Evaluation of Two New Scales Assessing Driving Anger: The Driving Anger Expression Inventory and the Driver's Angry Thoughts Questionnaire

This study assessed the validity of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX) and Driver's Angry Thoughts Questionnaire (DATQ). Scales within the DAX and DATQ appeared to assess separate, correlated constructs. Aggressive forms of thinking and anger expression correlated positively with each other, trait driving anger, aggressive and risky behavior, some crash-related conditions, general trait anger, and general forms of anger expression. Positive, constructive forms of thinking and anger expression correlated positively with each other, but minimally or negatively with other variables. Specific aggressive forms of thinking and anger expression formed stronger links with each other than other forms of expression, supporting the discriminant validity of the DATQ and DAX. Hierarchical regressions with DATQ and DAX scales entered after other variables showed that they added explained variance above and beyond other measures, supporting the discriminant and incremental validity of these scales. It was concluded that the DAX and DATQ have utility for researchers and clinicians interested in angry drivers.     

Anger,aggression and road rage behaviour in Malaysian drivers

This study tested the four factor structure of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX) in a sample of young Malaysian drivers and the relationship these factors had with several other variables. Confirmatory Factor Analysis broadly supported the four factor solution of the DAX, being: Personal Physical Aggressive Expression, Use of a Vehicle to Express Anger, Verbal Aggressive Expression and Adaptive/Constructive expression. The short version of the Driving Anger Scale was positively correlated with the three types of aggressive responses and not surprisingly with a variable comprised of all three types of aggressive responses (Total Aggressive Expression). Total Aggressive Expression was higher for males and negatively related to age, years licensed and slower preferred driving speed. All three of the aggressive forms of expression had significant relationships with crash-related conditions, such as: loss of concentration, losing control of their vehicle, having received a ticket and involvement in near-misses. In particular, all three of the aggressive forms of expression had significant relationships with losing control of the vehicle and Total Aggressive Expression was correlated with all crash-related conditions. In addition, Personal Physical Aggressive Expression and Total Aggressive Expression were both significantly related to crash involvement.     

Further evidence of reliability and validity for the driving anger expression inventory

This study provided evidence of reliability and validity for the four scales of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory. Alpha reliabilities for scales ranged from .84 to .89. Measures of aggressive anger expression while driving (Verbal Aggressive Expression, Personal Physical Aggressive Expression, and Use of the Vehicle to Express Anger scales) correlated positively with each other and negatively with the Adaptive/Constructive Expression scale. Scores on the three aggressive forms of anger expression correlated positively with trait anger and measures of driving-related anger, aggression, and risky behavior, whereas scores on the Adaptive/Constructive Expression scale correlated negatively with these variables. Reports of aggressive and risky behavior correlated most strongly with the Use of the Vehicle to Express Anger scale. Forms of anger expression were minimally or uncorrelated with rated trait anxiety and reports of moving violations, close calls, and accidents. Findings replicated earlier findings and provided further evidence for the reliability and validity of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory.     

The Driving Anger Expression Inventory: A Validity Study with Community College Student Drivers

This study explored the relationship of driving anger expression to driving anger, trait anger, general anger expression, and aggressive and risky behavior while driving. Verbal, physical, and vehicular forms of expressing anger while driving correlated positively with each other, driving and trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and negatively with adaptive/constructive driving anger expression and general anger-control. Adaptive/constructive expression formed small negative correlations with these measures, except for a positive correlation with anger-control. Regression models controlling for demographic variables and driving anger, trait anger, or general anger expression demonstrated forms of driving anger expression added variance to predicting aggressive and risky behavior. Forms of driving anger expression partially mediated the effects for driving anger, trait anger, and general anger expression on aggressive and risky behavior. No moderation effects were found for age, gender, or miles driven. Findings provided evidence for convergent and incremental validity for the Driving Anger Expression Inventory.     

