Road rage: a domain for psychological intervention?

Tara E. Galovski
,
,
Edward B. Blanchard
Center for Stress and Anxiety Disorders, State University of New York at Albany, 1535 Western Avenue, Albany, NY
12203, USA
Received 1 February 2001. Revised 4 February 2002. Accepted 4 February 2002. Available online 20 January 2003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00118-0, How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Permissions & Reprints

Abstract
Although there is currently no Axis I disorder holding anger as its hallmark feature (with the possible
exception of intermittent explosive disorder, IED), the impact of anger, aggression, hostility, and
related behaviors on society is enormous. Anger and aggression in the workplace, in schools, on the
streets, in airplanes, and on the roadways appears to be becoming increasingly commonplace. This
article reviews the expanding literature regarding aggression on the roadways given the proximity of
such violence to our everyday lives. In particular, this article defines aggressive driving and reviews
the history, extent, and consequences of road rage. A review of the type of individual engaging in
aggressive driving behaviors is also provided in an attempt to profile (demographically,
psychologically, and psychiatrically) the aggressive driver. Finally, a review of the three successful
programs currently attempting to correct such behaviors through psychological intervention is
provided.
Keywords
Aggressive driving;
Anger;
Aggression;
Road rage

1. Introduction
Increasingly, aggression and violence has appeared to drift further into mainstream American society.
Stories of school shootings, workplace violence, violence on the airlines, and road rage abound. We
chose to review the violence on the roadways given the fact that Americans are spending more and
more time and logging more and more miles in the automobile annually than any other
country (Federal Highway Administration: Office of Highway Information Management, 1998).
Aggressive driving has recently been cited as equaling alcohol-impaired driving in the number of
resultant motor vehicle accident (MVA) injuries and fatalities Martinez, 1997 and Snyder, 1997. Given
the amount of time that the average individual spends on the road, the probability of becoming a victim
on the roadways is significantly increased. Compared to other violent populations, little is known about
the aggressive driver and even less is known about how to begin to remedy the situation. These
authors have chosen to review this expanding literature and provide preliminary research findings in
an effort to both quantify the problem and begin to address the solution.
2. The impact of the automobile
Globally, the advent of the automobile in the 20th century has dramatically altered the occupational,
social, interpersonal, economic, and environmental realms of individual countries to varying degrees.
Nations have both benefited and been disadvantaged by the sweeping changes fostered by the
automobile. The United States has perhaps realized the greatest transformation, on a per capita basis,
of all the major world powers. A substantial by-product of the global explosion of automobile ownership
and usage has been the increasing toll of automobile related injury and death. Roadway congestion
increases each year, bringing with it more MVAs resulting in economic loss, injury, and death. As early
as 1940, traffic statistics indicated that death rates increase with auto registration in a linear
fashion (Ross, 1940). As will be discussed, a large percentage of these MVAs are thought to be
caused by aggressive driving. Table 1 provides some roadway statistics designed to provide the
reader a sense of the scope of impact of the automobile and the drivers behind on the wheel.
Table 1. Roadway statistics
Congestion
United States leads world in number of automobiles: 136,066,045 Federal Highway Administration, Office of
Highway Information Management (1998)
Followed by Japan: 45,000,000
United States leads in automobiles per capita: 517/1000 people Federal Highway Administration, Office of
Highway Information Management (1998)
Canada ranked second: 495/1000 people
Total kilometers traveled in the United States:
By car: 2,480,763,000,000
By truck: 64,778,472
By motorcycle: 3,767,029
By bus: 685, 504
Automobile-related injury and death
United Stateshighest rate of MVAs worldwide in 1995 (37,221) United States Department of Health and
Human Services (1997)
0.95 fatalities per 100 million vehicle km
MVAs account for 95% of all transportation fatalities
MVAs are leading cause of death by injury (29%) in 1996
Average of 115 died everyday in MVA in 1997
One person died in an MVA every 13 minutes (1997)
MVAs are the leading cause of death for people ages 627 USDOT-NHTSA (1998)
Societal economic loss is estimated to be US$150 billion Blincoe (1996)
Aggressive driving: role in MVAs
Mechanical failures account for no more than 10% of MVAs Ross (1940)
Human factors account for 90%
45% of MVAs are caused by driver Clayton and Mackay (1972)
Fatal crashes contributors: BTS USDOT (1998)
28%: failure to stay in proper lane
21%: speeding
9%: failure to yield right of way
5%: reckless, negligent, erratic, careless driving
Aggressive driving directly caused one-third of all MVA-related
injuries and two-third of all MVA-related deaths
Martinez (1997)
Half of all MVAs involve aggressive driving Snyder (1997)
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety estimates an average of 1500
people died annually as a result of aggressive driving from 1990 to
1996
Mizell (1997)
Fatalities and injuries resulting from automobile crashes have decreased from 1970 to 1996 in the
United States (Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS]: U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT),
1998) with the improvements made in transportation safety and public awareness. Such improvements
include structural improvements in the highways and secondary roads, technological advances in the
safety features of the automobiles themselves, legislation in safety (seat belt laws), and social reform
(such as in the area of drunk driving).
3. Defining aggressive driving
A certain proportion of crashes can be attributed to vehicle malfunction, roadway conditions, or other
unpreventable occurrences. However, most motor vehicle crashes are preventable with human factors
significantly contributing to a high percentage of MVAs. Ross (1940) noted, almost six decades ago,
that mechanical malfunctions in cars and road conditions accounted for no more than 10% of MVAs.
Ross estimated (from a systematic study of 58,550 accident reports in seven Michigan cities) that
human factors accounted for the remaining 90% of MVAs. He elaborated further that accidents most
frequently result from drivers' attitude and behavior problems. Such behaviors include speeding,
cutting in, refusing to yield right of way, driving on the wrong side of the road, and other aggressive
driving behavior. Driver attitudes, which were seen to contribute to the prevalence of MVAs, were
described as negligent, reckless, and antisocial. Thus, Ross suggested that the problem of traffic
accidents be addressed not so much through mechanical improvements (car and highway safety
features) or education, but through sociopsychological intervention.
Stradling and Parker (1997) provide a clearer definition of aggressive driving by grouping driving
behaviors into three categories: lapses, errors, and violations. Lapses are exemplified by such
behaviors as pulling away from the curb in third gear, or switching on one control when trying to turn
on another. Errors include failure to see a sign, misjudging a distance, etc. Violations
involve intent and are related to aggressive driving. Examples of the latter include disregarding the
speed limit, running a red light, or tailgating. Subjects who endorsed these violations as common
driving behaviors were found to be significantly more likely to have been involved in a traffic accident
or to be involved in a traffic accident in the future. These driving behaviors have been classified as
aggressive driving. Thus, aggressive driving behaviors (including the key element of intent in the
definition) can be considered to be contributing significantly to the overall number of automobile
crashes.
