience sample of drivers aged 17–73 years (n = 280) in Queensland, Australia, completed a self-report survey. Measures included sensation seeking, trait aggression, driving anger, endorsement of aggressive driving responses and ethical ideology (Ethical Position Questionnaire, EPQ). Scores on the two underlying dimensions of the EPQ idealism (highI/lowI) and relativism (highR/lowR) were used to categorise drivers into four ideological groups: Situationists (highI/highR); Absolutists (highI/lowR); Subjectivists (lowI/highR); and Exceptionists (lowI/lowR). Mean aggressive driving scores suggested that exceptionists were significantly more likely to endorse aggressive responses. After accounting for demographic variables, sensation seeking and driving anger, ethical ideological category added significantly, though modestly to the prediction of aggressive driving responses. Patterns in results suggest that those drivers in ideological groups characterised by greater concern to avoid affecting others negatively (i.e. highI, Situationists, Absolutists) may be less likely to endorse aggressive driving responses, even when angry. In contrast, Subjectivists (lowI, HighR), reported the lowest levels of driving anger yet were significantly more likely to endorse aggressive responses. This provides further insight into why high levels of driving anger may not always translate into more aggressive driving.     

Driving anger and other driving-related behaviors in high and low ADHD symptom college students

This study examined differences between college students with high and low symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Fifty-nine introductory psychology students completed ADHD diagnostic measures and were compared on measures of driving anger and driving anger expression; accident-related, aggressive, and risky driving behaviors; general anger; and general anger expression. Results indicated high ADHD symptom college students experience more driving anger, display such anger in more hostile/aggressive ways, are more aggressive and risky on the road, experience more crash-related outcomes, are more generally angry, and tend to display anger in socially unacceptable ways. Results are discussed in regard to the understanding and treatment of ADHD.     

Effects of driving anger on driver behavior – Results from naturalistic driving data

There is a positive relationship between driving anger and near-crash or crash risk. However, it remains unclear if anger in fact contributes to traffic accidents and whether this happens due to cognitive overload or aggressive driving behaviors. This study investigated how anger affects driving behavior based on naturalistic driving data from the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2). Ten-minute trip segments were analyzed in which drivers exhibited anger with regard to driving errors, violations, and aggressive expressions. This data was compared to a matched baseline consisting of the same drivers not exhibiting anger. Results showed that anger resulted in more frequent aggressive driving behaviors but did not increase driving error frequency. Anger consequently creates danger due to deliberate behaviors rather than because of cognitive overload. In congruence with this finding, only anger triggered by threats, provocations, and frustrations increased the frequency of deliberate infringements. In contrast, anger due to having conflicts with someone on the phone or with a passenger was not linked to any type of aberrant driving behavior. Finally, severe displays of anger were accompanied by more violations as compared to slight or marked anger.     

Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors?

Aggressive driving behaviors are extremely problematic in America, as well as in many other countries. This exploratory research study was designed to investigate whether researchers could identity personality characteristics as well as attitudes and beliefs of people who drive aggressively. Survey responses from a “known group” of drivers with multiple traffic citations were compared to a student sample. Underlying differences in driving behaviors, type-A behavior pattern, and attitudes and beliefs were supported in a series of t-test analyses. There were no significant differences regarding agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Areas of future research including investigations of trait anger, driving anger, and gender differences are suggested. We also argue that there may be a key distinction between aggressive driving and road rage, paralleling the distinction between instrumental and direct/hostile aggression.     

Anger,aggression, and risky behavior: a comparison of high and low anger drivers

This research tested hypotheses from state-trait anger theory applied to anger while driving. High and low anger drivers drove equally often and as many miles, but high anger drivers reported more frequent and intense anger and more aggression and risky behavior in daily driving, greater anger in frequently occurring situations, more frequent close calls and moving violations, and greater use of hostile/aggressive and less adaptive/constructive ways of expressing anger. In low impedance simulations, groups did not differ on state anger or aggression; however, high anger drivers reported greater state anger and verbal and physical aggression in high impedance simulations. High anger drivers drove at higher speeds in low impedance simulations and had shorter times and distances to collision and were twice as likely to crash in high impedance simulations. Additionally, high anger drivers were more generally angry. Hypotheses were generally supported, and few gender differences were noted for anger and aggression.     

Cognitive-Behavioral Versus Supportive Psychotherapy for Intermittent Explosive Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Few clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of psychotherapy for Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED). The present study tested the efficacy of a cognitive behavioral intervention (versus supportive psychotherapy) among adults with IED. In this randomized clinical trial, 44 participants with IED (22 men and 22 women) aged 20–55 years completed twelve 50-minute individual sessions of either a multi-component cognitive behavioral intervention for IED (n = 19) or a time equated supportive psychotherapy (n = 25). At baseline, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up, all participants received the Overt Aggression Scale–Modified, which was conducted by an interviewer who was blind to the participant’s study condition. During these visits, participants also completed self-report measures of relational aggression (Self-Report of Relational Aggression and Social Behavior), anger (State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2), cognitive biases (e.g., Social Information Processing Questionnaire Attribution and Emotional Response Questionnaire), and associated symptoms (e.g., Beck Depression Inventory). Primary study outcomes were aggressive behavior and anger. Though participants in both treatments tended to improve over time, the cognitive behavioral intervention was superior to supportive psychotherapy in decreasing aggressive behavior and relational aggression. These findings support the efficacy of a multicomponent cognitive behavioral intervention in treating aggression in IED.     

Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers

Despite the large body of studies, the role of personality in risk research still remains debatable and unclear. The objective of this study was to identify determinants of road user behaviour and accident involvement with the aim of developing effective accident countermeasures. Examining relationships between personality, risky driving and involvement in accidents can open up the possibility of early identification of those more likely to be involved in accidents. The aim is not to influence personality as such, but to develop measures constructed for specific groups. The results are based on a self-completion questionnaire survey carried out among a sample of Norwegian drivers in year 2000 and 2001 (n=2605). The Norwegian Directorate of Public Roads financed the study. The questionnaire included measures of risky driving, accident involvement, normlessness, sensation-seeking, locus of control and driver anger. Results showed that those who scored high on sensation seeking, normlessness and driver anger reported more frequent risky driving compared to those who scored low on these variables. They were more often involved in both speeding and ignorance of traffic rules. Respondents involved in risk taking-behaviour experienced near-accidents and crashes leading to both injuries and material damage more often than other drivers.     

Psychiatric and behavioral problems in aggressive drivers

Motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) are a leading cause of accidental death and injury, and aggressive driving has been identified as a risk factor for MVAs. Assessing psychiatric and behavioral disturbances in aggressive drivers is germane to the development of prevention and intervention programs for this population. The present study compared the prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses and behavioral problems in young adult drivers with self-reported high driving aggression to that of drivers with low driving aggression. Aggressive drivers evidenced a significantly higher current and lifetime prevalence of Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders, and Cluster B Personality Disorders, and a significantly greater lifetime prevalence of Conduct Disorder, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and Intermittent Explosive Disorder. Aggressive drivers also had a significantly greater prevalence of self-reported problems with anger, as well as a greater family history of anger problems and conflict. The findings suggest that prevention and intervention programs designed to reduce aggressive driving may need to address the presence of psychiatric and behavioral problems that could potentially complicate treatment or impede responses to treatment.