Aggressive driving in Romania: Psychometric properties of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory

The present research verified the psychometric properties of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX; Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Swaim, 2002) on a Romanian sample (n = 262). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor structure: Verbal and Physical Aggressive Expression (α = .86), Adaptive/Constructive Expression (α = .88) and Using the Vehicle for Aggressive Expression (α = .83). The aggressive forms of expressing anger were summed up in the Total Driving Aggressive Expression Index (α = .90). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the three factors solution, by showing a good fit into a 30 items version of the DAX. All the aggressive forms of anger expression correlated positively with each other and with trait Aggression-Hostility, while the adaptive way of expressing anger correlated negatively with them, thus supporting the convergent validity of the DAX. Age differences were identified, in that younger drivers scored higher in Using the Vehicle for Aggressive Expression scale and in Total Driving Aggressive Expression Index, while older drivers scored higher in Adaptive/Constructive Expression scale. Several directions for future research concerning the DAX are suggested. Overall, our results showed that the Romanian version of the DAX is a valid tool for assessing aggressive driving.     

Gendered Self-Concept and the Aggressive Expression of Driving Anger: Positive Femininity Buffers Negative Masculinity

The aggressive expression of driving anger is a risk factor for aggressive and dangerous driving behavior and is associated with a greater risk of accident involvement. The present study related positive and negative facets of a masculine and feminine self-concept to aggressive and adaptive forms of anger expression while driving. A sample of 417 drivers (194 women, 46.5%) in Germany completed the Positive-Negative Sex Role Inventory (PN-SRI) as a measure of positive and negative masculinity and femininity and the Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX) as a measure of driving anger expression. Aggressive forms of expressing driving anger were unrelated to gender but differed significantly in relation to gendered self-concept. Negative but not positive masculinity was found to predict higher aggressive and lower adaptive anger expression. No main effects of positive or negative femininity were found. However, the link between negative masculinity and aggressive anger expression was buffered by positive femininity: Negative masculinity was unrelated to aggressive anger expression when accompanied by positive femininity. Adaptive anger expression showed negative links with negative masculinity and positive links with positive masculinity. The findings held for both men and women and support the theoretical distinction between positive and negative facets of the gendered self-concept. The implications for the conceptualization of both gendered self-concept and anger expression on the road are discussed.     

A cross-cultural analysis of aggressive driving: Evidence from Serbia and Romania

Using data from more than 700 drivers from Serbia and Romania, this study verified the dimensionality of aggressive driving in two countries from Eastern Europe. Specifically, the psychometric properties and invariance of the Romanian Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX; Deffenbacher et al., 2002, Sârbescu, 2012) were verified. Secondary aspects, such as differences in aggressive driving between countries or gender differences within countries, were also investigated. Our findings support the appropriateness of the three-factor structure in both countries, through the configural invariance of the DAX. Also, males report slightly higher levels of aggressive driving than women (small effect sizes), while Serbian drivers report higher levels of aggressive driving than Romanian drivers (strong effect sizes). Being the first research that verified the invariance of the DAX across two cultures, this study opens new paths and questions for research concerning aggressive driving.     

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.     

Investigating sex,masculinity and femininity in relation to impulsive driving and driving anger expression

Human factors constitute a class of prominent road safety related factors. In the present study, human factors of driving were studied by investigating sex differences and gender roles in relation to impulsive driving and driving anger expression. A total of 425 drivers between the ages of 18 and 56 (M = 25.46, SD = 7.58) participated to the study and completed a series of questionnaires including a demographic information form, the Bem Sex Roles Inventory, the Impulsive Driver Behaviour Scale and the Driving Anger Expression Inventory. According to the ANCOVA results, male drivers showed higher functional impulsivity, lack of premeditation and use of the vehicle to express anger than female drivers. Additionally, hierarchical regression analyses showed that masculinity was positively associated with functional impulsivity, urgency and the dimensions of aggressive anger expression. However, femininity was positively associated with functional impulsivity and adaptive/constructive anger expression, but negatively associated with the dimensions of dysfunctional impulsivity and aggressive anger expression. Overall, the results showed the significant solo effects of masculinity and femininity on impulsive driver behaviours and driving anger expression, over and above the effects of sex, and the interaction between sex and gender roles. In the present study, previously reported findings indicating the relationships between sex and gender roles and driving anger expression were supported and extended by providing the literature with the contribution of answering the question how sex and gender roles are related to impulsive driver behaviours. The findings of the two related concepts of impulsive driving and driving anger expression were discussed in light of the current literature. Contributions, implications and future research directions concerning road safety practices were presented.     