Clearly, human factors contribute significantly to the fatality rates and the overall preponderance of the
number of annual MVAs. As the United States continues to become more crowded and highways and
urban centers more congested, stress levels on the roads increase. Stress and annoyances
experienced on the roadways can lead to minor acts of negligence and mild discourtesy, which can
quickly escalate into dangerous and aggressive driving behaviors. These aggressive driving behaviors
greatly increase the risk of crashes and, undoubtedly, significantly contribute to the fatality statistics
cited above. Aggressive driving behaviors vary in range and intensity from mild infractions of the law
and discourtesies to clear antisocial behaviors and deliberate attempts to harm others.
Aggressive driving includes, but is not limited to, the following: slow driving with the intent of blocking
other vehicles, tailgating, improper passing (cutting drivers off when passing), failing to yield the right
of way, failing to keep right, horn-honking, flashing high beams, and failing to signal properly have all
been identified as acts of aggressive driving (Maiuro, 1998). Personal attacks on fellow drivers are
also included in aggressive driving behaviors. These include obscene gesturing, verbal insults,
throwing objects, and, in extreme cases, physical assault. Such behaviors tend to be reciprocated
quickly, and a relatively minor infraction can quickly escalate into a major altercation resulting in injury,
property damage, or even death.
Recent media attention, along with the coining of the phrase road rage, has generated current
interest in the problem of aggressive driving. However, research indicates that the phenomena
of aggression on theroads can be traced back over several decades. Parry (1968) administered a 77-
item questionnaire to over 380 British drivers to ascertain their perceptions of other drivers' behavior
with particular attention to aggressive driving behaviors. Many drivers admitted to engaging in
aggressive driving behaviors themselves once they were behind the wheel. The most common form
of aggression was directed at other drivers, although some aggression was directed at self and at
inanimate objects as well. Parry found aggressive behaviors to be related to road accidents.
Specifically, drivers between the ages of 17 and 35 (mostly male) admitted to the most aggressive
driving behavior and were the most likely to be in an accident. Further, this subpopulation indicated the
most overt aggression including behaviors such as chasing another vehicle, driving straight at another
vehicle when angered, trying to edge another car off the road, fighting other drivers, and having
difficulty controlling one's temper.
Turner, Layton, and Simons (1975) selected 12 questions from Parry's (1968) questionnaire and
administered them to 26 men and 27 women. Results indicated that 23% of the men and 18% of the
women reported feeling easily provoked when driving. In an effort to quantify the extent of more recent
aggressive driving, the Automobile Association conducted a 1995 survey of 526 drivers (Joint, 1997).
Results indicated that 90% of those surveyed reported having witnessed incidents of
driving aggression in the last 12 months. Sixty percent reported personally losing their temper at the
wheel. Fifty-four percent of women endorsed aggressive driving behaviors as compared to 64% of
men. Thus, aggressive driving, both historically and currently, appears to be a fairly common
occurrence on the roadways. Specific behaviors witnessed and endorsed by the participants of these
two studies are portrayed in Table 2.
Table 2. Aggressive driving quantified
Aggressive driving
behavior
% witnessed in the last
12 months (Joint, 1997)
% endorsed in the last 12
months (Joint, 1997)
% ever endorsed (Turner et al., 1975)
Any incident 90
Tailgating 62 67
Aggressive driving
behavior
% witnessed in the last
12 months (Joint, 1997)
% endorsed in the last 12
months (Joint, 1997)
% ever endorsed (Turner et al., 1975)
Flashing high beams 59 45 50% men, 15% women
Retaliating when
flashed
20% men, 12% women
Deliberately blocking
another car
21 5
Feel anger at traffic
light
23% men, 23% women
Verbal insults 16 12 out loud: 23% men and 41% women,
under breath: 77% men and 56%
women
Physical assault 1 0
Obscene gesturing 48 22 50% men, 15% women
Losing temper 60 40% men, 41% women
Felt they could have
killed another driver
12% men, 18% women
Give chase to another
driver
12% men, 4% women
Impatient at
intersection
19% men, 7% women
4. Social and interpersonal variables contribute to aggressive driving
A number of factors have been identified as causing or contributing to these driving behaviors known
as aggressive driving. In the relevant literature, the social significance of the automobile, as well as
social and interpersonal factors involved in driving, have been somewhat neglected in favor of
individual factors (i.e., reaction time) and the manipulation of various stimuli (Knapper & Cropley,
1981). Thus, while a wide breadth of literature on the mechanics of driving exists, a relative paucity of
research is found on the personological variables contributing to anger on the roads and the resulting
aggressive driving behaviors. A number of these variables, such as perceived social class (status),
gender, ethnicity, perception of aggression, and age, have been seen to play a significant and often
overlooked role in the development, maintenance, and exacerbation of aggressive driving behaviors.
In a remark on humans' fascination with the automobile, Marsh and Collett (1986) note the many
drawbacks to the automobile. The average speed of many commuters is slower than the horse and
buggy. Cities are blanketed with dense covers of smog from the pollutants spewed out by
automobiles. Roadways cut through beautiful countryside and consume huge portions of cities at the
expense of peoples' homes and businesses, and as well as account for thousands of injuries and
deaths. Yet, despite the negative consequences of the automobiles, people choose to spend hours in
traffic jams instead of alternative transportation, spend thousands of dollars on their automobiles, and
cope with the plethora of everyday hassles and expenses of owning a car. The answer to this seeming
contradiction, as put forth by these authors, does not lie in the political or economic arenas, but
instead in the psychology of the car. One important feature of this humancar relationship is the social
status that the car symbolizes.
Doob and Gross (1968) examined the role of social status as associated with cars and aggressive
driving behaviors. They hypothesized that high status implies the ability to exercise sanctions. Thus,
the fear of retaliation from a high status individual would prevent a low status individual from engaging
in aggressive behaviors when faced with a higher status individual. In order to investigate this
hypothesis, the researchers stopped either old (low status) or new (high status) vehicles at an
intersection, effectively blocking subsequent cars' passage. Horn latency (time it took for blocked
vehicle to sound horn), frequency (number of beeps), and duration (length of beep) were measured.
