Sharon O'Brien Thesis PDF

The Psychosocial Factors Influencing Aggressive Driving Behaviour
Sharon Rosemary OBrien

Bachelor of Social Science, Bachelor of Psychology (Honours)
A thesis submitted as fulfilment for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Queensland University of Technology
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q)
School of Psychology & Counselling
Brisbane, Australia.
2011
i
Key Words
Aggressive driving, road rage, aggression, young drivers, driving, road safety, stress,
psychopathology, emotions, threat, negative attributions.
ii
iii
Abstract
Many drivers in highly motorised countries believe that aggressive driving is

increasing. While the prevalence of the behaviour is difficult to reliably identify, the
consequences of on-road aggression can be severe, with extreme cases resulting in
property damage, injury and even death. This research program was undertaken to
explore the nature of aggressive driving from within the framework of relevant
psychological theory in order to enhance our understanding of the behaviour and to
inform the development of relevant interventions.
To guide the research a provisional working definition of aggressive driving
was proposed encapsulating the recurrent characteristics of the behaviour cited in the
literature. The definition was: aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted
by a driver that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road
user and is associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat. Two main
theoretical perspectives informed the program of research. The first was Shinars
(1998) frustration-aggression model, which identifies both the person-related and
situational characteristics that contribute to aggressive driving, as well as proposing
that aggressive behaviours can serve either an instrumental or hostile function.
The second main perspective was Anderson and Bushmans (2002) General
Aggression Model. In contrast to Shinars model, the General Aggression Model
reflects a broader perspective on human aggression that facilitates a more
comprehensive examination of the emotional and cognitive aspects of aggressive
behaviour.
Study One (n = 48) examined aggressive driving behaviour from the
perspective of young drivers as an at-risk group and involved conducting six focus
groups, with eight participants in each. Qualitative analyses identified multiple
situational and person-related factors that contribute to on-road aggression.
Consistent with human aggression theory, examination of self-reported experiences
of aggressive driving identified key psychological elements and processes that are
experienced during on-road aggression. Participants cited several emotions
experienced during an on-road incident: annoyance, frustration, anger, threat and
excitement. Findings also suggest that off-road generated stress may transfer to the
on-road environment, at times having severe consequences including crash
involvement. Young drivers also appeared quick to experience negative attributions
iv
about the other driver, some having additional thoughts of taking action.
Additionally, the results showed little difference between males and females in the
severity of behavioural responses they were prepared to adopt, although females
appeared more likely to displace their negative emotions. Following the selfreported on-road incident, evidence was also found of a post-event influence, with
females being more likely to experience ongoing emotional effects after the event.
This finding was evidenced by ruminating thoughts or distraction from tasks.
However, the impact of such a post-event influence on later behaviours or
interpersonal interactions appears to be minimal.
Study Two involved the quantitative analysis of n = 926 surveys completed
by a wide age range of drivers from across Queensland. The study aimed to explore
the relationships between the theoretical components of aggressive driving that were
identified in the literature review, and refined based on the findings of Study One.
Regression analyses were used to examine participant emotional, cognitive and
behavioural responses to two differing on-road scenarios whilst exploring the
proposed theoretical framework. A number of socio-demographic, state and trait
person-related variables such as age, pre-study emotions, trait aggression and
problem-solving style were found to predict the likelihood of a negative emotional
response such as frustration, anger, perceived threat, negative attributions and the
likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behaviour in response to
Scenarios One and Two. Complex relationships were found to exist between the
variables, however, they were interpretable based on the literature review findings.
Factor analysis revealed evidence supporting Shinars (1998) dichotomous
description of on-road aggressive behaviours as being instrumental or hostile.
The second stage of Study Two used logistic regression to examine the
factors that predicted the potentially hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) within the
sample. These drivers were those who indicated a preparedness to engage in direct
acts of interpersonal aggression on the road. Young, male drivers 1724 years of age
were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young
drivers (1724 years) also scored significantly higher than other drivers on all
subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and on the negative
problem orientation and impulsive careless style subscales of the Social Problem
Solving Inventory Revised (DZurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The
potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in
v
speeding and drink/drug driving behaviour. With regard to the emotional, cognitive
and behavioural variables examined, the potentially hostile aggressive driver group
also scored significantly higher than the other driver group on most variables
examined in the proposed theoretical framework. The variables contained in the
framework of aggressive driving reliably distinguished potentially hostile aggressive
drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39).
Study Three used a case study approach to conduct an in-depth examination
of the psychosocial characteristics of n = 10 (9 males and 1 female) self-confessed
hostile aggressive drivers. The self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers were aged
2455 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education
or better and averageabove average incomes. As a group, the drivers reported
committing a number of speeding and unlicensed driving offences in the past three
years and extensive histories of violations outside of this period. Considerable
evidence was also found of exposure to a range of developmental risk factors for
aggression that may have contributed to the drivers on-road expression of
aggression. These drivers scored significantly higher on the Aggression
Questionnaire subscales and Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised subscales,
negative problem orientation and impulsive/careless style, than the general
sample of drivers included in Study Two. The hostile aggressive driver also scored
significantly higher on the Barrett Impulsivity Scale 11 (Patton, Stanford & Barratt,
1995) measure of impulsivity than a male inmate, or female general psychiatric
comparison group. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982), the
self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers scored equal or higher scores than the
comparison group of incarcerated individuals on the subscale measures of chemical
abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social tendencies and self-depreciation. Using the
Carlson Psychological Survey personality profiles, seven participants were profiled
markedly anti-social, two were profiled negative-explosive and one was profiled
as self-centred.
Qualitative analysis of the ten case study self-reports of on-road hostile
aggression revealed a similar range of on-road situational factors to those identified
in the literature review and Study One. Six of the case studies reported off-road
generated stress that they believed contributed to the episodes of aggressive driving
they recalled. Intense anger or rage were most frequently used to describe the
emotions experienced in response to the perceived provocation. Less frequently
vi
excitement and fear were cited as relevant emotions. Notably, five of the case
studies experienced difficulty articulating their emotions, suggesting emotional
difficulties. Consistent with Study Two, these drivers reported negative attributions
and most had thoughts of aggressive actions they would like to take. Similarly, these
drivers adopted both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours during the selfreported incident. Nine participants showed little or no remorse for their behaviour
and these drivers also appeared to exhibit low levels of personal insight.
Interestingly, few incidents were brought to the attention of the authorities. Further,
examination of the person-related characteristics of these drivers indicated that they
may be more likely to have come from difficult or dysfunctional backgrounds and to
have a history of anti-social behaviours on and off the road.
The research program has several key theoretical implications. While many
of the findings supported Shinars (1998) frustration-aggression model, two key
areas of difference emerged. Firstly, aggressive driving behaviour does not always
appear to be frustration driven, but can also be driven by feelings of excitation
(consistent with the tenets of the General Aggression Model). Secondly, while the
findings supported a distinction being made between instrumental and hostile
aggressive behaviours, the characteristics of these two types of behaviours require
more examination. For example, Shinar (1998) proposes that a driver will adopt an
instrumental aggressive behaviour when their progress is impeded if it allows them
to achieve their immediate goals (e.g. reaching their destination as quickly as
possible); whereas they will engage in hostile aggressive behaviour if their path to
their goal is blocked. However, the current results question this assertion, since many
of the hostile aggressive drivers studied appeared prepared to engage in hostile acts
irrespective of whether their goal was blocked or not. In fact, their behaviour
appeared to be characterised by a preparedness to abandon their immediate goals
(even if for a short period of time) in order to express their aggression.
The use of the General Aggression Model enabled an examination of the three
components of the present internal state comprising emotions, cognitions and
arousal and how these influence the likelihood of a person responding aggressively
to an on-road situation. This provided a detailed insight into both the cognitive and
emotional aspects of aggressive driving that have important implications for the
design of relevant countermeasures. For example, the findings highlighted the
potential value of utilising Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with aggressive drivers,
vii
particularly the more hostile offenders. Similarly, educational efforts need to be
mindful of the way that person-related factors appear to influence ones perception of
another drivers behaviour as aggressive or benign. Those drivers with a
predisposition for aggression were more likely to perceive aggression or wrong
doing in an ambiguous on-road situation and respond with instrumental and/or
hostile behaviour, highlighting the importance of perceptual processes in aggressive
driving behaviour.
viii
ix
Table of Contents
Key Words .................................................................................................................... i

Abstract ....................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ ix
Appendices ............................................................................................................... xvii
List of Tables............................................................................................................. xix
List of Figures ......................................................................................................... xxiii
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms............................................................................ xxv
Statement of Original Authorship ........................................................................... xxix
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. xxxi
Chapter One: Introduction................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introductory Comments ...................................................................................... 3
1.2 Research Focus to Date ...................................................................................... 4
1.3 Theoretical Approach for the Research .............................................................. 6
1.4 Who are the Main Perpetrators? ......................................................................... 7
1.5 Research Objectives and Rationale .................................................................... 8
1.6 Scope of this Research ........................................................................................ 9
1.7 Methodological Approaches Used .................................................................... 10
1.8 Outline of the Thesis ......................................................................................... 10
1.9 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................. 12
Chapter Two: Aggressive Driving Literature Review...................................... 13
2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Defining Aggressive Driving............................................................................ 15
2.2.1
The Distinction Between Aggressive Driving and Road Rage,
and Other Ambiguities ....................................................................... 15
2.2.2
Emotional Catalysts for Aggressive Driving ...................................... 17
2.2.3
Aberrant Driving Behaviours to be Considered ................................. 18
2.2.4
Distinguishing Victims from Perpetrators .......................................... 18
2.2.5
Recurring Themes .............................................................................. 19
2.2.5.1 Emotion ................................................................................ 19
2.2.5.2 Behaviour ............................................................................. 19
2.2.5.3 Intentionality ........................................................................ 20
2.3 The Scope and Nature of Aggressive Driving .................................................. 23
2.3.1
Prevalence of Aggressive Driving ...................................................... 23
2.3.1.1 International Studies ............................................................. 23
2.3.1.2 Australian Studies ................................................................ 24
2.3.2
Types of Aggression on the Roads ..................................................... 25
2.4 Factors Contributing to Aggressive Driving..................................................... 27
2.4.1
Empirical Evidence ............................................................................ 27
2.4.2
Theoretical Perspective ...................................................................... 29
2.5 Person-Related Contributors to Aggressive Driving ........................................ 33
2.5.1
Age, Gender and Aggressive Driving ................................................ 33
2.5.2
Personality and Psychopathology ....................................................... 34
2.5.3
Trait Aggression ................................................................................. 37
2.5.4
Driving Anger ..................................................................................... 39
2.5.5
Impulsivity.......................................................................................... 41
x
2.5.6
2.5.7
2.5.8
Sensation-Seeking .............................................................................. 41
Self-Esteem ......................................................................................... 42
Transfer of Stress to and from the On-Road Environment ................. 43
2.5.8.1 The Experience of Stress on the Road .................................. 44
2.5.8.2 Effect of Gender and Age on the Experience of Stress ........ 45
2.5.8.3 Driver Trait Stress Measures ................................................ 45
2.5.8.4 Individual Mood and Daily Hassles ..................................... 47
2.5.8.5 Life Event Stress................................................................... 48
2.5.8.6 Work Stress .......................................................................... 48
2.5.8.7 Fatigue .................................................................................. 49
2.6 Situational Contributors to Aggressive Driving ............................................... 49
2.6.1
On-Road Situational Factors .............................................................. 50
2.6.1.1 Type of Road ........................................................................ 50
2.6.1.2 Congestion ............................................................................ 51
2.6.1.3 Interim Summary .................................................................. 52
2.7 Issues Specific to At-Risk Drivers .................................................................... 53
2.7.1
Lifestyle .............................................................................................. 53
2.7.2
Education Attained ............................................................................. 54
2.7.3
Driving Experience ............................................................................. 54
2.7.4
Passenger Effect ................................................................................. 55
2.7.5
Motivation .......................................................................................... 56
2.7.6
Drugs and Alcohol .............................................................................. 57
2.8 Focus of Emerging Interventions ...................................................................... 58
2.8.1
Coping Styles in General .................................................................... 59
2.8.2
Driver Coping Strategies .................................................................... 62
2.9 Research Questions ........................................................................................... 63
2.10 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................. 65
Chapter Three: Aggression Literature Review .................................................... 67
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 69
3.1.1
Types of Human Aggression .............................................................. 69
3.2 Developmental Risk Factors for Aggression .................................................... 71
3.2.1
Historical Factors ................................................................................ 73
3.2.1.1 Personal History of Violence and Delinquency ................... 73
3.2.1.2 Family of Origin ................................................................... 73
3.2.1.3 Victims of Abuse .................................................................. 74
3.2.1.4 Negative Peer Relations ....................................................... 75
3.2.1.5 Schooling Problems .............................................................. 75
3.2.2
Clinical Factors ................................................................................... 76
3.2.2.1 Substance Abuse ................................................................... 76
3.2.2.2 Attitudes ............................................................................... 77
3.2.2.3 Emotional Regulation Difficulties ........................................ 78
3.2.2.4 High Impulsivity................................................................... 80
3.2.2.5 General Life Stressors .......................................................... 82
3.2.3
Psychological Impact of Risk Factors ................................................ 83
3.3 Psychological Theories Relevant to Aggressive Driving ................................. 84
3.3.1
Frustration-Aggression Theory........................................................... 84
3.3.2
Cognitive Neo-Associationistic Model .............................................. 85
3.3.3
Social Cognition Perspective .............................................................. 87
3.3.3.1 Social Learning..................................................................... 87
xi
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.3.3.2 Causal Attribution Fundamental Attribution Error ........... 90

3.3.4
Excitation Transfer Theory................................................................. 90
3.3.5
Social Interaction Theory ................................................................... 92
Interim Summary .............................................................................................. 92
General Aggression Model ............................................................................... 93
3.5.1
Schemas and Script Theory ................................................................ 95
3.5.2
Situation and Person Factors as Inputs for the GAM ...................... 95
3.5.3
The Process of Aggression According to the GAM ........................... 96
3.5.4
The Cognitive Appraisal Process in the GAM ................................... 98
3.5.5
Behavioural Outcomes According to the GAM ................................. 98
3.5.6
Applying Relevant Theory to the Phenomenon of Aggressive
Driving................................................................................................ 99
Additional Research Questions....................................................................... 101
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................... 102
Chapter Four: A Qualitative Study of Young Drivers as a High-risk Group 103

4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 105
4.2 Method ............................................................................................................ 106
4.2.1
Participants ....................................................................................... 106
4.2.2
Procedure .......................................................................................... 106
4.2.3
Materials ........................................................................................... 106
4.2.4
Analysis ............................................................................................ 108
4.3 Results and Exploration of the Qualitative Data ............................................ 108
4.3.1
Socio-Demographics and Driving Exposure .................................... 108
4.3.2
What is Considered Aggressive Driving? ........................................ 109
4.3.3
Perceived Causes of Aggressive Driving ......................................... 109
4.3.4
Situational factors ............................................................................. 110
4.3.4.1 Behaviours .......................................................................... 110
4.3.4.2 Facilitating Factors ............................................................. 112
4.3.4.2.1 Type of Vehicle ............................................... 113
4.3.4.2.2 Type of Road ................................................... 114
4.3.4.2.3 Vehicles On-Road and Pace of Living ............ 116
4.3.4.2.4 Time Pressure .................................................. 117
4.3.4.2.5 Passenger Effect .............................................. 118
4.3.4.2.6 Temperature..................................................... 119
4.3.4.2.7 Music ............................................................... 119
4.3.5
Person-Related Factors ..................................................................... 119
4.3.5.1 State Factors ....................................................................... 119
4.3.5.1.1 Mood ............................................................... 119
4.3.5.1.2 Life-Stress ....................................................... 120
4.3.5.1.3 Job Stress ......................................................... 121
4.3.5.1.4 Driving Stress .................................................. 122
4.3.5.2 Trait Factors ....................................................................... 122
4.3.5.2.1 Age and Gender ............................................... 122
4.3.5.2.2 Personality ....................................................... 123
4.3.5.2.3 Prior Learning.................................................. 124
4.3.5.2.4 General Attitudes About Other Drivers........... 125
4.3.5.3 General Transfer of Emotion to the On-Road
Environment ....................................................................... 125
xii
4.4
4.3.5.4 Transfer of On-Road Generated Stress to the Off-road

Environment ....................................................................... 127
4.3.6
Personal Experiences with Aggressive Driving ............................... 128
4.3.6.1 Victims or Perpetrators ....................................................... 129
4.3.6.2 Type of Road ...................................................................... 129
4.3.6.3 On-road Behavioural Causes .............................................. 130
4.3.6.4 Pre-event Emotional State .................................................. 132
4.3.6.5 Range of Emotions Experienced ........................................ 133
4.3.6.6 Cognitions During the Incident .......................................... 134
4.3.6.7 Behavioural Responses to On-Road Provocation............... 136
4.3.6.8 Post-Event State.................................................................. 138
4.3.6.9 Personal Accounts of Off-Road Stress Brought to the
On-Road Environment........................................................ 139
Discussion ....................................................................................................... 141
4.4.1
Situational Factors ............................................................................ 141
4.4.2
State and Trait, Person-Related Causes ............................................ 142
4.4.3
Range of Emotions During an On-Road Incident ............................ 143
4.4.4
Cognitions During an On-Road Incident .......................................... 144
4.4.5
Behavioural Responses to On-Road Provocation ............................. 145
4.4.6
Post Event State or Transfer to the Off-Road Environment .......... 146
4.4.7
Transfer of Emotions to the On-Road Environment ........................ 146
4.4.8
Coping Strategies Adopted by Young Drivers ................................. 147
4.4.9
Addressing the Research Questions ................................................. 148
4.4.10 Strengths and Limitations of the Study ............................................ 150
4.4.11 Implications of Findings for the Development of a Psychosocial
Framework for Aggressive Driving .................................................. 151
4.4.12 Chapter Summary ............................................................................. 154
Chapter Five: A Quantitative Study of Aggressive Driving in Queensland.. 157

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 161
5.1.1
Overview of Research Questions and Relevant Hypotheses ............ 161
5.2 Method ............................................................................................................ 166
5.2.1
Participants ....................................................................................... 166
5.2.2
Design ............................................................................................... 167
5.2.3
Procedure .......................................................................................... 169
5.2.3.1 Scenarios............................................................................. 170
5.2.4
Materials ........................................................................................... 171
5.2.4.1 Standardised Measures Used .............................................. 171
5.2.4.1.1 Aggression Questionnaire................................ 171
5.2.4.1.2 Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised .. 172
5.2.4.2 Research Specific Measures ............................................... 172
5.2.4.2.1 Pre-Study Emotional State............................... 173
5.2.4.2.2 Negative Emotional Response ......................... 173
5.2.4.2.3 Negative Attributions ...................................... 173
5.2.4.2.4 Behavioural Responses .................................... 174
5.2.4.2.5 Post-Event Influence........................................ 175
5.2.5
Statistical Analysis ........................................................................... 175
5.3 Results .......................................................................................................... 179
5.3.1
Data Cleaning and Testing Assumptions.......................................... 179
5.3.2
Psychometric Properties of the Standardised Measures ................... 179
xiii
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.3.6
5.3.7
5.3.8
Factor Analysis of Research Specific Measures .............................. 180

5.3.3.1 Negative Emotions ............................................................. 180
5.3.3.2 Negative Attributions ......................................................... 181
5.3.3.3 Behavioural Responses ...................................................... 182
5.3.3.4 Post-Event Influence .......................................................... 184
Check of Pre-Study Emotions .......................................................... 184
Sample Characteristics ..................................................................... 185
5.3.5.1 Age and Gender of the Study Participants ......................... 185
5.3.5.2 Self-reported Driving Behaviour and Behavioural
Intentions of the Sample ..................................................... 185
5.3.5.3 Trait Characteristics of the Sample .................................... 188
Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioural Responses to On-Road
Incidents ........................................................................................... 189
Examination of the Components Proposed in the Theoretical
Framework of Aggressive Driving ................................................... 190
5.3.7.1 Bi-variate Correlations of Variables for Consideration in
the Examination of the Components of the Framework .... 191
5.3.7.1.1 Driving Exposure and Socio-Demographic
Variables .......................................................... 191
5.3.7.1.2 Negative Emotions .......................................... 192
5.3.7.1.3 Perceived Threat .............................................. 192
5.3.7.1.5 Instrumental Behavioural Response ................ 193
5.3.7.1.6 Hostile Aggressive Behavioural Response...... 195
5.3.7.1.7 Post-Event Influence ....................................... 195
5.3.7.1.8 Self-Reported Measures for the Two
Scenarios ......................................................... 196
5.3.7.2 Regression Analyses of Socio-Demographic, Trait
and State Person-Related Variables on Participant
Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioural Responses ............ 197
5.3.7.2.1 Negative Emotions .......................................... 198
5.3.7.2.2 Perceived Threat .............................................. 200
5.3.7.3 Regression of Socio-Demographic, Trait and State
Person-Related and Emotional and Cognitive Response
Variables on Participant Behavioural Responses ............... 205
5.3.7.3.1 Likelihood of an Instrumental Behavioural
Response .......................................................... 205
5.3.7.3.2 Likelihood of a Hostile Behavioural
Response .......................................................... 208
Person-Related, Emotional and Cognitive Response and
Behavioural Response Variables on the Likelihood of a
Post-Event Influence .......................................................... 212
Exploratory Analyses of Potentially Hostile Aggressive Drivers .... 215
5.3.8.1 Rationale............................................................................. 215
5.3.8.2 PHA Driver Selection......................................................... 215
5.3.8.3 Socio-demographic and Driving Characteristics of the
PHA Drivers ....................................................................... 216
5.3.8.4 PHA Driver Differences in Trait Characteristics ............... 217
xiv
5.3.8.5 PHA Driver Self Reported Driving Behaviour and
Behavioural Intentions........................................................ 218
5.4
5.3.8.6 PHA Driver Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioural

Responses ........................................................................... 219
5.3.8.7 Ability of Variables to Predict PHA Driver Group
Membership ........................................................................ 221
Discussion ....................................................................................................... 222
5.4.1
Response Differences to On-Road Scenarios ................................... 223
5.4.2
Exploration of the Components of the Proposed Theoretical
Framework of Aggressive Driving ................................................... 225
5.4.3
The Nature and Purpose of Aggressive Driving Behaviours ........... 236
5.4.4
Exploration of the PHA Driver Findings .......................................... 236
5.4.4.1 Socio-Demographic and Driving Characteristics of the
PHA Driver ......................................................................... 236
5.4.4.2 PHA Driver History of Driving Offences in the
Previous Three Years ......................................................... 238
5.4.4.3 PHA Driver Self-reported Driving Behaviour ................... 238
5.4.4.4 Differences in Psychological Characteristics ..................... 239
Responses ........................................................................... 240
5.4.4.6 Prediction of PHA Group Membership .............................. 241
5.4.5
Implications for the Proposed Theoretical Framework of
Aggressive Driving ........................................................................... 241
5.4.6
Overview of Findings and Theoretical Implications ........................ 243
5.4.7
Study Limitations ............................................................................. 244
5.4.8
Chapter Summary ............................................................................. 246
Chapter Six:
6.1
6.2
6.3
Examination of the Psychosocial Characteristics of SelfReported Hostile Aggressive Drivers ....................................... 249
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 253
6.1.1
Relevant Research Questions and Areas to be Explored .................. 254
Method .......................................................................................................... 255
6.2.1
Design ............................................................................................... 255
6.2.2
Procedure .......................................................................................... 257
6.2.3
Participants ....................................................................................... 257
6.2.4
Statistical Analysis ........................................................................... 258
6.2.5
Measures ........................................................................................... 258
6.2.5.1 Stressful Life Experiences Screening ................................. 258
6.2.5.2 Aggression Questionnaire .................................................. 259
6.2.5.3 Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised ..................... 259
6.2.5.4 Carlson Psychological Survey ............................................ 259
6.2.5.5 Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 (BIS-11)........... 261
Results .......................................................................................................... 263
6.3.1
Socio-Demographics ........................................................................ 263
6.3.2
Driving Characteristics ..................................................................... 263
6.3.3
History of Driving Offences and Charges ........................................ 264
6.3.4
Historical Background ...................................................................... 264
6.3.4.1 Familial Backgrounds ......................................................... 264
6.3.4.2 Victims of Abuse/Neglect .................................................. 264
xv
6.4
6.3.4.3 History of Delinquency and/or Violence ........................... 265

6.3.4.4 Negative Peer Associations ................................................ 265
6.3.4.5 History of School Conduct Problems ................................. 266
6.3.4.6 Clinical History .................................................................. 266
6.3.5
Clinical Background ......................................................................... 266
6.3.5.1 Trait Aggression ................................................................. 268
6.3.5.2 Social Problem Solving ...................................................... 268
6.3.5.3 Impulsivity ......................................................................... 268
6.3.5.4 Carlson Psychological Survey (CPS) ................................. 269
6.3.5.4.1 Chemical Abuse (CA) ..................................... 269
6.3.5.4.2 Thought Disturbance (TD) and
Validity (VAL) ................................................ 270
6.3.5.4.3 Anti-Social Tendencies (AT) .......................... 271
6.3.5.4.4 Self-Deprecation (SD) ..................................... 272
6.3.5.5 CPS Typing ........................................................................ 272
6.3.6
Qualitative Analysis of Hostile Aggressive Driving
Incidents ........................................................................................... 273
6.3.6.1 Situational On-Road Triggers ............................................ 273
6.3.6.1.1 Road Characteristics ........................................ 273
6.3.6.1.2 Passenger Effect .............................................. 273
6.3.6.1.3 Gender of the Other Driver ............................. 273
6.3.6.1.4 Reference to the Other Driver's Vehicle.......... 273
6.3.6.1.5 Behavioural Triggers ....................................... 274
6.3.6.1.6 Range of 'Other Driver' Behaviours ................ 274
6.3.6.1.7 Perceived Attitude of 'Other Driver' ................ 275
6.3.6.2 Situational Off-Road Triggers ............................................ 276
6.3.6.3 Emotional Responses ......................................................... 276
6.3.6.4 Cognitive Responses .......................................................... 278
6.3.6.5 Physiological Arousal ........................................................ 279
6.3.6.6 Behaviours Engaged by Hostile Aggressive
Driver Group ...................................................................... 279
6.3.6.7 Consequences of the Hostile Aggressive
Driver Behaviour ................................................................ 281
6.3.6.8 General Attitudes of the Hostile Aggressive Driver .......... 282
6.3.6.9 Lack of Personal Insight ..................................................... 283
6.3.6.10 Other Experiences as the Perpetrator ................................. 283
Discussion ....................................................................................................... 283
6.4.1
Case Study Experiences as a Hostile Aggressive Driver ................. 284
6.4.1.1 On-road situational factors ................................................. 284
6.4.1.2 Situational Off-Road Triggers ............................................ 285
6.4.1.3 Emotional Responses ......................................................... 286
6.4.1.4 Cognitive Responses .......................................................... 286
6.4.1.5 Physiological Arousal ........................................................ 287
6.4.1.6 Behaviours Adopted by the Hostile Aggressive Driver ..... 288
6.4.1.7 Consequences of the Hostile Aggressive Driver
Behaviour ........................................................................... 288
6.4.1.8 General Attitude of the Hostile Aggressive Driver ............ 289
6.4.1.9 Levels of Personal Insight in the Hostile Aggressive
Driver ................................................................................. 289
6.4.1.10 Other Experiences as the Perpetrator ................................. 290
xvi
6.4.2
6.4.3
6.4.4
6.4.5
6.4.6
6.4.7
6.4.8
6.4.9
Person-Related Characteristics of the Hostile Aggressive

Driver Group..................................................................................... 290
Exposure to Developmental Risk Factors for Aggression................ 292
Trait Person-Related Characteristics ................................................ 295
General Psychological Characteristics ............................................. 296
Hostile Aggressive Drivers and the Theoretical Framework of
Aggressive Driving ........................................................................... 299
Strengths and Limitations of the Research ....................................... 302
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................ 303
Chapter Summary ............................................................................. 304
Chapter Seven: Discussion.................................................................................... 305

7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 307
7.2 Review of Findings ......................................................................................... 307
7.3 Review of the Provisional Definition ............................................................. 315
7.4 Theoretical Implications ................................................................................. 316
7.5 Implications for Road Safety .......................................................................... 318
7.5.1
Public Intervention Implications ...................................................... 319
7.5.2
Targeting Young Drivers .................................................................. 320
7.5.3
Targeting Professional Drivers ......................................................... 321
7.5.4
Targeting Convicted Aggressive Drivers ......................................... 321
7.5.5
Evaluation of Strategies .................................................................... 322
7.5.6
Penalties and Sanctions Associated with Aggressive Driving ......... 323
7.6 Strengths and Limitations of the Research ..................................................... 323
7.7 Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................... 325
7.8 Concluding Remarks....................................................................................... 326
References ................................................................................................................ 327
Appendices ............................................................................................................... 357
xvii
Appendices
Participant Information and Consent Package Study One ...................................... 358
Socio-Demographic questionnaire Study One ........................................................ 360
Focus Group Protocols Study One ......................................................................... 363
SPSS Output Socio-Demographic and Driving Exposure Data-Study One .............. 367
RACQ Sample Details ............................................................................................... 371
Study Two Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 372
Questionnaire Coverpage RACQ participants ........................................................ 381
Questionnaire Coverpage QUT participants ........................................................... 382
Internal Reliability Measures for Measures in the Study Two Questionnaire ........... 385
Analyses of Driving Behaviour Characteristics and Behavioural Intentions

of the Study Two Sample .......................................................................................... 393
Differences in Trait Characteristics of the Study Two Sample ................................. 395
PHA Driver results from the Study Two Sample ...................................................... 399
Semi-structured Questionnaire Study Three ........................................................... 405
Interview Protocols Study Three ............................................................................ 421
Advertisement for Recruiting Mens Information and Support Association .......... 423
Participant Consent Package Study Three .............................................................. 424
Published M and SD associated with CPS and BIS 11 Measures .............................. 426
Range of CPS Subscale Scores by Offender Type .................................................... 428
Brief Descriptor of CPS Offender Type .................................................................... 438
Individual Participant Scores on the AQ and SPSI-R and Significance

Levels Study Three ................................................................................................. 439
Individual Participant Scores on the BIS-11 and CPS and Significance

Individual Participant Case Studies Study Three ................................................... 441
xviii
xix
List of Tables
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
Table 4.11
Table 4.12
Table 4.13
Table 4.14
Table 4.15
Table 4.16
Table 4.17
Table 4.18
Table 4.19
Table 4.20
Table 4.21
Table 4.22
Table 4.23
Table 4.24
Table 4.25
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 5.6
Table 5.7
Table 5.8
References made to vehicle characteristics ...................................... 113

Types of vehicles identified as being more likely to be involved
in aggressive driving......................................................................... 114
Type of road characteristics identified as typically associated
with aggressive driving..................................................................... 115
Perceived increase in number of vehicles on the road and
increased pace of living .................................................................... 117
Role of time pressure ........................................................................ 117
The influence of passengers upon driving behaviour ....................... 118
Influence of music upon driving behaviour...................................... 119
Participant responses relating to influence of mood upon driving
behaviour .......................................................................................... 120
Life-stress and potential impacts upon aggressive driving............... 121
Participant responses relating to job stress ....................................... 121
Participant responses relating to driving stress ................................ 122
Perceptions of young drivers and other road users ........................... 123
Participant references to personality tendencies for aggressive
driving behaviour.............................................................................. 124
Prior exposure to aggression cited by participants ........................... 124
General attitudes of the other driver .............................................. 125
Sources of off-road emotion transferred to the on-road
environment ...................................................................................... 126
Coping strategies adopted following an aggressive driving
incident ............................................................................................. 128
On-road precipitating behaviours from personal experiences
with aggressive driving..................................................................... 130
Frustrating or anger-provoking behaviour of other drivers .............. 132
Above average positive emotions reported prior to the event .......... 133
Range of primary emotions experienced .......................................... 134
Participant comments associated with range of emotions ................ 134
Cognitions associated with reported aggressive driving incidents ... 135
Behavioural responses adopted by participants in response to
perceived provocation in recalled aggressive driving incidents ....... 136
Outwardly aggressive behavioural responses to personal
experiences with aggressive driving ................................................. 137
Breakdown of individual variables into broader subject
categories .......................................................................................... 169
Items in the negative attribution scale .............................................. 174
Questionnaire behavioural response set ........................................... 174
Items in post-event experiences........................................................ 175
Means and standard deviations of trait characteristics (n=926) ....... 180
Factor loadings for negative emotional response for Scenarios
One and Two .................................................................................... 181
Factor loadings for negative attribution factor for Scenarios One
and Two ............................................................................................ 181
Factor loadings of behavioural response set for Scenarios One
and Two ............................................................................................ 183
xx
Table 5.9
Table 5.10
Table 5.11
Table 5.12
Table 5.13
Table 5.14
Table 5.15
Table 5.16
Table 5.17
Table 5.18
Table 5.19
Table 5.20
Table 5.21
Table 5.22
Table 5.23
Table 5.24
Table 5.25
Factor loadings of items onto likelihood of post-event influence

for Scenarios One and Two .............................................................. 184
Age and gender of the participants by source................................... 185
Driving behaviour characteristics and behavioural intentions
of the sample ..................................................................................... 187
Pairwise t-tests of mean emotional, cognitive and behavioural
responses to Scenarios One and Two ............................................... 190
Bivariate correlations of the person-related, driving exposure,
emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses, and post-event
influence variables Scenario One (S1) and Scenario Two (S2)
(N=926) ............................................................................................ 194
Bivariate correlations of participant negative emotion, threat,
negative attributions, likelihood of behavioural response and
post-event influence - Scenarios One and Two ................................ 197
Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state
person-related variables on participant negative emotion
responses to Scenario One (n=926) .................................................. 198
person-related variables on participant negative emotion
responses to Scenario Two (n=926) ................................................. 199
person-related variables on participant perceived threat
responses to Scenario One (n=926) .................................................. 201
person-related variables on participant perceived threat
responses to Scenario Two (n=926) ................................................. 202
person-related variables on participant negative attributions in
response to Scenario One (n=926).................................................... 203
person-related variables on participant negative attributions in
response to Scenario Two (n=926) ................................................... 204
person-related and emotional and cognitive response variables
on participant instrumental response to Scenario One (n=926) ....... 206
on participant instrumental response to Scenario Two (n=926) ....... 207
on participant hostile response to Scenario One (n=926) ................. 210
on participant hostile response to Scenario Two (n=926) ................ 211
person-related, emotional, cognitive and behavioural response
variables on the likelihood of a post-event influence to Scenario
One (n=926) ...................................................................................... 213
xxi
Table 5.26
Table 5.27
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 6.8
Table 6.9
Table 6.10
Table 6.11
Table 6.12
Table 6.13
Table 6.14

person-related, emotional, cognitive and behavioural response
variables on the likelihood of a post-event influence to Scenario
Two (n=926) ..................................................................................... 214
Breakdown of Gender by Age for the PHA Driver Group (n=88) ... 216
Independent sample t-tests of self-reported hostile aggressive
Drivers on AQ and SPSI-R subscales compared to overall
study two sample (n = 926) .............................................................. 267
Independent sample t-tests of self-reported hostile aggressive
Drivers on AQ and SPSI-R subscales compared to the PHA
drivers identified in study two (n = 88) ............................................ 267
References made about the vehicles of the other drivers............... 274
Examples of primary behavioural trigger for aggressive driving
incidents ............................................................................................ 274
Subsequent behaviours adopted by the other driver ...................... 275
References to the perceived attitudes of the other drivers ................ 275
Pre-event off-road stressors cited by participants ............................ 276
Examples of range of emotions experienced by participants ........... 277
Examples of the negative cognitions associated with hostile
aggressive drivers ............................................................................. 278
Range of physiological changes identified by the case studies ........ 279
Range of behaviours adopted by the hostile aggressive driver
group ................................................................................................. 280
Examples of real or perceived consequences ................................... 281
General attitudes of the hostile aggressive driver group .................. 282
Comments illustrating difficulty with personal insight .................... 283
xxii
xxiii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1
Relationship of risky driving behaviours to aggressive driving

behaviours........................................................................................... 22
Figure 2.2
Conditions influencing driver behaviour ............................................ 28
Figure 2.3
Frustration-Aggression Model of Aggressive Driving ....................... 30
Figure 3.1
The General Aggression Model.......................................................... 94
Figure 3.2
Expanded appraisal and decision-making processes of the GAM ..... 97
Figure 4.1
Map of concepts explored in accordance with the GAM ................. 107
Figure 4.2
Participant responses to the causes of aggressive driving

behaviour by major themes identified .............................................. 111
Figure 4.3
Theoretical framework of psychosocial processes underpinning

aggressive driving............................................................................. 151
Figure 5.1
Diagrammatic presentation of the three stage exploration of

theoretical components ..................................................................... 177
xxiv
xxv
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
Aberrant Driving Behaviour
Aberrant driving behaviours are those that deviate from normal, law-abiding
behaviours.
Anger
Anger is an emotional state, a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or
hostility.
Behavioural Factors
This term is used to refer collectively to both the instrumental and hostile
behaviours identified in Study Two.
BIS 11
Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 (BIS-11) (Patton & Barratt, 1995),
a measure of the first order personality trait, impulsivity. This measure
consists of three main components: motor impulsiveness, attentional
impulsiveness, and non-planning.
Catharsis
In lay terms refers to any cleansing or purging of emotions (Reber & Reber,
2001). When considered in the context of Frustration-Aggression Theory
(Dollard et al., 1939), catharsis or the expression of feelings such as
frustration or anger serves to return the frustration threshold to the normal or
baseline level.
CBT
Cognitive-behaviour therapy.
CPS
The Carlson Psychological Survey (CPS) (Carlson, 1982) is primarily
designed for use with individuals who have been accused or convicted of
crimes, or otherwise referred for socially deviant behaviour.
Decision Making Model
The decision making model is a component of the GAM (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002). This part of the model involves an individuals appraisal of
a given situation and the decision making that will result in either thoughtful
or impulsive behavioural responses.
xxvi
Emotional and Cognitive Response
An emotional and cognitive response in this thesis refers to the immediate
emotional, cognitive and physiological response following exposure to an
anger-provoking scenario.
Frustration
Frustration is an emotional response to circumstances, resulting in feeling
dissatisfied or unfulfilled when prevented from progressing or succeeding
with ones plans or actions.
GAM
The General Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).
Impulsivity
A term used to refer to the trait tendency for an individual to react quickly on
the basis of the first thing that comes to mind (Reber & Reber, 2001).
Negative Attributions
A term used in social psychology concerning perception. Negative
attributions involve the making of negative inferences about the intention and
motivation of another individuals behaviour.
Negative Emotions
This term was used to collectively refer to emotions that are likely to precede
frustration/anger.
Person-related Factors
A term used to refer to those factors that originate from within an individual.
For example, trait factors such as personality, and state factors such as stress
are considered person-related factors.
Post-event Influence
This term refers to the possible post-event influence that may result from an
on-road encounter considered aggressive. This influence was measured in
terms of the likelihood of the incident influencing a person during the rest of
their journey, in the performance of other tasks or in dealings with others.
Potentially Hostile Aggressive Driver
A term used to refer to those drivers identified in Study Two (n = 88) as
having a greater preparedness to perpetrate hostile aggressive behaviours on
the road.
xxvii
Present Internal State

