Post on 04-Jun-2018
8/13/2019 Anger and Aggression Among Drivers
1/7
Accident Analysis and Prevention 34 (2002) 229235
Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countriesDianne Parker a,*, Timo Lajunen b, Heikki Summala c
a Department of Psychology, Uniersity of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UKb Department of Psychology, Middle East Technical Uniersity, Ankara, Turkey
c Traffic Research Unit, Department of Psychology, Uniersity of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Received in revised form 20 December 2000; accepted 28 December 2000
Abstract
Recent reports of road rage in the British media give the impression that driver aggression is escalating. In order to understandthis phenomenon we need to know what it is about driving that provokes motorists to feel anger and then to go on to express
that anger in the form of aggression. A postal questionnaire survey of more than 2500 drivers was carried out in three European
countries: Britain, Finland and the Netherlands. The study had three main aims: (a) to discover how angry, if at all, a range of
situations on the road make drivers, (b) to find out how many drivers are likely to react aggressively to those situations, and (c)
to investigate individual and/or cultural differences in terms of anger and/or aggressive responses among motorists. Results
indicate that the same types of behaviour provoke anger and aggression in all three countries, and that traffic density may play
a role. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Driver anger; Driver aggression
www.elsevier.com/locate/aap
1. Introduction
The media, at least in the UK, have become preoccu-
pied in recent years with incidents of aggressive be-
haviour occurring between ordinarily peaceful members
of the public. There have been reports of, and specula-
tion as to the causes of, a phenomenon that has been
labelled trolley rage, and which involves aggression
between supermarket shoppers. We have even been told
about gym rage and office rage incidents in which
people are prepared to use force against others to exact
revenge or express their anger. However, by far the
greatest level of attention has been paid to so-calledroad rage incidents in which drivers become so en-
raged by the behaviour of another road user that they
explode with rage and an ugly scene ensues. Sensa-
tionalist reports of this phenomenon occur with alarm-
ing regularity in the British media, and some surveys
have reported worryingly high levels of aggressive driv-
ing (Lex Report on Motoring, 1996; Sample Surveys
Limited, 1996). In some quarters the problem of highly
aggressive drivers is taken for granted and the focus is
on ways in which the behaviour of such individualsmight be managed or remediated (Lowenstein, 1997;Deffenbacher et al., 2000). However, others have ques-tioned whether road rage actually exists as a distinc-tive phenomenon, and believe the term should bedropped in favour of something less emotive, e.g. driveraggression (Ward et al., 1998)
One interesting question is what sort of behaviour onthe part of a driver is taken to be aggressive by others.One survey asked exactly this and reported that themanoeuvre most commonly felt to be aggressive wasclose following/tailgating, which 62% of the 529 mo-
torists sampled reported having experienced in the pre-vious year (Joint, 1995). Headlight flashing and the useof obscene gestures were also seen as aggressive bymost, and had been experienced recently by 59% and48% of those sampled, respectively. It seems then, atleast on the roads of the UK, that drivers are regularlyinterpreting the behaviour of others as aggressive. In-deed, 60% admitted that they themselves had lost theirtemper while driving at least on occasion (Joint, 1995).Driver anger emerged as even more prevalent in a diarystudy reported by Underwood et al. (1999), with 85% ofthe 100 drivers taking part reporting having experi-enced anger while driving during a 2-week period.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-161-2752570; fax: +44-161-
275 2588.E-mail address: parker@fs4.psy.man.ac.uk (D. Parker).
0001-4575/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 1 - 4 5 7 5 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 8 - 5
mailto:parker@fs4.psy.man.ac.uk8/13/2019 Anger and Aggression Among Drivers
2/7
D. Parker et al./Accident Analysis and Preention 34 (2002) 229235230
A preliminary investigation of the factors that give
rise to such aggressive driving was reported by Lajunen
et al. (1999). A self-report questionnaire, completed by
a volunteer sample of 270 British drivers, included a
measure of driving anger adapted from a scale origi-
nally developed by Deffenbacher et al. (1994) in the
USA. This scale covered a range of driving situations
that might provoke anger, and required respondents to
indicate how angry they felt they would get if theyfound themselves in that situation. Factor analysis of
the 27-item scale indicated that the situations could be
grouped in terms of three underlying factors. These
related to anger at having your progress impeded, anger
at the reckless driving of another, and anger provoked
by the direct hostility of another driver. Younger driv-
ers, and those driving a relatively low exposure had
relatively high scores on all three factors, but there were
no gender differences in scale scores. It was also found
that there were significant zero-order correlations be-
tween scores on the three factor scales and the commis-
sion of driving violations, as measured by the 28-itemextended Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire
(Lawton et al., 1997) which includes a measure of
drivers own self-reported violating behaviour (with the
exception of the correlation between anger at anothers
reckless driving and the ordinary violations sub-scale,
which was non-significant at 0.07). Further analysis
revealed that the associations of anger at progress
impeded and anger at direct hostility with self-reported
violations were both mediated by scores on the safety-
skills sub-scale of the Driver Skill Inventory (DSI) of
Lajunen and Summala (1995). The safety-skills sub-scale consists of 16 items requiring ratings of a range of
safety skills in driving, so that those who obtain a high
score rate themselves as safety minded. The relationship
between anger at impeded progress, or at the direct
hostility of another driver and the commission of driv-
ing violations was reduced in those with a relatively
high level of reported safety skills.