The make, model, and year of the blocked car were recorded along with characteristics of the
occupants of the blocked car including sex, estimated age, number of occupants, and number of
subsequent cars behind the blocked car. Thirty-eight subjects comprised the low status condition with
36 in the high status condition. In the low status condition, 84% of the subjects honked at least once
compared to 50% in the high status condition. Subjects also waited longer on average to honk at the
high status car that was blocking their passage. Status thus appeared to have an inhibitory effect
on aggression in that subjects tended to exhibit less patience and more aggression (as measured by
honking) toward a low status vehicle.
Replicating the Doob and Gross (1968) study, Deaux (1971) investigated the sex of the frustrator in
addition to the previously investigated status and sex of the frustrated subject. Similar trends for status
were found as compared to Doob and Gross' study. However, these trends did not reach statistical
significance. Sex of the frustrating driver was found to be the most influential variable. Fifty-two
percent of all drivers honked at the frustrating car when driven by a male as opposed to 71% of drivers
honking at a car driven by a female who engaged in identical frustrating behavior. Differences in the
sex of the frustrated subject emitting the behavior of honking were not found to be statistically
significant. The lack of sex differences in aggressive driving is further supported by the results of the
survey by Turner et al. (1975) mentioned previously. These authors had found that, overall, aggressive
driving and provocation on the roads did not differ significantly between men and women. However,
trends indicated that women engaged in more covert and less detectable forms of aggression (losing
temper, feeling as if they could kill the other driver, feeling annoyed at lack of turn signaling, and
swearing out loud) than men. Conversely, men tended to engage in more overtly aggressive behaviors
that could be detected by other drivers (flashing headlights in anger, making rude gestures, giving
chase to another driver, and retaliating in some way to another aggressive driver).
Further replications of this study yielded different results. Chase and Mills (1973) found that newer
cars produced more honking (opposite effect for status) and found no significant effect for sex. Their
study was conducted 10 years later and in a different region of the country possibly accounting for
some of the differences in the results. Hankes-Drielsma (1974) replicated the original study in Canada
and measured an ethnicity factor by prominently displaying a clear symbol of ethnic identification.
Honking was found to have significantly shorter latencies in the vehicle that did not display an ethnic
symbol.
Turner et al. (1975) used similar methodology in investigating the role of a prominently displayed
symbol ofaggression (a gun in the rack located in plain view of the subject's car) as well as a variable
of dehumanization or anonymity (visibility of the driver). The investigators arranged to have a truck,
with a visible gun prominently displayed in a gun rack paired with an aggressive or nonaggressive
bumper sticker, block the intersection. The mutual visibility of both the subject and the confederate
was varied by either pulling a curtain over the rear window to effectively block the view of the driver or
by leaving the curtain open. Results indicated that the male subjects were more likely to honk at an
anonymous individual supporting the hypothesis that inhibitions towards aggression are lowered when
the victim is dehumanized (through anonymity). When the gun was paired with the aggressive bumper
sticker, horn-honking responses were modified. In the case of the visible gun paired with the
aggressive bumper sticker and an anonymous driver, more rapid horn-honking ensued. These authors
surmise that aggressive stimuli may provoke aggressive responses, or that the stimuli may serve as a
retrieval cue and cause subjects to recall unrelated incidents ofaggression. Ellison, Govern, Petri, and
Figler (1995) also found that anonymity of drivers blocking traffic resulted in shorter honking latencies,
longer honk duration, and more frequent honks as compared to visible drivers. The greater degrees
of aggression observed in the conditions of the anonymous driver supportsMilgram's (1965) findings
that a subject is more likely to aggress against an anonymous victim than against a visible victim.
Age was found to have a negative relationship with driver stress and aggression in several
studies.Matthews, Dorn, and Glendon (1991) found that age was negatively correlated with several
dimensions of driver stress. Older drivers generally reported lower overall levels of stress. Younger
drivers reported a higher rate of aggression and more negative reactions about being overtaken and
overtaking other cars. These findings replicated previous research conducted by the same
investigators reporting that younger individuals report more daily stress in driving during commuting.
As a result of more stress, younger drivers were seen to use more inefficient coping strategies
(especially aggressive driving behaviors) as compared to their older driving counterparts [Gulian et al.,
1989] and [Gulian et al., 1990].
5. Driver stress and the environment: the larger context
Other investigators studied less interpersonal variables as contributors to aggressive
driving. Aggressioncan be conceptualized as occurring within a larger context. Research into the
context of the environment at large has included the interaction of environmental stress and
driver aggression. Anger, which has been seen to be related to aggression, has been defined in
research and clinical settings as a form of strong arousal activated by a proximal event.
However, Novaco (1993) addresses the need to consider not only proximal cues to anger, but also to
identify distal and contextual cues. In considering an anger-provoking situation, the context of the
situation must be appraised. Novaco suggests using three themes towards the assessment of anger in
a given context.
The first theme is termed embeddedness and refers to the understanding of the construct of anger
as being connected across space and time by influencing variables that occur across settings. An
example of such a variable might be the general economy. Financial stress resulting from a poor
economy may impact interpersonal domestic relationships (arguments about spending), the ability to
engage in extracurricular activities, higher gas prices, etc. Thus, anger may manifest itself in a
particular situation such as driving, but may involve frustration from a more diffuse stressor such as
economic concerns. Economic strain impacts the driving situation in a number of ways. For instance,
financial difficulties prohibit an individual from purchasing a comfortable car. Job location frequently
does not correspond to desirable housing in proximity. Thus, anger and aggression during commutes
may be embedded within the larger transportation, residential, and economic contexts.
The second theme is called interrelatedness and refers to the reciprocity in which anger influences
other behavioral and environmental elements over time and vice versa. In this sense, anger is
surrounded by previous occurrences and greatly influenced by past experiences. For example, rush-
hour traffic and stress from work may contribute to interpersonal difficulties in the home. When the
interpersonal difficulties are the sole focus of attention, the larger contextual contributors (work stress
and rush-hour traffic) may be overlooked.
Novaco (1993) describes the third theme as transformationality, which refers to dynamic change
processes occurring with anger. For instance, through positive feedback cycles, angry encounters can
produce escalation effects that, over time, transform behavior patterns. For example, honking the horn
in annoyance may be isolated incidents for some drivers, but may escalate to involve a family of
annoyance behaviors that include more serious acts of aggression over time. Although these themes
are primarily theoretical in nature, the author does draw upon empirical literature from a variety of
areas of scientific inquiry to support his views (for a further review of this literature, see Novaco, 1993).
