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.     

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.     

Situational specificity of trait influences on drivers’ evaluations and driving behaviour

This study explored the influence of anger and anxiety traits on driver evaluations and behaviour during a simulated drive. Forty-eight licensed drivers completed identical simulated driving tasks during which they rated levels of current anger, calmness and frustration or levels of danger, calmness and difficulty. Anxiety-prone drivers made higher difficultly evaluations and generally drove more cautiously. Anger-prone drivers gave higher ratings of anger and frustration, but their evaluations and anger tendencies were unrelated to their general driving behaviours. When driving behaviours in high and low anger-provoking situations were contrasted, in low anger-provoking situations, drivers higher in trait anger reported more anger and frustration and also drove faster and with more sideward movement. When driving situations were considered separately, although not overall, behaviour and evaluations were related: when forced to move sideward, drivers reported more frustration; when forced to drive more slowly, they reported more anger, and subsequently increased acceleration, throttle pressure and steering wheel use. These relationships were not moderated by trait anger. Irrespective of trait anger, drivers become angry when impeded, or in other anger-provoking situations, only drivers with high trait anger become angry and behaved aggressively in circumstances most would not consider provocative.     

Anger-congruent behaviour transfers across driving situations

Anger and aggression on the road may sometimes appear unprovoked and unrelated to current driving circumstances. It is unclear whether such anger and aggression arises because of events prior to those circumstances in which anger is experienced and aggression is exhibited. In this study, time pressure and enforced following of a slowly moving vehicle were used to increase drivers’ anger in order to assess whether affect and behaviour during a subsequent, non-provocative, drive would change accordingly. Ninety-six drivers drove twice in a simulated urban environment. During the first drive, oncoming traffic and a slowly moving lead vehicle required that half of the drivers travelled far slower than they would choose. During the second drive, drivers again followed slower vehicles and were required to respond to traffic events not encountered in the manipulation drive. Mood (Profile of Mood States) was assessed before and after each drive, and anger evaluations, arousal (heart rate) and behaviour (speed, lane position and collisions) were measured during drives. Anger increased and both mood and driving behaviour deteriorated in drivers exposed to slower lead vehicles, compared with control group drivers. These behavioural differences of speed and lane positioning carried over into the subsequent drive even to driving situations unlike those where provocation had previously occurred. Drivers who had previously been impeded later approached hazards with less caution, and attempted more dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. It is concluded that sometimes dangerous driving may result from anger provoked by circumstances other than those in which the behaviour is exhibited.     

Metacognition,rumination and road rage: An examination of driver anger progression and expression in Australia

Road rage is a serious issue impacting road safety on Australian roads. This study investigated the psychological antecedents involved in aggressive driver behaviours. Specifically, the study investigated the relationships between metacognitive beliefs, anger rumination, trait driver anger, and driver aggression; and examined the extent of aggressive behaviours in a sample of Australian drivers (N = 246). An inspection of cross-tabulations indicated that nearly all drivers engaged in verbal driver aggression (94%), approximately half of the drivers engaged in vehicle aggression (53%), and approximately a quarter of the drivers engaged in physical aggression (27%). Driver aggression was more commonly reported from males, open licensed, and middle-aged drivers. Structural path analysis indicated that there was a hierarchical series of relationships present, in that metacognitive beliefs influenced cognitive constructs such as anger rumination and constructive expression. Additionally, such factors were shown to more prominently influence trait driver anger, and the degree to which it was expressed. Bivariate correlations also demonstrated that the relationships carried forward to more specific dimensions of anger rumination and driver aggression styles. The findings of this study may assist to identify the origins of psychological mechanisms involved with anger progression and expression and inform potential interventions for aggressive driving behaviours.     

