خشم، پرخاشگری و رفتارهای پرخطر: یک مقایسه از رانندگان با خشم کم و زیاد

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.

Anger and aggression on our highways have received considerable media attention in the past decade. For example, ‘road rage,’ the most violent cases involving assault or attempted assault, appeared to increase approximately 7% a year from 1990 through 1995 in the US, resulting in an estimated 200 deaths and another 12 000 injuries (American Automobile Association, 1997). Drivers who have altercations with other drivers also experience greater numbers of traffic violations and accidents (Hemenway & Solnick, 1993). However, for every physical assault or anger-related injury, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of angry drivers. Their experience is marked by intense emotional and physiological arousal. Some angry drivers behave aggressively (e.g. hostile gestures, loud epithets and denigrating comments, cutting a person off or tailgating in anger), whereas others are angry, but do not aggress (e.g. only mumble to self or think hostile thoughts). Social and environmental factors such type of situations encountered, anonymity, and presence of hostile messages and bumper stickers influence anger and aggression while driving (Doob and Gross, 1968, Ellison-Potter, Bell and Deffenbacher, 2001, Kenrick and MacFarlane, 1986, Lajunen and Parker, 2001 and Shinar, 1998). Personality and emotional disposition also appear to contribute. For example, drivers who engage in risky and illegal driving and/or who have the highest crash rates are high in general anger, aggressiveness, risk taking, impulsiveness, social irresponsibility, and sensation seeking (Arnett, Offer and Fine, 1997, Donovan, Queisser, Salzberg, and Umlauf, 1985, Mayer and Treat, 1987, McMillen, Pang, Wells-Parker and Anderson, 1992 and Underwood, Chapman, Wright and Crundall, 1999). Traits like these are associated with risky driving, but transitory states also appear important. For example, in field studies, state anger correlated strongly with increased levels of aggression and risky behavior (Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Yingling, 2001b). Anger was the only mood state associated with speeding in adolescents (Arnett et al., 1997), and reckless driving was associated with elevated state anger in college students (Morris, Deffenbacher, Lynch, & Oetting, 1996). Findings such as these suggest that the state-trait model of anger (Spielberger, 1988 and Spielberger, 1999) might be adapted to anger while driving (Arnett, Offer and Fine, 1997 and Deffenbacher, Oetting and Lynch, 1994). Applied to anger when driving, trait driving anger refers to a person’s general propensity to become angered frequently and intensely when driving (i.e. trait driving anger reflects a context-specific tendency to become angry when driving). State driving anger describes angry emotional and physiological arousal stemming from a specific driving event. Deffenbacher et al. (1994) developed a measure of trait driving anger, and initial studies showed that state anger increased with driving-related frustration and provocation, and that trait driving anger correlated positively with risky driving-related attitudes and behaviors, the frequency and intensity of state driving anger, frequency of risky and aggressive behavior on the road, and some crash-related events such as close calls, (Deffenbacher, Lynch, Deffenbacher and Oetting, 2001a and Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting and Yingling, 2001b). In studies of British drivers, elements of trait driving anger correlated positively with traffic violations generally (Underwood et al., 1999) and with violations involving both aggression and non-aggression incidents (Lajunen, Parker, & Stradling, 1998). Two recent studies (Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting and Salvatore, 2000a and Deffenbacher, Lynch, Filetti, Dahlen, and Oetting, 2002a) compared a group of angry drivers who identified driving anger as a personal problem for which they sought counseling to a group of low anger drivers who indicated they did not have personal problem with anger when driving. Groups did not differ on the frequency of driving, but high anger drivers reported more intense and frequent anger in day-to-day driving and engaged in more frequent aggressive and risky behavior behind the wheel. Although they did not differ in terms of lifetime injury or major accidents, high anger drivers experienced more close calls, losses of vehicular control, traffic citations for moving offenses, and anger-related injury to themselves and damage to their vehicles. Although clinically interesting, sampling in these two studies confounds the person’s propensity to become angry behind the wheel with self-identifying a problem with driving anger and an interest in counseling for driving anger reduction. That is, a significant portion of the findings may be due to identifying driving anger as problematic, rather than anger proneness per se. The present study, therefore, sought to remedy this problem by identifying high and low anger drivers independent of their seeing driving anger as a problem and testing an application of state-trait theory to driving anger. Three predictions were derived from the state-trait model. Specifically, if trait driving anger reflects a person’s disposition to anger while driving, then high anger drivers, compared to low anger drivers: 1. should experience anger more frequently when driving (frequency hypothesis) 2. should experience more intense anger when driving (intensity hypothesis); and 3. since anger may motivate and prompt aggression, should engage in more aggressive behavior on the road (aggression hypothesis). Two collateral hypotheses were developed even though they did not derive completely from the state-trait model as not all of the phenomena included are necessarily mediated by anger. Specifically, since anger and aggression can interfere with attention, perception, information processing, and behaviors needed for safe handling of a vehicle, and since trait driving anger may be correlated with characteristics (e.g. impulsiveness) that may interfere with driving, it was predicted that, compared to low anger drivers, high anger drivers would: 1. engage in more risky behavior on the road (risky behavior hypothesis); and 2. experience more crashes and crash-related outcomes (negative outcomes hypothesis). Hypotheses were tested by three different methodologies: self-report surveys, driving diaries, and performance on and emotional reactions to situations presented via a driving simulator. Gender was explored as a possible moderator of relationships, and trait anger was included to continue to map the characteristics of high anger drivers and to assess whether high anger drivers were also elevated on general anger and aggression as suggested by Lajunen and Parker (2001).