The present internal state is a component of the General Aggression Model
(Anderson & Bushman 2002). This component consists of social cognitions,
affect and arousal as a result of exposure to a potentially provocative incident.
Reactive Aggression
Reactive aggression is used as a general term to refer to the aggression
adopted in response to real or perceived on-road provocation.
Situational Factors
A general term used to refer to all the characteristics of a situation to which
one is exposed whilst driving. This may include indirect characteristics such
as the type of road, level of on-road congestion, as well as more direct causes
such as on-road provocative behaviour.
SLES-S
Stressful Life Experiences Screening Short Form (SLES-S) (Hudnall &
Stamm, 1996). This is a survey that screens for major life events that may be
considered stressful and significant in a persons life.
Social Information Processing
Social information processing is a term that refers to the processing of
information within any given social setting. This process relies on the
principles of computer logic focusing on the inputs, internalised processes
and outcomes of a social encounter (Reber & Reber, 2001; Zelli, Dodge,
Lochman & Laird, 1999).
SPSI-R
The Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised (SPSI-R) (DZurilla, Nezu
& Maydeu-Olivares, 2002), is a measure of trait social problem solving style.
Three of the five subscales were used as measures in this thesis: NPO
negative problem orientation; ICS impulsive/careless style; and RPS
rational problem solving.
State Stress
Stress or anxiety that is relatively short-term, resulting from situational
stressors such as driving.
Stereotypes
Stereotypes are a set of relatively fixed, simplistic over-generalisations about
a group or class of people (Reber & Reber, 2001).
xxviii
Trait stress
Trait stress is feelings of stress or anxiety stemming from personality traits
that are relatively enduring.
xxix
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or
diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or written by another
person except where due reference is made.
Signed:
Date:
xxx
xxxi
Acknowledgements
There are a number of people I would like to thank for their varied
contributions towards the completion of this thesis. Firstly, I would like to thank
CARRS-Q for the scholarship that I received during the first three years of this
process. Without funding it would not have been possible for me to undertake the
research project. Secondly, I wish to thank my Supervisor Dr Barry Watson for his
patience and guidance throughout the project. Other professionals that at some stage
have been identified as Associate-Supervisors include Dr Gavan Palk, Mrs Cynthia
Schonfeld, Dr Graham Fraine and Professor Richard Tay. I would like to thank these
individuals for their varied and valued contributions to the research program. I
would also like to thank Professor Mary Sheehan and Dr Robert Schweitzer for their
time and advice concerning the articulation of this research from a Masters to a PhD
and their further advice concerning the methodology for Study Three. I would also
like to take the opportunity to thank my fellow post-graduate students who have
given me tremendous support over the four years.
Finally, but most importantly, I wish to thank my family. The completion of
the project was only possible due to every contribution of childcare and/or assistance
made by my elderly parents. Also critical to my success is the fact that I have two
terrific children. Without their many personal sacrifices, most of the sacrifices made
in a good natured way, the completion of the project would not have been possible.
Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Introductory Comments ............................................................................................. 3

1.2 Research Focus to Date .............................................................................................. 4
1.3 Theoretical Approach for the Research...................................................................... 6
1.4 Who are the Main Perpetrators? ................................................................................. 7
1.5 Research Objectives and Rationale ............................................................................ 8
1.6 Scope of this Research ............................................................................................... 9
1.7 Methodological Approaches Used ........................................................................... 10
1.8 Outline of the Thesis ................................................................................................ 10
1.9 Chapter Summary..................................................................................................... 12
1.1 Introductory Comments

Many drivers in highly motorised countries including those in the United
Kingdom, American, Canada and Israel believe that aggressive driving behaviour is on
the increase (AAMI, 2001, 2002, 2003; Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994;
Lajunen, Parker, & Stradling, 1999; Shinar, 1998; Wiesenthal & Hennessy, 1999).
Some researchers have suggested that this perceived increase in aggressive driving may
be due to increasing numbers of vehicles competing for limited road infrastructure,
which results in an increase in congestion and competition for road space, and a sense of
pressure for the greater economic use of time impacting on driver frustration levels
(Connell & Joint, 1996; IIHS, 1997; Lajunen, Parker, & Summala, 1999; Mizell, 1997;
Shinar, 1998).
In a recent Victorian Parliamentary inquiry into the violence associated with
motor vehicle use, the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee (DCPC) acknowledged
the growing concern of general motorists about the issue (DCPC, 2005). They also
acknowledged the pivotal influence of the media in the formulation of public
perceptions about the phenomenon. Despite the power of the media to inflate public
perceptions about aggressive driving, they report numerous acts of extreme on-road
aggression that are worthy of public attention. The Committee analysed 55 reports that
mentioned road rage in The Age and The Herald Sun newspapers between 1999 and
2004. Of the 35 individuals that reportedly sustained physical injuries, the injuries
included serious head injuries, being knocked unconscious (one in a coma), bullet
wounds, fractures, various levels of bruising, and death. Although such extreme
instances are rare they can result in serious physical assault and sometimes death.
Further to concerns for the physical safety of the general road-user, there is also an
increasing concern for public liability costs and the costs associated with damage to
vehicles that may result from aggressive driving behaviour. In the final report by the
DCPC (2005), the committee attempted to review the costs associated with aggressive
driving in Victoria by accessing police statistics, road safety and insurance agencies,
though it was acknowledged that many aggressive driving incidents fail to be reported.
Victorian Police statistics revealed that of 1,524 incidents recorded the cost of property
damage ranged from zero to $28,000 (mean value $174.24). When insurance agency
data was examined it became obvious that most agencies do not identify claims as
resulting from aggressive driving or road-rage. Therefore, the cost was difficult to
quantify. Notwithstanding this, in 1997 the AAMI reported that more than 50% of its
claims were attributable to aggressive driving behaviour and the resultant vehicle
damage, the estimated total cost being $1.7 billion (VCCAV, 1999, p. 17, citing Herald
Sun, 12 April 1997). Therefore, the negative economic implications of aggressive
driving also appear to be real and further research is required to clarify the reasons some
drivers adopt aggressive, and sometimes lethal, behaviours whilst driving.
While aggressive driving appears to have real implications in terms of physical
harm and financial costs, road traffic researchers have identified a number of difficulties
hampering our understanding of the problem. When attempting to examine this issue
researchers have had considerable difficulty defining the phenomenon. Should it be
termed road rage or aggressive driving? What is the difference between the two
terms? Hence, the beginning of Chapter Two will discuss these issues in greater depth
in order to formulate a working definition for the purpose of this research.
1.2 Research Focus to Date
A small number of researchers have focussed on the contextual/situational
factors that contribute to on-road aggressive behaviours (Shinar, 1998; OBrien, Tay, &
Watson, 2005) while others have focussed on the individual driver characteristics
brought to the on-road environment (Deffenbacher et al., 1994; Lajunen & Parker, 2001;
Shinar, 1998). Much of this research has been conducted utilising psychological theory
relevant to the single contextual or person-related factors under investigation. For
instance, the study by OBrien and colleagues (2004) examined two person-related
factors that were found to influence aggressive driving outcomes, namely the age and
gender of the offending driver. This study was based upon social information
processing theory (Zelli, Dodge, Lochman, & Laird, 1999) and examined the use of
negative attributions in the context of driving. Further, research suggests that the
availability and/or adoption of such thoughts can be the result of developmental
exposure to aggressive or negative role models. These factors are generally known as
risk factors for aggression.
General aggression research has identified a number of risk factors for

aggression that appear to increase the likelihood of aggressive tendencies and the
adoption of aggressive behaviours in response to provocation. These risk factors are
discussed in more detail in Chapter Three. The results indicate that such factors may
have a negative influence upon an individual at a trait, person-related level. Also,
between provocation and an aggressive behavioural response, an individual is required
to initially perceive and interpret his/her environment (or situation) as aggressive. Thus
perception and interpretation, mediated by such risk factors, appear to influence the
likelihood of adopting an aggressive response to ones environment. Hence, there is a
need to examine psychological theories that have been used to explain aggression in the
wider context.
A wide range of psychological theories have been used to explain general human
aggression including social cognition theories, frustration-aggression theory, cognitive
neo-associationistic and excitation transfer theory (Bandura, 1977; Berkowitz, 1993;
Zillmann, 1988). This thesis also acknowledges the important role of the biological
contributors to aggression such as serotonin and genetics, although they are beyond the
scope of this research. Of the psychosocial theories above, to date only social cognition
theories and frustration-aggression theory have been used to examine aggressive driving
behaviour (Shinar, 1998; Yagil, 2001).
To date, few pieces of research have investigated the whole phenomenon of
aggressive driving from within a framework that has been based upon psychological
theory i.e. frustration-aggression theory (Dollard, Doob, Mowrer, Miller, & Sears, 1939;
Shinar, 1998). Although frustration-aggression theory is highly relevant to aggressive
driving, research has found that high levels of frustration/anger do not necessarily lead
to outward expressions of aggression, in either the on or off-road environments
(Berkowitz, 1993; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). As such, some aggression researchers
would suggest that the resultant effect is the displacement of such built-up frustration or
aggression to another, subsequent point in time (Dollard et al., 1939; Shinar, 1998).
Therefore, there appears to be some other process or personal characteristics
underlying the likelihood of expressing aggression at a particular point in time that may
be better explained through other psychological theories of aggression. Consideration of
other theories may also assist in identifying groups that are at high risk of participating
in such behaviour.
Despite the commendable, though somewhat piece-meal, nature of research to
date, a number of papers proposing interventions for aggressive driving behaviour have
started to emerge (Deffenbacher, Filetti, Lynch, Dahlen, & Oetting, 2002; Galovski,
Blanchard, Malta, & Freidenberg, 2003). Although, some of these interventions are
based in well-established therapeutic methods, such as cognitive behaviour therapy
(CBT), the multiple causes of aggressive driving behaviour have not been explored in
terms of the underlying psychological components that contribute to the phenomenon.
Indeed, there appears to be a lack of data concerning the psychological processes that
characterise aggressive driving.
Examination of these processes would help clarify the type and extent of
countermeasures required for various levels of intervention. For instance, it is likely that
more serious offenders who face criminal charges would require a somewhat more
intensive intervention than that possible through mainstream driver education
programs. Additionally, examination of these processes may assist in highlighting
psychological differences between those drivers who are more likely to adopt extreme
forms of aggression on the road than general road users.
1.3 Theoretical Approach for the Research
The General Aggression Model (GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002),
encapsulates a number of human aggression theories with potential relevance for
aggressive driving research. The GAM also emphasises the cognitive elements and
decision-making processes involved in human aggression. Consequently, the GAM was
selected as the theoretical framework for this research, with the hope that it would
provide a deeper understanding about the psychosocial processes involved in the
expression of aggression on the roads, thus enabling the development of research-based
recommendations for intervention and rehabilitation. Moreover, because it encapsulates
the major theories of human aggression, it may facilitate a more thorough understanding
of why certain drivers, in particular, are prepared to adopt aggressive driving behaviour.
The GAM is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Three.
1.4 Who are the Main Perpetrators?

In a comprehensive review of the characteristics of aggressive drivers and
Australian media reports of road-rage, the DCPC (2005) reported that although
younger drivers appear to be the most common perpetrators of lesser acts of on-road
aggression, driver age is less of an issue in the perpetration of more extreme acts of onroad aggression. Hence, drivers of a wide age range appear capable of perpetrating acts
of extreme aggression or violence on the road, similar to the incidence of other violent
crimes (DCPC, 2005).
Other research has identified young drivers as a specific at-risk group for
aggressive driving behaviour. For instance, Shinar (1998) has found that as driver age
increases, aggressive driving seems to decrease. Lajunen and colleague (1999) also
reported that aggressive driving was more common among men than women,
particularly the more severe expressions of aggressive driving. These results are
consistent with the findings of VCCAV (1999), which found that people aged 1834
years, particularly males, were significantly more likely to participate in mild road
rage than other drivers. In severe cases of road rage males aged 1824 years were
more likely to display severe behavioural responses. Young males have also been found
to be over-represented in a study of New South Wales police records of reported
aggressive driving incidents (Harding, Morgan, Indermaur, Ferrante, & Blagg, 1998). In
contrast, other research suggests that an increasing number of young female drivers are
actively participating in acts of aggressive driving (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lawton &
Nutter, 2002). Specifically, females appear to be more likely to adopt displaced or
suppressed aggression, whilst males were found to report higher levels of outwardly
expressed aggression (Lawton & Nutter, 2002).
Research has also shown that the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour can
be exacerbated by other risk-taking behaviours such as alcohol/drug driving by reducing
driver inhibitions and the subsequent desire/need to conform to cultural norms that
dictate appropriate on-road behaviour (Mann, Smart, Stoduto, Adlaf, & Ialomiteanu,
2003; James & Nahl, 2000). In light of the foregoing findings, the early stage of this
research will focus on the involvement of young drivers, as a high-risk group for
aggressive driving behaviour.
1.5 Research Objectives and Rationale

The foregoing overview suggests a need for further research into aggressive
driving as a phenomenon, and the need to examine why some drivers are more likely to
engage in such behaviours than others. Questions remain concerning what should be
classed as aggressive driving, the nature of aggressive driving behaviour and which
particular behaviours should be considered to constitute acts of aggressive driving. In
addition to exploring some of the contextual factors that contribute to aggressive driving,
this research will emphasise influences outside the confines of the on-road, or contextual
environment. For instance, perhaps there are other experiential or person-related
differences between drivers that may contribute to aggressive driving. For example, the
first study will investigate young driver person-related characteristics and how these offroad influences may influence their on-road driving behaviour. Perhaps, partly as a
function of where and when they drive, it would seem logical that the on-road contextual
characteristics (or triggers) young drivers are exposed to would not differ greatly from
those that trigger aggressive behaviour in older drivers.
This research will examine aggressive driving behaviours from both the
perspective of high-risk groups and the general driving population. The principle
research objectives of the research program are to:
1. Integrate relevant theory from human aggression studies and traffic psychology
to more fully understand aggressive driving behaviour.
This research objective will be addressed progressively in each of the studies. As
highlighted above, it is timely to examine this phenomenon from the perspective of a
wide range of psychological aggression theories. The GAM (Anderson & Bushman,
2002), which contains a number of potentially relevant theories, will be used to
guide the examination of the phenomenon in each of the studies (refer to Section 1.3
and Chapter Three).
2. Explore the scope and nature of aggressive driving.
Little research has been conducted into the nature and extent of aggressive driving in
Australia (DCPC, 2005; AAMI, 2002, 2003). For instance, what behaviours do
Queensland drivers believe constitute aggressive driving? How common are these
behaviours and do they all constitute the same level of risk?
3. Examine the contribution of person-related and contextual factors to aggressive

driving.
As outlined in Section 1.2 it is clear that person-related and contextual factors, or a
combination of them, contribute to the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour.
However, do person-related characteristics have a greater influence on the likelihood
of adopting aggressive driving behaviour than contextual factors? In particular, what
factors can be associated with an increased likelihood of expressing aggression on
the roads.
4. Examine whether some drivers are more likely to engage in aggressive driving
than other drivers.
In consideration of the influence of certain risk factors upon the development of
aggressive, person-related tendencies, and the increasing number of psychological
interventions that are being recommended for court referred aggressive drivers, it is
appropriate to examine the characteristics of high-risk drivers. Are drivers more
likely to engage in aggressive driving identifiable by any particular driving-related or
person-related characteristics?
5. Inform the development of more effective educational and rehabilitation
initiatives designed to reduce the incidence of aggressive driving.
By addressing the foregoing research objectives it is anticipated that the research
will contribute to a fuller understanding of the nature of aggressive driving and the
psychological processes involved. It is anticipated that these findings will contribute
to the development of appropriate educational and rehabilitation initiatives that have
been informed by theory-based research.
1.6 Scope of this Research
The following is a brief outline of the remaining issues concerning the scope of this
research. As noted above, the research examines aggressive driving behaviours from the
perspective of Queensland drivers, both high-risk drivers and the general driving
population. Study One focuses on young drivers (1724 years of age) who have
previously been identified as being over-represented in aggressive driving incidents.
Study Two adopts a more general perspective examining aggressive driving among a
general sample of drivers. However, a specific high-risk subgroup of drivers is
10
identified within the sample, who are prepared to engage in more extreme acts of driver
aggression. The theme of high-risk offenders is further examined in Study Three, which
reports an in-depth analysis of ten self-confessed hostile drivers. It should be noted that
all three studies were conducted in the State of Queensland. However, the findings
should remain generalisable to the driving populations in other Australian states, due to
the random selection of participants and the substantial cultural similarities between
states.
1.7 Methodological Approaches Used
This research will utilise a wide range of psychological and traffic-related research
methods that are both qualitative and quantitative in nature. Study One utilises a
qualitative approach to explore the aggressive driving experiences and perceptions of
young drivers. Focus groups were used to facilitate this process. In a quantitative
approach, Study Two uses self-report measures to explore aggressive driving from
within a psychological framework based on the literature review and Study One
findings. Additionally, Study Two explores the psychosocial differences between
younger and older drivers. The study also tested for differences between low and high
anger drivers in order to examine the characteristics of the potentially hostile aggressive
driver. Finally, contingent upon the findings of Study Two, Study Three was designed
to assist in the exploration of self-confessed highly aggressive drivers capable of
extremely hostile on-road behaviour. As noted above, using a case study approach this
study examined more intimate person-related details of the self-reported, highly
aggressive driver.
1.8 Outline of the Thesis
Chapter Two provides a foundation for the program of research by proposing a
working definition of aggressive driving to guide the research and reviewing the
empirical evidence relating to the phenomenon of aggressive driving, with specific
reference to high-risk groups, such as young drivers. This chapter then reviews the key
contextual and person-related factors that have been empirically found to influence the
likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour, though it is acknowledged that greater
emphasis is given to the relevant person-related characteristics. A brief review of the
11
psychology of younger drivers will be conducted with specific reference to previous

studies concerning young driver behaviours.
Chapter Three reviews current theories of human aggression and their potential
significance to aggressive driving behaviours. In particular, the General Aggression
Model (GAM) is examined (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) as the aggression theories
contained within it appear to provide insight to the processes involved in aggressive
driving. Consideration of these theories will be guided by their influence upon personrelated contributing factors to aggressive driving outcomes. In keeping with previous
research, this thesis will focus on the trait and state person-related characteristics of the
younger driving population. Consistent with the psychosocial approach to this research,
this chapter will also provide a review of key developmental risk factors for aggression.
Chapter Four details Study One which is an investigation into the nature of
aggressive driving from the perspective of young drivers aged 1724 years. This
qualitative study utilised focus groups with young drivers to explore the theoretical
issues highlighted by the review of relevant human aggression theories, particularly the
GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Based upon these theoretical considerations and
the findings of this study, a psychosocial framework for aggressive driving is proposed.
Chapter Five is a quantitative study assessing the validity of the proposed factors
considered psychologically relevant in aggressive driving behaviour. Additionally, the
data was used to compare young drivers with a cross section of the general driving
population. The close examination of a large age range of drivers will facilitate the agerelated incidence of such behaviour and give greater insight to the contributing
psychological and contextual factors involved in on-road aggression. From within the
chosen theoretical framework, the findings highlight differences between age groups
which may assist in explaining young driver overrepresentation in aggressive driving.
In an extension of the data collected in Study Two, Chapter Five will also detail
findings concerning those drivers that have been identified as potentially capable of
highly aggressive on-road behaviour. To further explore this issue, Study Three
examines the personal characteristics of self-reported highly aggressive drivers in
greater depth, utilising a qualitative case study approach (Chapter Six). Finally, Chapter
12
Seven provides a synthesis of the research across the three studies. Recommendations
for further research and the possible implications of the findings are discussed.
1.9 Chapter Summary
This chapter has outlined the rationale and structure underlying this thesis. To
date, aggressive driving research in Australia has been limited by its focus upon the
frequency and nature of acts of on-road aggression (VCCAV, 1999; AAMI, 2003)
reflecting a failure to investigate the issue in a holistic way. Although this information
has assisted researchers in understanding the scale of the problem, the underlying causes
and internal processes have not been thoroughly investigated in terms of an Australian
sample (AAMI, 2003; DCPC, 2005; VCCAV, 1999). Additionally, the literature review
indicates that no Australian studies have been conducted from within a framework of
psychological theory, which would assist in better understanding the fundamental
processes underpinning the phenomenon.
13
Chapter Two: Aggressive Driving Literature Review

2.1
Introduction............................................................................................................. 15
2.2
Defining Aggressive Driving ................................................................................. 15

2.2.1
The Distinction Between Aggressive Driving and Road Rage, and

Other Ambiguities ................................................................................... 15
2.2.2
Emotional Catalysts for Aggressive Driving ........................................... 17
2.2.3
Aberrant Driving Behaviours to be Considered ...................................... 18
2.2.4
Distinguishing Victims from Perpetrators ............................................... 18
2.2.5
Recurring Themes ................................................................................... 19

2.2.5.1 Emotion ...................................................................................... 19
2.2.5.2 Behaviour ................................................................................... 19
2.2.5.3 Intentionality .............................................................................. 20
2.3
The Scope and Nature of Aggressive Driving ........................................................ 23

2.3.1
Prevalence of Aggressive Driving ............................................................ 23

2.3.1.1 International Studies ................................................................... 23
2.3.1.2 Australian Studies ...................................................................... 24
2.3.2
2.4
2.5
Types of Aggression on the Roads ........................................................... 25
Factors Contributing to Aggressive Driving........................................................... 27

2.4.1
Empirical Evidence .................................................................................. 27
2.4.2
Theoretical Perspective ............................................................................ 29
Person-Related Contributors to Aggressive Driving .............................................. 33

2.5.1
Age, Gender and Aggressive Driving ...................................................... 33
2.5.2
Personality and Psychopathology ............................................................. 34
2.5.3
Trait Aggression ....................................................................................... 37
2.5.4
Driving Anger ........................................................................................... 39
2.5.5
Impulsivity................................................................................................ 41
2.5.6
Sensation-Seeking .................................................................................... 41
2.5.7
Self-Esteem............................................................................................... 42
2.5.8
Transfer of Stress to and from the On-Road Environment....................... 43

2.5.8.1 The Experience of Stress on the Road........................................ 44
2.5.8.2 Effect of Gender and Age on the Experience of Stress .............. 45
2.5.8.3 Driver Trait Stress Measures ...................................................... 45
2.5.8.4 Individual Mood and Daily Hassles ........................................... 47
2.5.8.5 Life Event Stress ........................................................................ 48
14
2.5.8.6 Work Stress ................................................................................48

2.5.8.7 Fatigue ........................................................................................49
2.6
Situational Contributors to Aggressive Driving .....................................................49

2.6.1
On-Road Situational Factors ....................................................................50

2.6.1.1 Type of Road ..............................................................................50
2.6.1.2 Congestion ..................................................................................51
2.6.1.3 Interim Summary ........................................................................52
2.7
2.8
2.9
Issues Specific to At-Risk Drivers ..........................................................................53

2.7.1
Lifestyle ....................................................................................................53
2.7.2
Education Attained ...................................................................................54
2.7.3
Driving Experience ...................................................................................54
2.7.4
Passenger Effect .......................................................................................55
2.7.5
Motivation ................................................................................................56
2.7.6
Drugs and Alcohol ....................................................................................57
Focus of Emerging Interventions ............................................................................58

2.8.1
Coping Styles in General ..........................................................................59
2.8.2
Driver Coping Strategies ..........................................................................62
Research Questions .................................................................................................63
2.10 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................65
15
2.1 Introduction
This chapter integrates the existing literature concerning aggressive driving in
relation to drivers in general and high-risk groups such as young drivers. Consistent
with the objectives of this research, person-related and situational factors that may
influence the transfer of aggression to and from the road environment are also
emphasised.
For the purpose of the research it is necessary to determine a working definition of
aggressive driving. A review of the literature reveals little consensus regarding a
universal definition of aggressive driving. Some existing definitions have been
formulated in response to public demand for appropriate legislation governing
aggressive driving behaviours (Jarred, 2002; NSW Road Transport [Safety &
Management] Act 1999; Section 328A, Transport Operations [Road Use Management]
{TORUM} Act, 1995). Alternatively, some researchers have resisted formulating a
definition, as their main focus has been to understand the underlying processes involved
in specific aberrant driving behaviours. However, as this research examines the
phenomenon as a whole a working definition was considered necessary. As illustrated
in the following discussion, there is a range of considerations when determining what
behaviours constitute aggressive driving.
2.2 Defining Aggressive Driving
2.2.1 The Distinction Between Aggressive Driving and Road Rage, and Other
Ambiguities
Aggressive driving research is a complex issue hampered by many ambiguities.
The ambiguities are most apparent in the terminology used to describe the phenomenon.
Road rage is a term often used by both the media and the general population to
describe a wide variety of on-road incidents that involve acts of aggression or violence.
However, the media often focus on the more extreme cases of on-road violence, some of
which arguably represent cases of assault that happen to occur on the road (Elliott,
1999). As such, while the terms road rage and aggressive driving are often used
interchangeably by the media, and hence the general community, the term road rage is
generally associated with more extreme acts of on-road violence.
16
In contrast, traffic researchers have generally adopted a broader perspective to

explaining on-road aggression, which has involved focusing on both milder and more
severe acts of aggression (Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994; Elliott, 1999;
Harding, Morgan, Indermau, Ferrante, & Blagg, 1998; Lajunen, Parker, & Stradling,
1999). Nonetheless, the terms road rage and aggressive driving are sometimes used
interchangeably by road safety researchers. For example, a recent meta-analysis of
aggressive driving research suggests that many on-road behaviours relevant to
aggressive driving have been labelled in the literature as risky, aggressive, or road
rage (Dula & Geller, 2003; Tasca, 2001).
A common perspective among many traffic researchers is that aggressive driving
behaviour occurs on a continuum ranging from relatively benign acts of swearing under
ones breath to open, deliberate acts of physical violence (Lajunen & Parker, 2001;
Shinar, 1998). Among these researchers, the term road rage is sometimes used to
embody the more extreme acts of on-road aggression on this continuum (e.g. Shinar,
1998). However, other researchers (e.g. Elliott, 1999) have argued that the term road
rage adds little to the understanding of the phenomenon and should be abandoned, or at
least reserved for describing acts of assault that happen to occur on the road.
Over and above Elliotts (1999) concerns about the use of the term road rage, it
would appear important to acknowledge that aggressive driving behaviours can vary in
severity. Hence, this program of research will explore the extent to which aggressive
driving can be conceptualised as a continuum of behaviours. However, to avoid
confusion, the term aggressive driving, rather than road rage, will be used in a
generic sense in this thesis to describe the full range of on-road behaviours that have
typically been identified as aggressive in the literature. Furthermore, it should be noted
that it is not an aim of this research to determine whether there is a conceptually distinct
class of aggressive on-road behaviours that warrant being referred to as road rage.
Rather, road rage will be simply treated in this thesis as a label that is applied by some
researchers to either aggressive driving as a whole, or a particular class of aggressive
driving behaviours.
A further ambiguity that has hampered research in this area has been the
tendency of some researchers to define aggressive driving in terms of a list of
17
behaviours that are deemed to be aggressive, rather than develop a distinct conceptual
definition of the phenomenon. Such an approach is inherently circular in nature,
contributing to the inconsistent operationalisation of the concept (Deffenbacher, Oetting,
& Lynch, 1994; Mathews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991; Parker, Lajunen, & Stradling,
1998).
Finally, there has historically been a wide range of variability in the actual
definitions of aggressive driving that have been proposed by different researchers
(NHTSA, 2002; Elliott, 1999; Goehring, 2000; James & Nahl, 2000 Jarred, 2002). The
following examples illustrate the diversity of current definitions:
aggressive drivingas the operation of a motor vehicle in a manner which
endangers or is likely to endanger persons or property.(NHTSA, 2002)
aggressive drivingthe operation of a motor vehicle without regard to
others safety.(AAA, 2008)
aggressive driving isan incident in which an angry or impatient motorist or
passenger intentionally injures or kills another motorist, passenger or
pedestrianorintentionally drives his or her vehicle into a building or other
structure or propertyin response to a traffic dispute, altercation, or
grievance.(Mizell, 1997, p. 5)
aggressive drivinga syndrome of frustration-driven behaviours which are
manifested ininconsiderateness towards or annoyance of other drivers and,
deliberate dangerous driving to save time at the expense of others.(Shinar, 1998, p.
139)
Together, the above ambiguities have plagued much of the aggressive driving
research undertaken to date. Accordingly, the following sections will review some of
the key conceptual themes characterising previous definitions of aggressive driving, in
order to identify a working, provisional definition to underpin this program of research.
2.2.2 Emotional Catalysts for Aggressive Driving
Most aggressive driving research has adopted the view that immediately
preceding the expression of on-road aggression, an individual must experience a
negative emotional state, such as high levels of frustration or anger (Deffenbacher et al.,
1994; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar, 1998). Aggression research indicates that
18
frustration increases levels of arousal, possibly energising an individuals response to a

situation (Geen, 1990). Whether or not the resultant road behaviour is outwardly hostile
or instrumental is believed to be dependent on the individuals trait/state predisposition
for aggression (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). In addition to frustration and aggression,
perhaps it should also be considered that behaviours that may be interpreted as
aggressive may also result from heightened arousal as a result of other emotions such as
excitation (Zillman, 1988). For example, young drivers may experience heightened
arousal as a result of hooning or driving with peers. Further, researchers have also
identified perceived threat to ones safety or wellbeing as an emotional catalyst for
aggression (Berkowitz, 1993).
Therefore, due consideration needs to be given to the emotion and arousal
levels experienced by drivers. Furthermore, there is a need to investigate on and offroad sources that may trigger changes in emotional and arousal levels culminating in the
potential to influence the likelihood of on-road aggression.
2.2.3 Aberrant Driving Behaviours to be Considered
Within some definitions of aggressive driving, there is a trend to include aberrant
driving behaviours that can directly or indirectly endanger other road users, such as
speeding (Beirness, Simpson, Mayhew, & Pak, 2001; Goehring, 2000; Shinar, 1998).
Traditionally, behaviours such as speeding and hooning were studied in terms of thrillseeking and/or risk-taking behaviours, however, little attention has been paid to the role
of the cognitive/emotional processes associated with these behaviours and the
subsequent emotions experienced should these tendencies be blocked/impeded from
expression on the road. It is reasonable to anticipate that should these behaviours be
blocked, frustration/anger may result (Dollard, Doob, Mowrer, Miller & Sears, 1939).
Hence, particularly for young drivers, these on-road behaviours may contribute to
societys perception of them as highly aggressive. Consequently, this thesis will initially
include such behaviours as potentially aggressive.
2.2.4 Distinguishing Victims from Perpetrators
In the study of aggressive driving, it is often difficult to distinguish the
perpetrators from the victims (VCCAV, 1999). In part, this is due to the desire to
preserve a positive image of oneself: it being easier to accuse, or blame others for
19
aggressive incidents than accept responsibility for our own aggressive contribution
(Lamb, 1996). Instrumental on-road behaviours can also be misinterpreted by other road
users as aggressive. Indeed, attempting to merge onto a freeway may require decisive
action, however, this behaviour is not necessarily motivated by anger. In this instance,
if the attempt to merge is interpreted as cutting-off by another road user, an on-road
incident may escalate in a tit for tat manner. This example highlights the difficulties
inherent in distinguishing victims from perpetrators and also illustrates the difficulty of
distinguishing acts of intentional behaviour from mere on-road errors. It also illustrates
the need for behaviours such as speeding to be considered in aggressive driving research
due to its direct influence upon other subsequent road behaviours, such as weaving in
and out of traffic as a result of speeding.
2.2.5 Recurring Themes
Despite differences in definitions, a recent meta-review of aggressive driving
research (Dula & Geller, 2003) identified three common themes characterising previous
attempts at a definition of aggressive driving: emotion, behaviour and intention.
2.2.5.1 Emotion
Several researchers suggest that aggressive driving behaviour always appears to
be emotion driven, involving negative emotions such as anger, rage, sadness or
discontent (Dula & Geller, 2003; Tasca, 2001). Shinars (2001) Frustration-Aggression
model of aggressive driving also suggests that aggressive driving behaviour is driven by
frustration and/or anger. However, both views do not acknowledge that other emotions
may also lead to aggressive acts (Zillmann, 1971). For example, younger drivers in
particular may at times drive at higher speeds for exhilaration, engaging in on-road
behaviours that may be considered aggressive by others. Therefore, whilst negative
emotion is commonly associated with aggressive driving behaviour, this is an issue
requiring further investigation.
2.2.5.2 Behaviour
Traditionally, a wide range of behaviours has been considered to be
representative of aggressive driving research, including tailgating, weaving in and out of
traffic, cutting-off other vehicles, vehicle following and horn-honking. In light of the
commonalities identified across aggressive driving research, Dula and Geller (2003)
20
identified a range of behaviours to be considered in defining aggressive driving. They

propose that certain on-road risk-taking behaviours as defined by other researchers
(Arnett, Offer, & Fine, 1997; Jonah, 1997; Smith & Heckert, 1998), not only include
behaviours such as speeding and tailgating, but also include lapses in concentration,
using a mobile phone, eating, drinking or adjusting a stereo whilst driving (Dula &
Geller, 2003). Tasca (2001), however, asserts the importance of including all on-road
risk-taking behaviours when discussing aggressive driving, but only when such
behaviours are combined with emotion and intention as then they have the potential to
endanger others. However, Dula & Geller (2003) assert that all such risky
behaviours may occur in the absence of negative emotion or the intent to harm another
driver and therefore cannot be included in aggressive driving behaviours (Dula & Geller,
2003). Although lapses in concentration and attendance to other tasks such as adjusting
ones radio could hardly be considered aggressive, it is arguable that there are some
risky driving behaviours that need to be considered within the domain of aggressive
driving. For example, given intentionality and emotion, speeding, tailgating and
weaving through traffic may be considered aggressive as these behaviours may be used
deliberately to gain an advantage over, or to intimidate, other road users.
Further, Mizells (1997) research found that the precursory events associated
with aggressive driving incidents often appeared rather trivial. The disputes escalated
to extreme levels of aggressive driving over such issues as car parking spaces, cutting
off other drivers, minor collisions, obscene gestures, loud music, slow driving, and
tailgating (Mizell, 1997). The findings highlight the potential for benign road incidents
to escalate into violence, indicating that perhaps the experience of high level anger is not
necessarily the only precursor emotion to aggressive driving behaviour. Mizell (1997)
noted also that the disputes were rarely the result of one event, but rather an
accumulation of factors that increase the likelihood of an aggressive act. Therefore, the
context in which such behaviours occur appears important if it is to be considered
aggressive driving behaviour.
2.2.5.3 Intentionality
Under existing legislation in Queensland, aberrant/risky driving behaviours, in
general, need not be purposefully or deliberately aimed at another specific driver in
21
order to be considered dangerous on-road behaviour (Jarred, 2002). Consistent with this
thinking, researchers argued that aggressive driving is more closely associated with risktaking behaviour regardless of whether it is intentionally perpetrated or not
(Deffenbacher, Kemper, & Richards, 2007). This position appears to be based on the
view that certain risk-taking behaviours are generally considered by the community and
law enforcement agencies to be inherently aggressive, regardless of the intent or
desired outcome of the driver. These behaviours would include speeding, tailgating, or
weaving in and out of traffic. However, other researchers have argued that an on-road
behaviour should only be classed as aggressive if it is perpetrated with the intent to
physically or psychological harm another driver (Dula & Geller, 2003; Mizell, 1997;
Tasca, 2001). In this regard, a behaviour like tailgating would only be categorised as
aggressive if it was intended to cause some form of discomfort or distress to another
driver. Tailgating for other reasons would be better viewed as an example of careless
driving or risk-taking. In effect, this position holds that it is the intentions of the
perpetrator rather than the perceptions of the victim that most reliably and objectively
define aggressive driving. Consequently, the inclusion of intent within a definition of
aggressive driving more clearly provides a means to distinguish what types of risktaking behaviours constitute examples of aggressive driving (Dula & Geller, 2003;
Tasca, 2001).
Once the central role of intent in aggressive driving is acknowledged, it becomes
evident that it and risk-taking are arguably overlapping concepts as shown in Figure 2.1.
While some aggressive behaviours (such as flashing lights and horn-honking) would not
be generally classed as risk-taking, others such as tailgating do increase crash risk.
However, those risk-taking behaviours which are not intended to harm other drivers,
such as using a hand-held phone, should arguably not be classed as aggressive.
Similarly, tailgating due to carelessness or inattention would represent an example of
risk-taking behaviour, but not an aggressive driving behaviour.
On-Road
Risk-Taking
Behaviour
Aggressive
Driving
Behaviours that are intended

to negatively impact on other
road users.
22
Behaviours that increase

the crash risk of drivers.
Figure 2.1 Relationship of risky driving behaviours to aggressive driving behaviours