The Effects of Trait Driving Anger, Anonymity, and Aggressive Stimuli on Aggressive Driving Behavior

We examined the effects of trait driving anger, aggressive stimuli, and anonymity on aggressive driving behavior in a driving simulation task. High and low driving anger participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (a) anonymous vs. identifiable driver; and (b) exposure to aggressive stimuli versus nonaggressive stimuli. Participants drove more aggressively when they were anonymous (d = .28) and exposed to aggressive stimuli (d = .05). Males drove more aggressively than did females (d = .06). No main or interaction effects were found for trait driving anger. Results suggest that situational factors affecting other forms of aggression are also important in aggressive driving.     

Driver anger in France: The relationships between sex,gender roles,trait and state driving anger and appraisals made while driving

This study aimed to further understand the relationships between sex, gender identity, trait and state driving anger and situational appraisals made while driving, and to validate the 33-item Driving Anger Scale (DAS) in a sample of drivers from France. In total, 378 drivers (males = 38%) aged from 18 to 79 years completed a survey containing the 33-item DAS, the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) and eight questions regarding self-reported state anger and appraisals in relation to a recalled recent anger provoking situation experienced while driving. Confirmatory Factor Analysis supported the original six-factor structure of the 33-item DAS. Moreover, Structural Equation Modelling of the factors associated with the recalled anger event showed that trait anger influenced state anger through negative appraisal tendencies, and this was influenced by both sex and gender roles. Females and those reporting more masculine traits tended to have higher levels of trait driving anger. Conversely, drivers with feminine traits had low state anger except if they negatively appraised the situation. This new model could be taken into consideration for developing interventions to reduce anger and “road rage” incidents.     

The influence of public self-consciousness and anger on aggressive driving

This study examined how anger interacted with public self-consciousness to influence aggressive driving. It was hypothesized that when people were angry, more aggressive driving behavior would occur when public self-consciousness was low than when public self-consciousness was high. To test this hypothesis the participants were required to complete measures of driving anger and public self-consciousness. Then participants gave a retrospective self-report of aggressive driving behavior. Further, participants were required to keep a log in which they recorded aggressive driving behavior. The results supported the prediction. Public self-consciousness interacted with anger to influence aggression while driving.     

Associations between self-reported mindfulness,driving anger and aggressive driving

Anger and aggression on the roads is associated with how drivers evaluate the driving situation and the behaviour of other drivers. Consequently, both can be exacerbated when these evaluations are made superficially and/or when drivers have pre-existing negative schemas regarding certain types of road situations or users. Mindfulness is likely to have negative associations with anger and aggression because it promotes opposing appraisals. That is, it encourages emotion-regulation and involves acceptance of, but not reaction to, the current situation. To examine these associations, a total of 309 drivers responded to an online questionnaire assessing mindfulness, driving anger and aggressive driving. The results showed that mindfulness shared negative relationships with driving anger and self-reported aggressive driving. However, when these relationships were examined simultaneously using Structural Equation Modelling, mindfulness was found to relate only to anger and this, in turn, predicted aggressive driving. Further analysis showed that driving anger mediates the relationship between mindfulness and aggressive driving. These results suggest that mindfulness training may provide a promising intervention for drivers prone to driving anger and subsequent aggression.     

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.     

Anger-congruent behaviour transfers across driving situations

Anger and aggression on the road may sometimes appear unprovoked and unrelated to current driving circumstances. It is unclear whether such anger and aggression arises because of events prior to those circumstances in which anger is experienced and aggression is exhibited. In this study, time pressure and enforced following of a slowly moving vehicle were used to increase drivers' anger in order to assess whether affect and behaviour during a subsequent, non-provocative, drive would change accordingly. Ninety-six drivers drove twice in a simulated urban environment. During the first drive, oncoming traffic and a slowly moving lead vehicle required that half of the drivers travelled far slower than they would choose. During the second drive, drivers again followed slower vehicles and were required to respond to traffic events not encountered in the manipulation drive. Mood (Profile of Mood States) was assessed before and after each drive, and anger evaluations, arousal (heart rate) and behaviour (speed, lane position and collisions) were measured during drives. Anger increased and both mood and driving behaviour deteriorated in drivers exposed to slower lead vehicles, compared with control group drivers. These behavioural differences of speed and lane positioning carried over into the subsequent drive even to driving situations unlike those where provocation had previously occurred. Drivers who had previously been impeded later approached hazards with less caution, and attempted more dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. It is concluded that sometimes dangerous driving may result from anger provoked by circumstances other than those in which the behaviour is exhibited.     