The emphasis on the economic and environmental consequences of the increases in traffic and
general congestion has left the cumulative emotional, behavioral, and physical consequences of
increased travel relatively neglected. However, the relationship between the environmental context
and driving stress has been investigated in a number of studies. Road design, intravehicular
discomfort, such as noise and heat, air pollution, road quality, commuting time, overcrowding, and
congestion, are some of the environmental influences related to driver stress (Stokols & Novaco,
1981). These aversive conditions, which occur with some regularity during daily driving situations, are
considered stressful by virtue of their impedance properties. Travel impedance is thus defined as
behavioral constraints on movement and goal-directed activity, which is an aversive and frustrating
condition. Routine exposure to such accumulated stress negatively impacts physical health,
interpersonal relationships, and occupational functioning. In particular, travel impedance over time (as
in daily commute) was related to stress reactions as measured by physiological arousal, negative
mood, and performance deficits.
Because of the relative paucity of research on aggressive driving per se, related research must be
reviewed for a better understanding of the contextual dynamics involved. Research on driver stress
has provided some insight into patterns of driving within a larger context. In addition, across a variety
of fields of scientific inquiry, environmental stressors have shown a linear relationship to aggressive
behavior. As Rule and Nesdale (1976) summarize, a number of environmental stressors to which
humans are exposed have adverse effects on human behavior. Specifically, stressors can lead
to aggression. Such variables reviewed include noise, density (as in overpopulation and crowding),
temperature, and humidity. Although the existence of these stressors does not necessarily directly
cause aggressive behavior, stress has been shown to contribute to increased aggression in a
multitude of studies. Thus, stressors can be conceptualized as aggressive cues, which accumulate or
combine with other ingredients to produce aggressive responses. For instance, environmental
stressors can predispose an individual to react with excessive aggression to a perceived frustration or
insult. The experience of driving in a car during rush hour twice a day, 5 days a week encapsulates all
of these environmental stressors (noise, pollution, density, and temperature) along with the added
effect of time. It is not improbable to conclude that these stressors contribute significantly to the
variance of aggressive driving behavior.
Gulian, Debney, et al. (1989) investigated the association of driver stress and coping strategies. The
authors postulated that driver stress be conceptualized in one of two seemingly interrelated ways.
First, driver stress can be thought of as a measurable response to a specific driving situation. Second,
driver stress can be considered, in a broader sense, to be a result of a more pervasive personality trait
found in given individuals. Driver stress was seen to occur on two levels: situationally or as an
accumulation of negative feelings and frustrations related to the driving experience. Each level
exacerbates and reinforces the other in a reciprocal manner. Results of this investigation supported
previous research indicating that general life situations and the environmental context influence driver
stress. These authors found that the interpretation of other drivers' behaviors (including aggressive
behavior) was the number one cause of stress in their driving sample. Most importantly, these
investigators found that 42% to 75% of responses to driver stress involved aggressive driving
behaviors. In conclusion, the authors highlighted the need for intervention strategies aimed at reducing
aggressive behaviors as responses to driver stress.
The daily commute affords the researcher the ideal naturalistic site to investigate the relationship of
driver stress and subsequent aggression. Previous research conceptualized the degree of commuting
distress, as measured by self-reported distress, heart rate, and blood pressure, and performance
deficits, to vary as a function of the degree of impedance in travel [Novaco et al., 1979], [Stokols &
Novaco, 1981] and [Stokols et al., 1978]. More recently, Schaeffer, Street, Singer, and Baum
(1988) examined the effects of chronic low-level stress of daily commutes on psychological,
behavioral, and physiological outcomes. These investigators operationalized travel impedance as
average speed during commuting (lower speeds indicated higher impedance). The influence of control
over driving situations among commuters was also examined through comparison of single drivers
(high control) vs. carpool occupants (low control) and through the existence of primary and secondary
routes (high control as a result of a choice) vs. primary routes only (low control as a result of no choice
in route). Results indicated that higher levels of impedance were significantly associated with higher
systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but not for heart rate or self-report measures of anxiety or
hostility. Single and carpool drivers did not differ in their reported mood precommute, but significant
differences did emerge on postcommute mood measures. Contrary to expectations, single drivers
were significantly more hostile and anxious than carpool drivers. The authors postulated that single
drivers might feel a greater urgency to arrive to work on time. The authors also surmised that lack of
social interaction on the commute might account for some of the resulting poor mood. Overall, results
indicated that the high impedance work commute is associated with higher systolic and diastolic blood
pressure and decreases in behavioral performance. Speed of travel and control over the car's
environment also contribute to the stress of the commute. Control over the car's environment seemed
to partially offset the stress of a high impedance commute. However, choice of routes and control over
which route to take seemed to add stress to the commute. Therefore, locus of control as a factor in
driver stress requires further investigation.
Temperature has been investigated as a source of stress influencing hostility while driving. Increases
in uncomfortable levels of heat are related to increases in aggression(Baron & Ransberger,
1978). Kenrick and MacFarlane (1986) studied the effect of high temperature on interpersonal hostility
while driving. Conducting their study during the months of April through August in Phoenix, AZ, these
authors arranged for a confederate to block the intersection for 12 seconds. Similar to previously
mentioned studies, aggressionwas measured by horn latency, horn duration, and total number of
beeps. Subjects included any drivers who pulled up behind the confederate at the intersection with
their windows down (assuming no air-conditioning). The horn measurements were correlated to
continuous temperature readings provided by the University's Department of Geography.
Temperatures ranged from 88 to 116 F during the course of the study. Results indicated a significant,
linear relationship between temperature and aggression.
Stress and negative mood appear to occur frequently in driving situations. As previously noted,
Americans are spending large amounts of time in the car on both a daily and an annual basis. The
cumulative effect of stress from driving can clearly be considered substantial. Thus, everyday life
stressors coupled with common stressful driving situations can create a climate ripe for aggressive
driving. This accumulation of stress, along with related aggressive driving behaviors (Schaeffer et al.,
1988), may be contributing to aggressive driving and possibly increasing the risk of MVAs.
6. Impact on important areas of functioning
Life events and traumas impact all areas of functioning including driving behaviors. Interpersonal and
occupational difficulties, as well as recent major life stressors, have been seen to discriminate
between accident- and non-accident-involved drivers and have been seen to predict the incidence and
frequency ofroad accidents (Selzer & Vinokur, 1975). Research has shown that drivers who are
currently experiencing major life stressors are five times more likely to cause fatal accidents than
drivers who were relatively free from serious life stressors (Brenner & Selzer, 1969). Part of the reason
for the increase in MVAs with distressed drivers may involve higher degrees of risk-taking and
aggressive driving.
