خشم در هنگام رانندگی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|33250||1999||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6914 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Volume 2, Issue 1, March 1999, Pages 55–68
This study examined the causal factors associated with anger while driving and the possible consequences of that anger on driving behaviour. Drivers kept diaries over a period of two weeks, detailing the events occurring during each journey in that time, with notes on events such as near accidents and on feelings of anger. The study examined the diaries of 100 drivers, who reported a total of 293 near accidents and 383 occasions when they experienced anger. The drivers also completed questionnaires that assessed a number of individual differences such as propensity towards mild social deviance and towards committing traffic violations. On a journey by journey basis drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present, but there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher levels of congestion also experienced more anger. The study found a strong association between the number of near accidents and occasions of anger a person experiences while driving, but this concealed two separate relationships. Near accidents frequently provoked feelings of anger, particularly where the driver felt that they were not at fault in the incident. However, there was also a separate link between the experience of anger in other situations and reports of near accidents where the driver was to blame. Such anger also appeared to be linked to mild social deviance and the commission of driving violations.
1.1. The prevalence of anger on British roads Recent vivid reports of aggressive acts on the roads have led to an upsurge in interest in estimating the true prevalence of anger and aggression in drivers. A number of recent surveys have suggested that anger is a common phenomenon on Great Britain's roads. One survey (Automobile Association, 1995) reported that 90% of 526 motorists questioned had experienced “road rage” incidents in the previous year. Similarly, the Lex Report on Motoring (1996)claimed that 44% of drivers questioned had suffered verbal or gesticulatory abuse in the past 12 months from other drivers and that 9% of drivers had been forced to pull off the road because of aggressive driving by others. As well as being the recipients of aggressive acts, surprisingly high numbers of drivers admit to committing aggressive driving behaviours themselves. A study by Parker et al. (1998)found that 89% of 270 drivers admitted sometimes committing aggressive violations such as chasing other drivers, indicating hostility to other drivers, or sounding the horn to indicate annoyance with other drivers. The Lex Report on Motoring (1996)also specified the driving behaviours by others motorists that annoyed their respondents most intensely. Among such behaviours are drivers who cruise in the middle lane and fast lane, drivers who overtake on the inside lane and drivers who speed in towns and cities. A study by Deffenbacher et al. (1994)found gender differences in the factors provoking anger in drivers. Female drivers were more angered by others' illegal driving and by traffic obstructions whereas male drivers were more angered by nearby police presence and by others' slow driving. 1.2. The relationship between anger and accident involvement An issue of prime importance to traffic and transport psychologists is the possible effect that anger and the possible subsequent aggression has on driving performance and ability. Such researchers are particularly interested in the safety aspects associated with such emotions. Whereas emotions such as anxiety, depression and stress are widely acknowledged as having a detrimental effect on cognitive performance, the cognitive and behavioural effects of driving anger have received relatively little attention (Matthews & Desmond, 1995; Gulian et al., 1989). Deffenbacher et al. (1994)speculate that anger experienced while driving might affect safety in various ways. Referring to the large body of literature devoted to the emotion-cognitive performance relationship, Deffenbacher et al. postulate that anger might influence motivation to commit various risky driving behaviours that in turn may increase accident liability during the emotional episode. For instance they claim that anger experienced while driving might predispose an individual to engage in dangerous driving behaviours such as tailgating, speeding or flashing their lights. Studies as early as the 1960s have identified a relationship between aggression and accident involvement. Schuman et al. (1967)found an association in young drivers between accident and violation history and propensity to become involved in physical aggression such as fights. Donovan and Marlatt (1982)found that a group of drivers with high violation and accident involvement rates also had high scores on the Buss–Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957) and scored highly on a questionnaire assessing driving aggression. Similarly, Wilson and Jonah (1988)examined the relationship between driving risk and aggression. They looked at individuals' accident and violation histories and found them to be positively correlated with scores on subscales of the Buss–Durkee Inventory related to aggressive tendencies. Selzer and Vinokur (1974)made similar findings using questionnaires measuring aggression and hostility scores and also to establish accident histories. Hemenway and Solnick (1993)found that those drivers admitting to having more altercations with other drivers also tended to have higher accident and violation histories. There is then a well-established link between questionnaire measures of anger and aggression and accident involvement. There is, however, a noted problem with the questionnaire methodology within driving research (Chapman & Underwood, 1997; Maycock, 1997). For actual accidents the decay rate for retrospective recall is considerable. Maycock et al. (1991)found that 25% of accidents were forgotten by their sample of drivers each year. This would be greatly increased for less salient (though more prevalent) near accidents. 