The driving anger expression inventory: a measure of how people express their anger on the road

Four ways people express their anger when driving were identified. Verbal Aggressive Expression (alpha=0.88) assesses verbally aggressive expression of anger (e.g., yelling or cursing at another driver); Personal Physical Aggressive Expression (alpha=0.81), the ways the person uses him/herself to express anger (e.g., trying to get out and tell off or have a physical fight with another driver); Use of the Vehicle to Express Anger (alpha=0.86), the ways the person uses his/her vehicle to express anger (e.g., flashing lights at or cutting another driver off in anger); and Adaptive/Constructive Expression (alpha=0.90), the ways the person copes positively with anger (e.g., focuses on safe driving or tries to relax). Aggressive forms can be summed into Total Aggressive Expression Index (alpha=0.90). Aggressive forms of expression correlated positively with each other (rs=0.39-0.48), but were uncorrelated or correlated negatively with adaptive/constructive expression (rs=-0.02 to -0.22). Aggressive forms of anger expression correlated positively with driving-related anger, aggression, and risky behavior; adaptive/constructive expression tended to correlate negatively with these variables. Differences in the strengths of correlations and regression analyses supported discriminant and incremental validity and suggested forms of anger expression contributed differentially to understanding driving-related behaviors. Theoretical and treatment implications were explored.     

Aggressive thinking on the road. The mediation effect of aggressive thinking in the relationship between driving anger and aggression in Romanian drivers

Anger and aggression on the road have been pointed out as two of the main predictors of road accidents. However, while the emotional (anger) and behavioral (aggression) components of hostility have been deeply studied, the cognitive part has not received the same attention in this specific context. Thus, it is important to provide psychometric tools for assessing aggressive thoughts during driving, as the literature showed that cognitions play an important role in aggressive behavior. To this end, we asked Romanian drivers to answer three questionnaires: Driving Anger Thought Questionnaire (DATQ), the Driving Anger Scale (DAS) and the Driving Anger Expression Inventory (DAX), obtaining a total sample of 2133 answers. First, the psychometric properties of the DATQ were tested through a Confirmatory Factor Analysis, showing that the original 5-factor structure was maintained (Judgmental/Disbelieving Thinking, α = .93 both in men and women; Pejorative Labeling/Verbally Aggressive Thinking, α = .90 both in men and women; Physically Aggressive Thinking, α = .89 in men and α = .86 in women; Revenge/Retaliatory Thinking, α = .84 in men and α = .81 in women, and Adaptive/Constructive Expression, α = .84 in men and α = .82 in women). Then, we analyzed the mediation effect of angry thoughts between anger and aggression on the road, concluding that angry thoughts mediate this relationship. The main implications of the results are discussed.     

Development and Evaluation of a Measure of Dangerous,Aggressive, Negative Emotional,and Risky Driving1

The Dula Dangerous Driving Index (DDDI) was created to measure drivers’ self‐reported likelihood to drive dangerously. Each DDDI scale (DDDI Total, Aggressive Driving, Negative Emotional Driving, and Risky Driving scales) had strong internal reliability and there was also evidence for the construct validity of the scales. The DDDI was used to examine the relation between dangerous and aggressive driving and dispositional aggression and anger among 119 college students. Males reported significantly more aggressive, risky, and angry driving than did females. Males and females reported similar levels of dangerous driving and negative emotions while driving. Dangerous driving was positively related to traffic citations and causing accidents. The DDDI will be useful as a research instrument to examine dangerous driving.     