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 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.     

Roadway justice – Making angry drivers,happy drivers

The enforcement of traffic laws by police punishes law violators and reduces the likelihood that other drivers will violate laws via vicariously perceived punishment. The purpose of the current study was to determine the effect of punishment of violators on the feelings of anger and happiness in witnesses and victims. A sample of 279 individuals was exposed to four animated simulations of unjust driving behavior. Participants indicated how angry and happy the behaviors made them feel. Participants then indicated feelings of happiness and anger a second time, after being informed that the violator had been punished. While inconsistent, analyses generally indicated that perceived punishment reduced feelings of anger and increased feelings of happiness. In addition to increasing roadway safety, the current study shows the importance of active police enforcement, which could positively impact the emotional states of victims and witnesses of unjust driving behavior.     

Motorcycle riders’ self-reported aggression when riding compared with car driving

Aggressive driving has been shown to be related to increased crash risk for car driving. However, less is known about aggressive behaviour and motorcycle riding and whether there are differences in on-road aggression as a function of vehicle type. If such differences exist, these could relate to differences in perceptions of relative vulnerability associated with characteristics of the type of vehicle such as level of protection and performance. Specifically, the relative lack of protection offered by motorcycles may cause riders to feel more vulnerable and therefore to be less aggressive when they are riding compared to when they are driving. This study examined differences in self-reported aggression as a function of two vehicle types: passenger cars and motorcycles. Respondents (n = 247) were all motorcyclists who also drove a car. Results were that scores for the composite driving aggression scale were significantly higher than on the composite riding aggression scale. Regression analyses identified different patterns of predictors for driving aggression from those for riding aggression. Safety attitudes followed by thrill seeking tendencies were the strongest predictors for driving aggression, with more positive safety attitudes being protective whilst greater thrill seeking was associated with greater self-reported aggressive driving behaviour. For riding aggression, thrill seeking was the strongest predictor (positive relationship), followed by self-rated skill, such that higher self-rated skill was protective against riding aggression. Participants who scored at the 85th percentile or above for the aggressive driving and aggressive riding indices had significantly higher scores on thrill seeking, greater intentions to engage in future risk taking, and lower safety attitude scores than other participants. In addition participants with the highest aggressive driving scores also had higher levels of self-reported past traffic offences than other participants. Collectively, these findings suggest that people are less likely to act aggressively when riding a motorcycle than when driving a car, and that those who are the most aggressive drivers are different from those who are the most aggressive riders. However, aggressive riders and drivers appear to present a risk to themselves and others on road. Importantly, the underlying influences for aggressive riding or driving that were identified in this study may be amenable to education and training interventions.     

Situational (state) anger and driving

Aggression and anger have been related to crash involvement, but the direct causal relation between situational anger and driving choices and abilities has not been examined empirically. In this study, 15 licensed drivers drove twice in a driving simulator, each time following one of two emotion inductions based on event recall: angry and neutral. Following anger induction, the drivers crossed more yellow traffic lights (p < .01) and tended to drive faster (non-significant). However, performance on emergency manoeuvres were unaffected by anger. In conclusion, it appears that state anger affects driving behaviour by increasing risk taking, without necessarily compromising the skilled driving behaviour, at least as far as these behaviours were evaluated in emergency situations in simulated driving.     