In keeping with the foregoing considerations, this research will therefore utilise a
provisional definition of aggressive driving that includes the elements of emotion,
behaviour and intent suggested by the foregoing research (Dula & Geller, 2003;
Tasca, 2001). This provisional definition is:
Aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is
intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and is
associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat.
It should be noted that the concept of harm inherent in the definition will be
interpreted in a broad manner ranging from attempts to cause discomfort to other drivers
through to more serious distress or physical harm.
Being consistent with available literature, this definition facilitates the scientific
investigation of the phenomenon of aggressive driving (Dula & Geller, 2003; Tasca,
2001). Additionally, it allows the concept of aggressive driving to be investigated more
fully from the perspective of popular perceptions of the phenomenon, which may allow
a more practical understanding of the behaviour. As a provisional definition, the above
definition of aggressive driving will be used to guide the program of research and to
formulate relevant research questions and hypotheses. However, the final acceptability
of the definition will be subject to the findings of the research.
23
2.3 The Scope and Nature of Aggressive Driving

2.3.1 Prevalence of Aggressive Driving
The following discussion of international and Australian prevalence rates of
aggressive driving behaviour does not utilise the above provisional definition of
aggressive driving, rather it assumes the various definitions adopted by the original
researchers. The measure of actual prevalence rates of aggressive driving in Australia
and overseas has been problematic in that there are a large number of variations in the
definition used. Accurate measure has also been thwarted by the number of drivers that
fail to report all but the most serious of incidents. Therefore, Section 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2
below combine the discussion of actual prevalence rates with perceived rates. While the
following review will utilise the definitions adopted in each particular study, they will be
considered relative to the provisional definition provided at Section 2.2.5.3.
2.3.1.1 International Studies
In a large study by the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic
Safety (Mizell, 1997), 10,037 separate incidents of aggressive driving reported in police
records and newspaper articles between 19901996 were examined. Review of the case
data revealed that 12,610 people were injured and 218 killed, highlighting the potential
danger of aggressive driving.
Additionally, in 2000, a Traffic Injury Research Foundation survey of 1,207
Canadian drivers revealed that 65% of participants perceived aggressive driving to be a
serious problem (Beirness et al, 2001). This project aimed to identify the road safety
issues which most concerned Canadians and participants were queried on their
observation of aggressive on-road behaviours. The aggressive behaviours most
frequently observed were speeding, tailgating, failing to signal, weaving in traffic,
unsafe passing, too slow in a fast lane, failure to stop, and running red lights (Beirness et
al., 2001).
Similarly, a survey of 6,000 American drivers conducted by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2002) explored the incidence of unsafe driving
practices. In the survey, 62% of participants reported that the behaviour of another
driver had posed a threat to their safety in the last 12 months. The participants also
24
identified certain road behaviours that they considered unsafe or aggressive: cutting-in,
speeding, and tailgating.
2.3.1.2 Australian Studies
In Australia, a police database search of 797 driving incidents deemed to be
aggressive by Harding and colleagues (1998) reported a steady increase in the number of
aggressive driving incidents reported over the period 19911995. Subsequent
aggressive driving research conducted by Elliott (1999) acknowledged the existence of
road violence in Australia, but suggested that so few incidents result in crash
involvement, injury or death, that little can be achieved by paying undue attention to
such behaviour. Indeed, Elliott (1999) suggests that part of the solution for road rage
is to put the problem back into perspective by reducing the media attention given to the
relatively few incidents of road violence that are intentionally perpetrated. He also
maintains that road rage is a product of pre-existing criminal tendencies in an
individual.
Distinguishing between on-road violence and lesser acts of hostility or selfishdriving, the Victorian DCPC conducted an on-line survey of 85 instances of aggressive
driving (DCPC, 2005). Of the recounted instances, 15 individuals (18%) were able to
recall instances of road violence, however, the majority reported lesser acts. In contrast,
another Victorian study suggested that road rage (or aggressive driving) behaviour is
indeed a significant problem on Australian roads, at least in terms of public perceptions
(VCCAV, 1999). The study found that 52% of the 801 participants surveyed believed
that the level of aggressive driving had increased over the last 12 months. Almost half
of the male participants reported that they would be prepared to shout abuse at another
driver, gesticulate at another driver (examples of interpersonal aggression), and drive
more slowly to deliberately antagonise the other driver. In comparison, female drivers
aged 2534 years were found to be significantly more likely than the population as a
whole to perpetrate mild road rage acts. Presented in the order of most commonly to
least commonly adopted, these behaviours were: prolonged horn honking, flicking of
lights on and off, shouting abuse, making obscene gestures, braking or slowing
suddenly, and tailgating.
25
Overall, the Australian studies suggest that the aggressive driving phenomenon is
on the increase, despite the fact that these studies used varying definitions of aggressive
driving which either include or preclude certain behaviours which may otherwise be
seen as risk-taking and therefore unintentionally directed at other drivers (AAMI, 2001,
2002, 2003; Harding et al., 1998 VCCAV, 1999). The Australian findings also appear to
be consistent with aggressive driving research conducted in other developed countries
(Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999; Lajunen, Parker, &
Summala, 1999; NHTSA, 2002; Shinar, 1997) . Further, though the number and
frequency of extreme cases of intentional acts of on-road aggression may be minimal
among the general driving population, the subsequent consequences can be severe.
Extreme instances of on-road aggression can result in physical and/or psychological
harm as well as property damage (Beirness et al., 2001; Mizell, 1997). Therefore, in
light of the perceived increase in societal frustrations and ever-increasing numbers of
road users, it would be prudent for traffic researchers to adopt a pro-active role in
determining the extent and causes of aggressive driving. Moreover, as Australian
drivers have indicated a perceived increase in aggressive driving behaviour, it is
necessary for research to continue, with a view to understanding the relevant
psychological processes involved. A better understanding of these processes would
assist in the development of evidence-based countermeasures.
2.3.2 Types of Aggression on the Roads
As previously stated, behaviours that have been commonly labelled aggressive
driving appear to occur on a continuum from swearing under ones breath to physical
assault (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Those that perpetrate acts of aggressive driving not
only use interpersonal aggression to manipulate the driving behaviour of others, they
also frequently use their vehicles to express aggression by using intimidatory tactics to
manipulate the driving behaviour of other road users. For example, tailgating could be
viewed as an intimidating use of the vehicle that also has the potential for serious
consequences such as physical damage to person or property and/or psychological
damage.
As a consequence of the complexity and range of behaviours involved in
aggressive driving, some traffic researchers have chosen to differentiate between
26
instrumental and hostile aggression (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar, 1998). Hostile
aggression is defined as behaviour that is primarily and purposefully aimed at physically
or psychologically harming the source of frustration. For example, verbal abuse,
physical attack and hand gestures. Instrumental aggression is considered to be driving
behaviour that is intended to assist a driver to move ahead or overcome the source of
frustration, e.g. horn honking, weaving, speeding, running red lights and tailgating
(Shinar, 1998). However, as previously discussed in Section 2.2.5 arguably these
instrumental behaviours can at times be perceived as hostile by other road users,
sometimes resulting in an escalation of the on-road encounter to severe consequences
(VCCAV, 1999; Yagil, 2001). Indeed, it appears that when considering aggressive
driving behaviours, even benign behaviours may have potentially severe consequences.
In an attempt to align the expression of aggression with existing psychological
theory (Berkowitz, 1990; Berkowitz, 1993) and to assess whether drivers actually do
become more aggressive whilst in their vehicles, recent road research has distinguished
between outward, displaced and suppressed aggression (Lawton & Nutter, 2002). For
these researchers, outward aggression is the overt behavioural expression of aggression
in the on-road environment; displaced aggression involves displacing feelings of
frustration/anger to the off-road environment; whilst suppressed aggression involves the
absence of behavioural expression either on or off-road. It was found that drivers were
no more likely to experience anger whilst driving than in other situations, but they were
significantly more likely to report the displacement of their anger in a driving situation
(Lawton & Nutter, 2002). Additionally, these researchers found a significant difference
between males and females in the types of on-road aggression adopted. Females were
more likely to adopt displaced or suppressed levels of expression, whilst males were
found to report higher levels of outwardly expressed aggression than females (Lawton &
Nutter, 2002).
In this thesis, the importance of distinguishing hostile on-road behaviours from
instrumental behaviours is acknowledged. However, as one of the aims of this thesis
will be to examine aggressive driving as it is experienced by drivers, particularly
younger and other at-risk ones, and also to consider the possible transference of anger to
and from the road environment, perhaps making the distinction between outward,
27
suppressed or displaced aggressive expression, will prove useful, particularly in Study

One.
2.4 Factors Contributing to Aggressive Driving
2.4.1 Empirical Evidence
Traffic researchers have compiled extensive lists of factors that influence onroad driving behaviour in general, illustrated in Figure 2.1 (Lonero & Clinton, 1998).
Although, this figure is not specific to aggressive driving behaviours, it illustrates the
multiplicity and complexity of factors that contribute to on-road driver behaviour.
Indeed, many of the factors cited below have been identified as potential contributors to
aggressive driving, including congestion, psychopathology, education, peer pressure,
driving experience, time pressure and near misses/conflicts.
Specific to aggressive driving, the discussion of potential contributing factors has
tended to be guided by two broad categories: person-related and contextual factors
(DCPC, 2005; Shinar, 1998). Comparatively little research has been conducted into
contextual factors that contribute to aggressive driving. However, existing research has
revealed that other factors such as the age and gender of the other driver, time pressure,
congestion, and any resultant on-road behaviours or perceived delays may influence
feelings of anger and the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour (Lajunen & Parker,
2001; OBrien, Tay & Watson, 2005; Underwood, Chapman, Wright & Crundall,
1999). This is not intended to undermine the potential importance of contextual factors
in aggressive driving incidents, as will be highlighted below.
Reflecting on the complexity of Figure 2.1, perhaps this apparent gap in research
is because there appears to be an enormous number of factors that may provide the right
context for aggressive behavioural responses, particularly among those drivers that have
a higher person-related disposition for on-road aggression. Therefore, situational factors
are not the primary focus of this research. Indeed, the person-related characteristics of
high-risk driver groups for on-road aggression will be emphasised. Such an emphasis
should serve to deepen our understanding of the nature of aggressive driving behaviour.
28
Legislation
Enforcement
Traffic Congestion
Frustration/
Aggression
Task Conflicts
Deterrent Threat
Distractions
Psychopathology
Impairment
Fatigue
Attention/
Alertness
Education
Knowledge
Publicity/News
Near Misses/
Conflicts
Current
Driving
Behaviour
Boredom
Other Drivers
Feedback
Stimulus Needs
Information
Processing
Skills
Thrill Seeking
Human Limits
Vehicle handling
Informal Social
Norms
Observed Models
Habits
Peer Pressure
Time Pressure
Experience
Training
Family Pressure
Trip Purpose
Value of
Present Time
Economic Cycle
Mobility/Growth
Driving Culture
Risk Acceptance
Broad Societal
Concerns
Media/ Pop Culture

Value of
Future Time
Conservation
Motor sport
Fun/Adventure
Commercial
Advertising
Marketing
Figure 2.2 Conditions influencing driver behaviour (Lonero & Clinton, 1998, p.6)
The transfer of aggression to or from the road environment is believed to occur
via the emotional and physiological changes associated with stress (Simon & Corbett,
1996; Stokols & Novaco, 1981). As such changes are generated and manifested within
an individual, the discussion of person-related factors will emphasise the trait or state
related stressors that contribute to the experience of stress whilst driving. Trait personrelated factors are relatively enduring, personal characteristics that an individual brings
to any situation. Traits have long been associated with aggressive behavioural outcomes
in interpersonal relationships, and also in aggressive driving research (OConnor,
Archer, & Wu, 2001; Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994). State person-related
29
factors are those factors that affect an individuals current mood or emotional state, and
are relatively less enduring and short lived.
Further to the aims of this research, the review will frequently refer to the driving
behaviour of at-risk drivers in general, who appear to be more involved in aggressive
driving incidents and the associated consequences. It is widely accepted that although it
is not axiomatic for aggressive driving to equate to road crashes, many of the behaviours
widely accepted as aggressive in nature contribute to them (Dahlen, Martin, Ragan, &
Kuhlman, 2005; Underwood, Chapman, Wright, & Crundall, 1999; Wells-Parker,
Ceminsky, Hallberg, Snow, Dunaway, Guiling, Williams, & Anderson, 2002).
Therefore, some reference will also be made to aberrant driving behaviours associated
with aggressive driving and crash risk.
2.4.2 Theoretical Perspective
As stated in Chapter One, this literature review revealed only one comprehensive
model of aggressive driving based on psychological theory. In 1998, David Shinar
proposed a multi-factor approach to aggressive driving utilising the frustrationaggression hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939 see Section 3.3.1), depicted in Figure 2.3.
In this model, Shinar (1998) proposes that frustrating road situations, such as
congestion or delays, mediated by an individuals trait predisposition for aggression,
contribute to a drivers aggressive disposition. In accordance with frustration-aggression
theory congestion or delays are goal blocking, interfering with driving progress. In
response to goal blocking, drivers experience an increase in frustration that in turn
lowers the drivers aggression threshold increasing the likelihood of road aggression
(Shinar, 1998). Whether aggressive driving is displayed on the road or not, is influenced
by the drivers interpretation of the situation, influenced by such things as cultural
norms (Gnepp, 1979; Shinar, 1998). In the absence of aggressive driving outcomes, it
is believed that the expression of aggression is displaced to a later point in time (Lawton
& Nutter, 2002). For instance, such aggression could be displaced into the social or
work environment. However, the same research has also highlighted that
frustration/aggression may be suppressed never to manifest in an aggressive act. The
ability to suppress such emotion implies some internalised control or ability to cope with
frustration and/or anger. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Three.
30
FRUSTRATING SITUATION
- Congestion
- Delays
ENVIRONMENT
(Facilitating Factors)
PERSONALITY
(Trait Factors)
-
Hostility
Extroversion
Type A/B
Anonymity
Legitimacy
Poor Communications
AGGRESSIVE DISPOSITION
NO
AGGRESSION POSSIBLE?
-
DISPLACED
AGGRESSION
Cultural norms
Enforcement
YES
YES
PATH TO GOAL
BLOCKED?
NO
HOSTILE AGGRESSION
INSTRUMENTAL AGGRESSION
Verbal abuse
Physical attack
Hand gestures
Horn honking
Weaving
Running red lights
Tailgating
Horn honking
Figure 2.3 Frustration-Aggression Model of Aggressive Driving (Shinar, 1998, p.140)
According to Berkowitz (1993), however, the amount of anger experienced in a

frustrating situation not only depends on the individual interpretation of the situation but
the characteristics of the situation itself. Shinar (1998) believes the perceived recent
31
increases in aggressive driving incidents in general may not be due to a surge in the
number of aggressive drivers, but rather to an increase in societal frustrations.
Specifically, increasing levels of congestion on the roads and pressure for the greater
economic use of time may be increasing societal frustrations (Connell & Joint, 1996;
Mizell, 1997; Shinar, 1998). Such frustrations lower the aggression threshold for the
general population, making ordinary people more likely to bring an aggressive
predisposition to the road environment (Shinar, 1998). Therefore, part of the appeal of
Shinars model is its capacity to explain the little bit of road-rage in all of us, which
has the potential for severe consequences (notwithstanding the distinction made by some
between road rage and aggressive driving see Section 2.2.1).
As stated in Section 2.3.2, the types of aggressive behaviours that may result
from frustrating or anger-provoking on-road events appear to range from relatively
benign acts of swearing under ones breath to violent acts of physical harm to person or
property. Whilst Shinar proposes that aggressive driving behaviours represent a
continuum ranging from the less severe behaviours to the more severe, he suggests that
those at the less severe end are essentially instrumental in nature and those at the more
severe end are hostile in nature. Instrumental aggression is considered to be all driving
behaviour which is intended to assist the aggressor to move ahead or overcome the
source of frustration or block, e.g. horn honking, weaving, running red lights and
tailgating. Hostile aggression is defined as that behaviour which is primarily and
purposefully aimed at harming the source of frustration, physically or psychologically,
e.g. verbal abuse, physical attack and hand gestures (Shinar, 1998). However, perhaps
even the instrumental behaviour can be misinterpreted as hostile and escalate to a more
severe road incident (VCCAV, 1999; Yagil, 2001). Importantly, this dichotomous
definition of on-road aggression implies that engaging in either type of behaviour serves
a purpose or function for a driver. Therefore, this thesis will examine in greater detail
the function or purpose served by engaging in mild to extreme aggressive driving
behaviours.
Within Shinars (1998) model the type of aggressive behaviour displayed is
influenced by the level of frustration experienced (Dollard et al., 1939); the perceived
penalty for the expression of aggressive driving (Dollard et al., 1939; Berkowitz, 1988);
32
and the legitimacy of the frustrator (Dollard et al., 1939). The level of aggression
displayed varies directly with the level of frustration experienced which is dependent on
the level of interference with the frustrated response and the frequency of the frustration
(Dollard et al., 1939). The perceived penalty for expression of aggression on the roads
is related to the inhibition of aggressive acts (Dollard et al., 1939). For example, the
presence of road-side police may deter the majority of drivers from the expression of
aggression on the roads (Holland & Connor, 1996). Finally, when a frustrator is
perceived as unjustified, an aggressive outcome not only becomes more probable, but
the resultant aggression appears to increase in intensity (Anderson & Dill, 1995;
Berkowitz, 1988; Dollard et al., 1939).
In contrast to Shinars model of frustration-aggression on the road, Berkowitz
(1993) maintained that aggression is not always the result of frustrations, rather
aggression is only evident when the frustration or an aversive event is unpleasant
enough to produce negative effect, such as anger. Aggressive driving behaviour,
therefore, only manifests if a frustrating road event provokes intense emotion, namely
anger (Berkowitz, 1993). Further, despite multiple frustrations and intensity of
emotions that can be generated by a road incident, Berkowitz and other researchers
continue to suggest that aggressive driving behaviour may not necessarily result
(Berkowitz, 1993; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lajunen, Parker, & Summala, 1999).
Consequently, in keeping with the Berkowitz (1993) reformulation of the original
frustration-aggression hypothesis, perhaps it is the cumulative effect of multiple factors
known to affect feelings of anger on the roads which result in aggressive driving.
In Shinars (1998) multi-factorial approach to aggressive driving, rarely would a
single factor in isolation directly cause the experience of frustration and expression of
road aggression (Shinar, 1998). A review of the literature on person-related and
situational factors indeed suggests that perhaps congestion and delays, as detailed in
Shinars model, only result in the expression of aggressive driving in the presence of
particular person-related factors, including the subjective evaluation of the situation. As
such, perhaps the situational factor, congestion does not cause sufficient frustration in
itself, due to the fact that it may be anticipated, particularly at certain times of the day
e.g. rush-hour.
33
2.5 Person-Related Contributors to Aggressive Driving

2.5.1 Age, Gender and Aggressive Driving
Research suggests that an individuals aggressiveness may be susceptible to
change over the course of their life, increasing age being associated with lower
aggression levels (Harris & Knight-Bohnhoff, 1996a). Within this study, men also
reported significantly higher levels of physical aggression than women as measured by
the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992). As such, the age and gender of an
offending driver may also influence the amount of anger experienced and the type of
aggressive behaviour displayed.
In a study of cognitive antecedents to aggressive road behaviour, Yagil (2001)
posited that negative attributions, or negative evaluations/thoughts affect aggressive
reactions to another drivers provocative road behaviour. Yagils (2001) study of 150
males found that negative attributions applied to another driver are likely to increase the
amount of driving related frustration or anger with male offending drivers attracting
more negative attributions and emotions than females. Further, such negative beliefs
and expectations about another driver are more likely to result in evaluations of their
behaviour as being inconsiderate and aggressive (Yagil, 2001). This finding is
consistent with the VCCAV (1999) study, which found that younger men (aged 1824
years) were reported three times more frequently than females as the perpetrators of
road rage incidents. However, it should be pointed out that Yagils (2001) study
involved males, and not females. The inclusion of both sexes is a step which is
considered necessary in light of the study by Lajunen and Parker (2001) which proposed
separate models of driver aggression for males and females, based on findings which
clearly highlight differing beliefs about aggressive road behaviour and the frequency of
those aggressive behaviours between males and females (Rimmo & Aberg, 1999;
Lawton, Parker, Manstead, & Stradling, 1997; Reason, Manstead, Stradling, Parker, &
Baxter, 1991).
Male drivers in particular have been found to behave more aggressively on the
roads than females (Rimmo & Aberg, 1999). Lajunen and Parker (2001) found the
amount of anger experienced in traffic and the severity of an aggressive response
decreases with increasing age. Shinar (1998) found that as age increases, aggressive
34
driving behaviour seems to decrease. He also reported that aggressive driving was more
common among men than women, particularly the more severe expressions of
aggressive driving.
These results have also been supported by the Australian VCCAV survey (1999)
which looked at the phenomenon of road rage from the dual perspective of the victim
and the perpetrator. This study found that people aged 1834 years, particularly males,
were significantly more likely to participate in mild cases of aggressive driving than
the population as a whole (VCCAV, 1999).
Young males were also found to be over-represented in a study of New South
Wales police records of reported aggressive driving incidents (Harding, Morgan,
Indermaur, Ferrante, & Blagg, 1998. In contrast, Gordhamer, Martinex, Petrilli, Lynch
& Deffenbacher (1996), conducted a study of the characteristics of high and low anger
drivers. No significant effect was found for gender on anger experienced within the
high anger group consisting of 28 males and 27 females. However, males and females
differed significantly in the expression of their anger with females reporting more
constructive/adaptive and less hostile/aggressive behaviour than males (Gordhamer et
al., 1996).
Overall, the findings of this review suggest that not only does age and gender
appear to influence the behavioural response to an anger-provoking road situation, it
appears to influence the subjective experience of frustration and anger on the roads
(Gordhamer et al., 1996). Specifically, young males appear to be more likely to
perpetrate acts of hostility and aggression on the roads. Considering the possible
individual differences between driver age groups,
some aggressive driving researchers have emphasised the individual or trait differences
that may increase or decrease the likelihood of aggression (Deffenbacher, Oetting, &
Lynch, 1994; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). These are reviewed in the following sections.
2.5.2 Personality and Psychopathology
A review of traffic literature indicates that several measures of a drivers trait
predisposition for stress have been utilised (Gregory, 1996). The Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire Revised Abbreviated (EPQR-A) (Francis, Brown, & Philipchalk, 1992;
Forest, Lewis, & Shevlin, 2000) has been used to assess personality traits and their
35
relationship with driver behaviour. The EPQR-A consists of measures of Extroversion,

Neuroticism, Psychoticism, and a Lie scale (Gregory, 1996). Scores high on the
Extroversion subscale suggest an individual is more easygoing and less likely to keep
their feelings under control than introverts (low scores) and therefore perhaps more
likely to behave spontaneously in a given situation (Renner & Anderle, 2000). The
Neuroticism subscale reflects emotionality that ranges from nervous, maladjusted and
over emotional (high scores), to stable and confident (low scores) (Gregory, 1996).
High scores on the Psychoticism subscale are believed to reflect antisocial tendencies,
with high scores reflecting low socialisation, a disregard for rules, insensitivity to the
feelings of others and a tendency to accept high risk (Gregory, 1996). In 1978, Eysenck
and colleagues designed an additional questionnaire measuring Impulsivity,
Venturesomeness and Empathy (IVE) to be used in conjunction with the EPQR-A
(Eysenck et al., 1995).
In a 1991 study, Matthews and colleagues (1998) utilised the EPQR-A to
examine the association between personality traits and general driver stress (measured
by the Driver Behaviour Inventory DBI) and accident involvement (measured by the
Driver Behaviour Questionnaire DBQ). They found that general personality traits,
particularly neuroticism and to a lesser degree psychoticism, are positively related to
an individuals susceptibility to driver stress and increased involvement in aberrant
driving behaviour (Matthews et al., 1991).
The EPQR-A and the IVE have also been used by traffic researchers to examine
the characteristics of aggressive drivers (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Renner & Anderle,
2000). In a comparison of known traffic offenders (aged 1830 years of age) with a
control group of general applicants for driving licences, administration of the full EPQ-R
and the IVE yielded two significant results (Renner & Anderle, 2000). The known male
offenders scored significantly higher scores on extroversion than males in the control
group. Also, the offender group scored significantly higher on venturesomeness than
the control group. However, Lajunen and colleague (2001) found no evidence of the
IVE subscales contributing significantly to the prediction of on-road aggression. In this
study participants were required to self-report their levels of trait driving anger and
general aggression levels. They were then exposed to several on-road, anger-provoking
36
scenarios and asked to indicate the amount of anger they would be likely to experience
and then their most likely behavioural response (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). This
apparent lack of a significant contribution by the IVE subscales in the prediction of
aggressive reactions is understandable, as one would anticipate that the incidence of high
levels of impulsivity or venturesomeness would be relatively low in the sample used
(Eysenck et al., 1995). Further, high impulsivity has long been associated with poor
appraisal/decision making and risk-taking behaviour (Dzurilla, Chang, & Sanna, 2003;
Dzurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002).
Other traffic researchers have examined clinical differences between selfreferred and court-referred aggressive drivers in an attempt to profile aggressive drivers
and consider appropriate clinical interventions (Galovski & Blanchard, 2002a). In this
study, the researchers administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I
and II disorders. Of the 30 participants, 80% were found to meet the criteria for at least
one Axis I disorder (33% meeting the criteria for Intermittent Explosive Disorder IED)
and 57% met the criteria for at least one Axis II disorder. The court-referred aggressive
drivers had significantly more Axis I and II psychopathology when compared to a
control group. Aggressive drivers were more frequently diagnosed with IED, alcohol
abuse, substance abuse, antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality
disorder (Galovski & Blanchard, 2002a).
In a 2001 study examining the relationship between psychiatric morbidity and
road rage, researchers recruited both perpetrators, victims, and those that had
experience as both
the perpetrator and the victim of road rage (Fong, Frost, & Stanfeld, 2001). The 131
participants were clinically assessed using the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised
(CIS-R) (Lewis, Pelosi, Araya, & Dunn, 1992) the AQ (Buss & Perry, 1992), AUDIT
(Saunders, Aasland, Babor, De La Fuente, & Grant, 1993), Life Event Scale (LES)
(Holmes & Rahe, 1967) and Screening Test for Co-morbid Personality Disorders
(Dowson, 1992). Perpetrators were found to be predominantly young and male with
significantly less driving experience than all other groups. They also scored
significantly higher than the other groups on the trait aggression (AQ) and overall scores
on the CIS-R, suggesting psychiatric co-morbidity. However, there were no significant
37
differences found between the groups on exposure to major life events (LES), social
class, levels of alcohol abuse or prevalence of personality disorders.
Another study compared the prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses between selfreported high and low aggression drivers with a mean age of 19.1 years (Malta,
Blanchard, & Freidenberg, 2005). This study found that the high aggression drivers had
significantly greater prevalence of current and lifetime diagnoses of Oppositional
Defiance Disorder (ODD), an alcohol and/or substance abuse disorder and personality
disorders across the three clinical clusters (A, B & C). Cluster A personality disorders
refer to Paranoid, Schizoid and Schizotypal diagnoses. Cluster B disorders refer to
Antisocial, Borderline, Narcissistic and Histrionic personality diagnoses, whilst Cluster
C disorders refer to Avoidant, Dependent and Obsessive-compulsive diagnoses. These
drivers were also found to have significantly greater current and lifetime prevalence of
Conduct Disorder, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and IED. In this
study, however, no significant differences were found between the two groups for
prevalence of mood or anxiety disorders (frequently associated with the neuroticism
scale of the EPQ-R).
In conclusion, the foregoing research provides evidence to suggest that the key
differences between aggressive drivers and non-aggressive road users occur at the
personality level. In particular, the evidence concerning the greater prevalence of
lifetime psychological disorders, such as Oppositional Defiance Disorder, Conduct
Disorder, ADHD, personality disorders and alcohol abuse disorders, suggests that
perhaps these individuals are not only predisposed to a greater likelihood for aggression
on-road, but off-road as well.
2.5.3 Trait Aggression
As real-life instances of human aggression are difficult to record and to measure
as they occur (OConnor, Archer, & Wu, 2001; VCCAV, 1999) aggression researchers
have explored indirect methods of measuring human aggression. These methods have
included the manipulation of anger-provoking scenarios that generate aggressive
responses and the use of measures of peoples trait propensity to act aggressively.
Various personality measures and subscales have been used to assess trait aggression.
At times, however, they tend to measure far more than the trait propensity to act
38
aggressively or fail to assess in sufficient depth the different components of aggression

(Buss & Perry, 1992; Deffenbacher, Oetting, Thwaites, Lynch, Baker, Stark, Thacker,
& Eiswerth Cox, 1996; Matthews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991).
In the construction of the AQ, Buss and Perry (1992) emphasised the
importance of dividing aggression into sub traits or components. Their research
concluded that the personality trait of aggression consists of four sub-traits. The
physical and verbal aggression subscales represent the instrumental component of
aggression. Viewed as the bridge between negative thoughts/evaluations and reactive
aggression, the anger scale represents the emotional component of behaviour and
reflects a trait preparedness for aggression. The hostility scale represents the cognitive
component of trait aggression, measuring thoughts of suspicion, injustices and ill-will
toward others (Buss & Perry, 1992). The initial set of questions was administered to 612
male and 641 female university students, almost all of whom were aged 18 to 20 years.
These results revealed that young males reported slightly higher on verbal aggression,
hostility and considerably higher on physical aggression than young females.
However, there was no reported difference in anger for gender.
Research into self-reported aggressive responses to anger-provoking social
scenarios has also used the AQ as a measure of aggression (OConnor, Archer, & Wu,
2001). In this social experiment, young men below 28 years of age that endorsed the use
of physical aggression on the AQ, chose to express more overtly aggressive responses
than females. However, it should be noted that in another all female study (n = 106), a
measure of social desirability was found to have a moderate to strong relationship with
the AQ, suggesting that females (mean age 20.3 years) may not be self-reporting
aggression tendencies honestly (Harris, 1997).
In another study of aggressive drivers, Lajunen and Parker (2001) constructed
different path analyses for males and females relating to their experience of anger and
expression of aggression on the road. Interpreting scores obtained from three of the AQ
subscales (anger, physical aggression and verbal aggression) (Buss & Perry, 1992), both
men and women that reported having high general anger and/or high levels of verbal
aggression seemed to become more angry by the reckless driving of others. Further,
those that scored high on verbal aggression were found to be more aggressive the
39
angrier they got. However, verbal aggression was not significantly related to the level
of anger or aggression that results from having their progress merely impeded. The trait
tendency to resort to physical aggression was found to directly increase the likelihood
of an aggressive behavioural response. Although this research did not elaborate on
specific differences between young and older drivers, the researchers did report that with
increasing age there appeared to be a decrease in the amount of anger experienced and
aggression adopted among males (Lajunen & Parker, 2001).
2.5.4 Driving Anger
In America, Deffenbacher, Oetting and Lynch (1994) devised a 33 item measure
of general driving anger, the Driving Anger Scale (DAS). Driving anger was
conceptualised as a personality trait related to trait anger, but specific to road situations
(Deffenbacher et al., 1994). The measure consists of a series of statements representing
road behaviours displayed by others, e.g. someone is driving well above the speed
limit and specific driving related situations, e.g. someone backs out in front of you
without looking. The items formed six subscales, which were named hostile gestures,
illegal driving, slow driving, traffic obstructions, discourtesy, and police presence
(Deffenbacher et al., 1994).
In a study utilising the DAS, researchers have found young self-reported highanger drivers (median age 19 years) reported more anger whilst driving, more aggressive
behavioural responses on-road, greater aggression and risk-taking behaviour
(Deffenbacher, Filetti, Richards, Lynch, & Oetting, 2003). They were also found to
possess higher levels of trait impulsivity and aggression. Additionally, these drivers
reported less controlled forms of anger expression.
A recent study into the relationship between trait aggression, driver anger and
aggressive driving suggested that although the anger-provoking situations in the DAS
(UK) may evoke feelings of anger, they do not necessarily lead to the expression of
aggression (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Further, acknowledging that the DAS only
measures anger experienced and not expressed, Lajunen and Parker (2001) asked
participants to report their most likely resultant behaviour from a list of seven
possibilities, ranging from no reaction to physical/verbal assault of person or
property. The responses of the participants revealed that the level of anger experienced
40
is related to the severity of the expressed aggression, with the various on-road situations
outlined in the DAS (UK), affecting the amount of anger experienced.
In an earlier study by Lajunen and colleagues (1999) investigating the
dimensions of driving anger (using the DAS) as experienced by UK drivers, factor
analysis yielded a three factor measure of driving anger i.e. reckless driving, direct
hostility and impeded progress by others (Lajunen, Parker, & Stradling, 1999).
Furthermore, young drivers were more likely to express all three types of driving anger
than older drivers. Interestingly, no gender differences were found between males and
females and the types of driving anger expressed.
Building on the construct of driving anger some researchers have attempted to
characterise the differences between high and low anger drivers (Deffenbacher, Huff,
Lynch, Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000; Deffenbacher, Deffenbacher, Lynch, & Richards,
2003). Whether a driver was considered high or low anger was determined by high or
low total scores on the DAS (Lynch et al., 1999). In one study comparing students
seeking help for problems with driving anger, and two groups of students either high or
low on trait anger, researchers found that on certain characteristics there was very little
difference between either of the high anger groups (Deffenbacher et al., 2003). Both
high-anger groups reported greater frequency of intense anger, more aggressive ways of
expressing driving anger (as measured by the Driving Anger Expression Inventory DAX) and more risk-taking behaviour.
In a closer examination of high-anger drivers, research has found that not only do
high-anger drivers self-report higher levels of intense anger and anxiety (Deffenbacher
et al., 2000), but they also report greater anger in frequently occurring on-road
situations. They also experience more frequent near misses and a greater number of
moving violations (Deffenbacher et al., 2003). Young high-anger drivers (median age
19 years) were also found to drive at higher speeds in low impedance simulations with
shorter stopping times/distances (Deffenbacher et al., 2003). Additionally, these
researchers observed that these drivers were also more generally angry individuals.
Collectively, the foregoing findings indicate that aspects of trait driving anger
appear to influence the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour. Also, where the
research has examined a cross-section of high and low-anger drivers, the findings
41
suggest that the link between feelings of anger and the expression of aggression on the
road is quite complex.
2.5.5 Impulsivity
Impulsivity is a trait tendency to act spontaneously without considering all of the
relevant characteristics of a situation and the consequences of such behaviour (Lajunen
& Parker, 2001). Hence, high impulsivity is considered to have a strong association
with increased risk-taking behaviour, which is particularly prevalent among young males
(Deffenbacher, Filetti, Richards, Lynch, & Oetting, 2003; DZurilla, Nezu, & MaydeuOlivares, 2002).
As traffic conditions change rapidly and communication is constrained in the
road environment, perhaps impulsive responses are more likely in todays environment.
Lajunen and Parker (2001) hypothesised that impulsivity would be related to a readiness
to act aggressively in a frustrating road situation. Despite this, they found that
impulsiveness was not predictive of driver aggression in a self-report study. However,
perhaps this finding was due to the wide age range of the participants in the study, as
impulsivity is generally quite evident in the behaviour of young males (Eysenck et al.,
1995; Deffenbacher, et al., 2003; Karli, 1991). Further, the arousal levels often
associated with spontaneous impulsivity were not meaningfully elicited by the use of a
self-report measure. The relevance of impulsivity to human aggression will be discussed
in greater detail in Chapter Three.
2.5.6 Sensation-Seeking
Sensation seeking is a personality trait or disposition characterised by the desire
to partake in novel or unconventional experiences, which involve a willingness to take
physical and social risks (Zuckermann & Neeb, 1980). For instance, sensation-seekers
are more likely to be involved in high-risk activities such as bungy jumping or
parachuting. Further, it has been found that these individuals are less inhibited than
most, are easily bored and more likely to engage in risky driving practices (Zuckermann
& Neeb, 1980). Specific to driving behaviour, the sensation seeking trait has been
found to be related to aggressive driving, running red lights and speeding (Jonah, 1997).
In a 1997 meta-analysis, Jonah found that 36 of the 40 studies reviewed reported
a significant positive relationship between sensation seeking and risky driving. Jonah
42
(1997) also reported that all studies involving risky driving measures reported a
significant positive relationship with sensation seeking. High sensation seekers have
been found to be more likely to follow other vehicles at a closer distance, whilst also
being more likely to judge their driving behaviour as less risky than it probably is
(Rimmo & Aberg, 1998). Therefore, perhaps sensation seeking contributes to on-road
behaviours which are interpreted as aggressive by other road users.
2.5.7 Self-Esteem
It has been found that males tend to have higher levels of self-esteem than
females, although this difference appears to diminish across time (Baumeister, Smart, &
Boden, 1996). Those individuals with high self-esteem have been found to react poorly
to criticism in general and may respond irrationally by raising the levels of their own
future performance at tasks (Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell, 2000; McFarlin &
Blascovich, 1981; Schlenker, Soraci, & McCarthy, 1976). Conversely, other research
de-emphasises the importance of self-esteem and highlights the larger, however, closely
associated psychological construct, i.e. ego (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Ego
may be conceptualised as the core of an individual, comprising the collected
psychological processes that are concerned with ones self (Reber & Reber, 2001, p.
195). Considered in unison, these constructs may contribute to a better understanding of
why young males, in particular, appear over-represented in aggressive driving research.
For example, the acquisition of a vehicle and the obtaining of a licence may add to a
young male drivers perception of self-importance, increasing their self-esteem and
inflating the ego. As such, a perceived threat to that ego or self-esteem may result in
aggressive driving behaviours aimed at restoring their self-esteem, ego and sense of
superiority.
In sum, the above findings may suggest that in response to the external challenge
to their self-esteem, some male drivers may respond irrationally by pushing their limits
or engaging in risk-taking road behaviour which they believe they) can manage
(McFarlin & Blascovich, 1981; Schlenker et al., 1976). Perhaps it should also be
considered that stepping into the vehicle may indeed enhance a young drivers selfesteem and subsequent perception of their own driving abilities. The subsequent
43
perception of on-road threat to their favourable self-appraisal may result in irrational or