Driving anger in Germany: Validation of the driving anger scale for German drivers

In 1994, Deffenbacher et al. published the Driving Anger Scale (DAS), a tool for assessing a driver’s propensity to experience anger in road traffic. Since then, much research has used this scale to measure the driving anger experienced in various countries around the world. This study examines the scale’s validity for German drivers. It also relates their experiences of anger while driving to their experiences and expressions of anger in general, as well as to certain demographic variables. In addition, it compares German drivers’ experiences of driving anger to those reported by drivers from other countries. We distributed a German version of the DAS and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) to a sample of 1136 German drivers. Results showed that a 22-items version of the DAS with six factors produced good fit indices for German drivers. Furthermore, data analysis revealed small to moderate significant relationships between German drivers’ driving anger experiences and their experiences and expressions of anger in general, underlining the idea that driving anger is a personality characteristic that is related to one's general experience and expression of anger. Finally, German drivers' driving anger experiences differed from those of drivers from other countries in that German drivers reported less driving anger than drivers from Spain and New Zealand, comparable levels to those from Turkey, Malaysia, and the United States, and more driving anger than drivers from France, Australia, China, and the United Kingdom. In addition, discourteous driver actions and hostile gestures consistently triggered highest driving anger ratings whereas police presence was rated lowest. Given these results, we conclude that the DAS can be applied to German drivers in its modified version.     

Driving anger and its relationship with aggressive driving among Chinese drivers

Driving anger poses a serious threat to road safety. Increasing attention is being paid on this issue, with driving anger usually measured by a 14-item version of the Driving Anger Scale (short DAS). However, driving anger problem in China has received limited research attention and there is no corresponding Chinese version of the short DAS. This study adapted the short DAS for use with Chinese drivers and investigated the relationship between driving anger and aggressive driving with an Internet-based survey conducted to a sample of Chinese drivers. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis results showed that a three-factor DAS structure provided a good fit to the data obtained, with the three subscales used being hostile gesture, safety-blocking and arrival-blocking. The hostile gesture subscale and arrival-blocking subscale were positive predictors while the safety-blocking subscale was a negative predictor of aggressive driving. In China, the overall driving anger was lower but its association with aggressive driving was stronger, than that in western countries. These findings provide important insights into causes and consequences of driving anger for the development of effective strategies to reduce driving anger and to enhance road safety.     

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.     

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.     

Driving anger: correlates and a test of state-trait theory

A survey and field study evaluated predictions from state-trait theory applied to driving anger. Trait driving anger, the propensity to become angry when driving, correlated positively with anger in frequently occurring driving situations and in day-to-day driving and with aggressive and risky behaviors while driving. Although not correlated with crash rates or moving violations, trait driving anger correlated with crash-related conditions such as loss concentration, loss of vehicular control, and close calls. Results generally supported predictions from state-trait theory and the construct validity of the Driving Anger Scale, as well as mapping correlates of the disposition to become angry while driving.     

Driving anger and traffic violations: Gender differences

In this work, we examined the contribution of anger-related variables to explaining traffic rule violations with control for the effect of variables such as age, gender and annual mileage. Also, we explored gender differences in driving-elicited anger and its forms of expression with provision for exposure in terms of mileage. In addition, we studied male and female driving habits in relation to individual histories of fines and accidents with a view to identifying the role of drivers’ anger in driving violation behaviours. To this end, we conducted a survey on a sample of 541 drivers (53.9% females, 46.1% males) aged 20–73 years. The results obtained with provision for mileage revealed substantial differences in driving behaviour between genders. Thus, males reported greater number of fines and accidents, and were more prone to violating traffic regulations. There were also gender differences in the specific driving situations causing anger. Thus, males were angrier at police presence and females at traffic obstructions. There were additional differences in anger expression forms, with women exhibiting a more adaptive attitude. The specific contribution of anger-related variables to driving violation behaviours was explored, and its theoretical and treatment implications are discussed.     

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.     

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.