The study of Lajunen et al. (1997) went some way
towards establishing the factors that provoke anger in
British drivers. However the study had both practical
and methodological limitations. First, although respon-
dents indicated how angry a range of driving situationsmade them, no information was provided as to whether
that anger caused them to react in any way. Second, the
respondents had all responded to a media appeal for
volunteers, and so may have had a particular interest in
the issue of aggressive driving. The study reported here
enlarges and improves upon the one reported by La-
junen et al. (1997) in three ways. First it uses a sample
of drivers who have not volunteered specifically to take
part in research on road rage. Second it extends the
application of the Driver Anger Questionnaire by as-
sessing the relationship between level of anger pro-
voked by each driving situation and likelihood of an
overt aggressive reaction. Third, it allows for the inves-
tigation of cultural differences in driving anger and
aggression, by covering drivers in three European coun-
tries: the UK, Finland and the Netherlands.
2. Method
The questionnaire consisted of several sections, onlysome of which will be reported here. In the first section,
demographic information about the respondent was
collected. This included age, gender, annual exposure,
accident and traffic offence history and preferred speed
on motorways and residential roads. The DBQ section
listed 28 driving behaviours, including eight lapses,
eight errors, and 12 violations, of which six were ordi-
naryviolations and six interpersonally aggressive viola-
tions. With respect to each item respondents were
required to indicate How often, if at all, this kind of
thing has happened to you, using a 6-point frequency
scale where 0=Never, 1=Hardly ever, 2=Occasion-ally, 3=Quite often, 4=Frequently and 5=Nearly all
the time.
The DAQ section listed 22 potentially anger-provok-
ing situations, and asked respondents to indicate How
much each of these situations would make you angry
using a 5-point response scale where 0=Not at all
angry, 1=A little angry, 2=Fairly angry, 3=Very
angry and 4=Extremely angry. For each of the listed
situations they were also asked to indicate their most
likely reaction to the situation, using an 8-point scale
labelled as follows: 0=No reaction, 1=Try to escapefrom the situation, 2=Beep horn and/or flash lights,
3=Gesture at the other road user, 4=Swear at and/or
verbally abuse the other road user, 5=Drive close
to/follow the other road user in order to teach him/her
a lesson, 6=Stop your vehicle and get out, ready to
argue, and 7=Get out of your car, prepared to engage
physically with the other road user.
The data were collected via postal surveys. The sam-
pling technique was similar, although not identical in
the three countries involved. In the UK a sample of
2000 adults was taken from the electoral register. In the
Netherlands 2000 names were selected from the registerof telephone users, and in Finland, the names and
addresses of 2000 holders of full current driving licenses
were obtained from the Finnish register of car owners.
Care was taken to ensure that the samples contacted
were representative of the whole geographical area of
the countries involved.
The survey questionnaire was posted out to those
sampled, together with a covering letter explaining the
research and a Freepost return envelope. Confidential-
ity was ensured, and respondents were not asked to
state their names or addresses. The questionnaires were
each given a code in order to assess who had responded
8/13/2019 Anger and Aggression Among Drivers
3/7
D. Parker et al./Accident Analysis and Preention 34 (2002) 229235 231
and 3 weeks later, those who had not responded were
sent a reminder, a further copy of the questionnaire and
another return envelope. A total of 2613 completed
questionnaires were returned. Of those 831 were col-
lected from the UK, 703 from the Netherlands and
1123 from Finland, response rates of 42, 35 and 56%,
respectively. The differential response rates probably
occurred because in the UK or the Netherlands it was
not possible to access a sampling frame consisting onlyof drivers. Therefore, some of those receiving the ques-
tionnaire would not have been eligible, as licence hold-
ers, to take part in the survey. This means that the true
response rate, calculated on the basis of responses from
those actually eligible to take part, was undoubtedly
higher.