impulsive responses aimed at restoring their positive self-impression.
2.5.8 Transfer of Stress to and from the On-Road Environment
The term stress refers to any force that causes modification of a persons
physiological or psychological state, and usually in a negative manner (Reber & Reber,
2001). Individuals may experience stress from physical, psychological, and social
pressures (collectively known as stressors) within their lives that may negatively impact
on their behavioural responses across a variety of situational settings (Carlson &
Perrewe, 1999; Vaughan & Hogg, 1995). A stressor does not need to be severe or have
a psychological or physiological impact on ones lifestyle in order to induce stress and
alter ones state (Carlson & Buskist, 1997). Although stress is experienced internally
within oneself via physiological changes and psychological effects, the experience of
stress may be observed in subsequent behavioural responses that may appear to
differentiate from an individuals normal behaviour (Aseltine, Gore, & Gordon, 2000;
Westerman & Haigney, 2000).
Traffic research has highlighted the relevance of such state-related characteristics
and their influence on aberrant driving behaviours (Simon & Corbett, 1996). These
researchers have found that on and off-road generated stress is positively associated with
road traffic offending rates among both males and females (Simon & Corbett, 1996).
Therefore, further to the relative contribution of the on-road factors noted above, it is
necessary to elaborate on psychological constructs that a driver inherently brings to the
road environment. These psychological constructs, such as mood and life-stress,
originate from within an individual and are considered relatively transient emotional
states. As such they are difficult to quantify, however, research has found evidence of
mood negatively effecting road user behaviours (Hartley & Hassani, 1994; Kolich &
Wong-Reiger, 1999; Matthews, Dorn, Hoyes, Davies, Glendon, & Taylor, 1998; Simon
& Corbett, 1996).
Given that road networks are becoming increasingly complex and congested,
traffic researchers have long been interested in the impact of state stress on-road user
behaviour. The following section explores some of the relevant on and off-road, person-
44
related stressors that may influence the likelihood of aggressive driving. However, it is
first necessary to briefly discuss the experience of stress and road user behaviour.
2.5.8.1 The Experience of Stress on the Road
Under conditions of stress drivers are more likely to exhibit mild forms of
aggression and a greater number of errors and violations on the road (Aseltine et al.,
2000; Deffenbacher et al., 2000; Gulian, Matthews, Glendon, Davies, & Debney, 1989;
Hartley & Hassani, 1994; Wiesenthal & Hennessy, 1999). The original source of such
stress is not confined to the on-road environment. As in other stress research, exposure
to considerable stress has been found to spill over into other life situations (Hennessy &
Wiesenthal, 1997). In traffic psychology, it has been suggested that this is primarily due
to findings that stress negatively impacts on a drivers coping abilities within the
complexities of the driving environment (Westerman & Haigney, 2000; Novaco,
Stokols, & Milanesi, 1990). As a consequence, many drivers experience feelings of
frustration, irritation and even anger, which can further enhance the likelihood of their
engaging in erroneous or aggressive driving (Aseltine et al., 2000; Deffenbacher et al.,
2000; Westerman & Haigney, 2000).
In general, driver stress is believed to be an internal, individual experience
influenced by personality traits, that may also occur in combination with
environmental or life stressors (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997; Arnett, Offer, & Fine,
1997). Environmental or life stressors, as state stressors, affect an individuals current
mood, whereas trait level stress is considered to be a relatively stable and enduring
individual predisposition to stress in general (Arnett et al., 1997). Therefore, not only do
drivers bring their enduring trait predisposition for stress to the road environment, they
also bring with them their current mood state. As stress levels are likely to build
across relatively short periods of time, it is possible that drivers may adopt risky driving
practices to release their stress or they may become angered more easily in response to
other driver behaviour increasing the likelihood of aggressive driving (Navaco et al.,
1990; Parkinson, 2001). For example, a road stressor such as congestion may add to
existing feelings of stress associated with work or home (Matthews, Dorn, & Glendon,
1991; Navaco et al., 1990). As such, some researchers believe that stress experienced on
45
the road may similarly transfer into the work or home environment (Navaco et al.,
1990).
2.5.8.2 Effect of Gender and Age on the Experience of Stress
As in other areas of traffic research, gender and age may influence the amount of
stress experienced on and off-road and the behaviour displayed. Research based on selfreport measures of general life stress and driving stress, found that stress both on and
off-road is positively correlated with traffic offending in both male and female drivers
(Simon & Corbett, 1996; Hartley & Hassani, 1994).
In a large UK study (Westerman & Haigney, 2000), researchers found that selfreport measures of trait driver stress levels (using the Driving Behaviour Inventory
DBI) revealed no significant differences between the sexes. However, there was a
negative correlation with age. The researchers acknowledge that this finding may have
been potentially confounded by the reported driving experience of the participants
(Westerman & Haigney, 2000). Further, several studies indicate that older drivers tend
to report lower trait stress than younger drivers (Guilan, Matthews, Glendon, Davies, &
Debney, 1989; Matthews et al., 1991; Simon & Corbett, 1996). Although it was noted
by Simon and Corbett (1996) that generally female drivers offend less than males,
females experienced slightly more stress than males regardless of their level of
offending. However, as previously mentioned, male offenders scored significantly
higher on extroversion (as measured by the EPQR-A) (Renner & Anderle, 2000) and
were more likely to behave spontaneously in a given situation than male non-offenders
(Renner & Anderle, 2000). Hence, these findings may suggest that young male drivers,
in particular, may be more prone to react overtly and impulsively when under stress on
the roads and therefore more highly reactive in their behavioural response.
2.5.8.3 Driver Trait Stress Measures
Traffic researchers have repeatedly reviewed the relationship between stress and
driving violations and/or errors. Many researchers have utilised the Driver Behaviour
Inventory-General (DBI) that was designed as a behavioural outcomes measure of a
drivers trait susceptibility to driver stress (Glendon, Dorn, Matthews, Gulian, Davies, &
Debney, 1993). This questionnaire consists of 31 items that load onto five scales: driver
aggression; irritation when overtaken; driving alertness; dislike of driving; and
46
frustration in overtaking (Glendon et al., 1993). A high score on the DBI reflects high
stress levels whilst driving (Glendon et al., 1993). Quite often this measure has been
used in conjunction with the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) which gives a
measure of on-road behavioural outcomes that are classified as lapses, errors and
violations. Used in this way the DBQ has provided results that raise concerns about the
relationship between driver aggression and driver safety issues (Mizell, 1997).
Using the DBI, Hartley and Hassani (1994) reported that truck drivers with high
levels of traffic violations reported more general driving stress than low violation truck
drivers (Hartley & Hassani, 1994). Conversely, they reported that the reverse is true for
car drivers (Hartley & Hassani, 1994). In another study, with a sample of 2,806 United
Kingdom drivers, similar results were found: researchers reported that high levels of
driving stress were consistently found to be associated with increased self-reported
lapses, errors and violations on the roads. In particular, this study found a strong
positive correlation between the DBI driving aggression/urgency factor and road
violations (Westerman & Haigney, 2000). The particular items that featured
predominantly in the driving aggression measure highlighted the role of
interpersonal/social aggression tendencies (Westerman & Haigney, 2000).
However, other research provides a better explanation of stress and increased
involvement in road violations. Matthews and colleagues (1991) found high correlations
between high driver stress (measured by the DBI) and poorer self-rated attention to the
road environment (Matthews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991). Other traffic research using the
DBI clearly shows sex differences for the levels of driving stress experienced (Simon &
Corbett, 1996). Also, several studies based on use of the DBI indicate that older drivers
tend to report lower levels of driver stress than younger drivers (Guilan, Matthews,
Glendon, Davies, & Debney, 1990; Matthews et al., 1991; Simon & Corbett, 1996).
In a study conducted in the United States, researchers found that drivers who
perceived the driving environment as more stressful reported a greater likelihood of
behaving aggressively on the road (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001). High stress drivers
were also found to report higher incidence of past road violence (Hennessy &
Wiesenthal, 2001).
47
Collectively, the above findings suggest that high levels of trait and state driver
stress do contribute to lapses in driver attention, increased driver errors, increased rates
of violation of road rules and aggressive driving behaviour. As such, the importance of
stress levels and its impact upon road user behaviour is highly relevant when considering
on-road aggression.
2.5.8.4 Individual Mood and Daily Hassles
The experience of DBI measured driver stress has also been found to correlate
with stressed mood states and crash involvement (Matthews et al., 1991). Comparing
participant scores on the DBI and the UWIST (University of Wales Institute of Science
and Technology) mood measure, researchers found evidence to suggest that the dislike
of driving and overtaking tension scales of the DBI, were strong predictors of a
drivers state mood (Matthews et al., 1991). Specifically, high scores on these two
scales were associated with low levels of arousal, high tension and a less pleasant mood
state (Matthews et al., 1991). However, the relationship between off-road daily life
stress and driver mood appears more complex.
In a more general approach to the effect of daily stress on mood, researchers
DeLongis and colleagues (1988) found a significant positive relationship between lifes
daily hassles and reported stress levels, however, the negative effect of such was short
lived, usually less than a day (DeLongis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988). Therefore, young
drivers in particular, in light of this critical developmental period in their lives, may
experience similar effects. Certainly this literature review suggests that younger drivers
are more susceptible to on and off-road stressful events and mood disturbances than
older drivers.
Road researchers have also found that higher levels of perceived impedance
(stress) in the work or on-road environment, in the form of perceived delays due to work
or congestion when driving home, are associated with greater negative mood states on
arrival at home from ones place of work (Navaco et al., 1990). Higher levels of general
life stress have also been found to negatively impact cognitive information processing
ability in the workplace, as measured by reaction times based on task difficulty and
driver performance (Kolich & Wong-Reiger, 1999; Matthews et al., 1998).
48
2.5.8.5 Life Event Stress

The Holmes and Rahe (1967) 43 item, Life Event Stress Questionnaire (LES) has
been used to assess the impact of major life stressors such as divorce, death of a family
member and changing jobs, on human performance (De Meuse, 1985). De Meuse
(1985) reported that younger individuals seemed to perceive such major life events as
having a greater negative impact on their lives than did middle-aged or older
participants. This finding was more recently supported by Simon and Corbett (1996).
Again, older drivers reported less general life stress than younger drivers, and in
particular, young male drivers had higher overall self-reported life stress scores (Simon
& Corbett, 1996). As previously stated, higher stress scores were related to higher levels
of traffic offending for both males and females (Simon & Corbett, 1996).
General aggression researchers have found evidence to suggest that higher levels
of anger and hostility in response to negative life events as a youth, play a causal role in
fostering more aggressive forms of delinquent behaviour in youth (Aseltine, Gore, &
Gordon, 2000). This delinquent behaviour may extend to road user behaviour. Even
early research speaks of the impact of life event stress on road user behaviour. In 1970,
McMurray found that drivers involved in fatal crashes are more likely to be undergoing
periods of personal stress and that these drivers are more likely to use a vehicle as an
outlet for their stress (McMurray, 1970).
Life-stressors appear to influence the perceived levels of stress generated by onroad experiences and may influence the behavioural response of drivers. Notably, the
impact of life-stressors upon road user behaviour should not be diminished by the
possibility of a relatively small effect size when considering the multiplicity of factors
that affect the experience of on-road stress. The above findings suggest a very complex
relationship exists between life-event stressors and road user behaviour, however a link
has been established.
2.5.8.6 Work Stress
In 1981, a study assessed the cross-domain effects of work/home stress and
transportation stress (Stokols & Novaco, 1981). Job satisfaction levels were found to be
positively correlated with on-road stress levels during the commute home (Stokols &
Novaco, 1981). Conversely, efforts and ability to cope with the transport environment
49
have been found to affect levels of satisfaction across the work/home domains (Stokols
& Novaco, 1981).
As fleet safety research expands in an effort to reduce the massive costs
associated with higher levels of crash involvement (Downs, Keigan, Maycock, &
Grayson, 1999), research has begun to focus on the specific effect of stress levels on the
incidence of road crash involvement among company car drivers. Using motor vehicle
claims data sourced from within a large retail company, Cartwright and colleagues
(1996) found that occupational stress is playing a role in predicting crash rates
(Cartwright, Cooper, & Barron, 1996). In particular, those company drivers involved in
traffic accidents were found to have significantly lower levels of job satisfaction
associated with feelings of achievement or growth, the job itself, the organisational
structure and processes, and with their employment overall, than accident involved
drivers from another company (Cartwright et al., 1996). This evidence suggests that
more stressful work environments are likely to result in a higher incidence of accident
involvement. Moreover, the above findings suggest work stress is capable of inducing
stress, which in turn may influence the behaviour of all road users. Therefore, the
potential for work related stress to influence aggressive driving behaviour should be
investigated further.
2.5.8.7 Fatigue
In a small meta-analysis of fatigue studies, Milosevic (1997) found that the
experience of fatigue by bus and truck drivers negatively influences mood state,
specifically increasing irritability. Consistent with the above findings, this may suggest
that fatigued drivers would therefore experience an increased likelihood of stress and
subsequent impatience associated with traffic delays or the behaviour of other road
users. Hence, fatigue appears to exacerbate certain trait and state person-related factors,
which influence the onset of driver stress. In turn, this stress may increase the likelihood
of aggressive driving behaviour.
2.6 Situational Contributors to Aggressive Driving
As previously stated, the large number of context specific situational
characteristics that may contribute to aggressive driving makes it difficult to examine
them all in a systematic way. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge the influence
50
that situational factors can have on aggressive driving. The situational factors that
influence aggressive driving appear to fall into two broad categories: the specific
behaviours of other drivers, and the situational factors of the immediate driving
environment.
The behaviour of other drivers most often associated with aggressive driving
are listed below. However, it should be noted that it is more often combinations of these
behaviours that have been repeatedly cited as comprising or contributing to aggressive
driving behaviour (AAMI, 2001, 2003; NHTSA, 2002; Mizell, 1997):
Speeding
Cutting-off
Lack of indicating
Failing to allow merging
Sudden lane changes
Gesticulating at other road users
Sudden braking
Verbal abuse
Horn-honking
Physical abuse.
Considered individually some of these behaviours may be indicative of poor

judgement or driving errors. However, when these behaviours are coupled with a degree
of intentionality they may be considered aggressive driving, as proposed in the
provisional definition (Section 2.2.5.3).
2.6.1
On-Road Situational Factors
Other situational factors associated with aggressive driving concern the

characteristics of the on-road environment in which it is more likely to occur. The
following sections provide a brief overview of the findings concerning the most likely
conditions under which aggressive driving behaviour appears to take place.
2.6.1.1 Type of Road
Aggressive driving occurs on most types of roads. Despite this, a greater number
of incidents appear to be reported on freeways or major roads (VCCAV, 1999). It
should be noted however, that most of the research into aggressive driving behaviour has
focussed on built-up areas that naturally experience higher levels of traffic density i.e.
51
congestion (Elliott, 1999; RACWA, 1997; VCCAV, 1999), potentially increasing the
possibility of aggressive driving behaviour via an exposure effect. Congestion and its
effect on driving behaviour is reviewed below as an example of how situational factors
may influence aggressive driving.
2.6.1.2 Congestion
Congestion is often used in road research to operationalise the fast-paced,
stressful environment of todays road systems (Shinar, 1997; Lajunen, Parker, &
Summala, 1999). In a study of causal factors associated with anger while driving,
drivers were asked to keep a diary of near accidents whilst driving over a period of two
weeks (Underwood et al., 1999). Drivers were required to record any feelings of anger
they experienced during this period. Although this study revealed a strong positive
relationship between the number of near accidents and the number of occasions anger
was experienced (particularly when a driver felt they were not at fault), and drivers were
more likely to report anger where frustration was present, there was no evidence to
suggest that drivers who experience higher levels of congestion experience more anger
(Underwood et al., 1999). In another self-report study of driver-behaviour across three
countries, Great Britain, Finland and the Netherlands, it was found that there was little
evidence of a relationship between driver exposure to varying levels of congestion and
aggressive driving (Lajunen et al., 1999). Lajunen and colleagues (1999) had
hypothesised that frequent exposure to traffic congestion (a source of frustration)
should lead to increased aggression on the roads. The results of their study showed that
the relationship between frequency of exposure and aggressive driving was, in fact,
weak. However, they acknowledge periods of increased congestion may often be
associated with peak-hour traffic, due to travel to and from work. As such, perhaps
drivers consciously anticipate delays associated with congestion, therefore, perhaps they
experience lower levels of frustration and anger.
Consistent with these findings, Gordhamer and colleagues (1996) found that high
anger drivers [those scoring > 53 on the trait Driving Anger Scale (DAS)] not only
reported greater levels of anger in rush hour traffic, but also reported significantly more
anger than low anger drivers [those scoring <42 on the trait Driving Anger Scale (DAS)]
under normal traffic conditions. Further, the analysis of expressed driving anger
52
revealed high anger drivers participated in more hostile aggression than constructive
instrumental behaviours in either traffic conditions (Gordhamer et al., 1996). Both of
these studies suggest there is a more complex relationship between feelings of
frustration, congestion levels and the expression of aggression on the road.
A series of studies conducted by Hennessy and Wiesenthal (1997, 1999)
reviewed driver trait dispositions for stress and their self-reported stress levels during
periods of high and low congestion on the roads. Regardless of an individuals trait
disposition for stress, all drivers reported higher stress in the high congestion condition
(Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997). The highest stress levels were reported by individuals
high in trait disposition for stress (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997, 1999). Additionally,
aggressive driving behaviour increased from the low to high congestion, especially for
those measuring high in trait stress (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997). This study also
found that time pressure predicted state driver stress in low road congestion, whereas
driver aggression (as measured by the Driving Behaviour Inventory [DBI]) best
predicted driver stress in heavy congestion (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999).
These findings suggest that congestion has the potential to influence aggressive
driving outcomes, primarily when mediated by person-related factors such as state stress
levels or trait driving anger. In keeping with the review at Sections 2.3.8 and 2.3.9, a
drivers state driver stress levels are mediated by a drivers trait disposition for stress in
general. The reported levels of state stress in congestion also appear to influence the
adoption of on-road behaviours. In high congestion conditions a wider range of
behaviours appear to be adopted by drivers, which include speeding and aggressive
driving (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999).
2.6.1.3 Interim Summary
It is not possible to review all of the situational factors that have reportedly
influenced aggressive driving outcomes. However, thus far, the review indicates that a
wide range of situational factors influence the likelihood of aberrant driving behaviour
and more specifically aggressive driving. It also appears that such behaviours may
result via two possible emotional states; either frustration induced anger or excitement.
The altered emotional state may have the potential to alter physiological arousal levels
resulting in stress. Resultant on-road behaviours, such as speeding, cutting-off,
53
tailgating or hooning with peers may be observed by other drivers and law
enforcement officials as aggressive in nature. Further, for some drivers, off-road
factors may at times generate feelings of on-road stress e.g. running late for a meeting.
Therefore, the relative contribution of preceding off-road stressors and their potential
transfer to the on-road environment should also be considered in aggressive driving
research. The foregoing review has confirmed the importance of person-related factors
in aggressive driving research. It appears they mediate the impact of situational
characteristics upon arousal levels and subsequent driving behaviours. Consequently,
the following section will review issues relevant to risk-taking and aggressive driving
which appear specific to at-risk drivers.
2.7 Issues Specific to At-Risk Drivers
2.7.1 Lifestyle
Today, there is greater understanding of the developmental difficulties that face
young people (1724 years). Not only do many young people at the lower end of this
age range continue to experience physiological changes (Berk, 1997), many experience
difficulty adjusting to changing psychosocial demands as they leave school, gain
employment and possibly leave home, for the first time (Mortimer & Shanahan, 1994).
For young drivers, driving is far more than a means of transport, for many it is
considered symbolic of status, a means for exerting a sense of independence and making
a statement of masculinity for males, all of which may contribute to ego (Zimbardo,
Keough, & Boyd, 1997). High-risk driving behaviour by young drivers has also been
found to be associated with self-reported experimentation with drugs and alcohol,
delinquent behaviours and risky sex practices (Jessor, 1987).
In a longitudinal study into the lifestyle of young drivers that participate in highrisk driving behaviours, it has been found that high-risk adolescents tend to originate
from backgrounds that offer multiple negative influences: low familial nurturance and
connectedness, low monitoring of adolescent activities, and permissive attitudes to
drinking (Shope, Waller, Raghunathan, & Patil, 2001). Further, Shope and colleagues
(2001) found that illegal substance use at 15 years of age is an important predictor of
serious on-road offences or crashes for both males and females.
54
At this point, it should be noted that it is not only 1724 year olds who engage in
risk-taking behaviours. Older individuals are also known to participate in such
behaviours. Therefore, it would be fair to suggest that a number of young individuals
continue to participate in risk-taking behaviour across the course of their lives. This will
be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Three (Section 3.5).
2.7.2 Education Attained
In a study of 1864 year olds (n = 194), education level attained has been found
to have a negative relationship with individual tolerance for aggression (Harris &
Knight-Bohnhoff, 1996). In another large study of recorded crashes spanning 1988
1994, young drivers (1622 years) with minimal formal and/or a vocational education
were found to be over-represented in traffic accidents (Murray, 1998). Young males
involved in injurious traffic accidents were found to have a lower level of education than
females within the sample (Murray, 1998).
Specific to unsafe driving practices, education has been found to have a negative
relationship with such behaviours as speeding and drink driving, irrespective of age
(Shinar, Schechtman, & Compton, 2001). Harris and colleague (1996a) would suggest
that this may be due to higher levels of education teaching individuals to think laterally
when problem solving. Further, they suggest it may teach people to balk at impulsive
emotional responses and resort to more thoughtful, deliberate responses. Although these
findings do not suggest a distinct relationship between lower education levels and
aggressive driving behaviour, the trends identified by the foregoing research would
suggest that a relationship between education levels and aggressive on-road behaviours
may exist for at-risk driver groups.
2.7.3 Driving Experience
The distance a driver travels in a year is often used in traffic research as a
measure of driving experience and possible exposure to a wider variety of road
incidents. In America, annual mileage has been found to correlate positively with the
number of accidents a driver is involved in within the previous three-year period (West,
Elander & French, 1993). Conversely, inexperience has also been found to contribute to
a significant proportion of crashes on Queensland roads (Queensland Transport, 2003).
Focusing on the 1724 year old age group, road crash involvement by young drivers has
55
been found to decline incrementally with each passing year that a licence is held (Elliott,
Waller, Raghunathan, Shope, & Little, 2000). In a self-report study of driving ability, it
has been found that driving experience, as measured by number of years licensed, is a
significant predictor of the effective use of safety behaviours on the road (Shinar et al.,
2001).
Specific to aggressive driving research, as annual mileage increases, anger
experienced and aggression decreases, especially among women (Underwood et al.,
1999). Also, older, higher mileage drivers report less irritability in response to other
driver behaviour whilst younger, low mileage drivers seem to be more easily irritated by
the road behaviour of others (Lajunen et al., 1998). As such, it appears that through
increased road exposure, the majority of the driving population become more tolerant of
the aberrant driving behaviour of others and may become less likely to feel as angry or
to have an aggressive response. However, a study comparing drivers identified as high
and low-anger drivers revealed no difference in driving frequency or distance travelled
(Deffenbacher et al., 2000, indicating that regardless of driving experience a number of
drivers remain relatively more easily irritated or angered by the on-road behaviour of
others. Hence, there is a need to examine the characteristics of these drivers and how
they differ from other drivers.
2.7.4 Passenger Effect
Driving with passengers is not unique to the young driver population. However,
the probability of crash involvement for young drivers doubles when there are two or
more peers onboard, possibly due to distraction and increased risk-taking factors
(Doherty, Andrey, & MacGregor, 1998; Williams, 2003). In an earlier study, young
males reported the greatest detrimental effect on driving behaviour when passengers
were from their peer group (Rolls, Hall, Ingham, & McDonald, 1991). Conversely, they
also reported the greatest positive effect on driving behaviour when the passenger was a
parent or elderly person (Rolls et al., 1991). Females reported an adverse effect on
driving behaviour in the presence of a male (Rolls et al., 1991).
In a more recent study of passenger effect, 429 participants aged approximately
1725 years were randomly targeted by a handheld radar when obviously unimpeded by
any other traffic (Waylen & McKenna, 2001). Careful observation was required to
56
determine the number of passengers present and an estimation of age was made (Waylen
& McKenna, 2001). This study revealed that young drivers aged 1725 years,
regardless of gender, travelled faster when a male passenger was present than those
travelling without a passenger (Waylen & McKenna, 2001). The findings also suggest
an increased use of speed in the presence of passengers that may compound the possible
consequences of their on-road behaviour.
Of the several psychological constructs that have been used to explain this
phenomenon, one seems intuitively applicable to young male drivers, i.e.
competitiveness (Waylen & McKenna, 2001). Young males are believed to be more
competitive than females (Houston, Farese, & La Du, 1992). In this regard, speeding
may be considered a way of demonstrating perceived skill and superiority by young
male drivers. Consequently, it may be that the presence of a male passenger brings out
this competitive aspect in drivers. Alternatively, it may be that the presence of
passengers decreases the monitoring of travelling speed.
Although competitiveness has more positive connotations than aggression,
competitiveness may result in instrumental, assertive behaviours that may easily be
viewed as aggressiveness by others. Generally, one would anticipate a negative effect
in the form of aberrant driving behaviour, such as speeding, in keeping with the findings
about passenger effect. Additionally, another possible influence of the passenger
effect may be in the young drivers ability to accurately appraise the behaviour of other
drivers. Perhaps in an aroused state, they would be more likely to interpret other
driver behaviours as discourteous, aggressive, or as impeding their progress. As a
consequence, the resultant on-road behaviours arising from this elevated state may be
more impulsive and reactive than deliberate and thoughtful, due to the possible
demands of peer passengers.
2.7.5 Motivation
Much of existing aggressive driving research has focused upon the emotional
antecedents to the expression of aggression on the road such as frustration and anger.
However, more recent research has suggested that increasing attention should be paid to
driver attitudes and motivations associated with aggressive driving behaviour. For
instance, drivers motivated by vengeance are more likely to perceive on-road errors or
57
violations as intentional and purposeful (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001) which increases
the likelihood of more extreme levels of aggression. In a study of 192 drivers (M age
26.22 years, SD 10.39), males reported higher levels of vengeful driving attitude
(measured by the Driver Vengeance Questionnaire) as well as higher levels of driver
violence (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2002). Therefore, perhaps the attitudes and
motivations preceding on-road behavioural responses, mediate the likelihood of
aggressive driving outcomes, possibly via more negative attributions and aggressive
thoughts being associated with more aggressive outcomes (Yagil, 2001).
The foregoing research highlights the role of vengeance in aggressive driving.
Not only does this research refer to the young driver group, frequently cited in traffic
research, it also associates older male drivers aged 26 to 36 with on-road aggression
(Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001).
2.7.6 Drugs and Alcohol
The relationship between alcohol/drug abuse and aggressive behaviour is not
easily definable due to the relevance of multiple other factors such as social situation,
intake levels and prior social learning (Taylor & Hulsizer, 1998). However, general
human aggression research indicates that alcohol impairs social judgement by reducing
inhibitions or internal control processes (Volavka & Citrome, 1998), thereby increasing
the likelihood of aggressive behaviour. Furthermore, alcohol intoxication has been
associated with violent crime (Taylor & Hulsizer, 1998). Extensive research has also
been conducted on the effect of drugs on aggressive behaviour (Taylor & Hulsizer,
1998). To date, the most conclusive results have demonstrated a link between
psychostimulants such as cocaine and amphetamines and aggressive behaviour (Volavka
& Citrome, 1998). However, these results are also subject to consideration of other
factors such as dosage rates (higher dosage rates being associated with aggression),
method of intake, predisposition to aggressive tendencies and situational context
(Volavka & Citrome, 1998).
With higher levels of risk-taking behaviour prevalent in drivers aged 1725
years, there may be an increased preparedness to partake in intoxicating amounts of
drugs and/or alcohol before driving (AAMI, 2001; Jonah, 1977). The AAMI research
found that 18% of young drivers aged below 25 years of age, believed it was safer to
58
drive after taking recreational drugs (marijuana and cocaine) than it was to drink drive.
In addition, 17% of young drivers surveyed believe that recreational drug use does not
make a driver behave aggressively (AAMI, 2001). A further 15% of young drivers
believed it was acceptable to drive after a few drinks as long as you feel capable
(AAMI, 2001).
A recent study into alcohol consumption and road rage involved the telephone
survey of 2,610 participants aged 18 years and over. Of the sample, 32% admitted
shouting and gesticulating at another driver, 1.7% threatened another driver, and 1%
attempted or perpetrated physical damage to the other driver or their vehicle.
Problematic levels of alcohol consumption were found to have a significant relationship
with attempting or actually harming the other driver or their vehicle (Mann, Smart,
Stoduto, Adlaf, & Ialomiteanu, 2004).
These findings suggest that a proportion of drivers, particularly the young,
experiment with drugs and alcohol, and may underestimate the effects of these on
driving ability and subsequent decision-making processes. It is also clear that alcohol
consumption influences aggressive driving behaviour. However, it should be
acknowledged that problematic levels of drinking or drug-taking are not exclusive to the
young. This will be covered in more detail in Chapter Three (Section 3.2.2.1).
2.8 Focus of Emerging Interventions
Intervention programs for high-anger drivers or aggressive drivers in general
have only recently begun to emerge (Deffenbacher et al., 2000; Galovski & Blanchard,
2004; Larson, 1996). In the main, these programs are adopting a combination of
psychosocial, cognitive behaviour therapy techniques and are reporting some success.
However, this literature review would suggest that the phenomenon of aggressive
driving has yet to be understood sufficiently to facilitate the design of effective
programs. However, when considering aggressive driving perpetrators that have come
to the attention of the law, it should be considered that broad-based education relating to
the phenomenon of aggressive driving may better serve the community by reducing the
number of drivers that are prepared to initially engage in such behaviours.
A longitudinal study across the ages of 11 to 17 years concerning adolescent
predisposition to engage in risky or problem behaviours, has revealed that impulsivity
59
and an avoidant coping style are risk factors for participation in a variety of problem
behaviours, such as underachievement at school, substance use, delinquent behaviour
and sexual behaviour (Cooper, Wood, Albino, & Orcutt, 2003). The findings of this
study also suggested that emotionally driven behaviours and dysfunctional styles of
regulating emotions are core features associated with adolescent problem behaviours and
risk taking (Cooper et al., 2003).
Specific to aggressive driving behaviour, researchers have found evidence of a
relationship between the personality trait of neuroticism and ineffectual coping
strategies (Dorn & Matthews, 1992). It has also been suggested that these ineffective
coping strategies mediate a drivers ability to cope with driving related stress (Galovski
& Blanchard, 2002a).
With the emergence of interventions for aggressive drivers, some researchers
have focused upon reducing hostile, aggressive forms of anger expression on the road,
whilst increasing adaptive, constructive ways of expressing anger (Deffenbacher, Filetti,
Lynch, Dahlen, & Oetting, 2002). This was achieved by training participants in
relaxation and cognitive coping skills, resulting in reductions in the self-reported driving
anger, on-road aggression and frequency of risky behaviour.
Indeed, aggressive driving should be considered an emotion-based phenomenon.
Therefore, close examination of coping styles and strategies adopted by at-risk drivers,
in particular, is warranted. Clearer understanding of the coping styles and strategies
adopted by different drivers may inform the development of psycho-educational
packages aimed at reducing the probability of aggressive driving as well as enhance
interventions based on individual therapy for high-anger drivers.
2.8.1 Coping Styles in General
As aggressive driving research moves into the development of interventions,
researchers are looking more closely at internalised measures of coping (Deffenbacher,
Lynch, Oetting, & Swaim, 2002; Guilian, Matthews, Glendon, Davies, & Debney,
1989). Coping with stress, in general, may be conceptualised and measured in two
ways: in a more general approach, by the assessment of the internalised thoughts and
attitudes associated with stressful events; or in terms of the specific behaviours adopted
when placed under stress. The former approach is based on the assumption that an
60
individuals predominant coping style may generalise to a wide range of adversely

