Search

Tested hypotheses from state-trait theory applied to anger while driving. College student drivers high in trait driving anger were compared to drivers low in trait driving anger. High anger drivers were more frequently angered in day-to-day driving (frequency hypothesis). They reported more intense anger in their most angering driving situations, when visualizing provocative driving events, and in day-to-day driving (intensity hypothesis). Driving diaries and surveys showed they engaged in more aggressive behavior and expressed their anger through more verbal, physical, and vehicular means (aggression hypothesis). They reported handling of their anger less well when visualizing provocative events and on the Adaptive/Constructive Expression scale (reduced adaptive expression hypothesis). They engaged in risky behavior (risky behavior hypothesis) and experienced more moving violations, close calls, and losses of concentration, but not more major or minor accidents (partial support for crash-related outcomes hypothesis). High anger drivers were more generally angry and impulsive and employed more negative, less controlled forms of general anger expression. Results supported state-trait theory and added to the literature showing that high anger drivers have some other psychological and behavioral characteristics that may interact negatively with anger behind the wheel.

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.

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.

Relaxation and cognitive-relaxation interventions were compared to a no treatment control in the treatment of high anger drivers. The cognitive portion of the cognitive-relaxation condition adapted the style of Beck's cognitive therapy, particularly use of Socratic questions and behavioral experiments and tryouts, to driving anger reduction. Both interventions lowered indices of driving anger and hostile and aggressive forms of expressing driving anger and increased adaptive/constructive ways of expressing driving anger. The cognitive-relaxation intervention also lowered the frequency of risky behavior. Both interventions lowered trait anger as well. Limitations and implications for treatment and research were discussed.

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.

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.

A cluster analysis of responses from more than 1500 college students to 53 potentially angering driving-related situations yielded a 33-item driving anger scale (alpha reliability = .90) with six reliable subscales involving hostile gestures, illegal driving, police presence, slow driving, discourtesy, and traffic obstructions. Subscales all correlated positively, suggesting a general dimension of driving anger as well as anger related to specific driving-related situations. Men were more angered by police presence and slow driving whereas women were more angered by illegal behavior and traffic obstructions, but differences compensated so there were no gender differences on total score. A 14-item short form (alpha reliability = .80) was developed from scores more highly correlated (r = .95) with scores on the long form. Driving anger may have potential value for research on accident prevention and health psychology.