|
Article Excerpt
The social issue of driver aggression is not new (Parry, 1968). There are several driver attributes that may be related to the expression of driver aggression (Dahlen, Martin, Ragan, & Kuhlman, 2005; Galovski & Blanchard, 2004; Miles & Johnson, 2003; Shinar, 1998). Whilst many studies have examined the relationship between variables such as anger, impulsivity, aggression and driving aggression, they have tended to use non-forensic (and often student) samples. Given that driver aggression and 'road rage' receive such public and media attention due to their extreme nature, it may be sensible to observe these relationships in populations that already demonstrate similar 'antisocial' dispositions in other (criminal) contexts. Intuitively, individuals who are incarcerated for antisocial behaviour would seem an ideal population to examine in order to explore the relationships between aggression (as a stable personality characteristic) and aggressive driving. Risky driver behaviour is known to be associated with involvement with crime (Junger, West, & Timman, 2001), and offenders are consistently identified as reporting elevated levels of those attributes identified as precursors to driving aggression, are more likely to commit serious motoring offences and can easily be differentiated into violent and non-violent groups on the basis of their index offences (the index offence is the crime for which the individual has been imprisoned).
Some have argued that individual differences underpin the expression of driver aggression. Aggressive drivers are seen as different in terms of higher trait levels of anger (Dahaln & Ragan, 2004; Deffenbacher, 2000; Deffenbacher, Filetti, Richards, Lynch, & Oetting, 2003; Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting, & Salavatore, 2000; Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Swaim, 2002; Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Yingling, 2001; Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994; Deffenbacher, White, & Lynch, 2004) and high levels of anger are also associated with reports of near accidents (Underwood, Chapman, Wright, & Crundall, 1999). However, there is evidence to suggest that those drivers who are aggressive on the road are also aggressive in other aspects of their life (Ward, Waterman, & Joint, 1998). The stability of aggression as a trait within individuals that is expressed across a wide variety of situations and consistently over time is commonly expressed in the aggression literature (Barron & Richardson, 1994; Blackburn, 1993; Renfrew, 1997).
However, in addition to anger, there are other individual differences associated with driving aggression. Aggressive drivers are physiologically reactive to provocative stimuli (Malta et al, 2001) and appear more likely to escalate to physical aggression (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Personality traits such as sensation-seeking, hostility, aggressiveness, Type A behaviour and emotional liability are frequently implicated in risky driving behaviour and crash involvement (Beirness, 1993; Miles & Johnson, 2003). Driving violations are known to increase the risk of accidents and are more common in aggressive drivers (Lawton, Parker, Manstead, & Stradling, 1997). These are also demographic variables relating to the quantity and quality of exposure in the traffic environment that need to be considered, for example, offenders in their use of motor vehicles in the commission of offences (Junger & Wiegersma, 1995).
Impulsivity and aggression are frequently identified as pathological symptoms that frequently coexist within individuals (Seroczynski, Bergeman, & Coccaro, 1999; Stanford & Barratt, 1992). Indeed, impulsivity and aggression have been implicated as fundamental in a wide variety of problem behaviours (Evenden, 1999; Hollander & Stein, 1995). Impulsivity has been strongly implicated in both aggressive behaviour (Hollander & Stein, 1995), and offending in general (Farrington, 1991). Its role has been considered in terms of a neurological impairment (Barratt, Stanford, Kent, & Felthous, 1997), personality dimensions (Eysenck, 1977) and dysfunctional cognitive processing (Dickman, 1990). Impulsivity has even been suggested to be the characteristic that most reliably differentiates offenders from non-offenders (Pallone & Hennessy, 1996). Impulsivity is not restricted to forensic or clinical populations but is associated with high-risk behaviours in the general population (Stanford, Greve, & Gerstle, 1997). Impulsive individuals in student populations, for example, are a substantial risk to both themselves and others (Stanford, Greve, Boudreaux, Mathias, & Brumbelow, 1997) due a willingness to engage in high-risk behaviours including aggression, drug use, driving without seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol. Self-reported levels of aggressiveness and impulsivity are also related to self-reported levels of aggression on the roads in 'normal' samples (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). However, impulsivities relationship to driving aggression has not always been clear; researchers often find a weaker relationship than might be expected (Dahlen et al., 2005). It seemed likely that any presumed relationship would be stronger in an antisocial population. Whilst impulsivity can be viewed as a non-unitary construct (Evenden, 1999), its role in both cognitive and affective response systems strongly suggests that it is fundamental to many instances of aggressive behaviour.
Nevertheless, despite all this research the relationships between individual differences, aggressive behaviour, impulsivity, emotional state and aggressive driving are still somewhat confused. In Britain, an Automobile Association (AA) survey revealed that 90% of respondents reported experiencing a road rage incident in the previous 12 months (Joint, 1995). However, other research has found that the majority of episodes of driver aggression in Britain are mild in form and appear to be associated with a communicative role for expressing anger (Ward et al., 1998). The phenomenon of road rage is often cited in the media as an explanation for assaults committed by drivers upon other road-users (Dula & Geller, 2004; Galovski & Blanchard, 2004). Individuals who are normally extremely passive and law abiding are seen as becoming so enraged that they ignore social norms and constraints in order to behave aggressively towards other road users (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Public perceptions of road rage are that (1) the incidence of these events is increasing, (2) the intensity of the aggression involved is rising and (3) it is normally passive individuals who become highly aggressive and then commit these acts of aggression (Lawton & Nutter, 2002). To date, few studies have examined the validity of these assumptions. A fundamental tenet of many explanations of road rage is that it is capable of affecting anyone. Whilst there is still little empirical research to substantiate the existence of road rage (Lawton & Nutter, 2002), we were minded to consider that it was possible that road rage may be either restricted to, or largely based within violent populations.
In summary, we wanted to see if there was behavioural consistency between aggressive behaviour across domains in forensic and non-forensic populations and whether similar psychological predictors were applicable to the populations. It was predicted that offenders would be more aggressive in driving situations than non-offenders (with violent offenders being the most angry and aggressive drivers). The relationship between self-reported levels of aggression, impulsivity and anger with driving aggression would be highest in offenders but would also be manifest at an attenuated level in non-offenders. Specifically, aggressive drivers would demonstrate consistency in their aggressive behaviours across domains
Method
Participants
A total of 473 participants took part in the study. The female participants (N = 260) were aged between 17 and 49 years of age (M = 25.39, SD = 7.35) and the male participants (N = 213) were aged between 18 and 49 years of age (M = 25.34, SD = 7.48). There were 87 male undergraduates (M = 22.16, SD = 3.95), 98 female undergraduates (M...
|