Matthews et al. (1998) investigated links between a driver's vulnerability to stress (as identified by the
Driving Behavior Inventory, DBI) and their objective performance on a driving simulator task. DBI had
previously identified three main factors in the vulnerability to driver stress (Gulian, Matthews, Glendon,
Davies, & Debney, 1989). These factors include aggression, dislike of driving, and alertness. The
authors expected high dislike of driving to predict cognitive interference (diversion of attention away
from the task resulting in poorer control and more driving errors). As high dislike is also related to
negative beliefs about personal competence and driving ability, the authors expected that drivers high
in dislike would drive more carefully and slowly thus committing less overtakes of other drivers. Drivers
who scored high in aggression would be expected to react in a confrontative manner to other drivers
and engage in more risk-taking behavior. Finally, the authors hypothesized that drivers scoring high in
alertness would show superior ability to detect roadhazards. Results indicated that dislike was related
to more errors and less driving control. However, it was not related to a greater ability to speedily
detect hazards. Dislike also resulted in less frequency of overtaking other drivers and in reduced
speed for young drivers. Stressed drivers were seen to take more risks and drive more aggressively
when the driving situation required active decision making about an interaction with fellow drivers.
Drivers who drove aggressively reported higher degrees of depression after the risk-taking behavior
was concluded. Aggressive drivers did not appear to be sensation-seeking nor were they
underestimating the risks involved. However, the risk-taking behavior was significantly high, adding to
the literature showing a link between driving aggression and driving stress. It thus appears that driver
stress can contribute to aggressive driving behavior that, in turn, increases the probability of an MVA
substantially. Finally, alertness in younger drivers correlated with superior ability to detect hazards.
The occurrence of stress from a variety of sources is linked to driver stress and aggressive driving.
Conversely, stress experienced on the road impacts other important areas of functioning in an
individual's life. Environmental factors interact with driving stress resulting in negative consequences
not only while on the road (driver aggression, MVAs), but also in the social, interpersonal, recreational,
and occupational levels of functioning. For instance, Novaco, Stokols, and Milanesi (1990) studied the
reciprocal impact of psychological stressors in important areas of functioning that they
termed interdomain transfer effects. Their investigation revealed negative consequences of
experiencing regular travel impedance in the daily commute in both the occupational and residential
domains. Novaco, Kliewer, and Broquet (1991) then examined the home environment in order to
ascertain the effect of commute impedance on the relationships in the home. Further evidence of the
interdomain transfer effect was seen in this study as high travel impedance negatively impacted the
home environment. Considering general stress variables as they relate to aggressive driving has
important treatment implications across life domains (Magnusson, 1982). Changes in a driver's
perceptions of demands and cognitive appraisal of the driving situation, as well as of employment and
residential situations, may substantially modify stress levels and result in improvements across
important areas of functioning.
Chronic levels of arousal have been linked to the increased risk of cardiovascular disorders. Megargee
(1985) discusses the various causal pathways, by which aggression is linked to cardiovascular heart
disease, identifying both intrinsic and extrinsic instigators of aggression. Intrinsically, personality traits
(such as the Type A personality) have been linked to cardiovascular disease. For instance, a hostile
personality trait may contribute significantly to aggressive behavior. Extrinsically, external
reinforcements influence behavior such as the acquisition of property, enhancement of self-concept,
thrill-seeking, etc.Rosenman (1985) reviews the evidence of the links between anger, hostility,
and aggression and cardiovascular heart disease and hypertension. Ineffective management of anger
results in higher resting blood pressure or sustained hypertension. People exhibiting chronic hostility
and anger respond with exaggerated and prolonged cardiovascular responses to stressful stimuli
stemming from a variety of sources. Cognitive stressors appeared to result in such heightened
cardiovascular responses. Of all the emotions, anger appears to evoke the most cardiovascular
response (Schwartz, Weinberger, & Singer, 1981). During an angry response, epinephrine and
norepinephrine levels resemble those that occur during isometric exercise (exercise in which there is
muscle tension but no movement), which is associated with a rise in cardiac output and peripheral
vascular resistance. These responses are opposite of those occurring during relaxation. Fear, on the
other hand, has been associated with a greater variety of responses and appears to be more
associated with responses occurring during isotonic exercises (exercise in which there is equal muscle
tension throughout the movement).
As discussed earlier, people spend large quantities of time in highly stressful driving situations. Over
time, such chronic exposure may lead to long-term health consequences. Taylor and Pocock
(1972) investigated the effects of daily commutes on the physical health of London office workers.
These authors postulated that the stress of long, uncomfortable drives to and from work on a daily
basis causes an accumulation of stress which, over time, results in more sickness and absenteeism
from work. Results indicated that the higher the number of stages of a commute, the more sickness
and absenteeism. The length of a journey along with a commute in the car as opposed to public
transportation also was associated with higher rates of illness. More recently, [Larson,
1996a] and [Larson, 1996b] associated the stress of driving and subsequent aggressive driving
behaviors as detrimental to good health, especially as related to cardiovascular disease.
7. Personality variables of aggressive drivers
Most drivers, at one time or another, experience heat, pollution, noise, and other driving-related
stressors. However, not all drivers engage in aggressive driving behaviors. The media and press have
called attention to the perceived link between personality and driving by depicting the car as an
extension of one's personality. Strategies for marketing automobiles target this perception by
suggesting that any given particular car is a perfect match for a number of personality traits.
Marsh and Collett (1986) explored this human identification with the automobile. They recognize the
automobile as an outlet for social and individual expression. Car sports, car magazines, drive-in
movies and restaurants, colors, shapes, sizes, and models across the last century are reflective of
economic, political, societal values, and trends at any given historical cross-section of time. As such,
not only is the car a symbol of status, but it is an extension of our personalities and values. As much
as a car is a reflection of individuality, it also is an outlet for frustration and aggression. In this respect,
the car can be likened to a weapon. Because the majority of the adult population owns a car, the
automobile is not often considered in a dangerous sense. Deaths on the roadways are termed
accidents. People do not think of arming themselves when getting in their vehicles. Without the
association of aggression and the car, people tend minimize the potential ramifications of driving
aggressively. The car thus affords the public with a societally accepted, rather anonymous means of
expressing frustration and anger in the form of aggressive driving.
