Anger and Aggression Among Drivers

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: [email protected] (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:[email protected]


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


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


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


5/7


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.


6/7


7/7


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.

Anger and Aggression Among Drivers

Documents

Transcript of Anger and Aggression Among Drivers