تاثیر عمومی خودآگاهی و خشم بر روی رانندگی پرخاشگرانه

This study examined how anger interacted with public self-consciousness to influence aggressive driving. It was hypothesized that when people were angry, more aggressive driving behavior would occur when public self-consciousness was low than when public self-consciousness was high. To test this hypothesis the participants were required to complete measures of driving anger and public self-consciousness. Then participants gave a retrospective self-report of aggressive driving behavior. Further, participants were required to keep a log in which they recorded aggressive driving behavior. The results supported the prediction. Public self-consciousness interacted with anger to influence aggression while driving.

Anger while driving an automobile is a common experience. Underwood, Chapman, Wright, and Crundall (1999) reported that over the course of two weeks 85% of drivers became angry while driving. Similarly Neighbors, Vietor, and Knee (2002) found that drivers reported feeling angry at least every day, and Joint (1995) found that 60% of drivers reported becoming angry while driving. Further, anger is more common while driving than other activities (Parkinson, 2001). There are a number of situational and personality variables that may account for these high levels of anger. For example, the driving situation may produce frustration because driving is usually a goal directed behavior that on many occasions is blocked (Novaco, Stokols, & Milanesi, 1990). That is, most drivers are attempting to arrive quickly at a destination. Road conditions and the behavior of other motorists often prevent or block drivers from attaining this goal. This type of blocked behavior often results in feelings of frustration that produce anger (Dollard et al., 1939, Gnepp, 1979, Hennessy and Wiesenthal, 1999 and Shinar, 1998). In addition, driving is a situation where people are exposed to high levels of provocation. Neighbors et al. (2002) found that in a 10 day period 24% of drivers reported making rude gestures to other drivers. Further, the driving situation is one of the few situations in which the behavior of another person can directly and immediately threaten physical well being. This type of provocation reliably produces anger (Bettencourt & Norman, 1996). Beyond situational variables, a number of personality and individual differences variables relate to the experience of anger while driving. Most notably Deffenbacher and his colleagues have documented individual differences in the tendency to become angry while driving (Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000; Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Yingling, 2001). Even though anger is a common experience while driving, actual aggressive behavior while driving is relatively uncommon (Parker, Lajunen, & Summala, 2002). In retrospective self-reports only moderate correlations between anger and aggressive actions have been found (Neighbors et al., 2002). The modest relationship between anger and aggressive driving is not surprising. Anger is not considered a sufficient condition to produce aggression in most of the influential theoretical explanations of aggression, (e.g., the cognitive-neoassociation theory Berkowitz, 1989 and Berkowitz, 1993), the general aggression model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), and the social information processing model (Huesmann, 1988 and Huesmann, 1998). In these theoretical formulations, aggression is the product of a complex interaction between anger and both situational and personality variables. Consequently, it seems likely that the amount of aggressive behavior while driving would largely be dependent on an interaction between the amount of anger experienced and the conditions that enhance the expression of aggressive behavior. That is, aggressive behaviors while driving will be the product of interactions between anger and both situational and personality factors that facilitate the expression of aggression. A number of situational factors present while driving have been explored. For example, the driving situation may create feelings of anonymity that increase the likelihood that anger will lead to aggression. Feeling anonymous may cause the driver to perceive that there is a reduced risk of detection and punishment from others for behaving aggressively (Lowenstein, 1997 and Zimbardo, 1969). Ellison, Govern, Petri, and Figler (1995) and Ellison-Potter, Bell, and Deffenbacher (2001) have found evidence that anonymity increases aggression in the driving situation. The driving situation may also increase feelings of invulnerability and personal power. These feelings may make people believe that they are immune from the consequences of aggressive behavior and consequently make them more likely to act aggressively when they become angry (Fineran & Bolen, 2006). Less attention has been given to the moderating role of personality variables. This is despite a wealth of evidence relating a variety of personality variables to aggression (e.g., impulsiveness Stanford, Greve, Boudreaux, & Mathias, 1996), locus of control, sensation seeking, and emotional stability (Dahlen & White, 2006). The purpose of this study is to explore the moderating role of personality variables. Specifically, this study investigated how the interaction between anger and public self-consciousness influenced aggressive behavior while driving. 2. Public self-consciousness In the psychological literature, self-consciousness has been characterized as both a state and a trait. Duval and Wicklund (1972) suggest that conscious attention can be directed toward the self or toward the environment. They conceived of self-focused attention as a shifting state that could be manipulated by environmental circumstances. That is, a person’s attention shifts between a focus on elements of the external world and a focus on the self. Alternatively, Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975) proposed a more stable trait difference in the tendency to attend to aspects of the self. Analysis of their original work prompted them to differentiate between private and public self-consciousness. Private self-consciousness is the tendency to focus attention upon the inner aspects of oneself such as thoughts, inner feelings, and physical sensations. Public self-consciousness is the tendency to focus attention on the self as a social object. People high in public self-consciousness are concerned about what other people think about them and how they appear to others (Cheek & Briggs, 1982). For example, people high in public self-consciousness indicate they use clothing and makeup to affect their public image (Miller and Cox, 1982 and Solomon and Schopler, 1982) and are more likely to have cosmetic surgery because of appearance concerns (Culos-Reed, Brawley, & Martin, 2002). Further, high public self-consciousness people place great importance in adhering to societal norms (Doherty and Schlenker, 1991 and Ybarra and Trafimow, 1998). For example, high public self-conscious people alter their opinions to make themselves appear socially desirable (Chang, Hau, & Guo, 2001) and control public displays of emotion (Oshimi, 2002). Public self-consciousness may moderate the relationship between anger and the expression of aggressive behavior. People high in public self-consciousness are motivated to maintain a positive public image and to adhere to societal norms prohibiting aggressive behavior. Consequently, people high in public self-consciousness might be less likely to act aggressively even when they are experiencing anger. Alternatively, people low in public self-consciousness who are less concerned about public presentation might be more likely to act aggressively when angered. Consistent with this reasoning Russell (1995) found people low in public self-consciousness are more likely to escalate a disturbance into physical aggression. In the present study, it was hypothesized that public self-consciousness and anger would interact. It was expected that when people were angry, less aggressive driving behavior would occur when they were high in public self-consciousness than when they were low in public self-consciousness. Alternatively, when people were not angry low levels of aggressive behavior should occur regardless of the amount of self-consciousness.