stressful situations, including driving. The latter has been measured in terms of the
adoption of direct or indirect coping strategies (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980).
Direct coping is characterised by remaining problem focused and making
attempts to remove or avoid the source of stress. For example, direct coping strategies
would include information seeking, planning, taking precautions or altering a course of
action as outlined in the above research concerning coping strategies adopted by drivers
(Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001). Indirect coping is often referred to as emotion
focused by nature (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Such coping strategies are characterised
by dealing with the experience of the problem. These strategies are characterised by an
inability to regulate ones emotions, sometimes resulting in the expression of emotions
such as anger and at times resulting in more passive, avoidant type behaviours (Carver,
Sheier, & Weintraub, 1989). One psychological measure of coping that has emerged
from these concepts is the Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised (SPSI-R).
The SPSI-R is designed to measure an individuals ability to solve everyday
problems, not situation-specific problems. Specifically, the measure assesses two
constructive/adaptive dimensions and three dysfunctional dimensions of problem
solving. Five subscales are used to measure these dimensions: positive problem
orientation (PPO) and rational problem solving (RPS) versus negative problem
orientation (NPO), impulsivity/carelessness (ICS) and avoidance style (ACS). As can be
seen, these measures focus on two primary distinctions made in problem-solving
research: either positive or negative problem orientation. Problem orientation
encompasses the ways in which problems and events are perceived and interpreted by an
individual. The measure also explores problem-solving styles avoidance, rational
problem solving and impulsive/careless (DZurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002).
Effective problem solving has been found to be a significant mediator or moderator of
the negative effects of stressful events, with effective problem solvers reporting
significantly less stress (DZurilla & Nezu, 1999). Hence, this measure may serve to
illustrate the relationship between individual coping and the transfer of stress to and
from the road.
61
The SPSI-R has also been found significantly related to the Aggression
Questionnaire (AQ) (Buss & Perry, 1992) (DZurilla et al., 2003). Specifically, the
three dysfunctional measures on the SPSI-R (NPO, ICS and ACS) were found to be
positively related to physical aggression. In particular, the ICS was reported as a
unique predictor of physical aggression, the NPO subscale was found to be a strong
predictor of anger and hostility, and the RPS was found to be a predictor of hostility.
Research has also shown that deficits in positive problem solving increase the likelihood
of youth delinquent behaviour and violence (Dahlberg, 1998). Therefore, considering
the findings of the foregoing research perhaps this measure may elaborate upon driver
individual coping styles in stressful road situations and the increased probability of their
involvement in aggressive driving outcomes.
Using the SPSI-R (n = 904) research indicates that young adults (ages 1720) are
lower on positive problem solving, rational problem solving than middle aged
participants aged 4055 years. Additionally, they scored significantly higher on
negative problem solving, ICS and avoidance style. Young men also scored higher than
young women on ICS. Middle aged males scored higher than elderly participants (aged
6080 years) on rational problem solving and positive problem orientation. Overall,
men scored higher on positive problem solving and lower on negative problem
orientation than did women (DZurilla, Maydeau-Olivares, & Kant, 1998). Within
middle aged participants, women were found to be higher on positive problem-solving
orientation and lower on ACS than men.
Problem orientation, negative or positive, is often uniquely predictive of negative
affect under general and stressful conditions (Elliott, Herrick, MacNair, & Harkins,
1994). Further, it has been suggested that the problem orientation has mood regulating
properties (Elliott, Shewchuk, Richisson, Pickelman, & Franklin, 1996). However, in
another study positive and negative affect were measured along with measures of the
SPSI-R (Shewchuk, Johnson, & Elliott, 2000). The results indicated that negative
problem solving was predictive of problem-solving performance, although this was not
mediated by negative affect.
Consideration of the literature review so far would suggest that aggressive
drivers may be predisposed to poor problem-solving ability. For example, in response to
62
an ambiguous on-road incident, aggressive, at-risk drivers may be more likely to adopt
less rational and more negative or impulsive/careless problem-solving strategies. As a
consequence, their behavioural responses to such an event may be perceived as more
highly reactive and aggressive.
2.8.2 Driver Coping Strategies
Within the confines of a vehicle, there are fewer constructive behavioural coping
alternatives available to drivers than would be available in other life situations. For
instance, it is not always possible to remove oneself from the source of on-road
frustration. Research into coping strategies adopted whilst driving have tended to use
measures such as the DBI (Glendon et al., 1993) and more recently the Driving Anger
Expression Inventory (DAX) (Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Swaim, 2002). In such
research these measures have been utilised to focus upon the behavioural outcomes of
aggressive driving as measures of coping.
More specific information was obtained in a recent study of coping strategies
adopted whilst driving conducted by Hennessy and his colleague (Hennessy &
Wiesenthal, 2001). Using the DBI, these researchers found that most drivers preferred
direct coping measures such as sticking to prearranged plans, listening to the radio, or
watching for traffic changes especially, in high congestion conditions. However, it
was also noted that few drivers actually engaged in active preplanning. This study also
found that in high congestion conditions (considered a potentially stressful on-road
situation), aggressive driving behaviours such as deliberate tailgating and swearing or
yelling at other drivers increases. Another study found that listening to self-selected
music, serves to reduce self-reported stress levels particularly in high traffic congestion
(Wiesenthal, Hennessy, & Totten, 2000) which could be classed as a direct coping
strategy.
In the 2003 study conducted by Deffenbacher and colleagues of high-anger
drivers (median age 19 years) it was found that young male drivers reported more verbal
and physical aggression than did females in the same group. However, male and female
high-anger drivers reported less adaptive/constructive coping than low-anger drivers
(Deffenbacher et al., 2003a).
63
Recent research has developed the DAX (Deffenbacher et al., 2002b). The DAX
is a measure of how drivers express anger on the road that consists of five subscales:
verbal aggressive expression, personal/physical aggressive expression, use of vehicle to
express anger, verbal aggressive expression and adaptive/constructive expression. Using
the DAX on a sample of 290 participants (median age 19 years), males and females were
found to participate in similar levels of verbal aggression, use of their vehicles to
express anger and adaptive/constructive expression of anger, i.e. ways in which a
person copes positively with anger by relaxing or focusing on driving (Deffenbacher et
al., 2002b). However, males were more likely to express their anger towards other road
users rather than the offending driver, and also to express their anger through physical
aggression (Deffenbacher et al., 2002b). Males also scored significantly higher than
females on the overall total aggressive expression score provided by the DAX.
2.9 Research Questions
The foregoing review of the literature indicates some important questions
relating to the scope and nature of aggressive driving which remain unanswered or
require further investigation. The following research questions (RQs) requiring further
examination are proposed to guide this program of research:
RQ1 What are the person-related and situational factors contributing to aggressive
driving?
The foregoing evidence highlighted a number of person-related and some of the
situational factors believed to contribute to aggressive driving. However, this review is
in no way exhaustive. Additionally, the review highlighted some potential differences
between drivers at-risk of aggressive driving and general road users in the way different
factors influence the likelihood of aggressive driving. Other than a recent international
review conducted by the Victorian Parliament (DCPC, 2005), little known research has
been conducted into the person-related and situational characteristics that have the
potential to influence aggressive driving behaviour in Australian. Therefore, there is a
need to explore the range of contributing factors specific to Australian drivers.
64
RQ2 Are some drivers more likely to engage in aggressive driving and, if so, what are
their psychosocial characteristics?
The literature review suggests that young male drivers are a high-risk group for
aggressive driving behaviour (Harding et al., 1998; Lawton, et al., 1997; Reason,
Manstead, Stradling, Parker, & Baxter 1991; VCCAV, 1999; Yagil, 2001). However,
older drivers have also been cited in media reports of extreme on-road aggression within
Australia (DCPC, 2005). Therefore, more research is required in order to identify other
at-risk groups and personalities. Particular attention needs to be given to whether the
aggressive driver has certain person-related characteristics that increase the likelihood
of aggressive behaviours on the road.
RQ3 Is it appropriate to conceptualise aggressive driving as a continuum of related
behaviours?
A question also remains as to whether aggressive driving behaviours should be
conceptualised as a continuum of behaviours (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). The
instrumental/hostile distinction made in Shinars (1997) aggressive driving research
would suggest that these behaviours, though related, serve different functions. The
evidence would also suggest that the likelihood of adopting either instrumental or hostile
behaviours is influenced by a considerable number of other factors.
RQ4 What function does aggressive driving perform for drivers?
The distinction between the behaviours that constitute aggressive driving as either
instrumental or hostile as proposed by Shinar (1998) implies that on-road aggression
may be adopted in order to serve some functional purpose e.g. arriving at ones
destination on time. However, for those drivers that are more likely to participate in
highly aggressive or hostile on-road behaviour, perhaps aggressive driving serves other
functions. Exploration of this issue warrants more attention in order to enhance
understanding of the nature and causes of aggressive driving, particularly among at-risk
drivers. In turn, such information may contribute to the growing knowledge base of
aggressive driving and eventually aid the design of effective driver education programs
and rehabilitation initiatives.
65
2.10 Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided a brief overview of aggressive driving literature,
highlighting specific issues associated with at-risk groups. As all drivers are arguably
exposed to similar situational factors, greater attention was paid to the person-related
factors that may enhance understanding of why some drivers are over-represented in
aggressive driving incidents. The review indicated that some groups of drivers
experience greater negative emotion and higher levels of impulsivity as a result of onroad provocation and are more likely to engage in moderate to severe aggressive
behavioural responses.
Exploring the transfer of aggression to and from the on-road environment,
person-related and specific at-risk driver characteristics were extensively explored. On
several of the person-related factors explored, such as trait aggression in general, driving
anger, and factors such as motivations, self-esteem and competitiveness, findings
suggest young drivers may have a greater trait predisposition for aggression. The review
of person-related factors also suggested enhanced vulnerability and preparedness for
aggressive behaviours in the young driver group. However, other research suggests that
particular older drivers are also at-risk of engaging in higher levels of aggressive driving
on the road. In summary, these findings supported the concept of psychosocial
differences contributing to driver aggression, which require further examination. The
review then focused on coping styles and strategies in order to assess potential
differences between young and older drivers.
In order to examine the research questions outlined above, it is first necessary to
adopt a theoretical framework for the research. Therefore, the following chapter reviews
human aggression theory that may have the potential to enhance our understanding of
the psychology of aggressive driving.
66
67
Chapter Three: Aggression Literature Review

3.1
Introduction............................................................................................................. 69
3.1.1
3.2
Types of Human Aggression .................................................................... 69
Developmental Risk Factors for Aggression .......................................................... 71

3.2.1
Historical Factors...................................................................................... 73
3.2.1.1 Personal History of Violence and Delinquency ......................... 73
3.2.1.2 Family of Origin ......................................................................... 73
3.2.1.3 Victims of Abuse ........................................................................ 74
3.2.1.4 Negative Peer Relations ............................................................. 75
3.2.1.5 Schooling Problems.................................................................... 75
3.2.2
Clinical Factors ......................................................................................... 76

3.2.2.1 Substance Abuse ........................................................................ 76
3.2.2.2 Attitudes ..................................................................................... 77
3.2.2.3 Emotional Regulation Difficulties.............................................. 78
3.2.2.4 High Impulsivity ........................................................................ 80
3.2.2.5 General Life Stressors ................................................................ 82
3.2.3
3.3
Psychological Impact of Risk Factors ...................................................... 83
Psychological Theories Relevant to Aggressive Driving ....................................... 84

3.3.1
Frustration-Aggression Theory ................................................................ 84
3.3.2
Cognitive Neo-Associationistic Model .................................................... 85
3.3.3
Social Cognition Perspective.................................................................... 87

3.3.3.1 Social Learning .......................................................................... 87
3.3.3.2 Causal Attribution Fundamental Attribution Error ................. 90
3.3.4
Excitation Transfer Theory....................................................................... 90
3.3.5
Social Interaction Theory ......................................................................... 92
3.4
Interim Summary .................................................................................................... 92
3.5
General Aggression Model ..................................................................................... 93
3.6
3.5.1
Schemas and Script Theory ...................................................................... 95
3.5.2
Situation and Person Factors as Inputs for the GAM ............................ 95
3.5.3
The Process of Aggression According to the GAM ................................. 96
3.5.4
The Cognitive Appraisal Process in the GAM ......................................... 98
3.5.5
Behavioural Outcomes According to the GAM ....................................... 98
3.5.6
Applying Relevant Theory to the Phenomenon of Aggressive Driving... 99
Additional Research Questions............................................................................. 101
3.7
68
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................102
69
3.1 Introduction
In order to examine aggressive driving from an informed theoretical perspective
and to explore potential personal/psychosocial differences that may characterise
aggressive drivers, it is prudent to consider theories used to explain human aggression in
other contexts. This chapter will review current psychological theories used to explain
human aggression. Following an overview of each theory, this review will briefly assess
the potential applicability of each theory to aggressive driving. These theories have
been amalgamated in a model of human aggression i.e. the general aggression model
(GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). This model will be proposed as the guiding
framework for exploring aggressive driving in this research.
Although the theories outlined provide psychological explanation for why
aggression occurs in particular contexts, discussion of the theoretical basis of aggression
would be incomplete without examining other factors known to influence the
development of aggressive tendencies. It is widely accepted that during the years of
human development, exposure to a range of risk factors increases the likelihood of
developing aggressive tendencies (Farrington, 1991, 1999; McDonald & Brown, 1997;
NCV, 1990). Such tendencies appear to predispose an individual to respond
aggressively in the face of perceived provocation. Therefore, a brief review of
potentially significant risk factors is included.
At the outset it is noted that not all aggressive behaviour should be viewed in a
negative manner. Indeed, a certain amount of aggression is needed in order for species
to survive and for human beings to assert themselves in constructive ways (Geen &
Donnerstein, 1998; Renfrew, 1997). Nonetheless, within the driving context aggressive
actions can have significant impacts on other road users.
3.1.1 Types of Human Aggression
Within human aggression research many dichotomous descriptors have been
used to label behavioural outcomes, such as instrumental/hostile and proactive/reactive
aggression. These subtypes are based on the assumption that not all aggressive
behaviour has detrimental effects. Most of the definitions primarily distinguish between
instrumental, controlled aggressive behaviours and impulsive, hostile behaviours
(Vitiello & Stoff, 1997). For example, the distinction can be made between asserting
70
ones self to achieve a goal, versus physical violence. In human aggression research,
however, a distinction is often made between pre-meditated and impulsive/reactive
aggression, distinguishing between intentional and unintentional acts respectively
(Barratt, Stanford, Dowdy, Liebman, & Kent, 1999; Stanford, Houston, Mathias,
Villemarette-Pittman, Helfritz, & Conklin, 2003).
Another distinction made in research concerning the psychology of human
aggression is that instrumental aggression is not often associated with strong emotional
triggers. However, more extreme, hostile aggression is associated with strong emotions,
namely anger or fear. Research has also suggested that behavioural responses based in
strong emotion are often impulsive and therefore, they have termed such behaviour as
reactive aggression (Dodge & Coie, 1987). These researchers also maintain that the
increased arousal levels associated with high emotion reduce the number and/or quality
of cognitive strategies available, possibly reducing the ability to inhibit the expression of
aggression.
In the context of aggressive driving, Shinar (1998) offered a dichotomous
representation of on-road aggression that had been based in frustration-aggression theory
(Dollard et al., 1939). As discussed in Section 2.1.7, he maintained that drivers either
engage in instrumental, constructive behaviours aimed at overcoming an obstacle or
source of frustration, or they engage in hostile aggression aimed at physically or
psychologically harming another driver. Hostile aggressive behaviours are believed to
stem from strong feelings of frustration/anger, whilst instrumental behaviours are less
emotional and more goal oriented.
In aggressive driving behaviour, there appears to be a consistent emotional
trigger to an on-road incident, i.e. frustration/anger. This emotion has been found to
precede a range of on-road, aberrant behaviours repeatedly considered as aggressive
driving, such as speeding, overtaking, tailgating and cutting-off (Lajunen & Parker,
2001; Shinar, 1998; AAA, 2008; NHTSA, 2000; VCCAV, 1999). Further, in keeping
with the findings of Dodge and colleague (1987), the on-road experience of such high
emotion increases arousal levels whilst incapacitating cognitive function within an
already cognitively demanding environment, therefore, potentially further reducing the
ability to inhibit aggressive behaviour. At such times, highly aggressive drivers may
71
deviate from their original aim/goal for driving in order to express such emotion.
However, lesser on-road behaviours, whilst perceived as aggressive by some, may not
generate sufficient emotion to warrant a deviation from the original goal.
Consequently, in terms of on-road aggression, this thesis considers aggressive
driving to be typically reactive aggression, as it appears to typify a basic assumption
underlying on-road aggression. That is, most aggressive driving behaviours are believed
to be a reactive response to other stimuli/triggers. In consideration of the range of onroad behaviours that have been identified as potentially aggressive on-road behaviour,
they appear to occur on a scale of increasing severity from low level to highly reactive,
aggressive behaviour. Therefore, in keeping with Shinars distinction and the emphasis
on goal directed behaviour this thesis will further distinguish between instrumental (goal
directed) and hostile (goal-postponing) aggressive driving behaviour.
3.2 Developmental Risk Factors for Aggression
Researchers agree that there are multiple pathways to aggression. Upon each of
these paths an individuals predisposition for aggression is influenced by multiple
factors. The factors include biological, neurophysiological/neurological, developmental
and social influences. Biological factors, or the contribution of genetics to aggression,
have been established through heritability and twin studies (Bergeman & Montpetit,
2003). The study of neurochemistry and aggression has identified the importance of
serotonin and testosterone levels (Eichelman, 2003). Neurological evidence for
aggression has been established with identification of higher levels of aggression being
associated with frontal lobe damage and brain lesions (Eichelman, 2003). Further, there
is substantial evidence for the influence of social and developmental factors, such as
peer group associations, characteristics of the family of origin and exposure to violence
(Borum, 2000; Caspi, 2000; Coccaro, Berman & Kavoussi, 1997; , 2003; Farrington,
1991, 2000; Farrington, Loeber, Yin, & Anderson, 2002; Loeber, Farrington,
Stouthamer-Loeber, Moffitt, Caspi, & Lynam, 2001). However, considering the
psychosocial emphasis of this research, the following literature review will focus on the
social and developmental risk factors that have been associated with an increased
likelihood for aggressive behaviour.
72
Though the aforementioned pathways are distinctive, it is widely accepted that

the co-existence of two or more of the elements from differing paths, increases the
likelihood of the development of aggressive and/or violent tendencies (Coccaro et al.,
1997). Suffice to say, there is no one clear path for the development of aggression.
Importantly, longitudinal research has linked criminal activity or antisocial behaviours at
age 30 with peer-reported aggression levels at age eight (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, &
Walder, 1984). These findings have been supported by other longitudinal research
studies that consistently report the relationship between childhood aggression and young
adult aggression, antisocial and delinquent behaviour, and/or criminality (Farrington,
2000; Farrington, 2004). In Australia a large longitudinal study of Queensland children
(n = 7,600) conducted by the Mater Hospital, Brisbane, reported the significant
prediction of delinquency at age 14 by parent and teacher reported levels of aggression
at age five (Bor, Najman, OCallaghan, Williams, & Anstey, 2001). These researchers
also found that 48% of children that scored in the top 10% of the Child Behaviour Check
List (CBCL) aggression subscale, also scored in the top 10% of the delinquency scale.
Early traffic researchers suggested a simple truism that man drives as he lives
(Tillman & Hobbs, 1949). Consistent with this thinking, Elliott (1999) suggested that
extreme cases of aggressive driving or road rage, are a reflection of deeper criminal
tendencies that reflect a drivers preparedness to engage in illegal behaviours. Further,
in an extensive review of risk factors for aggression conducted by the Australian
Institute of Criminology, aggressive children were found to become aggressive teenagers
who, in turn, become aggressive adults (McDonald & Brown, 1997).
For the purpose of this research the risk factors for aggression are discussed
under two broad headings: historical factors, and clinical factors. In this instance,
historical factors refer to the personal factors one is exposed to across time that may
predispose an individual to the development of aggressive tendencies. These factors
include personal exposure and/or history of violence and delinquent behaviours,
schooling difficulties, negative peer group influences and familial history of aggression
and violence. Clinical factors include long or short-term identification with a clinical
issue or disorder such as conduct disorders, substance abuse disorders, high impulsivity,
73
emotional regulation difficulties, and negative attitudes including hostile attribution bias,
and exposure to significant life stressors.
3.2.1 Historical Factors
3.2.1.1 Personal History of Violence and Delinquency
A history of prior violent behaviour has been found to be the strongest single
predictor of future violence (Farrington, 1991). Further, the risk of future violence
increases incrementally according to the number of prior episodes (Farrington, 1991).
Specifically, prior arrest for violent criminal/delinquent acts increases the likelihood of
subsequent violent acts (Parker & Asher, 1987). Less violent acts that are considered
anti-social, such as stealing, property damage, smoking and drug dealing are also linked
to later violence in males (Hawkins, Herron Kohl, Farrington, Brewer, Catalano, &
Harachi, 1998). The earlier and more frequent the individual initiation to violent
offending, particularly before age 14, the greater the likelihood of future violence,
involving more chronic and serious acts (Farrington, 1991).
3.2.1.2 Family of Origin
Evidence suggests that the family of origin has a significant impact upon the
development of aggressive tendencies. For instance, family attitudes to schooling,
authority figures and ethnic or minority groups influence a childs development of
similar attitudes (NCV, 1990; McDonald & Brown, 1997). Much of the research
reviewed in these two reports supports the idea of attitudes transferring across
generations. Specifically, higher levels of negativity on such issues have been found to
be associated with greater violence towards minority groups and authority figures (NCV,
1990). This is achieved through the adoption of hostile attributions and deviant norms
(Dodge, Price, Bachorowski & Newman, 1990; Vaughan & Hogg, 1995). Similarly,
therefore, poor familial attitudes to schooling may increase the likelihood of low-school
achievement, high truancy levels and difficulty with authority figures.
Parenting styles have also been found to impact upon the likelihood of
aggression, delinquency and violence. The rejection of a child by their parents, strong
parental agreement with use of punishment and parental history of delinquency have
been found to be significant predictors of violent crime by age 30 (Huesmann, Eron, &
Dubow, 2002). Poor parent/child communications have also been found to be
74
significantly associated with adolescent delinquent behaviour and aggression (Fagan &
Najman, 2003). This study also found that the adolescent delinquent behaviour of ones
siblings may influence the likelihood of delinquent behaviours at age 14. This influence
was particularly strong for males whose parents had also been arrested (Fagan &
Najman, 2003).
Other research suggests that children exposed to marital discord or family
violence are likely to be aggressive and participate in anti-social behaviours at age 14
(Bor, McGee, & Fagan, 2004). This research conducted by the Mater Hospital in
Brisbane has found that within the family of origin marital instability can double (or
even triple) the odds of anti-social behaviour in children. As adults, such individuals
may be more likely to participate in domestic violence themselves, as several bodies of
research have found associations between marital discord, partner-directed violence and
a likelihood of a youth engaging in violence (Dahlberg, 1998).
In other research, 14-year-old delinquent adolescents were significantly more
likely to be from middle to low income families and originate from poor housing (Bor et
al., 2001; Farrington, 2003). However, the influence of household income upon the
development of aggression and other anti-social behaviours is complicated by the
limitations that a low income can have upon the necessity to live in poorer
neighbourhoods.
3.2.1.3 Victims of Abuse
Widom and colleagues (1995) found abused/neglected children have more
arrests for delinquency, criminality and violent criminal behaviour than a matched
control group. However, his 1998 research suggested that victims of sexual abuse
were slightly less likely than a no-sex abuse control group to commit violent offences
(Widom, Ireland & Glynn, 1995; Widom, 1998). Neglect in the form of low levels of
love, care, interest and/or attachment to a child has also been linked to delinquency
(Mak & Kinsella, 1996). Further, it seems that if they do commit offences earlier in life,
they often become repeat offenders (Widom, 1998).
Other research has also found that such experiences predispose an individual to
violent or criminal acts via the provision of less than ideal role models, and the
reinforcement and rewarding of violent or criminal behaviours (Klassen &
75
OConnor,1994). Where neglectful parenting is present, young individuals may be more

readily influenced by negative peer group membership. Within these groups troubled
young people may find belonging, acceptance and rewards for participation in
delinquent behaviours (Klassen & OConnor, 1994).
3.2.1.4 Negative Peer Relations
The single best predictor of adolescent behaviour, in general, has been found to
be the behaviour of close friends (Werner-Wilson & Osnat, 2000). Generally, peer
relations have a positive impact upon the development of interpersonal, social and
emotional competence (Dahlberg, 1998). However, they can also have a negative
impact if the group tends to engage in risk-taking behaviours (Dahlberg, 1998) or if the
group rejects an individual (Borum, 2000). With reference to the latter, the National
Committee on Violence (NCV, 1990) observed that delinquent groups, in particular,
appear to provide a refuge for rejected youth, where they are able to develop a sense of
belonging and identity. Hence, if an individuals family and peer group reject them, the
greater the potential for negative impact.
Aggressive children tend to associate with each other in anti-social ways
engaging in risky/delinquent behaviours (Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gariepy, 1988).
Though gang violence is relatively rare in Australia, association with delinquent peers
increases the risk of serious delinquency and criminal activity (NCV, 1990).
3.2.1.5 Schooling Problems
Young people with low school achievement and conduct problems at school have
been found to be more likely to participate in delinquent behaviours and in turn be
involved in criminal behaviour (Hawkins et al., 1998; Farrington, 2002). However, in
Farringtons 2002 study, he found that the contribution of low school achievement and
conduct difficulties to later delinquency/criminal behaviour is indirect. A number of
factors are known to influence both of these, such as poor family experience, low IQ,
impulsive/aggressive tendencies and subsequent poor attributions for those in authority,
e.g. teachers (Farrington, 2000; Huesmann, Eron, & Dubow, 2002; Loeber et al., 2001;
Watson, Fischer, Andreas, & Smith, 2004).
In a longitudinal study spanning 14 years, researchers have found that the
symptoms associated with DSM-IV conduct disorders (CD, ADD, ADHD and ODD),
76
characterised by externalising behaviours, are significantly related to the development of

aggressive tendencies (Loeber et al., 2001). These researchers emphasised that
conductive disorders have both cognitive and behavioural manifestations, such as high
impulsivity and disruptive behaviour in the classroom. Additionally, such behaviours in
the youngest group (ages spanning 713 years) predicted aggressive behaviours,
delinquency and psychopathy prevalent as adults aged 2025 years (Loeber et al., 2001).
Australian specific research has also revealed school reported aggression levels
at age five are significantly predictive of delinquency at age 14, as measured by the
number of suspensions from school (Bor et al., 2001).
3.2.2 Clinical Factors
3.2.2.1 Substance Abuse
The following is an extension of the discussion of alcohol/drug consumption as
an influencing factor in driving behaviour (see Chapter Two, p. 58). However, the
emphasis in this section is on the influence of substance abuse upon the development of
general human aggression.
In their review of risk factors for aggression, researchers have reported that
alcohol use is associated with increased rates of aggression and violent crime,
particularly in younger individuals 18-24 years of age (McDonald & Brown, 1997;
Taylor & Hulsizer, 1998). Other research into motivations for alcohol use has found
that there may be two distinct motives for alcohol use (Cooper, Frone, Russell, &
Mudar, 1995). Using structural equation modelling these researchers found that
individuals either drink in order to engage in, or enhance, social interaction within their
social group, or they use alcohol as a way to cope in the absence of other
constructive/adaptive ways of coping. They also highlighted that the latter motivation
for alcohol consumption is strongly associated with negative emotionality (as measured
by levels of depression) (Cooper et al., 1995). Evidence of the validity of these two
motives was established across two samples: an adolescent sample (mean age 17.4
years), and an adult sample (mean age 41.8).
Though the link between illicit drug use and aggression has not been
conclusively established (Taylor & Hulsizer, 1998), researchers believe that the
relationship between aggression and illicit drug use may be a by-product of the
77
necessary association with illegal markets or criminal sub-cultures (NCV, 1990).

Longitudinal research has found that illicit drug use during early adolescence is
associated with concurrent and later delinquency (Brook, Whiteman, Finch, & Cohen,
1996).
Intoxicating amounts of alcohol are believed to reduce inhibitions and effect
social and cognitive functioning. Social interaction may become confused, increasing
the potential for inappropriate responses and increasing the possibility of aggression
(NCV, 1990).
3.2.2.2 Attitudes
Specific to aggression, saturation with negative thought patterns through
negative family or peer associations may support the early development of beliefs and
thought patterns supportive of aggression (Dahlberg, 1998). For instance, negative
stereotypes are known to influence attitudes towards others and increase the likelihood
of aggressive behaviour to them (Vaughan & Hogg, 1995). Also, negative perceptions
of provocation or intentionality by others may influence behavioural outcomes
(Vaughan & Hogg, 1995; Verona, Patrick, & Lang, 2002).
Research into positive self-view with regard to aggressive children has found that
aggressive children (mean age 7.6 years) tended to have inflated or idealised views of
themselves in terms of their self-rated competency at relationships and the quality of
those relationships (Hughes, Cavel, & Grossman, 1997). Other research has examined
the role of high self-esteem, in egotism, violence and aggression (Baumeister, Smart, &
Boden, 1996).
As briefly discussed in Chapter Two (Section 2.2.7), this interdisciplinary review
of aggression, crime and violence clearly illustrates that high self-esteem, or egotism, is
more commonly associated with aggression and violence, than low self-esteem
(Baumeister et al., 1996; Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell, 2000; McFarlin &
Blascovich, 1981). According to these researchers, high self-esteem combined with a
perceived threat to the ego leads to aggression. If the favourable view of ones self is
questioned or challenged, people may be more likely to adopt aggressive strategies
(Baumeister et al., 1996). This review also highlighted that individuals with unstable
self-appraisal seem to become sensitive and defensive, such that in the face of negative
78
social feedback they are more likely to have hastier and more intense responses than
people with stable self-appraisal.
Negative emotional affect also serves a pivotal intervening role to the expression
of aggression (Berkowitz, 1989; Dollard et al., 1939). Hence, in the face of a challenge
to ego or self-esteem, an individual may experience strong negative emotion (not
exclusively anger) and seek to dispel or rebut such a challenge with aggressive or
defensive behaviours (Baumeister et al., 1996). Very high self-esteem, or narcissism,
has also been associated with psychopathic individuals, with such individuals being
associated with aggressive behaviour (Hare, Harper, Hakstian, Forth, Hart & Newman,
1990). These individuals are not socially sensitive i.e. sensitive to the needs or concern
for others, however, they remain aware or concerned with their own ego (Baumeister et
al., 1996). They also appear to lack remorse for socially unacceptable behaviour (Hare
et al., 1990). Indeed, many perpetrators believe their aggressive responses are justified,
taking a moralistic stance against the perceived provocation (NCV, 1990).
3.2.2.3 Emotional Regulation Difficulties
Though emotional reactivity may be a by-product of perceived challenges of
self-esteem, it is not the only cause of emotional reactivity. Much research shows that
difficulty regulating emotions may develop across the course of ones life and may
contribute to aggressive tendencies (Berkowtiz, 1993; Dollard et al., 1939).
In the Pittsburgh Youth longitudinal study of male mental health problems,
psychopathology and personal traits, levels of physical aggression were examined
(Loeber et al., 2001). The level of physical aggression remained reasonably constant
between the ages 617 years. These researchers also distinguished between internalising
and externalising behaviours and aggression. Of the internalising behaviours examined,
only depressed mood at middle age was correlated with initiation of offending behaviour
(Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, Van Kammen, & Farrington, 1991). Externalising
behaviours that signify difficulties in regulating emotions, were also examined. These
included physical aggression levels, mental health problems and disruptive behaviour
disorders that may lead to later delinquency. Aside from the identification of multiple
conduct disorders in aggressive 617 year olds, these disorders were found to be
significant predictors of serious, stable anti-social behaviour in adolescents over other
79
known predictors (Loeber et al., 1991). Like others, these researchers also emphasised
the role of emotion in psychological maladjustment and, specifically, the possible
consequences of negative emotionality (Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, & McBride-Chang,
2003; Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2004; Loeber et al., 1991).
A study of 17-year-old twins revealed that in both male and female adolescents,
parental history of alcohol abuse was associated with greater negative emotionality,
aggression and stress reactions (Elkins, McGue, Malone, & Iacono, 2004). Adolescents
from such backgrounds had lower levels of personal constraint and control as measured
by the Multi-dimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) (Tellegen & Waller, 2008).
Another experimental study revealed that when individuals high on negative
emotionality (measured by the negative emotionality scale of the MPQ) are exposed to
strong airblasts, they become more aggressive than participants low on negative
emotionality (Verona, Patrick, & Lang, 2002).
More recently researchers examined the impact of everyday marital conflict and
levels of aggression in children aged 816 years (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp,
2004). These researchers found that exposure to personally destructive conflict tactics
and parental negative emotionality increases the likelihood of aggressive behaviour in
children, possibly through the development of emotional regulation difficulties. Harsh
parenting practices have also been found to be associated with the level of aggression
exhibited at school, mediated by the childs emotional regulation ability (Chang et al.,
2003).
In other research, using different terminology, researchers have examined
emotional susceptibility and irritability and their influence on aggression (Caprara,
Gargaro, Pastorelli, Prezza, Renzi, & Zelli, 1987). Emotional susceptibility reflects a
tendency towards defensiveness and is also associated with a tendency to ruminate
(Caprara et al., 1987; Bushman, Bonacci, Pedersen, Vasquez & Miller, 2005).
Individual irritability is reflected in the tendency to react impulsively and
inappropriately to the slightest provocation (Chang et al., 2003). Both constructs are
believed to be related to an individuals capacity, or ability, to maintain control over
their emotions (Caprara et al., 1987). Caprara and colleagues (1987) compared the two
constructs and found that emotional susceptibility and the tendency to ruminate were the
80
best predictors of delivering shocks at different levels of intensity. They found no sex
differences.
Finally, in a longitudinal study, researchers have demonstrated that negative
emotionality is a trait state that has the ability to persist across time (Murphy, Shepard,
Eisenberg, & Fabes, 2004). This study found that children low on social functioning at
ages four and six years, possessed higher levels of negative emotionality and lower
emotional regulation abilities at age 10 and 12 years, than were those originally high on
social functioning (Murphy et al., 2004). Hence, the foregoing research would suggest
that without positive influences (e.g. positive peer groups or positive parenting)
dysfunctional levels of negative emotionality may persist and compound across time.
3.2.2.4 High Impulsivity
High impulsivity has long been identified as a key indicator for a number of
diagnosable disorders (e.g. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ADHD, Attention
Deficit Disorder ADD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder OCD, Oppositional Defiant
Disorder ODD and Anti-social Personality Disorder ASD). Further, those diagnosed
with these disorders have frequently been characterised with aggressive tendencies and
greater risk-taking behaviour (Bor, 2004; Fossati, Barratt, Caretta, Leonardi, Grozioli, &
Maffei, 2004; Iacano, Carlson, Taylor, Elkins, & McGee, 1999; Volavka & Citrome,
1998).
Researchers have noted that children with conduct problems often have
emotional regulation difficulties (Frick, 2004; Bushman, Baumeister, & Phillips, 2001).
Such emotional regulation problems often find the child experiencing anger in
response to perceived provocation which in turn results in impulsive and unplanned
aggressive acts (Pardini, Lochman, & Frick, 2003). These children were also likely to
experience continued difficulty controlling their future responses (Pardini et al., 2003).
Impulsivity has also been associated with irritability, considered a trait stress
pre-disposition to react impulsively to the slightest perceived provocation (Caprara et al.,
1987; Stanford, Greve & Dickens, 1995). In a short-term longitudinal study researchers
have examined the relationship between impulsivity and anti-social behaviours such as
rule breaking, vandalism, theft, aggression and drug-taking (Luengo, Carillo-de-la-Pena,
Otero, & Romero, 1994). Collecting data in 1989 and again in 1990 from 1,226
81
adolescents, they found that impulsivity, as opposed to irritability, is closely associated

