خشم، پرخاشگری، رفتار پرخطر و نتایج مربوط به تصادف در سه گروه از رانندگان
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|33264||2003||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8279 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Behaviour Research and Therapy, Volume 41, Issue 3, March 2003, Pages 333–349
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.
At one time or another, every driver has been endangered by the erratic behavior of an angry, aggressive driver. Although some of the constructs employed are loosely defined, anger and aggression appear to be a problem on the highways. For example, the most violent cases of assault and mayhem or ‘road rage’ in the U.S. increased 7% per year from 1990 through 1995 with an estimated 200 people killed and another 12,000 injured (American Automobile Association, 1997). Recent research shows that court- and self-referred aggressive drivers evidence a high incidence of intermittent explosive disorder and other psychopathology (Galovoski, Blanchard & Veazey, in press), and drivers with histories of altercations with other drivers also have greater incidence of traffic violations and crashes (Hemenway & Solnick, 1993). However, for every serious vehicular crash, assault, or injury, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of angry drivers. Some angry drivers aggress (e.g. yell at another driver or intimidate with their vehicle) and act out in other ways (e.g. speed or drive recklessly), whereas other angry drivers aggress little and drive fairly normally. Nonetheless, both types of angry drivers experience strong angry emotionality and upset (e.g. mad, angry, or furious) and accompanying physiological arousal. Moreover, anger’s effects are not limited to the highway as anger experienced while commuting carries over and impacts post-commute work and family relations (Novaco, Stokols, Campbell and Stokols, 1979 and Novaco, Stokols and Milanesi, 1990). Thus, a driver’s anger may not only lead to negative consequences for him/herself and the people who share the vehicle or the road with them, but others who are not even there at the time (e.g. coworkers or family members later). Social and environmental factors such as congestion, anonymity, hostile messages, and type of situations encountered contribute to anger while driving (e.g. Deffenbacher, Deffenbacher, Richards, Lynch and Oetting, 2001, Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting and Salvatore, 2000, Doob and Gross, 1968, Kenrick and MacFarlane, 1986 and Potter, Govern, Petri and Figler, 1995). However, dispositional factors appear to contribute as well. For example, drivers high in trait driving anger or the propensity to become angry behind the wheel become more frequently and intensely angered and engage in more aggressive and risky behavior on the road (Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting and Salvatore, 2000, Deffenbacher, Deffenbacher, Richards, Lynch and Oetting, 2001 and Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting and Swaim, in press). In adult British samples, aspects of trait driving anger tended to correlate positively with traffic violations generally (Underwood, Chapman, Wright, & Crundall, 1999) and with driving violations involving both aggressive or non-aggressive incidents (Lajunen, Parker, & Stradling, 1998). Angry states appear involved as well. For example, anger was the only mood state associated with high speed driving in adolescents (Arnett, Offer, & Fine, 1997), and elevated state anger was associated with increased aggression and risky driving in college students (Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Yingling, 2001). Such findings suggest that state–trait anger theory can be adapted to driving anger (Arnett, Offer and Fine, 1997 and Deffenbacher, Oetting and Lynch, 1994). Trait anger refers to a disposition to become angry more frequently and intensely across situations, whereas state anger is a transitory emotional–physiological condition characterized by physiological arousal and subjective feelings ranging from annoyance to rage (Spielberger, 1988 and Spielberger, Reheiser and Sydeman, 1995). Adapted to anger while driving, trait driving anger refers to the propensity or tendency to become angry when driving, whereas state anger refers angry feelings and physiological arousal in response to a specific driving event. A recent study (Deffenbacher et al., 2000) compared high anger drivers who self-identified driving anger as a personal problem for which they sought assistance (i.e. high anger-problem or HAP drivers) and compared them to a low anger group who indicated no personal problem with driving anger (i.e. low anger-no problem or LANP drivers). Although groups did not differ in the frequency of driving or miles driven, HAP drivers reported more anger in frequently occurring situations such as normal or rush hour traffic and day-to-day driving. Although groups did not differ on lifetime injury accidents or major accidents in the last year, HAP drivers reported higher lifetime prevalence of auto crashes generally, more minor accidents and close calls in the last year, greater loss of vehicular control in the last three months, lower seatbelt use, more aggressive and risky behavior while driving, and had their anger lead to more injury to themselves and damage to their vehicles. In summary, HAP drivers experienced more frequent and intense anger, engaged in more aggressive and risky behavior, and were at risk for a number of adverse outcomes. This study also identified an interesting, potentially important group of angry drivers, a high anger group who did not identify driving anger as a personal problem and seek help when interventions were made available (i.e. a high anger-no problem or HANP group). This group was as high on trait driving anger as the HAP group, but did not see themselves as experiencing significant problems from their driving anger. Two general possibilities exist to account for the reports of this group. First, their self-perceptions may be valid in that they experience anger, but do not evidence the problems of HAP drivers. If this is the case, they should be studied in order to identify the protective factors and processes that minimize problems. On the other hand, their self-perceptions may not be accurate. They may experience problems of which they are relatively unaware or which they deny or minimize. In this case, they should be studied in order to understand the processes leading to their misperceptions and because they present different problems for intervention. Psychotherapeutic strategies are appropriate for HAP drivers because they identify driving anger as a personal problem and seek help, but different strategies would be necessary for HANP drivers because they are not at a stage of readiness for such interventions. The present research sought to address three general goals. First, it continued to map the characteristics of HAP drivers. Measures of idiosyncratic anger reactions, driving anger expression, and ratings of self as a driver were added as well as replicating several measures from a prior study (Deffenbacher et al., 2000). Knowledge regarding HAP group provides further information regarding their vulnerabilities and informs intervention design. Second, the study assessed the characteristics of HANP drivers. Data from this group will inform researchers of potential protective factors or document that they are at risk and that alternative interventions are needed. Third, the study tested an application of state–trait theory to anger while driving. Specifically, if trait driving anger reflects a person’s disposition to become angry behind the wheel, then high anger drivers (both HAP and HANP), compared to low anger drivers, should experience more frequent and intense anger when driving (frequency and intensity hypotheses). Since anger can prompt and motivate aggression, HAP drivers should also engage in more aggression on the road (aggression hypothesis). No prediction for aggression was made for HANP drivers because they may not behave aggressively or experience problems due to aggression. Since both anger and aggression can activate behaviors and processes that interfere with perception, attention, information processing, and performance, and since trait driving anger may be correlated with other characteristics such as impulsiveness that could lead to impulsive, risky behavior, it was also predicted that HAP drivers would show elevated risky driving (risky behavior hypothesis) and crash-related outcomes (negative outcomes hypothesis). Again, since HANP drivers have not been studied before, no predictions were made for them regarding risky behavior and crash-related outcomes. These general goals were pursued by comparing HAP, HANP, and LANP drivers on: (1) perceptions of themselves as angry, aggressive, risk-taking, and safe drivers; (2) frequency and (3) intensity of driving-related anger; (4) aggressive driving behavior (i.e. behavior that is prompted by anger and/or could intentionally harm, annoy, frustrate, or intimidate others); (5) risky driving behavior (i.e. unsafe behavior and/or behavior that is not necessarily motivated by anger, but that increases the risk of a vehicular crash or other adverse outcomes such as speeding or drinking and driving); and (6) crashes and crash-related outcomes such as moving violations and close calls.