1.3. The current study Our study progresses beyond questionnaires alone in eliciting reports of anger, aggression and near accidents using a diary study approach. This allows the reporting of such events much sooner after their occurrence and allows greater detail to be recorded. Exploring near accidents rather than actual accidents has the advantage that the frequency of such incidents is comparable to the frequency of anger experienced while driving. Obtaining descriptions of near accidents also allows subsequent classification. A typology for classifying reports of actual accidents has been described by West (1993). For a review of the predictive power of this typology, see Parker et al. (1995). This typology classifies accidents into either active or passive. Accidents were classed as being active if the respondent's vehicle collided into something else, and passive if the respondent's vehicle was the object of a collision by another vehicle. Specific accident types are active shunts, passive shunts, active right-of-way violations, passive right-of-way violations, and active loss-of-control accidents. An accident is classed as a shunt if one vehicle hits another on the same carriageway from behind. A right-of-way violation classification is made when one vehicle pulls onto or across the carriageway without right-of-way. Finally, a loss-of-control accident occurs when the driver fails to control the direction of his/her vehicle and keep it on the carriageway. There is no passive dimension for loss-of-control accidents. This typology can be easily adapted for use on near accidents and provides an opportunity to compare the relatively objective results of the classification with the more subjective ratings of perceived culpability given by the subject (as in Chapman & Underwood, 1997). Our study utilises a similar classification of near accidents, relating anger to specific near accident types. Recent studies have identified driving violations as an important indicator of involvement in active loss-of-control and passive right-of-way accidents (Parker et al., 1995; Lawton et al., 1997; Parker et al., 1998). These studies also suggest that the violation factor can be usefully decomposed into those that involve clear aggressive intent towards other road users (e.g. how often do you sound your horn to indicate your annoyance to another road user) and those without such intent (e.g. how often do you disregard the speed limit on a motorway). A further individual difference relating to accident liability is propensity towards social deviance. Several studies have demonstrated an apparent relationship between social deviance and driving deviance, resulting in more deviant individuals having a higher accident liability (Junger et al., 1994; Suchman, 1970; West et al., 1993). Continuing this work, our study examines mild social deviance in relation to anger and near accidents. Based on previous studies, then, there exists a clear need to examine the role of anger in accident involvement, especially given that surveys have shown it to be a common phenomenon on British roads. Particularly, there is a need to establish the causes of anger while driving before any remedial measures can be taken. To this end, our study uses the Deffenbacher et al. (1994)Driving Anger Scale. Analysis of responses allow researchers to determine which of the six factors of the scale: “discourtesy”, “hostile gestures”, “slow driving”, “traffic obstructions”, “police presence” and “illegal driving” are most associated with the experience of anger in drivers. In addition to the questionnaire measure to assess causes of anger, the study also addresses the question of the possible effect of traffic congestion on anger intensity. Heavy traffic density blocks goal directed activity and this has been demonstrated to be a cause of anger (Izard, 1991; Lazarus, 1982; Berkowitz, 1962 and Berkowitz, 1969; Rule & Percival, 1971; Mabel, 1994). Finally, as well as establishing the causes of anger while driving and individual differences in the propensity towards anger, this study examines the specific relationship between anger and accident or near accident involvement. It is anticipated that anger and near accident involvement may be strongly positively associated but what is as yet not established is the causal relationship between the two variables. Our study addresses this causality issue directly. Since one of our specific interests is in accident involvement it makes sense to study drivers known to be at high risk of accident involvement. We have thus chosen a sample of drivers to include a large number of young inexperienced drivers, those known to be at greatest risk of accident involvement (e.g. Maycock & Lockwood, 1993; Schuman et al., 1967).