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of the sample
The characteristics of the sample are shown in Table
1. In all three countries there were roughly equal num-
bers of males and females, and a good spread of ages.
The annual exposure of the UK sample, at 18 612 km
per year was substantially less than that of the Finnish
and Dutch samples, both of which had an average
annual exposure of over 20 000 km. The driving experi-
ence of those in the three samples ranged from under 1
year to over 50 years, with an average of around 20
years experience. Respondents were also asked how
many accidents they had been involved in as a driverduring the previous 3 years, including accidents in
which there was damage to one or more vehicles but no
injuries. This is a wider definition of an accident than
the one used in official statistics which typically ex-
cludes property-damage only accidents. Therefore, the
percentages of respondents classified as accident in-
volved are relatively high, ranging from 22.5% for the
Finnish sample to 31.3% for the UK sample. The
Dutch sample differed in some important respects from
the Finnish and UK samples, in that the Dutch were
older and the sample contained a higher proportion of
males. In subsequent analyses comparing the three sam-ples this was dealt with by including age, sex and
driving exposure as covariates, so that their effects
could be separated out from the cultural effects of
interest.
Initial analyses considered the three samples together,
giving an overall sample size of 2657, of whom 1123
were Finnish, 831 were from the UK and 703 were
Dutch. Table 2 shows the mean scores of the whole
sample on each of items in the level of anger scale in
the Driver Anger Questionnaire. The occurrence thatprovoked the most anger, among drivers in all three
countries considered together, was when another driver
cuts in and takes a parking spot you have been waiting
for. A mean score of 2.20 indicates that on average
drivers get fairly angry when this happens. The distri-
butional data showed that only 6% reported that this
would not make them angry at all, while 39.6% would
get very angry or extremely angry. Following this, most
anger was generated by having someone drive behind
you at night with bright lights on, having someone
drive very close to your rear bumper and having some-
one speed up as you try to pass them. The least angerwas provoked by being held up by a driver who was
slow to park, or someone slow to move off from traffic
lights. Only 2.5 and 2.4%, respectively, of drivers report
that these behaviours would make them very angry or
extremely angry.
Factor analysis was used to reduce the data to cate-
gories, a procedure that resulted in five categories. The
category that each item relates to is shown in the
left-hand column of Table 2. Scale scores were calcu-
lated for each category by summing the individual item
scores and taking their mean. The categories werelabelled impeded progress, fast, reckless driing, direct
hostility, inconsiderate driing, and impatient driing.
The alpha reliabilities for these scales fell in the range
0.730.89 and therefore are sufficiently homogeneous
to be treated as categories. Multivariate analysis of
variance was then used to investigate possible differ-
ences in scores on each of the five scales between
Finnish, UK and Dutch drivers. Gender, age and expo-
sure were used as covariates as it was thought likely
that these variables might account for some differences
in levels of anger.
Table 3 shows the mean scores and standard devia-tions, of drivers from each country, on each of the
Table 1
Characteristics of the sample
Finland UK Holland
Males 516 429 499
607Females 402 204
20 435 (1300 000) 24 637 (1500 000)Mean annual exposure in km (range) 18 612 (1241 000)
45.90 (1887)Mean age (range) 37.52 (1879) 39.55 (1780)
23.62 (164)Mean driving experience in years (range) 18.35 (160)16.93 (152)
31.3People involved in an accident in the previous 3 years (%) 28.222.5
8/13/2019 Anger and Aggression Among Drivers
4/7
D. Parker et al./Accident Analysis and Preention 34 (2002) 229235232
Table 2
Whole sample mean scores on the level of anger section of the Driver
Anger Questionnairea
Category Mean (S.D.)Item
2.20 (1.15)Someone cuts in and takes the5
parking spot you have been waiting
for
4 At night someone is driving behind 1.87 (1.06)
you with bright lights onSomeone is driving very close to5 1.84 (1.12)
your rear bumper
Someone speeds up when you try4 1.81 (1.11)
to pass them
5 Someone cuts right in front of you 1.75 (1.09)
on the motorway
Someone coming towards you does4 1.70 (1.02)
not dim their headlights at night
A slow vehicle on a winding road 1.48 (1.07)1
will not pull over and let people
pass
3 Someone shouts at you about your 1.40 (1.18)
driving
1 Someone is driving too slowly in 1.34 (0.93)the outside lane, and holding up
the traffic
3 Someone makes an obscene gesture 1.29 (1.15)
towards you about your driving
A cyclist is riding in the middle ofX 1.25 (0.99)
the lane and slowing traffic
Someone is weaving in and out ofX 1.21 (1.10)
traffic
Someone pulls out right in front ofX 1.20 (0.98)
you when there is no-one behind
you
1 Someone is driving more slowly 1.18 (0.97)
than is reasonable for the traffic
flow2 Someone runs a red light or stop 1.16 (1.06)
sign
2 Someone is driving too fast for the 1.08 (0.96)
road conditions
3 Someone beeps at you about your 1.06 (1.04)
driving
Someone is driving well above the2 0.88 (1.07)
speed limit
Someone in front of you does not1 0.70 (0.75)
move off straight away when the
light turns to green
1 0.64 (0.75)A pedestrian walks slowly across
the middle of the street, slowing
you down
Someone is slow in parking and1 0.53 (0.75)
holds up traffic
a Items showing an X in the left-hand column, did not emerge from
factor analysis as related to any of the five categories of behaviour
identified.