Researchers have also explored personological variables or characteristics of drivers in order to
identify certain personality types or profiles that typify the aggressive driver. Personality types (e.g.,
the Type A or coronary-prone behavior type) may exacerbate the experience of stress and contribute
to aggressive driving behavior. The tendency to drive aggressively thus may be inherent in a person
much like a personality trait, or may be more transient and dependent on a given mood and the day's
circumstances. For example, it may be the case that the typical aggressive driver is a generally hostile
individual who perceives the world and its inhabitants negatively across situations. Or, on the other
hand, the average aggressive driver may be a busy person in a hurry to complete a task. This latter
person may emit aggressive behaviors subsequent to a frustrating stimuli or a thwarted goal-directed
activity. Thus far, little is known about the persona we commonly refer to as the aggressive driver.
McGuire (1956) contributes to the beginnings of personality trait research within the driving literature
when he compared accident- and violation-free drivers with accident- and violation-incurring drivers.
Using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) (Hathaway & McKinley, 1951) and the
Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Study (Rosenzweig, Fleming, & Clarke, 1947), he found that the two
groups produced significant differences on these standardized tests. The unsafe drivers scored
significantly higher on the Psychopathic Deviate (Scale 4) and the Schizophrenic (Scale 8) scales of
the MMPI. Likewise, the unsafe drivers produced significantly higher scores on the Ego-Defensive and
Need-Persistence Scales of the Rosenzweig. Neither groups' scores were in the clinical range for
either test. Item analysis indicated that the unsafe drivers endorsed responses that were more
aggressive, less conservative, less mature, less conscientious, and more antisocial in nature.
Personality traits inherent in drivers might effect driving behaviors through a number of
pathways. Matthews et al. (1991) review several pathways in which personality traits influence driving
behaviors. Different personality traits have been shown to influence cognitive appraisals of events,
levels of arousal, preferred level of stimulation, sensitivity to reward/threat cues, and more generalized
stress syndromes. Conversely, it is possible that the individual's personality could be formed or altered
based on driving experience (long-term exposure to traffic impedance or commute). Various
approaches to differentiating and categorizing types of aggressive drivers in the literature have been
employed.
[Larson, 1996a] and [Larson, 1996b] categorizes aggressive drivers into five types. The speeder refers
to the driver who races against the clock. This person's goal is to reach a given destination as quickly
as possible and make good time. When these efforts are thwarted or obstructed, this driver quickly
becomes angry. The second category of drivers is termed the competitor. This driver attempts to
bolster self-esteem by creating contests out of driving situations and attempting to beat other drivers
in given situations (i.e., will attempt to race another driver at a neighboring toll booth to get through
first). Losing these battles increases the competitor's anger and aggressive driving behavior. The third
category involves the passive aggressor. This driver thwarts other drivers' attempts to pass, drive
faster, merge, etc. This type of driver feels that giving in to another driver results in loss of status or
self-esteem. Although this driver may not speed or tailgate, preventing others from achieving their
goals increases anger in the latter and thus increases the hazard on the road just as effectively. The
fourth type of driver is termed the narcissist. This driver sets rigid standards regarding proper driving
behavior and feels angry when infractions of these standards are observed in others. These infractions
may include actual driving behavior or characteristics of a given driver like sex, age, type of car, etc.
Finally, the vigilante refers to the driver who is a self-appointed jury, judge, and enforcer of fellow
drivers. This driver feels justified in punishing infractions of traffic laws and will engage in a spectrum
of punishing behaviors, from shouting and swearing and obscene gesturing to cutting off drivers and
even killing other drivers.
Researchers have also taken a more empirical approach in identifying aggressive driver profiles. A
study conducted by Gulian, Matthews, et al. (1989) considered the role of locus of control and
attentional styles as they relate to driver stress. These authors found a lack of impact of controllability
of driving situations on driver stress. This finding contradicts previous research (Schaeffer et al.,
1988) in other domains in which feeling in control of a situation modifies stress levels. The attentional
styles of individuals was related to driver stress in this study in that cognitive failures (failures in
perception, memory, and motor function) were associated with the dimensions of aggression in driving
and dislike of driving.
A follow-up study by Matthews et al. (1991) investigated more molecularly the relationship between
individual differences in driver stress (as identified by their DBI; Gulian, Matthews, et al., 1989) and
personality dimensions across four studies. The first study associated driver stress to three major
personality dimensions: extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism (as identified by the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire, Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). Neuroticism proved to be the strongest
predictor of driver stress and was positively correlated with aggression in overall driver stress.
Psychoticism was also positively correlated with aggression. These findings suggest that personality
traits, especially neuroticism, may play a role in predisposing an individual to driver stress that may
result in aggressive driving. A follow-up study indicated that neuroticism is associated with relatively
ineffectual coping strategies (Dorn & Matthews, 1992). Subjects who ranked high in neuroticism
reported significantly greater incidences of aggressive and confrontative strategies. The authors
suggested that ineffective coping strategies might mediate the relationship seen between neuroticism
and driver stress.
Study 2 (Matthews et al., 1991) addressed more detailed individual differences in frustration and
irritation on the road. The authors identify the driver's predisposition to hostility and aggression as
possible antecedents to irritation and anger on the road. This irritation and anger frequently results in
aggressive and hostile behaviors toward other drivers (Turner et al., 1975). Results of Study 2
revealed that aggression were strongly correlated with hostility as measured by the BussDurkee
Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957). Thus, the physical or verbal act of aggression in driving was
strongly related to a predisposition to hostility in general.
Study 3 focused on the cognitive aspects of driving and the effects of the beliefs of an individual about
driving competency and the ability to cope with driving situations. These authors theorize that believing
oneself to be less competent in driving results in greater overall driver stress. Results are consistent
with this hypothesis that believing oneself to be less competent on the road was associated with
higher levels of reported driver stress.
Personality variables and the incidence of psychopathology in traffic accidents were investigated
by Tsuang, Boor, and Fleming (1985). These authors reviewed the available literature in order to
compare nonpsychiatric and psychiatric populations in an attempt to examine the roles of personality
factors, Axis I disorders, suicide, life events, alcohol, and drugs in traffic accidents across
populations. Tillman and Hobbs (1949) had first studied the relationship of traffic accidents and
personality traits and concluded, a man drives as he lives. Subsequent research often bore out this
conclusion with some contradiction. In their review, Tsuang et al. found noticeable trends for
associations between higher incidents of traffic accidents and certain personality characteristics. Such
characteristics in nonpsychiatric populations included less control of hostility and anger, less tolerance
of tension, less maturity, less conformity, more difficulty with authority, more hyperactivity, more
belligerence, and a tendency to take risks. Higher accident rates are reported among criminal
samples. The authors note the crossover of many reported personality characteristics with
characteristics of borderline and antisocial personality disorders. The role of psychopathology in traffic
accidents was found more discrepant in their review of the relevant literature. The authors report
general agreement concerning the reports of higher incidence of traffic accidents in patients with
diagnosed personality disorders and paranoid ideation. The reviewed studies differed widely on their
findings of relationships between psychotic and neurotic disorders and the incidence of traffic
accidents. The authors also note that risk-taking and hyperactivity (defined by the author as
aggressiveness, impulsiveness, and disrespect for authority) are associated with higher incidence of
traffic accidents.