The effect of the emotional state on driving performance in a simulated car-following task

Emotion is an important factor that influences driving behavior, but the mechanism is unclear. This research explored the effect of the emotional state on simulated driving behavior. Thirty-five licensed drivers participated in this study and completed a car-following task. The angry, happy and neutral states were manipulated during the task. The participants’ driving performance and risk perception were recorded under each emotional state. Trait anger and driving experience were also measured to explore the possible mediating effect. The results showed that the drivers in an angry or happy emotional state tended to maintain less time to collision and take a longer time to brake while following a lead vehicle than the drivers under the neutral condition, suggesting that drivers in emotional states are more dangerous those in neutral states. Moreover, the happy state rendered the drivers more dangerous, which manifested as a lower perceived accident risk than that among the drivers in the angry and neutral states. More specifically, experienced drivers in happy states performed worse with respect to vehicle lateral position control. Recommendations and implications for safety education and further research are discussed.     

Following slower drivers: Lead driver status moderates driver’s anger and behavioural responses and exonerates culpability

Two experiments investigated the effects of lead-driver status on the anger-experienced and aggression-expressed in traffic scenarios in which the lead drivers’ actions were determined by an event obviously beyond, or within, their control. Experiment I contrasted reactions to lead-cars bearing Learner driver markings (Low Status) or similar unmarked cars (Control), while Experiment II contrasted reactions to Ambulances (High Status) or otherwise identical generic work vans (Control). Reported anger, heart-rate and behaviour were measured while drivers drove. When the lead vehicle slowed or changed course because of the actions of another road user, drivers were reliably more angered when slowed by a learner driver than an unmarked sedan. Drivers reported less anger when slowed by an Ambulance, than by a work van, when there was no apparent cause for the lead-vehicle slowing. Driver behaviour also differed according to lead-vehicle status. Drivers allowed greater headway between themselves and a slower ambulance, but drove closer to the work-van, and followed Learner drivers at a dangerously close distance, leaving greater headway behind a similar, unmarked car. Reliable differences in subjective anger ratings and behaviour suggest that anger experienced and expressed depends not just on the actions of the perpetrator but on the perceived status of that perpetrator. Higher status vehicles appear to be forgiven their indiscretions more readily even when there are no extenuating circumstances, whilst lower status drivers are likely to be blamed more readily for circumstances beyond their control.     

Personality subtypes of young drivers. Relationship to risk-taking preferences, accident involvement, and response to a traffic safety campaign

The present study aimed at identifying subtypes of young drivers (N=2524) and evaluate how these responded to a traffic safety campaign. On basis of a cluster analysis of personality measures, six subtypes of young drivers were identified. The subtypes were found to differ on self-reported risky driving behaviour, attitudes towards traffic safety, risk perception, estimation of own driving skills, and accident involvement. Two of the subtypes were identified as high-risk groups in traffic. The first high-risk group consisted of mostly men, characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety, and high levels of sensation-seeking, irresponsibility, and driving related aggression. The second high-risk group reported high sensation seeking, aggression, anxiety, and driving anger. The subtypes were also found to differ on how they evaluated and responded to the traffic safety campaign. The results indicated that the campaign seemed to appeal most to the low-risk subtypes. Gender differences within each subtype were also found on the different traffic related measures, as well as on response to the campaign. It is concluded that young drivers should not be treated as a homogenous group pertaining to road safety. Practical suggestions on how to promote safe driving among these subtypes are also discussed.     

Anger and effortful control moderate aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations

The effects of anger and effortful control on aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations were investigated among a total of 311 Finnish fifth and sixth graders (mean age = 11.9 years). Self-reported aggressive cognitions (i.e., normative- and self-efficacy beliefs about aggression) were expected to be associated with higher peer-reported aggressive behaviour. Teacher reported anger and effortful control were hypothesised, and found, to moderate the effects of aggressive cognitions on aggression, such that the effects were strongest for children who were high in anger and low in effortful control, as compared to other conditions. Furthermore, under the conditions of high anger and high effortful control, self-efficacy was negatively related to aggression. Thus, aggression is a result of a complex, hierarchically organised motivational system, being jointly influenced by aggressive cognitions, anger and effortful control. The findings support the importance of examining cognitive and emotional structures jointly when predicting children’s aggressive behaviour.