evoked by having their progress impeded by anothers
slow driving, and by direct hostility from other drivers.
Both were significantly more angered than Dutch driv-
ers. There were significant differences among all three
countries in terms of the level of anger generated by
reckless driving, inconsiderate driving and impatient
driving. In the case of reckless driving, the UK sample
were most angered, followed by the Finnish sample and
then the Dutch sample. Finnish drivers were signifi-cantly more angered than UK drivers by inconsiderate
driving, who in turn were significantly more angered
than Dutch drivers. In relation to impatient driving, the
Finnish sample were again the most angered, followed
this time by the Dutch drivers and then the UK drivers.
The type of driving that elicited most anger among
the Finns was inconsiderate driving, the scale that
included items related to being dazzled by anothers
headlights. Both UK and Dutch drivers were most
angered by impatient driving. Across all three countries
the type of driving that gave rise to least anger was fast
or reckless driving. The Dutch drivers were least an-
gered of the three countries in relation to four of the
five types of driving considered. The exception being
impatient driving, which elicited least anger among
Finnish drivers.
The multivariate significance tests showed that there
were also differences between men and women in rela-
tion to level of anger elicited by four of the five types of
driving, the exception being inconsiderate driving, and
that there were also effects of age in relation to the
anger evoked by all five types of driving. However,
there were no effects of exposure on anger. Analysis ofvariance indicated that men got more angry than
women about impeded progress, but that women got
more angered than men about fast, reckless driving,
direct hostility and impatient driving. Considering age
in three categories (1730, 3145, 46 and over), it was
Table 3
Level of driving anger by country, with age, sex and exposure as
covariatesa
DutchUKFinnishCategory Fvalue
label
1.00a (0.61)Progress 0.81b (0.51)1.06a (0.70) 21.68b
impeded
1.19b (0.85)Reckless 0.84c (0.70)1.06a (0.87) 25.03b
driving
Direct 1.44a (1.09) 1.34a (0.97) 0.82b (0.81) 42.83b
hostility
Inconsiderate 1.98a (0.96) 1.72b (0.86) 1.56c (0.84) 30.22b
driving
1.93c (0.86)2.09b (0.89) 34.28b1.82a (0.93)Impatient
driving
a Across rows, means that do not share a superscript differ signifi-
cantly.b P0.001.