with these behaviours. Their results also found that high impulsivity (as measured by
the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale - BIS) is associated with future anti-social behaviours,
including aggression (Luengo et al., 1994). However, other researchers have found that
impulsivity and irritability (measured by the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory - BDHI)
both have a relationship to aggression (Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995). High scores
on BIS impulsivity and BDHI irritability were significantly correlated with the selfreported number of impulsive aggressive episodes in the previous month (Stanford et al.,
1995).
The link between impulsivity and aggression has also been explained by
inhibition deficits. In a sample of 84 university students (16 males and 68 females,
mean age 23.7) such deficits have been found to have a moderate to strong relationship
with the anger subscale of the AQ (Buss & Perry, 1992; Vigil-Colet & Colormiu-Raga,
2004).
When examining impulsivity and its relationship to aggression, other researchers
have focused on the differences between reactive and proactive aggression (Connor,
Steingard, Anderson, & Melloni, 2003). In such research, reactive aggression is
considered anger or defensive behaviour in response to a perceived provocation or
frustration. Conversely, proactive aggression is deliberate, controlled behaviour used to
achieve a desired goal (Coccaro, 2003). Following this distinction, researchers found
hyperactivity/impulsivity to be correlated with reactive aggression, especially in males
(Connor et al., 2003).
The latest version of the BIS (BIS 11) has three first order factors: motor
impulsivity, non-planning, and attentional impulsivity comprising two second order
factors attention and cognitive instability. Using the BIS researchers have studied
the relationship between impulsivity and aggression. In a study of 592 students (mean
age = 22) those who scored highly impulsive on the BIS were more involved in risktaking behaviour including drink/drug driving and aggression (Stanford, Greve,
Boudreaux, Mathias, & Brumbelon, 1996).
Other research has linked aggression with high sensation seeking and impulsivity
(Joireman, Anderson, & Strathman, 2003). These researchers considered that sensation
82
seeking and impulsivity are related as both constructs are concerned with immediate
gratification rather than with consideration of future consequences (CFC). The
sensation seeking/impulsivity subscale of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality
Questionnaire (ZKPQ) (Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993) was
found to have an inverse relationship with CFC. Though both sensation seeking items
and impulsivity items on this scale were significantly correlated with CFC, impulsivity
items correlated more closely with CFC (Joireman et al., 2003). This study also
suggested that hostile cognitions and negative emotions may mediate the relationship
between sensation-seeking/impulsivity and aggression.
Using the BIS and the AQ in a study of premeditated versus impulsive
aggression, impulsive aggression was found to be characterized by thought confusion
(BIS measured) and post-incident feelings of remorse (Barratt, Stanford, Dowdy,
Liebman, & Kent, 1999). Not surprisingly, other research has found impulsivity to be
significantly but negatively correlated with social problem solving (DZurilla, Nezu, &
Maydeu-Olivares, 2002; McMurran, Blair, & Egan, 2002). These researchers suggest
that higher levels of impulsivity throughout development may leave an individual with
social problem solving deficits, or deficits in social information processing. Therefore,
impulsivity has an influence on cognitive functioning which in turn can result in
spontaneous and often aggressive expression.
A similar suggestion has been made in other research that focused on the
relationship between impulsivity and a larger range of higher order cognitive functions
such as attention, planning, abstract reasoning, mental flexibility and self-monitoring
ability (Hoaken, Shaughnessy, & Pihl, 2003). These researchers have yielded results
that suggest social information processing mediates the likelihood of these higher order
functions translating into aggressive behaviour.
3.2.2.5 General Life Stressors
Further to the familial and peer stressors discussed above, there are a number of
stressors that may influence the development of aggressive tendencies or clinical
disorders that have aggression as a characteristic. Importantly, these events would need
to be perceived as quite significant and stressful in order for an individual to be
psychologically or adversely affected. Evidence suggests that the more extreme, or
83
psychologically demanding an event is, combined with the availability of fewer problem
solving resources, the greater the risk of negative impact by the stressor (Goodman,
Corcoran, Turner, Yuan, & Green, 1998; Stamm, Rudolph, Dewane, Gaines, Gorton,
Paul, McNeil, Bowen, & Ercolano, 1996).
In 1995 a study of 276 Israeli army recruits (n = 276) examined appraisal and
coping in stressful situations. Specifically, they found higher levels of hardiness
(consisting of measures of commitment and control) improved mental health at the end
of recruit training by reducing the frequency of threat appraisal and use of emotionfocused strategies (Florian, Mikulincer, & Taubman, 1995).
As discussed in Chapter Two (Section 2.5.8.1), stressful life events have been
previously assessed in their ability to influence driving outcomes (Navaco et al., 1990).
However, clinicians have also designed scales for the purpose of establishing potentially
significant life events upon the assessment and/or intake of clients. Assessments of this
nature are considered important not only clinically, but for research purposes, as such
significant events have the potential to confound assessments and research results
(Stamm et al., 1996). The immediacy or currency of such events is also highly relevant
as the passage of time may reduce the negative physiological and psychological affects.
Consequently, it is important to consider the individual background of each participant
when studying aggression in any context.
3.2.3 Psychological Impact of Risk Factors
The negative impact of the foregoing risk factors is experienced via two
pathways. Firstly, via the short-term or immediate experience of higher physiological
and emotion stress levels. However, if the event was profoundly violent or aggressive,
or is frequently repeated, this may alter long-term reactions to provocative situations.
Human aggression research has found that through prior exposure to prolonged periods
of stress and/or environmental threats such as physical or sexual abuse (Nash, Hulsey,
Sexton, Harralson & Lambert, 2000) or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Silva &
Marks, 2001) an individual may have a heightened tendency to detect potential threat
within their environment. Additionally, in response to an ambiguous though provocative
situation, aggressive children have been found 50% more likely to infer hostile intent
(Dodge & Coie, 1987). This hostile attribution bias is associated with the subsequent
84
displays of hostile rather than instrumental aggression (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Highly
aggressive children also have difficulty diverting their attention away from such cues
(Dodge & Coie, 1987).
The period, or point in time, in human development that one is exposed to such
events is also relevant. The findings associated with these risk factors would suggest
greater, long term, negative impact by them when initially exposed during childhood and
early adolescence. In keeping with frustration-aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939),
such events may serve to reduce ones frustration threshold, increasing the likelihood of
aggression in the face of provocation. Consistent with the cognitive and social learning
theories embedded in the GAM (Bushman & Anderson, 2001), exposure to these risk
factors provides the opportunity for the formation of aggressive or emotional schemas.
As a result, an individuals inability to regulate their emotional reactions in threatening
or provocative situations may be more likely.
3.3 Psychological Theories Relevant to Aggressive Driving
This review will focus upon social and bio-social explanations of aggression,
which emphasise the learning processes of aggression and causal factors within social
contexts. As the preferred approach for many psychologists, these theories maintain that
instinctive drives (or states of arousal) and learned behaviour underlying human
aggression can be unlearned (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994; Vaughan & Hogg, 1995).
Therefore, these theories may enhance our understanding of the psychology behind
aggressive driving behaviour, informing the development of effective education
packages for the general population, and rehabilitation strategies for court-referred
offenders.
3.3.1 Frustration-Aggression Theory
The original frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard, Doob, Mowrer, Miller,
& Sears, 1939) maintains that aggression is always a consequence of frustration (p. 1)
and conversely that the existence of frustration or multiple frustrations always leads to
aggression in some form, whether it be suppressed, disguised or delayed from the
obvious goal or source of frustration i.e. displaced (Dollard et al., 1939). A frustration is
considered an external condition or factor that prevents a person from obtaining a goal
he or she had expected to attain (Berkowitz, 1989).
85
Central to this theory is the concept of the frustration-aggression threshold

(Dollard et al., 1939). This concept proposes that increases in frustration lowers an
individuals aggression threshold increasing the likelihood of aggressive behaviour.
Dollard and colleagues (1939) proposed that frustration builds in a cumulative sense
from multiple sources, increasing the likelihood of aggressive behaviour if an individual
is continually provoked. They also maintained that the expression of the frustration or
anger serves a cathartic purpose, returning the frustration-aggression threshold to its
normal level. The frustration-aggression threshold may not only assist in our
understanding the likelihood of aggressive behaviour, but may also assist in explaining
the proposed accumulation of frustration and its subsequent displacement as
aggression to subsequent points in time (Dollard et al., 1939).
Much research has been conducted into displaced aggression since its inception
within the original frustration-aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939; Marcus-Newhall,
Pedersen, Miller, & Carlson, 2000). A meta-analysis of this phenomenon illustrated the
robust nature of displaced aggression (mean weighted effect size = +.54) (MarcusNewhall et al., 2000).
In one such study, participants were either exposed to an anger-provoking event
or not, and this exposure was followed by an unrelated, trivial trigger (Pedersen,
Gonzales, & Miller, 2000). For those that had been provoked, exposure to the trivial
trigger strongly increased displayed aggression levels, even exceeding the aggression
displayed in response to provocation alone (Pedersen, Gonzales, & Miller, 2000).
The original frustration-aggression theory also maintained that high levels of
frustration will, invariably, result in aggression (Dollard et al., 1939). In a reformulation
of frustration-aggression theory, Berkowitz (1983), however, maintained that aggression
will only result if the frustration or an aversive event is unpleasant enough to produce
strong negative affect, such as anger.
3.3.2 Cognitive Neo-Associationistic Model
As outlined above, Berkowitz (1993, 1988, 1989, 1990) contributed substantially
to the further development of frustration-aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939).
Building upon the original frustration-aggression theory tenets, Berkowitz formulated
the cognitive neo-associationistic model of aggression, which emphasises the cognitive
86
contribution to the experience of intense emotions and its influence on the likelihood of
aggressive behaviour (Berkowitz, 1989, 1990, 1993). In this theory, when faced with
aversive, unpleasant events or physical discomfort in the form of high temperatures or
loud noise, basic instincts and thoughts to fight or take flight are activated (Berkowitz,
1993). These basic instincts result from feelings of anger in the case of fight, or
fear in the case of flight (Berkowitz, 1989, 1990, 1993).
Berkowitz (1993) maintains that these initial, virtually automatic feelings and
thoughts can be accompanied by expressive motor-responses, or reactions. Factors such
as prior learned responses to threatening or anger provoking situations, situational
factors and individual trait dispositions for aggression add to these initial feelings,
determining the strength of the inclination to fight or take flight (Berkowitz, 1993). The
resultant emotions are influenced at a deeper level of processing via the cognitive
evaluation/appraisal of attributions made about the threatening or anger provoking event,
the potential consequences, internalised rules of behaviour and pre-learned mental
responses established by life experiences i.e. nodes (Berkowitz, 1993).
This model suggests that bodily reactions/responses and emotional thoughts
activate networks of emotionally linked thoughts and mental schemas that reside in the
psychological construct, memory (Berkowitz, 1990). In his theory, memory is treated
as a series of networks that consist of nodes (Berkowitz, 1993). Each node can include
a number of thoughts and related emotions connected via linked associative neural
pathways. When a thought is activated it radiates outward along the associated
pathways activating other nodes concerning memories and/or related emotions, which
can lead to an increased probability of aggressive behaviour due to priming
(Berkowitz, 1984). The concept of priming may be important when considering the
contribution of off-road stressors, as primers, to on-road aggressive behaviours
(Parkinson, 2001).
In summary, this rather complex process leads to the differentiation, suppression
or enhancement of feelings of annoyance, irritation, anger or fear resulting in
instrumental, or hostile behavioural responses (Berkowitz, 1990, 1993; Parkinson,
2001). Therefore, Berkowitz reformulation of the original frustration-aggression theory
appears to offer a framework for the potential contribution of cognitive processes to
87
aggressive driving outcomes. This models emphasis on the cognitive evaluation of a

situation may explain the potential for a thwarted driver to not have an aggressive
response as found in previous research (Lajunen & Parker, 2001).
In a study using the scenario of a car unnecessarily delayed at lights due to the
actions of another driver, the characteristics of the offending driver were manipulated.
This study found that feelings of anger and subsequent behavioural reactions are
moderated or enhanced by the characteristics of the offending driver such as age and
gender (OBrien, Tay, & Watson, 2005). It was also found that higher levels of selfreported anger were not invariably associated with an aggressive driving response in
keeping with the cognitive neo-associationistic model (Berkowitz, 1993). In addition,
Berkowitzs aggression research highlights the relative importance and potential
influence of internalised processes in aggressive driving outcomes. These processes
involve an individuals subconscious and/or conscious cognitive appraisal of a situation,
and the associated activation of linked emotional and behavioural nodes i.e. social
cognition.
3.3.3 Social Cognition Perspective
How human beings process information in a variety of social settings has long
been the focus of social and cognitive psychologists. Drawing on the principles of
computer logic concerning the inputs, internalised processes and outcomes, researchers
have focussed on the psychological modelling of various social behaviours and the
psychological constructs which support them, such as memory (Bushman & Anderson,
1998). This approach to the study of behaviour has been broadly termed social
cognition, and at times more specifically social information processing (SIP) (Geen &
Donnerstein, 1998).
Within the scope of this review it is not possible to address all of the social
information processing principles that have been used to explain social behaviours.
Therefore, emphasis will be given to those principles that appear to have the strongest
relevance to aggressive driving research.
3.3.3.1 Social Learning
A major theme in social cognition concerns learned behaviour, or social learning
principles (Bandura, 1977; Bushman & Anderson, 1998). Social learning theory
88
suggests that a persons behaviour in any given situation is learned both directly through
personal experiences and vicariously through the observation of others or by modelling
the behaviour of others (Bandura, 1977). This learning is believed to be stored in
memory as a set of mental representations called schemas/scripts, not dissimilar to the
nodes in Berkowitz (1993) cognitive neo-associationistic theory. These scripts are
believed to contain images of past events and behaviours which may be associatively
linked with other schemas/scripts (Bandura, 1977; Huesmann, 1988). The activation of
these scripts within a social setting is known as social cognition. Social cognition is
believed to be the mediating process between situational factors and resultant social
behaviour. To date, a number of social-cognitive researchers have explored the
appraisal processes in which an evaluation is made of a situation (Berkowitz, 1993;
Huesmann, 1988; Yagil, 2001).
Appraisal of a situation involves cognitive evaluations of the unpleasantness of
the event (Berkowitz, 1993), the characteristics of others (OBrien, Tay, & Watson,
2005) and how much attention is to be given to situational cues (Huesmann, 1988). In
sum, when faced with social dilemmas individuals evaluate and interpret situational
characteristics, either consciously or subconsciously, by searching available memory
schemas/scripts for previously learned guides to behaviour (Huesmann, 1988). Once the
schemas/scripts are located they are evaluated, potential consequences are assessed and
a behavioural outcome results (Bushman & Andersen, 1998; Huesmann, 1988).
In terms of aggressive behaviour, to date, SIP research appears to have
emphasised the social influences on aggressive behaviours i.e. situational factors that
either enhance or inhibit the likelihood of aggressive behaviour (Huesmann, 1988;
Yagil, 2001). In aggressive driving research such factors would include
presence/absence of passengers, anonymity and type of vehicle as a social statement to
name a few. However, SIP in general, appears to lack emphasis on individual
differences such as personality, current mental state and the variation in behaviour that
can result (Bushman & Anderson, 1998). Consequently, this appears to limit the ability
of SIP processes alone to explain the aggressive behaviour of individuals.
Importantly, aggression research involving SIP includes an explanation for the
impact of stress, mood and subsequent emotional arousal on information processing,
89
which may prove relevant to aggressive driving research. Arousal due to stress and
mood has been found to negatively influence the cognitive evaluation process (Zillmann,
1988). For example, high levels of hostility have been found to reduce the amount of
attention and evaluation given to a situation (Crick & Dodge, 1994). In addition, high
levels of arousal were found to narrow the memory search and activate only those
schemas/scripts that are closely connected to those cues, resulting in a narrower range of
possible behavioural outcomes being available. Further, when feelings of stress are
coupled with situational cues activating feelings of fear or anger, Berkowitz (1998)
suggests that it is far more probable that only aggressive schemas/scripts will be
activated, resulting in more aggressive behavioural responses (Berkowitz, 1998;
Bushman & Anderson, 1998).
Specific to aggressive driving research, however, Parkinson (2001) found that
those drivers that reported negative affect prior to driving were less likely to report it as
an influencing factor on self-reported levels of anger in an on-road situation.
Unfortunately, the sample size of this study was relatively small (n=64) and the findings
may be indicative of the difficulties inherent in self-report methods of aggression (Boyce
& Geller, 2002). Therefore, in light of these findings, it would be prudent to revisit on
and off-road generated affect and any subsequent effects on driving behaviour.
Further, in a study of cognitive antecedents to aggressive road behaviour, Yagil
(2001) posited that attributions affect aggressive reactions to another drivers
provocative road behaviour. Yagils study of 150 males found that negative attributions
applied to another driver are likely to increase the amount of driving related frustration
or anger with male offending drivers attracting more negative attributions and
emotions than females. Further, such negative beliefs and expectations about another
driver, are more likely to result in evaluations of their behaviour as being inconsiderate
and aggressive (Yagil, 2001). This finding could be considered consistent with the
VCCAV (1999) findings that younger men (aged 1824 years) are reported three times
more frequently than females as the perpetrators of road rage incidents. Therefore it
seems that young male drivers attract more negative attributions about their on-road
behaviour than older drivers. Again, these findings emphasise the need to conduct
further study into the cognitive processes involved in aggressive driving behaviour.
90
3.3.3.2 Causal Attribution Fundamental Attribution Error

Social psychologists use the theoretical perspective of Causal Attribution (CA)
when considering the social perceptions of human beings. In CA, individuals assign
characteristics such as emotions or motives to the behaviour of themselves or others.
Further to the aforementioned research into attributions made about driver behaviour
based on gender and age (OBrien, Watson, & Tay, 2005; Yagil, 2001) additional
research has been conducted into aggressive driving utilising the fundamental attribution
error (Lennon, Watson, Arlidge, & Fraine, in press).
The fundamental attribution error involves attributing the behaviour of others to
some internal cause rather than to situational cues (Vaughan & Hogg, 1995). Lennon
and colleagues (in press) surveyed (n = 193) participants, seeking perceived causes and
effects of the behaviours outlined in a series of scenarios. The results were consistent
with Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) theory, demonstrating that perpetrators were
significantly more likely to attribute their own behaviour to external, environmental
factors (Lennon, Watson, Arlidge & Fraine, in press). Conversely, this research found
that victims of aggressive driving were more likely to perceive the perpetrators
behaviours as internal and stable. For example, the perpetrators behaviours may have
been perceived as lack of ability or skill at driving.
3.3.4 Excitation Transfer Theory
Another theory that may explain the effects of emotional arousal levels on
driving is Excitation Transfer Theory (Zillmann, 1972). In this theory, arousal not only
arises from negative emotional experiences, it may also result from positive experiences
that heighten physiological arousal (Geen, 1990).
In his theory, Zillmann (1972) maintains that such heightened arousal levels,
combined with sufficient provocation, serves as an antecedent to aggression (Geen,
1990). In a 1971 study, Zillmann and colleagues enlisted an experimental confederate to
provoke participants, prior to engaging them in either a sedentary task or strenuous
physical activity on an exercise bike. Some time later, participants were allowed to
express their displeasure against the confederate. Those that had been involved in the
strenuous task were found to be more aggressive, in support of this theory (Zillmann,
1972). Therefore, it appears that arousal does not always become attributed to the most
91
appropriate emotion-provoking event (Geen, 1990; Zillmann, 1972). Although this

finding establishes a link between arousal and aggression, it does not speak of the role of
emotions and their contribution to aggression. As Geen (1990) points out, Zillmanns
research assumes anger is a mediating factor between arousal and aggression.
However, as much of aggression research is measured via self-reported levels of intense
emotions and resultant aggressive behaviours, this assumption is speculative. Perhaps it
should be considered that less negative but equally intense emotions such as excitation
resulting from sensation seeking may also result in heightened physiological arousal.
Temporal considerations, between the arousing event and the anger-provoking
incident are believed critical. If too much time elapses between the two events the
arousal dissipates, making the transfer and identification of the arousal to the provoking
event less likely (Feindler, Marriott, & Iwatta, 1984). The nature and intensity of the
arousal also appears critical to this connection being made. Research using
photographic and videoed forms of erotica as a medium for eliciting arousal has found
evidence to suggest that exposure to videoed erotica resulted in higher levels of arousal
and higher levels of aggression in response to subsequent provocation, than participants
asked to view photographic erotica (Baron & Bell, 1973).
This theory has potentially important implications when considering the use of
on-road activities as ways of dealing with off-road stressors. If a driver is intensely
aroused due to an a significant off-road factor (e.g. an argument) immediately prior to
hopping in their vehicle, perhaps they are more at risk of engaging in aggressive
driving behaviours. Therefore, the use of the on-road environment as a venue for
dealing with emotional events would be considered a maladaptive way of coping with
life event stress. Additionally, positive arousal due to certain on-road driving
behaviours may be particularly relevant to young drivers. For example, the use of
excessive speed or the presence of peers, may increase physiological and emotional
arousal. In light of this theory, perhaps it is not unreasonable to suggest that high levels
of the personality traits impulsivity (Karli, 1991) and sensation-seeking (Jonah,
1997) often associated with the aberrant driving behaviours of young road users may
also predispose individuals to higher levels of stimulation or arousal, which serves to
further increase the likelihood of aggression on the roads.
92
3.3.5 Social Interaction Theory

The social interaction perspective is based on the premise that in social
interactions, when the interests of involved parties diverge, aggression will be adopted in
order to correct the situation (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Any aggression instigated by
the actor takes the form of coercive behaviours that aim to correct the difference;
however, the use of aggression is viewed as only one potential strategy to achieve that
goal. Contrary to the theories outlined above, however, this perspective is critical of the
view that aggression is compelled from within an individual by feelings of frustration
and/or negative physiological arousal (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994).
Despite this, the developers of the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) have
incorporated social interaction theory into their model with a view to addressing aspects
of theory that have relevance for aggressive outcomes. Primarily, their interest lies in
the social interaction emphasis upon the decision-making processes, whereby the
decision of how and when to aggress is driven by the evaluation of anticipated costs and
benefits of alternative responses (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Anderson and Bushman
(2002) suggest that this theory offers a valuable framework for understanding aggression
that is driven by higher level goals, such as threats to self-esteem (Baumeister, Smart, &
Boden, 1996). This theory also emphasises the perpetrators thoughts of justice and the
process of laying blame, as highly relevant to aggressive outcomes (Tedeschi & Felson,
1994). In this respect it borrows heavily from attribution theory reviewed earlier.
In an effort to better understand driving behaviour, aspects of this theory may
help explain on-road aggression. Indeed, it would seem that some drivers use
intimidatory behaviour, which may also be considered aggressive, to influence the
behaviour of other drivers. For example, tailgating could be viewed as intimidatory
behaviour aimed at influencing the travelling speed of the driver in front.
3.4 Interim Summary
Regardless of the perspective taken, most aggression theorists agree that
aggressive behaviour has some fundamental recurring components: a cause, trigger or
antecedent; a resultant emotion; and a behavioural outcome (Bushman & Anderson,
1998; Geen & Donnerstein. 1998; Renfrew, 1997). As outlined above, these key
components are linked through perceptual and cognitive processes. Underpinning the
93
experience of emotions, cognitive processes influence the intensity of the negative

emotions experienced through conscious or automated evaluation of the situation
(Berkowitz, 1983). The causes/triggers of negative emotion that may influence
aggressive behaviour vary considerably, as does the range of resultant emotions
experienced and the possible behavioural outcomes (Berkowitz, 1983; Geen &
Donnerstein, 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar, 1998).
Whilst examining the large number of factors known to influence aggressive
driving behaviour, traffic researchers have utilised a number of the foregoing theories to
explain the influence individual situational and person-related factors have on aggressive
road behaviour (Lonero & Clinton, 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar, 1998; Yagil,
2001). These situational characteristics appear to be context dependent in their ability to
generate aberrant driving behaviour (Lonero & Clinton, 1998; Reason, Manstead,
Stradling, Parker, & Baxter, 1991). At face value, the sheer number of factors that
would need to be considered in this process illustrates the challenges involved in
developing a predictive model of aggressive driving. However, the foregoing review of
human aggression literature repeatedly highlights the importance of cognitive processes
in aggressive driving and indicates these processes clearly warrant further investigation.
3.5 General Aggression Model
In order to base this program of research on a sound theoretical platform, it is
prudent to identify a relevant, comprehensive framework for explaining aggression.
Although Shinars Frustration-Aggression theory of aggressive driving is relevant, the
literature review thus far would suggest that emotions other than frustration and anger
may also be relevant to the expression of on-road aggression. A more recent theory of
aggression that offers an amalgamation of a number of human aggression research
theories, encompassing a range of emotions and cognitions that may contribute to
aggressive behavioural outcomes, is the General Aggression Model (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002).
Multiple theories appear to have relevance to aggressive driving. For this reason,
the General Aggression Model (GAM) outlined at Figure 3.1 (Anderson & Bushman,
2002) stands out as a means of synthesising these different perspectives. Not only does
the GAM provide insight into the psychological processes of aggression, it has been
94
INPUT
PERSON
SITUATION
Social
Encounter
Present Internal State:

Affect
ROUTE
Cognition
OUTCOMES
Appraisal & Decision

Processes
Arousal
Thoughtful
Action
Impulsive
Action
Figure 3.1 The General Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002, p. 34)
specifically designed to amalgamate multiple psychological theories of human
aggression so that empirically based interventions may be designed and tested
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002). This model proposed by Anderson and Bushman (2002)
focuses on the individual in a given situation. As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the three main
components of the model are inputs, cognitive routes and outputs of a given social
situation. Before discussing the GAM it is necessary to briefly outline the relevant
psychological theories as applied by Anderson and Bushman (2002) and their potential
application to aggressive driving behaviour.
95
3.5.1 Schemas and Script Theory

The GAM draws heavily on the use of knowledge structures such as scripts and
schemas/nodes mentioned earlier (Berkowitz, 1993; Huesmann, 1988). These
psychological constructs are believed to originate from observation or modelling
consistent with the theories discussed earlier (Bandura, 1977; Berkowitz, 1993;
Huesmann, 1988). They exist within the mind and influence an individuals
perception, interpretation, decision making and action across a variety of social settings.
These structures are believed to influence perception at multiple levels of
information processing and can become automatic through repeated use (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002) i.e. they may be activated without conscious thought or effort. These
structures contain emotions, behaviour and beliefs and can be linked to each other
(Berkowitz, 1993; Huesmann, 1988; Zillmann, 1988). Ultimately, they are used to guide
individual interpretation and behavioural responses within a given situation.
For the purposes of the GAM, Anderson and Bushman (2002) specify that there
are three types of knowledge structures: perceptual schemata, person schemata, and
behavioural scripts. Perceptual schemata are used to identify simple objects (such as a
cat, a car) through to complex events (such as a personal insult). Person schemata
include individual beliefs about other individuals or people (as in stereotypes). Finally,
behavioural scripts contain information about how to behave in a variety of
circumstances (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Each of these knowledge structures are
linked to affect (emotion) nodes. When a schema linked to an emotion is activated, the
linked emotion is also activated. However, this is tempered with co-existing contextual
information as to when and how a given emotion should be experienced (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002). As indicated in the foregoing literature review, schemas and scripts
influence aggressive behaviours in a variety of contexts (Bandura, 1977; Berkowitz,
1993).
3.5.2 Situation and Person Factors as Inputs for the GAM
Similar to the frustration-aggression model of aggressive driving, inputs include
person-related and situational factors that may contribute to aggression (Shinar, 1998).
Person-related factors include all characteristics that a person brings to the situation,
such as personality, sex, beliefs, attitudes, values and scripts/schemas which may contain
96
multiples of these factors (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). The situational factors that the
authors focus upon are generally aimed at guiding research into the catalysts for human
aggression. These include aggressive cues, provocation, frustration, pain and discomfort
levels, possible incentives and drug/alcohol abuse (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). In
terms of aggressive driving, a considerable number of situational factors have been
found to influence driving behaviour (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lonero & Clinton, 1998;
Shinar, 1998; Yagil, 2001) (refer to Section 2.3).
3.5.3 The Process of Aggression According to the GAM
According to the GAM, input factors are believed to influence the outcome via
the internal state. The internal state is generated through social cognition, affect and
arousal (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). In this model, the cognitive component refers to
the hostile/aggressive or negative thoughts and associated scripts mentally available to
an individual. Affect concerns the current emotional state, or mood, of an individual
that has the potential to prime an individual for aggressive behaviour (Berkowitz, 1993).
In this model, the role of anger in aggression is considered complex, accounting
for the findings of many of the above theories (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Anger is
believed to reduce inhibitions controlling aggressive responses and provides internal
justification for aggressive retaliations (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Additionally,
anger is believed to interfere with high level processes, affecting reasoning and
judgement (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Anger is also believed to allow a person to
maintain aggressive intent over a period of time, increasing attention to the provocative
event and improving their memory of the event (Crick & Dodge, 1994). In an
ambiguous situation, the triggering of anger is also believed to reduce ambiguity,
generally in the direction of hostile interpretations (Anderson, Anderson, Dill, & Deuser,
1998). Thus, anger is believed to prime thoughts, scripts and associated behavioural
responses, guiding an individuals response to the anger-provoking episode. Finally, it
is believed to intensify behaviour by increasing arousal levels (Zillmann, 1972).
Arousal refers to the physiological state of an individual. The influence of
arousal is believed to operate in three ways: heightened arousal resulting from an
unrelated source may activate a dominant script response; abnormal arousal levels
sourced from an unrelated source such as exercise can be mislabelled as anger in anger-
97
provoking situations thus motivating aggressive behaviour (i.e. excitation transfer

theory, Zillman, 1988); and, finally, Anderson & Bushman (2002) suggest that
extremely high or low levels of arousal, if considered aversive states, may stimulate
aggression of their own accord. Extremely low levels of arousal may result due to the
experience of depression, which has been found to impair logical thought processes and
increase irritability (Stanford, Greve, & Dickens, 1995). These three factors that
contribute to the internal state are interconnected and may activate each other in a bidirectional manner, according to script and schema theory (Bandura, 1977; Berkowitz,
1993; Huesmann, 1988).
Present Internal State
Immediate
Thoughtful
Action
Reappraisal
Appraisal
Yes
No
Outcome important
& unsatisfying?
Resources
Sufficient?
Yes
Impulsive
Action
No
Appraisal & Decision Processes

Figure 3.2 Expanded appraisal and decision-making processes of the GAM (Anderson
& Bushman, 2002)
As discussed above, there is substantial evidence for the existence of this

interactive process resulting in an internal state (Berkowitz, 1993, Huesmann, 1988;
98
Zillman, 1988). Having developed an internal state, the likelihood of an aggressive

outcome is influenced by an individuals appraisal process. Figure 3.2 is the expanded
appraisal and decision-making process for the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).
Therefore, if aggressive driving is not substantially different from basic human
aggression, then such an internal state should also apply to the processing of events that
occur in the on-road environment. At the outset it appears the themes identified by the
GAM provide a useful framework for exploring aggressive driving behaviour.
3.5.4 The Cognitive Appraisal Process in the GAM
Much of the initial, spontaneous appraisal of a situation is believed to be
automatic and subconscious, although filtered through components of the internal state
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002). In addition, the present internal state influences this
immediate appraisal, via inferences made about the behaviour of others guided by
stereotypes and schemas (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Yagil, 2001). If cognitive resources
(i.e. knowledge structures) are sufficient, offering a wider range of possible responses or
views, this may lead to a reappraisal of the situation in more constructive ways and
result in thoughtful, controlled action being taken in a social encounter. However, if
these resources are insufficient and an individual has a narrow, maladaptive range of
scripts available to them, the immediate appraisal may result in an impulsive
response effecting the social encounter (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). In turn, the
behavioural response may be aggressive or non-aggressive depending on the content of
the cognitive appraisal.
3.5.5 Behavioural Outcomes According to the GAM
The developers of the GAM consider that human aggression is any behaviour
that is carried out with the immediate intent to cause harm (Anderson & Bushman,
2002, p.28). They also specify that the perpetrator must have intended to cause harm
and that the victim must be motivated to avoid their aggression (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002). Therefore, in lieu of the historical definition of aggression as either
hostile or instrumental (Berkowitz, 1993; Geen & Donnerstein, 1998), these researchers
focus on proximate and ultimate aggressive behaviours that are intended to cause
harm, as in other models that focus purely on hostile aggressive behaviours (Anderson
& Bushman, 2002). However, considering the nature of aggressive driving and the
99
potential for relatively minor incidents and on-road reactive behaviours to escalate to
extreme incidents of on-road aggression, their distinction may not prove beneficial in
explaining aggressive driving. This literature review would suggest that until more is
understood about the nature of aggressive driving behaviour, it may be wiser to consider
the full range of behaviours that have been identified as aggressive in previous road
research.
As a result of the processes outlined in the GAM a wide variety of behavioural
responses is possible. This range of possible responses is due to the variation that exists
between individuals, especially in terms of variation in personality, their social learning
history and their current internal state at the time of provocation (Anderson & Bushman,
2002). Indeed, while the process is rather
complex, the cognitive appraisal processes involved in driving are perhaps complicated
further through a reduction in effective communication between road users due to the
confines of the vehicle itself. Arguably, the physical parameters of a vehicle may isolate
an individual driver from others, at times distorting ones perception of the environment
and situational cues.
3.5.6 Applying Relevant Theory to the Phenomenon of Aggressive Driving
In light of the findings outlined in Chapter Two and the aforementioned human
aggression literature, there are several areas of driver aggression that demand greater
attention.
According to the literature reviewed in Chapter Two, it is feasible to assume that
exposure rates to inputs, or situational characteristics, that trigger aggressive driving
are relatively similar across age groups (VCCAV, 1999; NHTSA, 2002). However,
research indicates that young and other at-risk drivers are more likely to have a more
aggressive behavioural response than other drivers (Lajunen & Parker, 2001).
Consequently, the difference between drivers at risk of aggressive driving and those not
at risk of such behaviours would appear to exist at the intrapersonal level. For instance,
is there a difference in how these driver groups evaluate anger-provoking situations or
deal with their on-road emotion?
Referring back to the GAM perhaps differences do exist in the appraisal and
decision-making processes outlined. Aggressive drivers, in particular, may have
100
difficulty in the immediate appraisal of on-road situations and perhaps the cognitive and
coping resources available to them are less functional than those available to older,
more experienced drivers.
Also, psychological theories included within the GAM would suggest that
deficits in coping resources/strategies can include an increased availability of
hostile/aggressive schemata or scripts (Farrington, 2000; Vaughan & Hogg, 1995); a
reduced availability of overriding inhibitions which can alter behaviour (Standford &
Barratt, 1995; Vigil-Colet & Colorniu-Raga, 2004); and/or a reduced number or quality
of available constructive coping strategies or scripts in the face of provocation
(Berkowitz, 1998; Bushman & Anderson, 1998; Crick & Dodge, 1994). Hence, if a
young driver had insufficient resources in the form of cognitions, then perhaps
aggressive driving behaviour would be more likely. This suggestion would also be
consistent with the review of risk factors for aggression, where it appears that exposure
to one or more of the factors may lead to the adoption of dysfunction/maladaptive
coping behaviours such as aggression (Chang et al., 2003; Cummings et al., 2004;
Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, Moffit, Caspi, & Lynam, 2001). Alternatively,
it may result in greater negative emotionality which may increase the risk of reactive
aggression in the face of perceived provocation (Cooper, et al., 1995).
Life-stress has also been found to influence the experience of on-road aggression
(Arnett, Offer, & Fine, 1997; Novaco, Stokols, & Milanesi, 1990). Therefore, perhaps
there are differences between drivers at-risk of aggressive driving and other road users in
the levels of state stress brought to the on-road environment. Aggressive drivers may
experience greater transfer of stress from the off-road environment to the on-road
environment. Aside from having immediate impacts upon stress levels, exposure to
aggression risk factors may also enhance an individuals long-term susceptibility to
stress (Verona, Patrick, & Lang, 2002). Therefore, it would be helpful to look at driver
coping styles and strategies. This approach could broaden our understanding of
constructive and maladaptive ways of behaving on the road.
Findings relating to sensation seeking, impulsivity and psychological
disorders, outlined above and in Chapter Two (Bor, 2004; Fossati et al., 2004; Iacano et
al., 1999; Karli, 1991; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Loeber et al., 2001; Zuckerman & Neeb,
101
1980) also provide evidence of additional trait factors that may distinguish aggressive
drivers from the general driving population. Therefore, they also warrant further
investigation in an Australian sample.
Interestingly, the review of the risk factors for aggression implies that although
aggressive tendencies are developed or acquired during childhood and adolescence, they
have the potential to persist across time (Farrington, 2000, 2004; Huesmann et al., 2002;
Murphy et al., 2004). Therefore, it is somewhat surprising there is less evidence of
aggressive driving by older drivers. Alternatively, are they more prevalent in more
extreme acts of on-road aggression? These questions will be explored in greater depth
throughout this body of research.
3.6 Additional Research Questions
The following review of theoretical issues has identified two further research
questions relating to aggressive driving that warrant further investigation. These
questions and a brief rationale for each are detailed below.
RQ5
What are the cognitive and emotional processes characterising aggressive

driving behaviour?
This review highlights the relevance of psychological processes and theory in the
likelihood of on-road aggression. In the main, literature to date has focussed on the
feelings associated with aggressive driving (Deffenbacher et al., 2002; Lajunen &
Parker, 2001; Shinar, 1998) specifically examining frustration and anger. However, this
literature review has established that perhaps other emotions, such as excitement, have
the potential to contribute to aggressive driving, especially for younger drivers.
To a much lesser degree, researchers have looked at the cognitive processes
associated with the behaviour, such as negative attributions (Yagil, 2001). However, no
research has yet attempted to examine the range of cognitions or decision-making
processes associated with aggressive driving. As CBT based interventions are beginning
to emerge for aggressive drivers, it would be prudent to expand research into the
cognitive and emotional contributors to on-road aggression.
102
RQ6 Are there differences in the characteristics of those drivers who are prepared to
engage in hostile acts of aggressive driving compared to those who only report
engaging in instrumental acts of aggressive driving?
This research question represents an extension of RQ2, outlined in Section 2.9. RQ2
related to the need to investigate whether some drivers are more likely to engage in
aggressive driving and, if so, what their psychosocial characteristics are. However, the
foregoing discussion of risk factors for the development of aggressive tendencies
highlighted specific person-related factors that may predispose an individual to violence
or anti-social behaviours. It is also noted that the exposure to such factors has the
potential to manifest aggressive or anti-social behaviour beyond the developmental
years. Consequently, is exposure to one or more risk factors for aggression more
prevalent in drivers that engage in more extreme on-road aggression, thus distinguishing
them from general road users or those prepared to engage in instrumental aggression
only? Hence, RQ6 focuses on the characteristics of the subset of aggressive drivers who
are prepared to engage in more hostile acts, in order to determine whether they differ
from other aggressive drivers.
3.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter first reviewed psychological theories that have been previously used
to explain human aggression from differing perspectives, some of which have also been
empirically tested within the context of aggressive driving. It also looked at those
theories that have the potential to explain facets of aggressive driving not previously
considered. A review of general risk factors for aggression highlighted the relevance of
such factors in the conduct of aggressive driving research.
Finally, the GAM, as a synthesis of the above theories, was outlined and
discussed. For the purpose of this thesis, the GAM was proposed as a framework for
exploring aggressive driving within this program of research.
103
Chapter Four: A Qualitative Study of Young Drivers as a High-risk Group

