A Maturing of Research on the Behaviour of Eyewitnesses

More than a decade of sustained, vigorous research has resulted in an applied cognitive psychology of eyewitness behvaviour that is a rapidly maturing body of knowledge. Several developments now would police forces to increase the sensitivity, reliability, and fairness of eyewitness memory retrieval. The juror's task of estimating the effects of certain variables on the accuracy of eyewitness report can now be a much more informed one, the relevant research literature now being relatively clear and consistent. Across studies the effect size of a number of these variables is moderate or greater. Equally important has been the consistent failure to document several results that would be predicted from the common-sense intuition of juror and jurist alike.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Territorial Markings as a Predictor of Driver Aggression and Road Rage1

Aggressive driving has received substantial media coverage during the past decade. We report 3 studies testing a territorial explanation of aggressive driving. Altman (1975 ) described attachment to, personalization of, and defense of primary territories (e.g., home) as being greater than for public territories (e.g., sunbathing spot on a beach). Aggressive driving may occur when social norms for defending a primary territory (i.e., one's automobile) become confused with less aggressive norms for defending a public territory (i.e., the road). Both number of territory markers (e.g., bumper stickers, decals) and attachment to the vehicle were significant predictors of aggressive driving. Mere presence of a territory marker predicts increased use of the vehicle to express anger and decreased use of adaptive/constructive expressions.     

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.     

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.