five level of anger scales. There were significant differ-
ences on all five. The multivariate significance tests
showed that there were significant effects for all three
covariates, and for country. There was no significant
difference between Finnish and UK drivers in the anger
8/13/2019 Anger and Aggression Among Drivers
5/7
D. Parker et al./Accident Analysis and Preention 34 (2002) 229235 233
Table 4
The Driver Reaction Scale: mean scores (and S.D.s) and percentage who would not react at alla
Category Mean (S.D.) Would not react at
all (%)
1 0.29 (0.75)Someone is slow in parking and holds up traffic 81.1
0.39 (0.82)2 74.7Someone is driving well above the speed limit
0.55 (0.93)A pedestrian walks slowly across the middle of the street, slowing you down 68.71
Someone runs a red light or stop sign2 0.60 (0.97) 65.9
0.56 (0.96)X 63.4Someone is weaving in and out of traffic0.57 (0.92)Someone is driving too fast for the road conditions 61.52
Someone beeps at you about your driving3 0.93 (1.27) 53.6
Someone is driving more slowly than is reasonable for the traffic flow1 0.85 (1.21) 52.3
0.97 (1.05)Someone in front of you does not move off straight away when the light turns to green 50.41
Someone makes an obscene gesture towards you about your driving3 1.24 (1.49) 48.4
0.92 (1.14)X 47.6Someone pulls out right in front of you when there is no-one behind you
1.36 (1.68)Someone shouts at you about your driving 43.83
A slow vehicle on a winding road will not pull over and let people pass1 1.10 (1.27) 43.6
Someone is driving too slowly in the outside lane, and holding up the traffic1 1.17 (1.29) 40.5
1.22 (1.11)A cyclist is riding in the middle of the lane and slowing traffic 34.0X
Someone is driving very close to your rear bumper5 1.23 (1.29) 33.0
Someone cuts right in front of you on the motorway5 1.42 (1.29) 30.2
1.35 (1.33)Someone speeds up when you try to pass them 28.94
2.27 (2.02)5 25.7Someone cuts in and takes the parking spot you have been waiting for1.47 (1.21)At night someone is driving behind you with bright lights on 23.54
1.68 (0.85) 15.14 Someone coming towards you does not dim their headlights at night
a Items showing an X in the left-hand column, did not emerge from factor analysis as important to any of the five categories of behaviour
identified.
found that there were linear decreases in anger at
impeded progress, at direct hostility, at inconsiderate
driving and at impatient driving with age. However, the
opposite was true of anger at fast, reckless driving which
increased with age.
Table 4 shows the mean scores and S.D.s, across theentire sample, on each of the items in the Driver Reaction
Scale section of the questionnaire.
The behaviour that elicited the greatest reaction, on
average, was when someone coming towards you does
not dip their headlights. As shown in Table 5, only 15%
of those sampled said they would not react at all to this
happening. On the other hand, over 80% said they would
not react at all if a slow driver held up traffic while trying
to park. An overview of reactions to the behaviours
related to each of the five categories of behaviour
suggests that fast, reckless driving attracts the fewest
reactions, while inconsiderate driving attracts the most.Multivariate analyses of variance were carried out to
investigate possible cultural and demographic differences
in reactions. In relation to each of the items of the Driver
Reaction Scale a fair proportion of respondents indicated
that they would not respond at all (see Table 4). In order
to get a clearer picture of the factors that influence
reactions among those who do react, the Manova anal-
ysis was restricted to those in the sample indicating some
sort of reaction. This reduced the total sample size to
1284. Age, sex and country were used as independent
variables, and scores on the five reaction scales as
dependent variables.
There were significant main effects of country on three
of thefive scales. These were reaction to direct hostility,
reaction to inconsiderate driving and reaction to impa-
tient driving. The mean scores from all three countries
on each of the five reaction scales are shown in Table 5.
Inspection of the means shows that Finnish and UKdrivers reacted in a broadly similar way, and significantly
more than Dutch drivers to the direct hostility of another
motorist. In relation to inconsiderate driving, Finnish
drivers reacted significantly more than Dutch
Table 5
Level of reaction to anger by country (excluding non-reactors)a
Finnish UKCategory Dutch Fvalue
label
1.27a (0.79) 1.22a (0.59)Progress 1.18a (0.67) 1.39
impeded
0.690.70a (0.75)Reckless 0.78a (0.65) 0.79a (0.62)
driving
2.13a (1.36) 1.96a (1.24) 1.37b (1.25)Direct 22.69b
hostility
21.23b2.14a (0.86)Inconsiderate 1.77b (0.80) 1.93c (0.83)
driving
47.32b2.14a (1.09)Impatient 2.37b (0.96) 2.72c (1.05)
driving
a Across rows, means that do not share a superscript differ signifi-
cantly.b P0.001.
8/13/2019 Anger and Aggression Among Drivers
6/7
8/13/2019 Anger and Aggression Among Drivers
7/7
D. Parker et al./Accident Analysis and Preention 34 (2002) 229235 235
the type most likely to prompt a reaction, while reckless
driving was the type least likely to. It could be argued
that this latterfinding reflects the fact that many drivers
feel that there is nothing they can do that might affect
a driver who is already taking dangerous risks with
speed. On the other hand, the level of anger provoked
by reckless driving in all the samples is relatively low,
suggesting that behaviours such as speeding and run-
ning traffic lights are simply not viewed especially nega-tively by most drivers, and that is why they do not lead
to much in the way of reaction. If this explanation is
correct, it is very worrying, because speed is known to
be a risk factor in the majority of road traffic accidents
(e.g. Maycock (1997)).