4.1
Introduction........................................................................................................... 105
4.2
Method ................................................................................................................ 106
4.3
4.2.1
Participants ............................................................................................. 106
4.2.2
Procedure ................................................................................................ 106
4.2.3
Materials ................................................................................................. 106
4.2.4
Analysis .................................................................................................. 108
Results and Exploration of the Qualitative Data .................................................. 108

4.3.1
Socio-Demographics and Driving Exposure .......................................... 108
4.3.2
What is Considered Aggressive Driving? .............................................. 109
4.3.3
Perceived Causes of Aggressive Driving ............................................... 109
4.3.4
Situational factors ................................................................................... 110

4.3.4.1 Behaviours ................................................................................ 110
4.3.4.2 Facilitating Factors ................................................................... 112
4.3.5
4.3.4.2.1
Type of Vehicle ..................................................... 113
4.3.4.2.2
Type of Road ......................................................... 114
4.3.4.2.3
Vehicles On-Road and Pace of Living .................. 116
4.3.4.2.4
Time Pressure ........................................................ 117
4.3.4.2.5
Passenger Effect .................................................... 118
4.3.4.2.6
Temperature........................................................... 119
4.3.4.2.7
Music ..................................................................... 119
Person-Related Factors ........................................................................... 119

4.3.5.1 State Factors ............................................................................. 119
4.3.5.1.1
Mood ..................................................................... 119
4.3.5.1.2
Life-Stress ............................................................. 120
4.3.5.1.3
Job Stress ............................................................... 121
4.3.5.1.4
Driving Stress ........................................................ 122
4.3.5.2 Trait Factors ............................................................................. 122

4.3.5.2.1
Age and Gender ..................................................... 122
4.3.5.2.2
Personality ............................................................. 123
4.3.5.2.3
Prior Learning........................................................ 124
4.3.5.2.4
General Attitudes About Other Drivers................. 125
4.3.5.3 General Transfer of Emotion to the On-Road Environment .... 125
104
4.3.5.4 Transfer of On-Road Generated Stress to the Off-road

Environment .............................................................................127
4.3.6
Personal Experiences with Aggressive Driving .....................................128

4.3.6.1 Victims or Perpetrators .............................................................129
4.3.6.2 Type of Road ............................................................................129
4.3.6.3 On-road Behavioural Causes ....................................................130
4.3.6.4 Pre-event Emotional State ........................................................132
4.3.6.5 Range of Emotions Experienced ..............................................133
4.3.6.6 Cognitions During the Incident ................................................134
4.3.6.7 Behavioural Responses to On-Road Provocation.....................136
4.3.6.8 Post-Event State........................................................................138
4.3.6.9 Personal Accounts of Off-Road Stress Brought to the
On-Road Environment..............................................................139
4.4
Discussion .............................................................................................................141
4.4.1
Situational Factors ..................................................................................141
4.4.2
State and Trait, Person-Related Causes ..................................................142
4.4.3
Range of Emotions During an On-Road Incident ..................................143
4.4.4
Cognitions During an On-Road Incident ................................................144
4.4.5
Behavioural Responses to On-Road Provocation ...................................145
4.4.6
Post Event State or Transfer to the Off-Road Environment ................146
4.4.7
Transfer of Emotions to the On-Road Environment ..............................146
4.4.8
Coping Strategies Adopted by Young Drivers .......................................147
4.4.9
Addressing the Research Questions .......................................................148
4.4.10
Strengths and Limitations of the Study ..................................................150
4.4.11
Implications of Findings for the Development of a Psychosocial

Framework for Aggressive Driving ........................................................151
4.4.12
Chapter Summary ...................................................................................154
105
4.1 Introduction
This study was designed to act as an exploration of aggressive driving from the
perspective of one of the key potentially at-risk groups for aggressive driving, young
drivers, as they are frequently over-represented in the findings of aggressive driving
research (Harding et al., 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lawton & Nutter, 2002; Shinar,
1998; VCCAV, 1999). In order to provide greater insight to the phenomenon, it was
considered pertinent to examine young driver perceptions of what behaviours constitute
aggressive driving and their recalled experiences of such driving behaviour.
Whilst investigating factors that contribute to aggressive driving behaviour, this
phase was also designed to explore the relevance of human aggression theory from
within the framework of the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The literature review
indicates that the GAM may assist in explaining aggressive driving behaviour arising
from the multiple person-related and situational sources, discussed in Chapters Two and
Three.
This study utilised a qualitative approach to facilitate a broad-based approach to
the phenomenon, providing information-rich data from the perspective of Australian
drivers. In addition, a qualitative exploration may assist in explaining the possible
transfer of negative emotion to the road environment, as well as the possibility of
transfer to the off-road environment (i.e. home or work).
This study examined aspects of five research questions identified in Chapters Two
and Three:
driving?
RQ2 Are some drivers more likely to engage in aggressive driving and, if so, what
are their characteristics?
behaviours?
RQ5 What are the cognitive and emotional processes which characterise aggressive
driving behaviour?
106
Being qualitative in nature, this study was not driven by specific hypotheses but
rather adopted a thematic approach to the research questions.
4.2 Method
4.2.1 Participants
To provide a cross-section of the young driver population, participants were
recruited from a variety of sources including the Queensland University of Technology
(QUT), the Queensland College of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) and via an
external agency (Northern Field Services [NFS]). QUT participants were granted credit
towards the completion of their first year Psychology program. Those participants
recruited through TAFE and NFS were paid $40.00 each for their involvement. A total
of 47 participants were recruited, comprising 23 males and 24 females. The selection
criteria required that participants were 17 to 25 years of age (M = 20.6 years) and were
the holder of a current drivers licence.
4.2.2 Procedure
Six focus groups were conducted, each taking approximately 1.5 hours to
facilitate. Two focus groups were recruited from each participant pool. In an effort to
counteract any gender bias, equal numbers of males and females were allocated to each
group. Prior to commencing each discussion participants were made aware of the nature
of the study, assured of anonymity, and asked to read and sign an information/consent
package (see Appendix A). At the conclusion of the TAFE and NFS focus groups,
participants were financially recompensed for their time and travelling costs. All
participants were asked to complete a brief socio-demographic questionnaire prior to
commencement of the focus group (see Appendix B). Approval to conduct this study
was obtained from QUTs Human Research Ethics Committee.
4.2.3 Materials
Bearing in mind that this study was an exploration of the applicability of the
GAM and the underlying constructs considered relevant to aggression (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002), the focus group protocols (see Appendix C) were tailored to explore
the relevant components of the GAM in the context of aggressive driving behaviour and
the transference of negative emotion to and from the road environment. Figure 4.1 is a
map of the main concepts explored during the study, which were informed by the
107
constructs within GAM theory (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) and earlier aggressive
driving research (Shinar,1998). They also provided the structure for the focus group
protocols.
Within this study, a two-fold approach was adopted to explore the research
questions. The first approach was macro in nature, examining general perceptions of
what factors were believed to contribute to aggressive driving. The second approach
involved exploring these questions from within personal, recalled encounters with
aggressive driving. The focus group questions were open-ended and participants were
actively encouraged to contribute:
their perceptions of what constitutes, and causes, aggressive driving behaviour

in general;
any personal experiences they have had with aggressive driving (either as the
victim or the perpetrator) and the effect this had on any subsequent behaviour;
any emotions and cognitions they recall having experienced before, during and
after the event; and
any off-road experiences that may have resulted in them driving whilst feeling
upset, tense or angry.
Demographics
Direct/Indirect Causes
Pre-event Emotional State

Types of Cognitions
Range of Emotions
Experienced
Behavioural Responses
Post-Event Emotional State

Post-Event Behaviour
Figure 4.1 Map of concepts explored in accordance with the GAM (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002).
108
4.2.4 Analysis
Using qualitative reduction techniques, focus group transcripts were analysed
and sorted into themes and ideas associated with the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994).
This method involved recording and transcribing individual recollections of experiences
with aggressive driving including the roles of the victim and the perpetrator.
Commonalities in situational causes, emotions and thoughts experienced were identified,
reducing the phenomenon of aggressive driving as it is experienced by young drivers,
into repeated themes and concepts consistent with GAM factors. The qualitative
software package NVIVO was used to analyse participant responses to the protocol
questions.
4.3 Results and Exploration of the Qualitative Data
Before reporting the main results of this research, it is first useful to provide
details of the participants socio-demographic characteristics and driving exposure.
Following this, the wide range of situational and person-related factors that were
identified by participants as the main causes of aggressive driving will be reported and
discussed.
Finally, the results pertaining to the individual experiences with aggressive
driving will be reported. Note that participant quotes have been coded to assure
anonymity e.g. FG3. The code is based on the gender and first initial of the participant
followed by their focus group number. Where two participants in the same focus group
had the same initial a 1 or 2 was inserted before the focus group number.
4.3.1 Socio-Demographics and Driving Exposure
The socio-demographic and driving exposure data was analysed using SPSS (see
Appendix D). Almost half of the participants (n = 23) reported having held a licence for
less than two years. Further, 62% reported driving their vehicle 15 times or less per
week. Additionally, 64% reported driving 15,000km or less per year, a finding that may
be considered consistent with reports by 66% of participants that they drove mainly on
city roads, with some highway or country driving. Forty-five per cent of participants
reported that they drove for work purposes.
Approximately 75% of participants indicated that they believed that aggressive
driving behaviour is on the increase on Queensland roads. The remaining 25% were
109
unsure about the trend.

4.3.2 What is Considered Aggressive Driving?
Although the participant responses readily recalled on-road incidents that they
referred to as aggressive driving, there appeared to be no consensus regarding a
definition of aggressive driving. The results would suggest that the term aggressive
driving means different things to different people. However, a number of common
themes emerged in the discussion, which appeared consistent with the provisional
definition of aggressive driving outlined in Section 2.2.5.3. These common themes
were: the dangerousness of aggressive driving incidents, the intense emotion
associated with the incidents, and the element of intent underpinning the behaviour of
aggressive drivers. In response to initial questions concerning the causes of aggressive
driving some participants (n=10) spoke of danger as a defining element of aggressive
driving behaviour. Also, many of the behaviours identified in this study may be
considered aggressive when an element of danger is involved.
In this sample of young drivers, there was also evidence of the perception that an
individual may drive aggressively without danger:
Guys will typically not be dangerous but just drive aggressively (FJ4)
Further, it was suggested by five participants that dangerous driving behaviours
are permissible if they only pose a danger to themselves.
To me it doesnt have to be dangerous. I see a chicane and I go, I can get
through that. Half the time what you are doing is just stupidand the only
thing that slows you down a bit is a few speed bumps and you push it. Thats
aggressive driving, but its only dangerous to myself. (FT14)
Arguably, such a view fails to account for the impact or possible consequences
of this behaviour upon themselves and other road users or pedestrians. It would also
appear that as long as there are no obvious, immediate negative consequences for this
behaviour then the behaviour is not considered a danger to other road users.
4.3.3 Perceived Causes of Aggressive Driving
In order to explore RQ1, participants were first asked two open-ended questions
that aimed to explore the perceived causes of aggressive driving behaviour:
What do you think are the main causes of aggressive driving?; and
What things make you particularly angry on the roads?
110
In response to the protocol questions outlined above (Section 4.3.2), participants

reported a large number of causes of aggressive driving behaviour. Most of these factors
lent themselves to being categorised in accordance with the GAM (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002) as either person-related or on-road situational factors.
Consistent with previous research and for the purposes of understanding the
person-related factors associated with aggressive driving behaviour, it was considered
appropriate to further divide this category into state and trait factors. State personrelated factors reflect those that are transient and subject to situational characteristics,
and trait person-related factors those that are mainly static and/or more enduring.
The situational factors identified by participants also appeared to consist of two
main themes: direct causes (i.e. the behaviour of other drivers) and other indirect
causes (i.e. those listed as facilitating factors) (see Figure 4.2). Direct causes are
specific behaviours that result in the interpretation of a drivers behaviour as dangerous
or careless, giving rise to feelings of threat, frustration and/or anger. Conversely,
indirect causes include a wide range of on-road situational factors that may not
necessarily lead to aggressive driving behaviour in their own right. These factors appear
to add to the likelihood of on-road behaviour being interpreted as aggressive.
At times throughout this study, the term direct/indirect causes has been adopted
to refer to the two broad types of situational factors identified in the study. Figure 4.2 is
a diagrammatic presentation of the direct and indirect causes of aggressive driving cited
by participants according to the major themes identified. The number beside each factor
represents the number of citations across the six focus groups.
4.3.4 Situational Factors
4.3.4.1 Behaviours
The wide range of contributing factors outlined in Figure 4.2 do not appear to
differ markedly from those identified in previous research about factors that contribute
to aggressive driving behaviour (Lonero & Clinton, 1998; Lajunen, Parker, & Stradling,
1998; Shinar, 1998). Participants cited 26 situational factors that they consider may
contribute to aggressive driving behaviour.
Person-Related Factors
State Person-Related
Factors
Trait Person-Related
Factors
mood (12)
lifestress(10)
driving stress(4)
job stress(9)
Situational Factors
age (16)
gender (4)
personality (8)
inexperience (9)
prior learning (7)
stereotypes (16)
attitudes (10)
Behaviours
Facilitating Factors
Errors & Violations

Miscellaneous
- driving with peers
(10)
- timepressed (24)
- temperature (2)
- pace of living (3)
- greater number of
vehicles (4)
- music (3)
Type of vehicle
- vehicle appearance
(17)
- cyclists (1)
- mechanics (8)
- sense of security(4)
- size of car (5)
Type of road
- city/suburban/carparks (17)
- roadworks and delays (12)
- congestion (13)
- failure to stop/give way (8)

- highbeam flashing (6)
- cutting in/off (37)
- tailgating (26)
- mis-use/lack of indicators (14)
- overtaking (3)
- speeding (27)
- dragging-off (3)
- not allowing merge (17)
- slow driving (15)
- slowing to view accidents (2)
- delaying at lights (5)
Figure 4.2 Participant responses to the causes of aggressive driving behaviour by major themes identified
111
112
Importantly, it appears that a critical issue in aggressive driving is the need for
driver behaviour to be perceived as aggressive by other road users.
Of the specific behaviours cited as causing aggressive driving, it was noted that
some of the behaviours listed may not necessarily be deemed aggressive when
considered in isolation and out of context, e.g. slow driving, misuse of indicators or
speeding. Hence, the decision was made to title these contributing behaviours as errors
in judgement, and/or violations. For example, a driver exceeding the speed limit on a
highway by 10km/h, may not necessarily be considered aggressive. However, should
that driver then intentionally change lanes frequently without indicating, their behaviour
may be considered aggressive by others.
Speeding itself doesnt annoy me, if they are just going past (FT3)
but it does annoy me when they start to cut in and out (FG3)
Alternatively, the act of slow driving is not necessarily aggressive if not
intentional or possibly explained by other factors such as the age of the driver. For
example, elderly drivers that drive slowly are generally not considered aggressive, but
rather more frustrating or annoying:
Older slow drivers when you are at a green light and it takes them about five
seconds to realise (the light has changed). Ooh, that annoys me, oh I hate
that (MR3)
Therefore, there appear to be complex processes that influence the perception of
other driver behaviour as aggressive. As such, the on-road situational factors cited by
participants were, in the main, furnished in situational context when asked to reflect
upon their personal experiences with on-road aggression. This is consistent with
previous research that emphasises the influence of context upon on-road situational
factors that contribute to aggressive driving behaviour (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar,
1998).
4.3.4.2 Facilitating Factors
In response to the questions identified in Section 4.3.2, a series of facilitating
factors that appear to influence the likelihood of aggressive driving were also identified.
113
Through previous research many of these factors have been found to provide the
situational background for aggressive driving behaviour (Section 2.2 and 2.3).
4.3.4.2.1 Type of Vehicle.
A number of participants (n = 35, 74%) spoke about vehicle characteristics they
believe contribute to aggressive driving behaviour. General reference was made to the
size of vehicles typically involved in this behaviour. Their comments spoke of how the
size of a vehicle may enhance or detract from a drivers personal sense of security as
well as influence the likelihood of involvement in aberrant driving behaviours.
Other participants also referred to instances of young drivers mechanically
modifying their vehicles to enhance speed and performance. In such cases, the activity
of mechanically enhancing vehicles appears to serve as a social interaction or hobby for
the young drivers involved.
Participant observations concerning vehicle appearance, the size of the vehicle
and enhanced mechanics were made with reference to young, male drivers only. A
number of participants made reference to the specific characteristics of vehicles and how
they may facilitate aggressive driving behaviours (see Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 References made to vehicle characteristics
Vehicle
Characteristics
Size of Vehicle
Quotes
I drive a little car too and I think there are stereotypes about people that drive certain cars
and how you treat them(FN2)
I think the type of car you drive will help you feel safe and maybe make it easier to
respond aggressively to another driver (MD1)
Make of Vehicle
Modified Vehicles
I just think that it is because they are larger and they take advantage of the size of the
vehicle (MJ22)
if it is a Holden and I drive a Ford I really want to overtake them and Ill speed up and
change lanes to do it. (MJ12)
My brother and his mates they just love cars. They are always doing something to them
and working on them to hot them up. I hate driving with them they drive really
recklesslyWhat they do to their cars to make them go faster and stuff is ridiculous.
(MP2)
...there is this group called downshift that drive modified cars & every Sunday afternoon
theyd meet & drive down the Gold Coast & late at night when its not too busythey line
up four cars across (the road) & have these massive races on the highway.(MA2)
114
Several references were also made to the specific make or type of vehicle
influencing driver involvement in aggressive behaviours: four wheel drives, larger
vehicles such as trucks and buses, and taxis. These results are represented under
vehicle appearance in Figure 4.2. The quotes in Table 4.2 typify participant
comments. These findings are also noted to be suggestive of a lack of respect for other
road users.
Table 4.2 Types of vehicles identified as being more likely to be involved in aggressive
driving
Type of
Vehicle
Quotes
Four Wheel
Drive
it is people with things to prove, like four-wheel drives love driving up

your (expletive) and just giving it to you. Proving they are bigger than you
are (MP2)
Trucks and
Buses
especially trucks. If you are in front of them, by law they are to let you in,
but they just think I am 20 times bigger than you. Ill just go straight over the
top of you. (MR3)
a lot of people, like cabbies, have no respect for you on the road or for the
road rules (FM5)
Taxis
4.3.4.2.2 Type of Road.

Nine focus group participants cited congestion as either a cause of aggressive
driving or as generating feelings of anger that may contribute to aggressive driving.
Table 4.3 presents the findings concerning the characteristics of the road environment
associated with aggressive driving.
As reflected in the examples given in Table 4.3, congestion appears to be more
common during peak hour periods and in built-up areas. City driving, in general, was
reported as a contributing factor to aggressive driving by seven participants. As
congestion and a greater number of road users are more commonplace in the cities, it
may be that aggressive driving behaviours may be also.
Among these seven responses, some five participants further qualified their
responses explaining that repeated exposure to city driving seems to increase a drivers
tolerance for aberrant driving behaviour (see Table 4.3).
115
Table 4.3 Type of road characteristics identified as typically associated with

aggressive driving
Road
Characteristics
Congested
Quotes
traffic is really bad on Friday afternoonas much as you are excited
about the weekend, you wonder why do I have to deal with a traffic jam to
get to that weekend. (FK4)
I was so pissed off from driving so far, and the traffic I had to contend
with, and the people I had to contend with. (FC3)
City Roads
I used to (have a response) when I first started to (drive in the city), but
now its frustrating. What really frustrates me actually is when you get
stuck in traffic and then there is somebody else behaving badly and all you
think is will this ever end? wow, I have got to change jobs. (FJ4)
But everyone tailgates, its pretty normal in the city. (FA1)
Roadworks/Delays
I hate driving in town and I go maybe once every three months. When I am
in town people cut me off and I get real fired up and drivers just make me
ropable. (MS5)
when I first started driving it was just around home and I guess little
things people did would get to me, but now I do more city driving and I
guess you have to be an aggressive driver to drive in the cityI guess that
you get used to itand if you need to get where you need to be I think you
have to be an aggressive driveryou just get used to bad behaviour
continuously. (FK4)
Repeated Exposure
It (frustration) goes up. Because when they were in H Street, and they
are doing the whole road there, it took me a good hour to get up there and
back down and people will not let you in. It drives me mad its
frustrating. (FK5)
11
Another road condition that may give rise to feelings of frustration and/or anger
is delays caused by roadworks (refer to Table 4.3). A number of participants spoke of
their frustration and/or anger when confronted with roadworks and subsequent delays.
Four of these participants, however, also specified that had they known in advance about
the delays, they would not have felt as annoyed or frustrated. Perhaps this highlights
that it may be the unexpected nature of delays that contribute to feelings of anger and
frustration. Some participants also suggested they would have taken alternative routes to
avoid the delays if possible.
116
With roadworks, I find it annoying if its unexpected, but if I know roadworks

are there I would be more tolerant and patient. (MA5)
I knew there was going to be traffic. When they were doing the roadwork at
Bald Hills, I would quite often go through Albany Creek to get therebut half
the time I would forget and then I would be held up by roadwork, then be fuming
at myself more than anything. (MA6)
Finally, participant responses also revealed that certain driving behaviours such
as speeding and tailgating may be considered particularly anger-provoking on specific
types of roads e.g. suburban roads (n = 2).
Speeding. Its the biggest one, it makes me angry, definitely. If I see it in the
suburbs, it makes me really angry.(FS1)
I think it depends on the kinds of roadif its a country road you, you
(normally) let them pass you if you are out for a drive, by just slowing down a
bit. You wonder why so many people dont just overtake you if they are that way
(in a hurry) and they sit so close to you and they are aggro. (MA6)
4.3.4.2.3 Vehicles On-Road and Pace of Living.
Earlier reference to congestion on certain types of roads is also consistent with
the participants general references to the increasing number of vehicles on the road.
Table 4.4 presents statements relevant to these findings.
The perception of an increased number of vehicles on the road was considered a
contributing factor to aggressive driving. Participant responses suggest that the
increased number of vehicles using the roads added to feelings of urgency, pressure or
frustration. Expanding on this concept, three participants referred to a sense that the
general pace of living had increased, manifesting in a common perception that people
are always in a hurry.
117
Table 4.4 Perceived increase in number of vehicles on the road and increased pace of
living
Characteristics
Increase in
Vehicles on Road
Quotes
n
(15%)
Maybe its just that there are more cars on the roads and having to go over the
same amount of roadway. (FS1)
too many people using the road, too many people driving, so you get frustrated
(MA2)
Increased Pace of
Living
I think that people are just really in a hurry these days and the roads are busy and
you drive like you are reacting to pressure, like you need to get somewhere in a
hurry. (FT3)
They are frustrated, hurried, pressured and in some people it comes out in the way
they drive. (MD1)
4.3.4.2.4 Time Pressure.

A similar theme was reflected in response to the question, What do you think
are the main causes of aggressive driving? A number of participants spoke of time
pressure (n = 16, 35%). Table 4.5 outlines participant findings and relevant themes
identified as time pressure.
Table 4.5 Role of time pressure
Effect
General
Quotes
I think it is one of the main causes of aggressive drivingwhether or not they are
late. I think that contributes to aggressive driving on the road. (MD3) (Quote 1)
16
Behaviour
Influence
time constraints. As well, people tend to be rushing so they drive aggressively

or extremely, changing lanes etc... (MJ3) (Quote 2)
Perception
of Goal
Blocking
I was running late the other morning and that really annoys me that they dont
travel the speed limit that they are supposed to. (FN4) (Quote 3)
Especially, when you are in a rush to get somewhere and someone is holding
you up. You drive as quickly (as you can), and take every opportunity and space
to move quicker.(FK3) (Quote 4)
5
Like if I am running late for work and there has been someone that is pissing me
off by going really slow (MP6) (Quote 5)
..If Im doing the speed limit or even a little bit above and Ive got someone right
behind me...right on my tail, I get really annoyed and I put my brakes on & slow
down & let them know (about the annoyance) in that way (FG3) (Quote 6)
118
Time pressure, frequently mentioned as running late, was expressed as a

causal contributor to aggressive driving (refer to Table 4.5, Quote 1). Under time
pressure, participants indicated that a driver may increase their travelling speed and/or
frequently change lanes (n = 8) (Quote 2). Participants also made reference to the
contribution of time pressure to an increased likelihood of perceiving other driver
behaviour as goal blocking i.e. causing delays to their journey (Quotes 3 and 4). It was
also noted in participant responses that time pressure commonly elicits feelings of
agitation or frustration (Quote 5). Additionally, when a driver feels pressed for time and
is then faced with a perceived provocation or goal blocking behaviour, participant
responses suggest these feelings are amplified and may result in the increased likelihood
of an aggressive behavioural response (Quote 6).
4.3.4.2.5 Passenger Effect.
The mood state of young drivers also appears to be readily influenced by the
presence of passengers (refer to Table 4.6). A number of participants (n = 10) spoke of
the social influence of peer passengers upon driving behaviour (Table 4.6). These
results suggested that the presence of peers may have a negative impact upon driving
behaviour, particularly for young males. Alternatively, two participants spoke of a
positive influence upon their driving behaviour when the passenger was older.
Table 4.6 The influence of passengers upon driving behaviour

Effect
Peers
Quotes
a lot to do with peer groupsin front of their (male drivers)

friends they just have to prove that they can go faster and try to do
burn outs as soon as they have their friends in the car its like
they have to impress them and they go nuts and drive way too fast and
try to overtake and beat everyone.(FK2)
Its also like your friends and peers as well. I guess its like you
cant actually let them see that your car is gutless, or that you are a
woosy driver.(MA2)
10
You might just drive faster if youve got your mates in the car, and
you are stuffin around and yelling out the window and stuff. (MP6)
Others
Dad was in the car so I wouldnt dare speed. It made me a bit

nervous really. I wanted to overtake the truck, but I felt him looking
at me he just wouldnt approve. (MA5)
119
4.3.4.2.6 Temperature.
Another factor cited by two participants as a contributing factor to aggressive
driving behaviour was temperature.
you get angry because you are hot and sweaty and feeling
uncomfortable so you just want to get out of there. (FC22)
4.3.4.2.7 Music.
A few participants (n = 3) mentioned loud or up-beat music as possibly making a
contribution to the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviours (refer to Table 4.7). It
was observed that listening to such music may affect the speed at which a driver is
travelling, potentially through excitatory effects. Conversely four participants spoke of
the possible influence of music as a form of relaxation in traffic.
Table 4.7 Influence of music upon driving behaviour
Effect
Excitation
Calming
Quotes
.maybe the music you listen to. If you listen to fast music
sometimes it makes me go a bit faster. (MB26)
.if I am running late for work, I put some tunes on. (MR4)
.your favourite song or something funny comes on then you forget
about it again. (FT14)
4
4.3.5 Person-Related Factors

4.3.5.1 State Factors
4.3.5.1.1 Mood.
A number of participants (n = 12) spoke in general terms of the mood that drivers
bring to the on-road environment. Nine references were made to the way in which mood
influences on-road driving behaviour with the possibility of increasing the likelihood of
aggressive driving. Specifically, participants spoke of mood contributing to speeding (n
= 7) and aberrant driving behaviour (n = 2). Table 4.8 outlines the cited effects of
mood on driving behaviour and their frequency within the sample.
Reference was also made to poor mood having the potential to increase the
likelihood of perceiving other driver behaviour as anger-provoking or aggressive.
120
Further, it was suggested that ones mood may influence the way in which one responds
to various on-road situations.
Table 4.8 Participant responses relating to influence of mood upon driving behaviour
Resultant Effect
Speeding
Aberrant Driving
Perception of
Aggression
Quotes
if I have had a problem at home and Im driving, I just try to go

as fast as I can to get from one place to another, and if I am in a
rough kind of mood I try to catch as many lights as possible as
quickly as possible.(MA5)
Its alsothe mood you are in. Sometimes if you are angry you
will just do whatever it takes to get to your destination. (MB6)
like if you are trying to catch the train or something and youre
lateyou think everybodys trying to hold you up and you get
really annoyedonly because you are coming from the mood you
are in. (FK2)
a lot to do with moodsome things wouldnt bother you on
another day, but someone failing to indicate on this sort of day may
result in aggression because youre in a bad mood mood has a
lot to do with how you deal with situations that come up on the
road. (FC1)
4.3.5.1.2 Life-Stress.
Whereas current mood may be a more transient state of being, life stress is
generally more persistent, although not normally permanent. A number of focus group
participants (n = 11) spoke of life-stress as a contributing factor/cause of aggressive
driving. Table 4.9 outlines the comments associated with the influence of life-stress and
its potential impact on aggressive driving behaviours.
A number of participant (n = 9) references to life-stress and its impact on driving
behaviour were of a general nature (see Table 4.9). Many of these suggested that lifestress tends to make drivers less patient, increasing their preparedness for aggression on
the road.
121
Table 4.9 Life-stress and potential impacts upon aggressive driving

Resultant Effect
General
Quotes
People that are constantly tense in their lives, constantly stressed.

That would effect their driving.(FJ5)
frustration and anger coming out in all parts of peoples lives and
the road is just another way of showing it. (MD1)
Most of it (aggressive driving) results from stress of life
and impatience. (MR3)
I think people are stressed. Add a bad day they will be more agro on
the roadand more frustrated. People that are frustrated drive
erratically as well (FM5
11
4.3.5.1.3 Job Stress.

A number of participants (n = 9) referred to work related stress and its perceived
impact upon the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviours (see Table 4.10).
According to participants, job related stress brought to the on-road environment is likely
to increase internalised feelings of frustration/anger with the behaviour of other
drivers, increasing ones preparedness for on-road aggression. Two participants
suggested that recurrent thoughts, or rumination, about the stressful event/episode
reduced the amount of attention paid to the on-road environment.
Table 4.10 Participant responses relating to job stress

Resultant Effect
General
Quotes
If you have had a really bad day at work or something has just
happened and it really (expletive) you off, you tend to arc up really
quickly with people (MB26)
Youre tired, then going to work, then getting (expletive) off from
work, and then getting cut off (MA6)
The foregoing results suggest that under the affects of job stress, driver
behaviour may be negatively influenced. Perhaps this is due to ruminating about the
source of stress, which reduces attention to the on-road environment. Alternatively, it
122
may suggest that, due to stress, such drivers are more likely to participate in dangerous
driving behaviours such as speeding or cutting off, which may be considered aggressive
by other road users.
4.3.5.1.4 Driving Stress.
Four participants made general reference to driving stress and its effect on
aggressive driving behaviour (see Table 4.11). Participant responses intimated that this
stress can result in a heightened attention to the on-road behaviour of other road users.
Table 4.11 Participant responses relating to driving stress

Quotes
General
I think driving in itself is a really stressful thing to do. Im

always on the lookout for bad drivers(MB26)
driving can be stressful, because you are watching
everyone else because your life can be taken in a
second.(FM5)
4.3.5.2 Trait Factors

In addition to the state person-related characteristics, a driver brings to the onroad environment trait characteristics which are more enduring and/or permanent aspects
of their person or psychology e.g. age, gender, personality and general attitudes.
4.3.5.2.1 Age and Gender.
A number of participants (n = 11) spoke generally about a perceived lack of
patience and tolerance among younger drivers on the road. This lack of patience is
believed to contribute to feelings of frustration and anger being experienced by other
more experienced drivers, sometimes resulting in aggressive driving behaviours. Within
this group, six individuals spoke of a lack of driving skills and ability due to
inexperience, inherent in the young driver group (refer to Table 4.12). Coupled with a
lack of skills or abilities, it was suggested by two participants that young male drivers in
particular, drive as if nothing adverse will ever happen to them.
With reference to the young driver group, four participants emphasised young
male drivers and their involvement in aggressive driving behaviours (see Table 4.12).
Reference was also made to older drivers as a potential source of frustration and/or
123
anger on the roads (see Table 4.12). Specifically, participants referred to elderly drivers
as driving too slowly or having reduced ability and judgement whilst driving. As such,
this may indicate a lack of tolerance by young drivers for elderly road users.
Table 4.12 Perceptions of young drivers and other road users

Theme
Inexperience
Quotes
I think its a general lack of tolerance by drivers. They dont have
any patienceI think they should have more understanding and
patience for learner drivers. (FN2)
Inexperience with drivingwell, my brother is inexperienced and
he has had his licence for about a month and he thinks he is
invincible, and he smashed his car up. A lot of my friends they get
their licence and automatically think they can drive on the roads
doing whatever they want. I think its inexperience that has a lot to
do with behaviour. (FT14)
Young Males
a lot of my friends can drive aggressively without losing total

control, like there might be danger to others on the road, but I think
that is labelled as aggressive driving. (MT4)
I think its a male thing to do. (FT24)
Older Drivers
And when you get stuck behind a car and they are old and they are
doing 40 and its a 60k zone and god that annoys me. (FL5)
old people in the wrong lanesI hate that. (FT14)
These findings suggest that many drivers make frequent use of stereotypes in the
interpretation of other driver behaviour. Indeed, the young drivers in the sample
tended to maintain that they are more likely to be treated with intolerance and
impatience on the road.
4.3.5.2.2 Personality.
In keeping with previous traffic research, participants (n=8) also referred to an
innate propensity among some drivers to behave aggressively when driving (Table 4.13,
Quote 1) (Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000; Deffenbacher,
Lynch, Filetti, Dahlen, & Oetting, 2003). A trait disposition for aggression is considered
a facet of personality (Quote 2). It was also suggested by six participants that
personality may contribute to an individuals willingness to interpret aberrant driving
124
behaviours as intentional as opposed to merely an error, illustrated by Quote 3, Table

4.13.
Table 4.13 Participant references to personality tendencies for aggressive driving
behaviour
Quote
Number
Quotes
I think you can think of driving behaviour as like an expression of

personality. (FC12)
People who are aggressivelike people that are aggressive when they are
driving they dont care about what they are doing and whether it might
hurt some other person or cause someone to have an accident. (FN2)
I think a lot of it depends on the actual personwhether you are a calm

person and more likely to think that what they did was just a mistake, and
whether you are ready to forgive that, realising that other drivers do make
mistakes. (MA5)
4.3.5.2.3 Prior Learning.

Seven participants spoke of their prior exposure to perceived risk factors for
aggression that may contribute to aggressive driving behaviour (refer to Table 4.14).
As indicated at Table 4.14 (Quote 1), one participant spoke of her personal
exposure to aggression and violence in her family of origin. In the focus group, this
participant also reported that she had perpetrated an act of highly aggressive driving,
which resulted in a serious road crash. This particular incident will be discussed in
more depth in Section 4.3.5.3.
Table 4.14 Prior exposure to aggression cited by participants
Quotes
Family
My dad is an angry manand he was hard to live with, he was so angry all the time. Dad
is a redhead Scot, he is violent, so violent. He lashes out all the time. (FL5) (Quote 1)
Other Aggressive
Drivers
I think it is if you have always driven with people who suffer road rage or are unruly
behind the wheel, then perhaps you are going to be as well. (FC3) (Quote 2)
Television
He would watch sports on TV and probably learning from ithe would go and do
doughies and he got busted by the cops (once) and he never did that again. (MG4)
(Quote 3)
2
4
125
4.3.5.2.4 General Attitudes About Other Drivers.