In addition to personality traits and the occurrence of Axis I disorders, state and trait aspects of affect
and mood may have an effect on driving behavior. Groeger (1997) speculated that depressed
individuals might be expected to perform more sluggishly at the wheel. He based this supposition on
the body of research concerning mood and memory. In this research, mood has been seen to affect
the ability to learn and retrieve information. Similarly, a driver experiencing high anxiety may commit
more driving errors. A hostile mood may also affect driver performance and lead to aggressive driving
behaviors. Overall, in investigating these questions, the author found that during a driving test,
increases in hostility alone appeared to be related to deficits in performance. Specific driving
behaviors, which are emitted in relation to any given mood state, require further investigation. This
preliminary research points out the necessity of taking transient (state) and trait moods into account
when conducting research into driving behaviors. Certain personality variables, traits, and
characteristics may be associated with more driver stress, which may lead to
increasedaggression and, in turn, lead to a higher incidence of traffic accidents. More accidents
certainly increase the risk of injury, property damage, and fatality.
Results from the SUNY-Albany program have indicated a high rate of both Axis I and II
psychopathology within a community sample (court-referred and self-referred) of aggressive
drivers [Galovski & Blanchard, 2002] and Galovski & Blanchard, in press. Using the clinician-
administered, standardized Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I and II disorders [First et al.,
1994] and [First et al., 1995], it was found that 80% of the 30 participants met criteria for at least one
Axis I disorder and 57% met criteria for at least one Axis II disorder. Notably, 33% of the population
met criteria for intermittent explosive disorder (IED)the only Axis I disorder to currently hold anger as
its hallmark feature. When compared to a control, nonaggressive driving population, it was found that
the aggressive drivers (AD) exhibited significantly more overall Axis I and II psychopathology. With
respect to specific disorders, the AD population was diagnosed significantly more frequently with IED,
alcohol abuse, substance abuse, antisocial personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder.
These results suggest that significant psychiatric distress exists in the aggressive driving population.
Of course, we cannot submit each potential driver to a personality screening test. However, knowledge
gained through these types of profiling studies does inform the type of interventions we use to correct
aggressive driving behaviors. For instance, in discovering the elevated levels of IED in the Albany
program, we surmise that future interventions should particularly target impulsivity. In our work in the
Albany program, we certainly saw entrenched personality disorders that may directly contribute to
aggressive driving or at least predispose a person to drive aggressively. We also saw that aggressive
driving was more of a poor coping skill, albeit a dangerous one, in response to stressful life events.
Bringing this point to their attention and offering them alternative coping skills often went far in helping
to remedy the problematic behavior. Perhaps the most conclusive testimony that we can draw from the
existing literature and our own experience in profiling aggressive drivers is that people drive
aggressively for a variety and a combination of reasons. Predisposing antisocial personality traits, as a
response to environmental stress, the relative anonymity and quick getaway that the automobile
provides and individual variables, such as age, gender, social status, and ethnicity, all have been
identified as contributors to aggressive driving. Clearly, the fact remains that profiling the personality of
the aggressive driver requires further research.
8. Treatment of aggressive driving
Psychosocial interventions specifically targeting aggressive driving are limited (to the best of our
knowledge) to three. First, [Larson, 1996a] and [Larson, 1996b] describes his 1-day intensive
treatment program in full. The goals of this program included changing drivers' belief systems on the
roadways. In order to accomplish this goal, he suggests using such aids as flash cards to remind
drivers to contradict existing beliefs and alternative coping strategies, such as leaving more time for
travel and listening to soft music. Larson also includes an educational component about the impact of
stress, aggressive driving, and anger dyscontrol. He reports the success of this intervention as
measured by pre- and posttreatment changes on the Driver Stress Profile [Larson,
1996a] and [Larson, 1996b] as impressive (Larson, Rodriguez, & Galvan-Henkin, 1998). Although his
endeavors are methodologically lacking, his results are clearly positive.
Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting, and Salvatore (2000) recently report a controlled trial comparing
two treatments vs. an assessment only controlled in a self-identified, aggressive-driving college
population of volunteers who receive research credit for participation. Group treatment conditions
consisted of (1) pure relaxation training, compared to (2) relaxation training combined with cognitive
therapy, compared to (3) assessment only control. The relaxation intervention consisted of training in
awareness of anger and the use of relaxation techniques for calming purposes. Relaxation training
included progressive muscle relaxation and four relaxation coping skills. These techniques were used
in a systematic desensitization manner, such that the relaxation skills were paired with imaginal
exposure to angering driving situations. The second condition added to this relaxation training is the
element of cognitive therapy, such that faulty assumptions and distorted thoughts (specifically
catastrophization, overgeneralization, Black/white thinking, labeling, and personalization) about driving
were identified and challenged. Both groups met for an hour once a week for a period of 8 weeks.
Participants were reassessed at posttreatment and again at a 4-week follow-up point. Results
indicated improvement for both the experimental conditions over the control condition. However, there
was very little differential effect between the two active treatment conditions. Specifically, the pure
relaxation condition improved more on the Driving Anger Scale (DAS) while the CBT condition
indicated more improvement on the driving diaries. Neither condition indicated improvement on
general trait anger as shown on the StateTrait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).
At the SUNY-Albany, we have recently completed a study investigating the efficacy of a brief,
cognitivebehavioral intervention on aggressive driving behaviors [Galovski & Blanchard,
2002] and Galovski & Blanchard, in press. The subjects included a community sample of both self-
referred (or voluntary) aggressive drivers and drivers mandated to the program through the court
system of Saratoga County (a fairly rural, upstate New York county). In just 6 months time, 21
defendants were referred to the program.Table 3 provides an indication of the severity (felonies, class
A misdemeanors) of the driving behaviors for which the court-referred participants were arrested.