The finding that males react significantly more to
three of the five sources of anger than women do is not
a surprise. If anything, we might have expected this
difference to emerge across all five categories of anger-
provoking behaviour. However, there are some interest-
ing age-related patterns in reactions. Across the whole
data set, older drivers were less likely to react to the
direct hostility of others, or to the inconsiderate or
impatient driving of others. This accords with a view of
the individual mellowing with age and becoming less
inclined to want to set the world to rights. However,
the pattern of mean scores in reaction to the reckless
driving of others shows the opposite pattern. In this
instance older drivers were more likely to react than
their younger counterparts, perhaps by virtue of their
experience realising that the type of driving included in
the reckless driving sub-scale poses more of an actual
threat to road users than some of the other types, whichmight be more irritating but are probably not going to
cause an accident directly. This ties in with the finding
of Underwood et al. (1999) that reports of near acci-
dents were associated with the frequency with which
anger is experienced. In their study near accidents were
frequently found to provoke anger, especially where the
driver felt that the incident was not their fault. The
reckless driving category in the present study includes
behaviour relatively likely to put other road users in
danger, leading to traffic conflicts and perhaps to near
misses and accidents.
The overall conclusions to be drawn from this study
are that the level of anger scale of the Driver Anger
Questionnaire includes five categories of driving be-
haviour across three European driving cultures, and
that both the level of anger provoked by these types of
behaviour and the reaction to them, measured in the
Driver Reaction Scale items, are broadly similar across
those cultures. Where differences exist tentative expla-
nations in terms of the traffic situation prevailing in
each particular country may be suggested. In general,
many more similarities than differences emerged, and in
all three countries, the behaviours most likely to pro-
voke anger were also those most likely to give rise to a
reaction. It could well be beneficial to alert drivers to
the behaviours most likely to cause another motorist to
become angry, and to provoke a reaction.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from the
European Commission (Marie Curie Fellowship con-
tract no. ERBFMBICT972398). The authors wish to
acknowledge the contribution of Jolieke Mesken, who
translated the questionnaire into Dutch and also helped
with the collection of data in the Netherlands. The
comments of three anonymous referees, and especially
those of Jim McKnight, were extremely helpful.
References
Deffenbacher, J.L., Oetting, E.R., Lynch, R.S., 1994. Development of
a driving anger scale. Psychological Reports 71, 8391.
Deffenbacher, J.L., Huff, M.E., Lynch, R.S., Oetting, E.R., Salva-
tore, N.F., 2000. characteristics and treatment of high-anger
drivers. Journal of Counselling Psychology 47, 517.
Joint, M., 1995. Road Rage. Automobile Association, London.
Lajunen, T., Summala, H., 1995. Driving experience, personality and
skill- and safety-motive dimensions in drivers self-assessments.
Personality and Individual Differences 19, 307318.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., Stradling, S.G., 1997. Dimensions of driver
anger, aggressive and highway code violations and their mediationby safety orientation in UK drivers. Transportation Research Part
F 1, 107121.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., Summala, H., 1999. Does traffic congestion
increase driver aggression? Transportation Research Part F 2,
225236.
Lawton, R.L., Parker, D., Stradling, S.G., Manstead, A.S.R., 1997.
The role of affect in predicting social behaviors: the case of road
traffic violations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27, 1258
1276.
Lex Motor Group, 1996. Lex Report on Motoring. Lex Motor
Group, London.
Lowenstein, L.F., 1997. Research into causes and manifestations of
aggression in car driving. Police Journal 70, 263270.
Maycock, G., 1997. Speed, speed choice and accidents. In: Grayson,
G. (Ed.), Behavioural Research in Road Safety VII. TRL,
Crowthorne.
Sample Surveys Limited, 1996. Road Rage: A Study of Attitudes and
Behaviour. West Malling, Kent, Sample Surveys Limited
(Reprinted November 1996).
Ward, N.J., Waterman, M., Joint, M., 1998. Rage and violence of
driver aggression. In: Grayson, G. (Ed.), Behavioural Research in
Road Safety VIII. TRL, Crowthorne.
Underwood, G., Chapman, P., Wright, S., Crundall, D., 1999. Anger
while driving. Transportation Research Part F 2, 5568.