Table 3. Combined traffic offenses for which the CR group were referred
Specific offense Number of separate
incidences
Brief description of each incident
Assault 3 1. vehicular assault on a second vehicle
2. physical assault on a person after driving incident
3. vehicular assault on person resulting in hospitalization
Menacing 4 1. verbally threatened to kill another driver
2. threatened with gun
3. verbal threats
4. threatened with weapon
Harassment 3 1. criminal harassment: threatened to kill person after
driving incident
2. attempted to forcibly extract another driver from car for
beating
3. chased driver to home after driving error
Reckless endangerment 1 threw object out window at another vehicle
Disorderly conduct 5 all charges involved altercations with police following
aggressive driving-related arrests
Reckless driving 4 no specifics
Reckless operation of a vehicle 1 no specifics
Passing on the shoulder 1 passed on the shoulder of a crowded highway at speeds in
excess of 65 mph
Failure to comply 1 would not stop when police tried to pull over
Aggravated driving with a
suspended license
1 no specifics
Failure to keep right 1 tried to outrun the police
Unsafe lane change 2 crossed several lanes at once
Failure to yield/failure to keep
right
3 no specifics
Unsafe start 2 revved engine and peeled out at a stoplight
Following too closely 1 tailgating
Crossing a hazard marking 1 no specifics
Speeding 6 2045 mph over the limit
Specific offense Number of separate
incidences
Brief description of each incident
Running a stop sign 1 no specifics
The SUNY-Albany aggressive driving research program improved methodologically on these two
earlier studies by comparing outcome results from a community sample of both court- and self-referred
participants[Galovski & Blanchard, 2002] and Galovski & Blanchard, in press. This controlled trial
examined the efficacy of a cognitivebehavioral group intervention compared to an aggressive driving
behaviormonitoring-only condition. The intervention was conducted in a small group format, with four
session conducted over 4 weeks. Treatment components included education about the ramifications of
aggressive driving and anger (highway statistics, health, mood, general well-being), motivational
techniques, progressive muscle relaxation training, and discussion of alternative coping strategies
(e.g., focusing on interior of car rather than exterior, enjoyable music, leaving extra time), and
cognitive strategies (targeting faulty assumptions, challenging distorted, maladaptive thoughts).
Although the process of group strategies was not measured, anecdotally the motivational factors
played a much larger role in treatment success particularly for the court-referred, nonvoluntary
individuals than was originally anticipated. Admitting that one was behaving aggressively on the
roadways was very difficult for some of these participants, and yet, crucial to treatment success. Thus,
motivating subjects to actively participate in treatment components depended on their acceptance of
their aggressive driver status. Despite the havoc that aggressive driving had wreaked in their lives
(lost jobs, driving licenses revoked, interpersonal discord with significant others, legal problems), most
drivers did not realize the extent of their problem. As it is rather ego-dystonic to think of oneself as
angry or aggressive, most drivers attributed the blame to the other poor drivers sharing the roadways.
We believe that by helping these individuals to accept responsibility and realize that they can only
control their own behaviors by using the skills taught in sessions in large part, accounts for the
treatment's success.
Treatment outcome measures included a daily aggressive driving diary and a battery of paper-and-
pencil measures (assessing both aggressive driving and psychological distress). In monitoring
symptoms or behaviors, daily diaries are considered the gold standard outcome measure, following
the example ofDeffenbacher et al. (2000). Using these daily diaries, a single index called the
Composite Primary Symptom Reduction (CPSR) score was calculated following the method employed
by Blanchard and Schwartz (1988). This score is an index of overall change, and serves the function
of reducing potential Type I error resulting from analyzing multiple behaviors. This CPSR score can be
thought of as a percentage of improvement (e.g., 0.50 CPSR score equals 50% improvement). In
order to ascertain clinically significant improvement, improvement categories were adopted from
Blanchard and Schwartz. Using these categories as precedent, the CPSR scores are divided into four
categories based on clinically significant improvement. These categories are as follows: worse,
unimproved (024%), somewhat improved (2549%), improved (5074% and 75%+). Table
4 portrays the overall improvement of the participants as per these categories. Overall, diary treatment
results indicated that the treatment group (X=50% improvement) improved significantly more than did
the wait-list controls (X=0.007% improvement). The control group was then crossed over to treatment.
At the conclusion of treatment, this group averaged 64% improvement in aggressive driving behaviors.
Table 4. Distribution of CPSR scores by experimental condition
Improved

Somewhat
improved
Unimproved Worsened
75+% 50
74%
2549% 024%
Treatment-only condition (n=10) 5 (50%) 2
(20%)
1 (10%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%)
Symptom monitoring control condition (n=16) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (19%) 8 (50%) 5 (31%)
Symptom monitoring control condition after
treatment (n=14)
5 (36%) 5
(36%)
4 (28%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Overall treatment (n=24) 10
(42%)
7
(29%)
5 (21%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%)
2-month follow-up (n=20) 7 (35%) 5
(25%)
6 (30%) 0 (0%) 2 (10%)
In addition to specific aggressive driving behaviors, the entire treated sample (N=27) showed
significant reductions on several measures of general psychological distress including state anxiety
(StateTrait Anxiety Inventory; Spielberger, Gorusch, & Lushene, 1970), trait anger, angry
temperament, angry reaction, anger directed outward (STAXI; Spielberger, 1979). Likewise, significant
reductions were seen on measures of driving anger as measured by DAS (Deffenbacher, Oetting, &
Lynch, 1994) including overall driving anger and anger in response to hostile gestures, to illegal
driving, to slow driving, to discourtesy, and to traffic obstruction as well as reductions in competing
behavior as measured by the Driver Stress Profile [Larson, 1996a] and [Larson, 1996b].
9. Conclusion
In light of the exponential increases in traffic and congestion, coupled with subsequent increases in
traffic accidents, injuries, fatalities, and property damage, the popular media has begun to focus its
attention on the aggressive driver and road rage. Although it may be true that aggression on the
roadways has only recently become the focus of public attention, researchers have been investigating
such maladaptive driving behavior for decades. Aggressive driving has been researched in
conjunction with other areas of scientific inquiry such as in the anger literature. The traffic jam and the
commute, among other stressful driving situations, have afforded researchers with optimal naturalistic
settings in their investigations of aggression, anger, frustration, and hostility.
The function, arousal, and reinforcing quality of anger on the roads continue to be investigated in a
variety of contexts. Aggressive driving research has delved into the realm of personality in an attempt
to investigate profiles and predispositions of individuals to drive aggressively. Links among anger,
hostility, andaggression have been drawn and researched. Links between aggressive driving and
subsequent roadway fatalities, injuries, and property damage have been clearly portrayed. Finally,
researchers have begun to apply cognitivebehavioral interventions within this population with some
preliminary evidence of effectiveness. Given the enormity of the problem of aggression on the
roadways and the potential for disaster in an arena, in which many of us venture on a daily basis,
further research in this field is certainly warranted.