In addition to the responses outlined at Figure 4.2, the question What do you
think are the main causes of aggressive driving? unveiled a theme, which has been
labelled general attitudes. These attitudes re-emerged intermittently when
participants were asked What do you think aggressive driving is? and , Specifically,
what was it that prompted your feelings/behaviour?. Table 4.15 presents a list of the
general attitudes of other drivers identified by participants as contributing to aggressive
driving behaviour.
Table 4.15 General attitudes of the other driver

General Attitudes
n
Lack of care and consideration
29
Intolerance
General lack of courtesy
10
Antagonism
12
Inattention
10
Impatience
12
Rudeness
Lack of driving knowledge/skill
13
Bullying
Misjudgement of timing
Intimidating
Recklessness
12
Stupidity
10
4.3.5.3 General Transfer of Emotion to the On-Road Environment

Initially, in an open question directed to each focus group, participants were
asked can you think of an instance where you got into your car upset/tense or angry?
As an extension of the exploration of RQ1, this question was aimed at exploring the
potential for transfer of emotions to the on-road environment. A total of 18 participants
indicated that they had experienced a transfer of off-road generated stress to the on-road
environment. They were then asked how it had affected their subsequent on-road
behaviour. Table 4.16 outlines relevant quotes amongst the responses.
126
Table 4.16 Sources of off-road emotion transferred to the on-road environment

Source of Off-Road
Emotion
Argument with
Significant Other
Quotes
Having had an argument with my partner, I felt really enraged
Im sure I was going faster than I needed tobreaked harder and
drove faster, generally just threw the car around a bit more. Just drove
a little harder. (MD1)
Just recently on Sunday I had a disagreement with my boyfriend
before going out and as I was driving to the city I was just not
concentrating, just going into robot mode driving, while I was just
thinking about the argument and I realised I just wouldnt have noticed
if (something had happened). (FC22)
Driving to Reduce
Stress
Bad day at Work
Running Late for

Work/Appointment
Fatigue
I can get in the car and Im driving and I calm down. (FN4)
I find to go fast is good stress release. (FJ5)
I had left Uni and I had had a really bad day. I just wanted to get
home, so I was speeding. I remember thinking I felt like I was driving
aggressively. (FJ4)
When you are in a rush to get somewhere and someone is holding

you up. You drive as quickly as you can, and take every opportunity
and space to move quicker. (FK3)
I think sleep deprivation. People that work shift and dont get
enough sleep. I think my driving ability went down when I was on
night shift and my tolerance for other drivers as well. (MB26)
Among the off-road causes that were reported to have affected their on-road
behaviours were:
having argued with a significant other;
driving with the intention of reducing stress; and,
having had a bad day in general.
In many cases these factors resulted in feelings of tension and/or emotional

disturbance that resulted in the participant worrying or ruminating about the trigger
event whilst driving. The emotional upset and rumination, in turn, may have affected
their on-road driving behaviour with participants reporting the use of increased speed,
steering aggressively and subsequent sudden lane changes. Many of these participants
also admitted that they had paid insufficient attention to the on-road environment and
had little, or no, care for other road users.
127
These reactions were also reported in response to feeling under pressure, when
running late for work/appointment (n = 6). Another two participants reported feeling
fatigued having worked for an extended period, resulting in heightened levels of
irritability.
Two participants indicated that although they believed they had transferred their
negative emotions to the on-road environment, they became more vigilant about the onroad environment. They also reported attempts to reduce the negative affect. For
example:
but I think it actually made me more careful about my driving. I didnt want
to have an accident. So I put the issue out of my head and tried to focus on the
road and the music on the radio. (FJ1)
4.3.5.4 Transfer of On-Road Generated Stress to the Off-road Environment
The final focus group questions posed to each group were:
Following an aggressive driving incident, have any of you felt

upset/tense or angry after you finished driving?; and,
How did this affect your off-road behaviour?
Eight participants believed they had not experienced any spill-over affect to the
off-road environment. However, a total of 28 participants reported that they had felt
upset, frustrated/angry after having finished a journey in which they had experienced
aggressive driving. Specifically, some of these participants (n = 13) suggested that the
on-road incident negatively affected their mood off-road. For example:
when I feel upset or angry on the roads I think I am grumpy also out of the
car. (FS1)
I think it effects how you are towards other people. (FK4)
Five of these participants suggested that the resultant negative affect had
impacted on subsequent interpersonal interactions, though not markedly. Three female
participants reported feeling upset to the extent that they were reluctant to drive the
following day.
128
It should be noted however, that a large proportion of participants (n = 19) spoke

of what may be considered coping strategies (see Table 4.17). Six participants
reported feeling substantially better having discussed the incident with family or friends,
whilst eight spoke of improved affect upon arrival at their destination e.g. home.
However, one participant admitted to going to a hotel after his journey as a way of
reducing his stress. Three participants reported having put the incident out of their mind
upon alighting from their vehicle and/or commencing another task (see Table 4.17).
Table 4.17 Coping strategies adopted following an aggressive driving incident

Coping Strategies
Discussing with
Family or Friends
Arrival at
Destination
Quotes
Usually, once I talk about it I am fine. (MR3)
I think as soon as you get home you walk in the door and for meit all
goes over your head, youre home, youre safe, youre happy. Its your
home. (FT14)
Sometimes you might have a bit of road rage and you go home and shut
your door on your car and you are fine. (MT4)
Commencement of
Other Tasks
you know, you go into routine (when you arrive at work) and start
your jobits only while I am in the car and its happening. (FN4)
Finally, in the exploration of the transfer of on-road generated emotion to the offroad environment, eight participants alluded to an accumulation of negative affect. For
example:
The bad traffic on the way to work and then you have a bad day at work and
then traffic on the way homeit just adds up. (FJ4)
4.3.6 Personal Experiences with Aggressive Driving
Participants were asked to recall a personal experience with aggressive driving
behaviour. They were free to recount an experience as either a victim or the
perpetrator. Responses were anticipated to add to the information gathering relating to
RQ1 as well as RQ2, which aims at exploring the characteristics of those drivers more
129
likely to engage in aggressive driving. The following section is guided by the main
principles of the GAM as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
4.3.6.1 Victims or Perpetrators
When asked to contribute their personal experience with aggressive driving, 23
participants (9 males and 14 females) cited instances where they themselves were the
victim of aggressive driving behaviour. Twenty-one participants (10 females and 11
males) were able to recall instances where they perceived themselves the perpetrator.
The decision to categorise a participants role as either victim or perpetrator of
aggressive driving was based on the behaviour adopted and the level of intent to engage
in such behaviour. However, this was not difficult or demanding as the recalled events
and participants role in the incident were self-evident.
Fourteen participants initially attempted to reassure the researcher that they were
passive drivers or not at all likely to become aggressive on the roads, indicating a
desire to be perceived positively. However, despite their claims, use of probing
questions revealed that most of these participants had an experience to recount as either
the victim or the perpetrator. For example:
I sort of class myself as a passive driver, my friends call me driving Miss
Daisy. (some time later in response to another question, the same participant
responded)
If I am driving and someone really pisses me off by cutting in on me, I will
catch up with them or flash my lights at them or give them the royal salute.
(FN4)
4.3.6.2 Type of Road
Within the personal accounts of aggressive driving, not only were city and
suburban roads (n = 24) cited as the location for the incident, but highways (n = 10) and
country roads (n = 3) were cited in a number of incidents. This may suggest that
although aggressive driving may be more prevalent on city or suburban roads, it can
occur on all types of roads.
130
4.3.6.3 On-road Behavioural Causes

The following behavioural causes were elicited in response to the question:
Can you think of an instance where you may have acted angrily on the
road or responded angrily to someone?
These figures include both victim and perpetrator accounts. The occurrence rates
for on-road precipitating behaviours cited in the personal recounts are recorded in Table
4.18.
Table 4.18 On-road precipitating behaviours from personal experiences with
aggressive driving
Precipitating Behaviours
Failure to stop/give way
12
Tailgating
11
Cutting in/off
Speeding
Getting out of vehicle
Delay at lights/signs
Not allowing merge
Overtaking
Slow driving
High-beam flashing
Misuse/lack of indicator
Horn honking
As was anticipated, the cited behaviours were similar to those behaviours

outlined in Figure 4.2. The most frequently cited behaviours were failing to stop/give
way, tailgating, and cutting-off. Most often, participants cited these behaviours in
combinations. These findings are consistent with the earlier, general causes identified
131
by the focus groups. When one or more facilitating factors are combined, the likelihood
of these behaviours being perceived as aggressive by an observer appeared to increase.
There were some specific instances where participants perpetrated aggressive
driving without any apparent on-road provocation. These instances were explored by a
later question relating to the transfer of aggression from the off-road environment to the
on-road environment. Therefore, given the absence of specific on-road causes in these
cases, six personal accounts from the perpetrator perspective have not been included in
the results at Table 4.19.
Further to exploring the behavioural causes, participants were asked to recall
specifically what it was about the other drivers behaviour that prompted their feelings
of frustration or anger (see Table 4.19). A number of participants (n = 6) cited the actual
behaviour as the catalyst for their feelings. However, the majority of participants cited
factors that indicate a strong interpersonal element (refer to Table 4.19). For example,
three participants reported that their feelings of anger were triggered specifically by their
frustration with the inability to communicate adequately from within the confines of a
vehicle and associated feelings of being misunderstood (Table 4.19).
Other participants indicated their feelings were prompted by the dangerousness
of the situation (n = 6) (Table 4.19) and associated feelings of threat, fear or shock (n =
5). Another three participants reported similar feelings being triggered by the other
driver intending to or actually alighting from his vehicle (Table 4.19).
Interestingly, ten participants spoke of their feelings of anger being triggered
specifically by the attitude of the other driver (Table 4.19). They spoke freely of the
other driver being rude, cocky or pushy. These attitudes were apparently detected by
participants through verbal abuse (n = 7) and by the facial expressions of the other
driver (n = 6). Further, three of the participants spoke of feeling specifically harassed
or pressured by the other driver. For example:
I feared for our safety and maybe a bit pressured by him. (MA2)
I felt pressured not to wait and I was a bit shaken after that (FT3)
These findings suggest that negative on-road interactions may trigger feelings of
frustration, anger, threat or fear in young drivers.
132
Table 4.19 Frustrating or anger-provoking behaviour of other drivers

Quotes
Inability to
Communicate
Effectively
They finally moved over (lanes). They had been quite aggressive
toward me before that. they thought I was trying to give them trouble.
I was just trying to communicate with them. (FA1)
Sense of
Dangerousness
Bit to do with anger and the fact that my adrenaline was pumping
because I was nearly involved in an accidentbecause 2/3km down the
road I started shaking a little bit. (MN3)
Alighting from
Vehicle
he was still going off at me for ages and I was going oh, you
shouldnt have been speeding anyway, and he said pull over, so I
pulled over. Then he went in front of me and stopped (to get out) and I
indicated to pull over but I just sped off instead, then I thought oh, my
gosh he might come after me, so I did 120. (FQ6)
Not so much the beeping and the flashing, but when he actually got out
of the car, it was really scary. (MA2)
Perceived Attitude
of Other Driver
Just that he was so smart and so sure (of himself), and I didnt want a
bar of it (MP2)
Apart from thumbing his nose at usit was pretty much close to an
accident as well. (MP6)
because he was flying around the roundabout and looked back and
smiled at me. So he knew what he had done, and he was just being a real
pig. That was pretty damn rude. The look is what made me really
angry. (FM5)
10
4.3.6.4 Pre-event Emotional State

As mood or present internal state have been highlighted as relevant to
aggressive behavioural responses in general (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), young
drivers were asked how they were feeling immediately prior to their personal encounter
with aggressive driving. This question was intended to extend exploration of RQ1
examining what emotions, if any, participants bought to the on-road situation and RQ5
about the emotional and cognitive processes involved in aggressive driving.
Eight participants were unable to recall details of any specific feelings prior to
the on-road incident and 26 individuals recalled feeling fine before the incident. It is
interesting to note that three of the latter participants indicated slightly higher levels of
133
positive emotion generated by a pending social event, singing along to music, and
cruising with others respectively, as shown in Table 4.20.
Table 4.20 Above average positive emotions reported prior to the event
Due to
Quote
Pending Social
Event
I was coming home from work and I was going to a friends 18th
birthday party that night. So(I felt) pretty good actually. (FA1)
Listening to
Music
(I felt) fine, the music was cranked and I was hitting the toeso
great. (MP6)
Cruising with
Others
Just cruising. Travelling on with my brother, pretty groovy

(MP2)
When participants reported a negative emotional state prior to the incident the
source of that stress was explored. Eleven participants reported being upset, tense or
angry prior to exposure to the provocative trigger and the generation of subsequent
feelings. Within this group, six respondents also spoke of feeling a little nervous about
driving prior to the on-road incident. Examination of their driving experience data
revealed that these participants were all newly licensed.
A further three participants reported feeling pressured as they were running late,
whilst four participants reported having had an argument with a significant other prior
to the aggressive driving incident. This latter group reportedly experienced heightened
emotionality and/or anger, and these participants accounted for some of the more
extreme aggressive driving incidents.
4.3.6.5 Range of Emotions Experienced
Participants were asked to recall the range of feelings they experienced
throughout the recalled aggressive driving incident. Table 4.21 presents quotes that
illustrate some of these findings. A wide range of emotional responses to other driver
behaviours was identified by participants as the primary emotion.
Some of these emotions were felt in combination or in succession (refer to Table
4.22). For example, prior to the experience of these feelings, twelve participants
reported that they had felt harassed or pressured (n = 4), nervous (n = 2), worried about
safety (n = 2), offended (n = 1) or generally upset (n = 3).
134
Table 4.21 Range of primary emotions experienced

Range of Primary Emotions (n)
annoyed (11)
scared (11)
frustrated (3)
enraged (1)
angry (20)
excited (3)
shocked (10)
After their behavioural response three participants reportedly experienced feeling

a sense of satisfaction or pride (n = 3) (refer to Table 4.22).
Table 4.22 Participant comments associated with range of emotions
Emotions
Experienced
Combined
Emotions
Quotes
(It had) a bit to do with anger and the fact that my adrenaline was
pumping because I was nearly involved in an accident. About 2/3 km
down the road I started shaking a bit. (MN3)
My friends were hanging over the back thinking oh hes a bit cute, so
there was a bit of that going onlike speed up girls the guy in the back
is hot. At the beginning it was a bit of fun, but it became something
elseI was quite livid. (FC3)
Satisfaction or
Pride
N/A
A bit smug, a little sense of pleasure. I didnt think I was

endangering them. I was just annoying them back. (MD1)
I felt only a bit nervous, but quite proud of myself. (FB6)
4.3.6.6 Cognitions During the Incident

Asked if during the incident participants recalled having any particular thoughts,
many were able to recall the main thrust of their thoughts (refer Table 4.23). A larger
number of participants (n = 28) recalled having made immediate negative appraisals
about the other driver.
In addition, ten participants recalled being primarily focused on the action they
intended taking (Table 4.23). These thoughts focussed on getting back at the
offending driver. Among these recollections were thoughts including physical abuse.
Other participants recalled thinking of how to remove themselves from the potential
135
source of danger (n = 2). For others the danger involved was their sole focus (see Table
4.23).
Five participants reported having what could be termed as checking thoughts
(refer to Table 4.23). Such thoughts reflected that some participants were more likely to
reflect on their driving behaviour at the time of the incident, or upon their good fortune
at having avoided involvement in an accident. This may be an indication that some
participants tend to be more positive and/or reflective in their assessment of problematic
situations. A further five participants reported relatively neutral thoughts during the onroad incident. These thoughts appeared to be non-personal, potentially reflecting a lack
of interest in blaming either party.
Table 4.23 Cognitions associated with reported aggressive driving incidents
Cognitive
Themes
Negative
Attributions
Quotes
Who does this idiot think they are, moseying along and holding traffic up like this?
(FJ1)
Kind of like, yeh, sucked in. That is what was going through my mind (MR3)
Negative
Actions
28
she kept sitting real close and following me and there was nothing I could do about it,
but I thought to myselfalright, well Im going to let her know that (she) has annoyed
me. (FN2)
Yeh, Im going to get you a beauty. (FB6)
Escape/Danger
He was going off and I was thinking, oh (expletive). I was wondering if I could take
him (MA2)
10
I was thinking what can I do to not get caught (by the offending driver)? I was just
concentrating on trying to find the best way out of it, to get away. (MJ22)
I was just flooring it and Ive never done anything like that before. Really fastbut
even then I was thinking oh, this is so dangerous. (MR4)
2
Just how dangerous it was. (FC1)
Checking
Thoughts
I just thought I was pretty lucky I didnt have a crash (MJ12)

When it happened, I wondered what I was doing wrong, but I was driving a bit faster
than the speed limit so (MB16)
Neutral Thoughts
I wondered, why would you bother chasing someone that much? I just thought
why would you bother to go to that much effort when you cant really do anything
about it? (MJ22)
136
4.3.6.7 Behavioural Responses to On-Road Provocation

At this point in the research process it was considered appropriate to distinguish
between displaced, suppressed or outward expressions of aggression consistent with
other research about aggressive driving in an Australian population (Lawton & Nutter,
2002). Table 4.24 illustrates participant behavioural responses consistent with these
descriptors.
Indicative of on-road reactions, six participants cited behavioural responses that
could be interpreted as displacement of aggression. That is, despite the experience of
negative emotion, no on-road action was taken (see Table 4.24). The displacement was
considered necessary in three cases, due to fear that the event may escalate in severity.
Table 4.24: Behavioural responses adopted by participants in response to perceived

provocation in recalled aggressive driving incidents
Behavioural
Themes
Displaced
Aggression
Suppressed
Aggression
Quotes
I dont really know (what I had done). I was trying to get over into the
other lane and she wasnt going to let me. Next minute she was beside
me screaming at me
(Behavioural Response) - I tried hard not to laugh because she looked
funny with her mouth moving. She was saying enough for both of us.
(FC6)
I just think oh, you idiot and keep cruising along (MJ22)
I dont get aggressive very much, Im pretty happy all the time. I just
say good luck loser. (MC5)
Outward
Aggression
10
I jumped on the brakes, threw my car down two gears to stop the wheels
locking up, threw my hand onto the horn and put my lights up onto
highbeam. (MN3)
I was going about 50 up this hill and this guy came speeding up
behind me and sat right up my arse, and I looked in my rear-view
mirrorthen when we came down the hill and I thought hell yeh, Im
going to get you so bad right now and went even slower thenso I
intentionally went really slowly...as he went passed I gave him the
forks. (FB6)
30
137
A number of participants (n= 10) reported behavioural responses consistent with

suppressed aggression i.e. aggressive thoughts (n = 3) and/or verbalisations made with
no intent of the offending driver hearing it (n = 7). More female (n = 7) than male
drivers (n = 3) seem to participate in suppressed aggression in response to on-road
provocation. In the main, however, participants (n = 30) reported an outward
behavioural response to the on-road provocation (Table 4.24). Unexpectedly, more than
half of those who reportedly participated in outward expressions of aggressive behaviour
were female (16 females and 14 males). Table 4.25 outlines the frequency of the
specific outward behaviours adopted by participants. It should be noted that of the nine
behaviours reported, some of these occurred in combination.
Table 4.25 Outwardly aggressive behavioural responses to personal experiences with
aggressive driving
Tailgating
Overtaking
Speeding
Following of offending vehicle
Slow driving
Verbal abuse
Highbeam flashing
Horn honking
Gesticulating
When a participant had engaged in an outwardly aggressive behavioural

response, they were asked if that response could have been interpreted as aggressive by
others. A large portion of participants (n = 20) indicated that the behavioural response
138
they adopted could be considered aggressive, six participants did not believe their
behaviour could be considered aggressive, and five participants were unsure.
These participants were also asked if their behaviour was intentionally aimed at
the other driver. Eighteen participants reported that their behaviour was intentional,
consistent with the inclusion of intention in the provisional definition outlined in
Chapter Two. A total of 27 participants expressed that they felt justified in responding
as indicated.
4.3.6.8
Post-Event State
In an attempt to explore the duration of negative affect resulting from their on-
road aggressive driving experience and any possible influences upon subsequent
behaviour, participants were asked how they felt for the 15 minutes immediately
following the incident. They were also asked how they felt about the incident an hour
after the incident.
Four participants indicated that they had forgotten about the incident within 15
minutes of its occurrence. However, other participants reported a wide range of
emotions following the incident. In many instances participants reported that their
experience with aggressive driving resulted in the experience of more than one emotion.
For instance, 11 of the participants reported feeling annoyed or angry up to 15 minutes
immediately following the incident and six of them reported feeling simultaneously
upset, emotional or shaken during this time frame.
Three other participants cited feelings of relief at the potential danger having
passed, whilst two participants reported continuing to feel worried or frightened. A
further six participants reported feeling tense or wound up, and another two felt
excited.
Three participants reported feeling satisfied with having let the other driver
know they had behaved inappropriately on the road. It should be noted that as an
extension of these emotions, many participants (n=19) reported ruminating about the
event to some degree. For example:
I was just thinking about it and pretty angry still.(FM5)
139
When asked how they felt approximately one hour after the incident, a
considerable number of participants (n=25) reported not thinking of the incident again.
According to participant responses, this was primarily due to one or more of the
following:
having forgotten about the incident after arriving at their destination;
having commenced other tasks, such as work; and/or,
having spoken about it with a workmate, friend or family member.
Some of those participants who spoke with a friend or family member about the
incident reported temporarily re-experiencing the emotions to some degree. For
example:
I felt a bit wound up when I got home and I told everyone about it. (FK1)
Oh, I was still upset, but I wascalmerI could (still) see it happening.
Thinking everyone is going to die, because no-one would let me in. (FJ5)
Finally, six participants reported no change in their feelings for some time.
Without exception these individuals, usually the victim (n = 4), were those who had
been involved in more serious aggressive driving incidents which resulted in the
participant experiencing more intense negative emotions such as emotional upset or
shock accompanied with anger. For example, one participant who had been the victim
of a particular incident stated:
I called my grandparents about twenty minutes later and I was quite upset
about it. That feeling lasted quite a while. (FA1)
4.3.6.9 Personal Accounts of Off-Road Stress Brought to the On-Road Environment
These results were referred to briefly in Section 4.3.5.3 (p.148). When
specifically asked to recall a personal experience with aggressive driving behaviour, six
participants offered detailed personal accounts of how an off-road trigger had
substantially affected their mood and subsequent on-road behaviour. One of these
participants reported feeling hyped due to hanging with his friends and subsequently
cruising with them. Subsequently, an arguably minor transgression by another driver
140
prompted an aggressive response. This participant pursued and verbally abused the
other driver.
(Whilst merging into one lane and travelling with four mates)but he kept
going, to the point where I had to slam on my brakeseveryone in the car is just
hurling abuse at him, but he was gone. So we were driving along and about five
minutes later we saw him and we pulled up beside him. At that point the five
guys in the car are just OOOHso the windows went down and abuse was
hurled and we followed him for a while just because we had nothing better to do.
It wasnt like we had a destination to go to. (MP6)
Four of the participants offered accounts that had been triggered by an off-road
argument with a significant other. The resultant emotional affect was high levels of
frustration/anger, that in turn resulted in speeding and erratic driving behaviour. Three
of these participants were subsequently involved in motor vehicle crashes resulting in
personal injury and property damage. Two individuals who reported being involved in a
crash (1 male, 1 female) had been under the influence of alcohol and recreational drugs
respectively. These participants also reported having had little regard for other road
users at the time of the incident:
I nearly lost my life...I wrapped my car around a pole. I was on a lot of social
drugs, had an argument with my partnera big argument. It turned physical
and I decided to take the car and go driving. I wiped out a couple of cars, nearly
hit a few peopleI was pretty much just fried in my head I was so angry,
frustrated, smashing my hands on the steering wheel and came around the
corner and wrapped the car around a poleanyone that was in my way was
going to cop it. (FL5)
The major one. I had just had a fight with my girlfriend. I was drunkat a
rodeo and I decided to take off and done a few things (coppers followed me out
of the rodeo grounds and I didnt pull over, I just kept going) and lost my licence
for quite a while over that. I stopped after I hit them (with his vehicle) (MS5)
141
4.4 Discussion
This discussion is structured in accordance with the concept map outlined in
Figure 4.1. Where applicable, reference will be made to the relevant Research
Questions and how they have been addressed. A brief overview of the findings in
relation to the Research Questions is also outlined at Section 4.4.9 below.
4.4.1
Situational Factors
In relation to RQ1, the situational causes identified by this research do not differ
markedly from those identified in previous research (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar,
1998; VCCAV, 1999). The findings suggest that a combination of one or more
direct/indirect on-road situational factors increases the likelihood of on-road behaviour
being perceived as aggressive.
With reference to the general nature of the behavioural causes of aggressive
driving, participants indicated that if the behaviours outlined at Figure 4.2 are to be
considered aggressive they must also negatively impact upon, or have the potential to
negatively impact upon other road users. Moreover, when these behaviours are
perceived as being intentionally perpetrated they are then considered aggressive driving
behaviours. Thus, the results suggest that these behaviours may be considered
aggressive when an element of danger is involved and when the behaviour is perceived
to be intentionally adopted, consistent with the provisional definition of aggressive
driving at Section 2.2.5.3.
Driver perception of other vehicles is also a factor to be considered in aggressive
driving. Seventy-four per cent of participants spoke of specific types or characteristics
of vehicles they believe will be more readily identified with aggressive driving. For
instance, larger or mechanically modified vehicles were believed to increase the
likelihood of driver behaviours being identified as aggressive. Although some
participant comments could be considered no more than stereotypes, they are the
perceptions of the participants, and perception appears to play a pivotal role in
aggressive driving.
Fifteen per cent of young driver participants also perceived an increase in the
number of vehicles on the road, as well as a general increase in the pace of living,
suggesting that these perceptions contribute to the generation of frustration/anger
142
associated with road use and other driver behaviours (Shinar, 1998). Participant
comments related to driving whilst under time pressure indicated that young driver
behaviour may become more aggressive as they may use greater speed and overly
assertive behaviours to gain time. In addition, these drivers will more readily interpret
other driver behaviours as goal blocking, consistent with previous research (OBrien,
Watson, & Tay, 2005. Finally, as in other traffic related research, substantial evidence
was found of young driver behaviour being negatively influenced by the presence of
peer passengers (Doherty, Andrey, & MacGregor, 1998).
4.4.2 State and Trait, Person-Related Causes
The focus group participants reported a range of person-related factors
considered to influence aggressive driving, which provides interesting insights into RQ1
and RQ2. In the face of exposure to the factors identified, 26% of the participants
suggested that the state or mood a driver brings to the road has the potential to
influence driver perceptions of the facilitating factors as aggressive or otherwise. They
also suggested a temporary, negative mood state brought to the on-road environment
may increase the likelihood of dangerous driving practices. This is consistent with other
research (Matthews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991; Novaco et al., 1990). Negative mood also
appears to increase the likelihood of perceiving other driver behaviour as aggressive.
Longer lasting stress, such as life stress or employment stress, seems to have similar
effects upon driver perceptions and behaviour (Cartwright et al., 1996; Selzer &
Vinokur, 1975).
The results suggest that young drivers, as an at-risk group, may also tend to
ruminate about on and off-road stressors. Twenty-three per cent of the young drivers
reported thinking about their experience with on-road aggression for some time. A
number of participants also continued to think about off-road stressors whilst driving
(40%). As a consequence, ruminating drivers appear to pay reduced attention to the onroad environment. However, for some young drivers the effect of driving stress may, at
times, markedly increase the amount of attention paid to the on-road environment and
the behaviour of others. As a result of this, some young drivers may become
hypervigilant and primed to perceive other driver behaviour as aggressive or
dangerous (Zillmann, 1988).
143
Within the confines of stereotypes, 9% of the young driver participants perceived

young male drivers as the main offenders in aggressive driving incidents. However,
15% also appear to perceive themselves as being subject to a lack of patience by the
more experienced driving population. At the same time, however, a number of young
drivers (15%) indicated a lack of tolerance for elderly road users.
The participants also spoke of the trait characteristics a driver may bring to the
road, suggesting that these characteristics negatively influence driving behaviour and the
perception of other driver behaviours as aggressive and/or intentional. Such personrelated traits include personality and trait aggression levels, consistent with other traffic
research (Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000; Deffenbacher, Lynch,
Filetti, Dahlen, & Oetting, 2003). Further to these suggestions, 15% of participants
referred to a drivers prior exposure to aggressive driving behaviours and/or aggression
in the home, suggesting that some young drivers believe that aggressive responses are
learned, as is consistent with social learning theory (Bandura, 1972). The review of risk
factors for the development of aggressive and anti-social tendencies also supports this
observation as valid (Bor, McGee, & Fagan, 2004; Borum, 2000; Cairns, Neckerman,
Gest, & Gariepy, 1988; Caspi, 2000; Coccaro, 2003; Farrington, 2000; Farrington,
Loeber, Yin, & Anderson, 2002).
Finally, multiple observations were made by participants about the general
attitudes that a driver may bring to an aggressive driving incident (refer to Table 4.15).
These other driver attitudes are believed to contribute to feelings of frustration and/or
anger and increase the likelihood of an aggressive behavioural response by participants.
4.4.3 Range of Emotions During an On-Road Incident
Focus group questions aimed at exploring the emotions and cognitions
experienced during participant experiences with aggressive driving assisted in the
exploration of RQ5. The results are discussed at both 4.4.3 and 4.4.4.
When on-road behaviours are interpreted as provocative, a wide range of
emotions are reportedly experienced. This study strongly suggests that the experience of
frustration and/or anger in response to an on-road situation, as suggested by Shinar
(1998), are not the only precursor emotions influencing aggressive driving behaviour in
the young driver group. Emotions such as fear, nervousness, anxiety and excitation also
144
appear to influence aggressive driving behaviour. This indicates that the assumption that
aggressive driving behaviour comes purely from feelings of frustration/anger may be
potentially limiting our understanding of this phenomenon.
For instance, the inclusion of excitation as a precursor emotion to aggressive
driving behaviour appears reasonable when considering the small, but relevant, number
of young male drivers who reportedly participate in social/recreational driving practices
with peers. It is not difficult to imagine that driving with peers may contribute to
elevated feelings of excitation or arousal. It would be consistent with Zillmanns
excitation transfer theory (1972) that this elevated state may lead to the perpetration of
potentially dangerous or impulsive on-road behaviours such as driving at high speed,
that has the potential to be interpreted as aggressive by others. The elevated state
leading to the interpretation of other driver behaviours as aggressive and increasing the
likelihood of an aggressive response, would also be consistent with excitation transfer
theory (Zillman, 1972).
The results also indicate a small but noteworthy difference in the emotions
leading up to aggressive driving behaviour. Although a large number of females
reportedly experience similar levels of frustration/anger to males, the results suggest
more female victims than males are likely to experience fear and feelings of
intimidation.
4.4.4 Cognitions During an On-Road Incident
When exposed to a potentially anger-provoking on-road situation, these results
also indicate that young drivers appear quick to make negative attributions about other
drivers and their abilities. Such negative attributions made by a driver may increase the
possibility of perceiving anothers actions as aggressive and increase the likelihood of an
aggressive response (Lennon, Watson, Arlidge, & Fraine, under review; Yagil, 2001).
Although Yagil (2001) found that the perception of negative attributions tend to act as a
catalyst to aggressive driving, there is no empirical evidence to date that suggests that
young drivers are more likely to assume negative attributions than older drivers. This
study also identified another, less frequent, form of thought reported by drivers during
an aggressive driving incident. These thoughts centred around negative actions that
may be adopted towards the other driver.
145
In review of the cognitions associated with an on-road incident, it became clear

that there was little or no reference to some elements contained in the GAM appraisal
and decision-making model (Figure 3.2) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). For example,
no participants reported having checked if available resources were sufficient to deal
with the situation or if the outcome was important or satisfying to them prior to their
action/response. However, this does not mean that these checks are not made at a deeper
cognitive level that is unable to be recalled, as suggested by Anderson and Bushman
(2002). For example, for the 11% of individuals who reported relatively neutral
thoughts associated with the on-road incident, a response does not appear to have been
important, and the resultant lack of an outcome did not appear to concern them. Such a
finding may be interpreted as consistent with the decision and appraisal model proposed
in the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) that maintains that if an outcome is not
overly important or satisfying to an individual then the expression of aggression is less
likely. Despite this, however, the findings indicate a substantial lack of remembered
decision making associated with aggressive driving.
4.4.5 Behavioural Responses to On-Road Provocation
Participant responses to questions aimed at exploring possible behavioural
responses to on-road provocation highlighted that a range of behaviours are possible.
The results assisted in the exploration of RQ2 and RQ5. In this study, severe cases of
aggressive driving that culminated in crash involvement or physical injury to a driver
appear few. However, this could be considered consistent with previous aggressive
driving research that suggests severe cases are indeed quite rare (Elliott, 1999; VCCAV,
1999).
The findings suggest there may be a small difference in the types of on-road
aggression in which male and female participants are prepared to engage. Firstly, more
young female drivers seem to participate in suppressed aggression than do young males.
This is consistent with previous research that suggests differences in male/female
expression of driver aggression (Lajunen & Parker, 2001). However, the current study
also revealed that female drivers are prepared to engage in outwardly aggressive
behavioural responses to on-road provocation e.g. gesticulating or verbal abuse (Section
4.3.6.1). Overall, there does not appear to be a substantial difference between male and
146
female involvement rates in aggressive driving as either victims or perpetrators

(perpetrators: 11 males, 10 females, and victims: 9 males, 14 females).
This research suggests that young driver behavioural responses to on-road
provocation vary due to the intensity of that provocation, and the degree of
dangerousness it presents. Indeed, these factors appear to be important when
considering any on-road behaviours associated with this phenomenon.
4.4.6 Post Event State or Transfer to the Off-Road Environment
Evidence was found to support the concept of an altered post-event state
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002) after experiencing an aggressive driving incident (or
transfer of emotion to the off-road environment) that may influence a drivers
subsequent behaviour. Not only does this post-event state have the potential to affect
off-road interactions, but it has the potential to continue to accumulate whilst remaining
within the on-road environment, possibly influencing on-road behaviours at a later time.
Review of the findings suggests that on-road generated emotion may be
transferred to the off-road environment. However, it seems that the possible changes in
off-road behaviours are not overly severe or lasting. For example, the experience of
extreme on-road generated frustration/anger may affect subsequent off-road interactions
with others, but not to the point where physical or verbal abuse may result, although it
appears that some young drivers, particularly females, may experience continued
distress or a form of distraction due to ruminating about the incident. Clearly, the
consequences of transferring negative emotions to the off-road environment appear
relatively minor and infrequent. As suggested by this research, removing oneself from
the road environment and the task of driving seems to reduce and/or nullify residual
negative emotion in most cases.
4.4.7 Transfer of Emotions to the On-Road Environment
In the young driver group, it appears that off-road generated stress is frequently
transferred to the on-road environment. When faced with ambiguous or provocative onroad situations, participant behavioural responses appeared to be impulsive and/or
reactive. The resultant heightened emotional states resulting from off-road causes may
also account for unprovoked on-road aggressive behaviours being perpetrated by young
drivers. Highlighted within some participant experiences was an apparent lack of
147
constructive coping strategies. For example, as opposed to discussing or expressing

their bad day at work, some drivers proceeded to drive home quite agitated thereby
affecting the way they drove their vehicles. This response may be inherent in younger
drivers due to their general lack of life experience and exposure to a wider range of
coping strategies.
Further exploration of transference also found that young drivers may use
driving itself as a coping strategy for daily off-road stressors. For example, in addition
to two participants indicating that they drive to reduce off-road generated stress, a
further seven admitted to escaping in their vehicle following an argument with a
significant other in their life. This suggests that when young drivers are faced with
considerable off-road stress, they may be more likely to use their vehicle as a means of
escape, avoidance or release from the stressor. A potential consequence of such a
transfer can be aggressive driving behaviour.
In general, the findings support the suggestion of transference of negative affect
to and from the road environment. In general aggression research, the transference of
aggression from one situation to a subsequent situation is more commonly known as
displaced aggression (Pedersen, Gonzales, & Miller, 2000; Marcus-Newhall, Pedersen,
Miller, & Carlson, 2000). More specifically, one of these studies found that provoked
individuals will respond more aggressively to a subsequent trivial trigger, than those
who were not originally provoked (Pedersen et al., 2000).
Ultimately, the findings of this study identified a number of both on and offroad factors that have the potential to contribute to young driver aggression. It appears
that young drivers may engage in on-road aggression in two possible ways:
Using a vehicle and the on-road environment as a means of expressing

off-road generated stress; and/or
Whilst driving, responding to provocative actions that are encountered in

the on-road environment.
4.4.8 Coping Strategies Adopted by Young Drivers
Whilst exploring the phenomenon of aggressive driving, participants also spoke

of coping strategies they have adopted in order to deal with residual, on-road generated
anxiety or stress. For instance, 15% of young drivers spoke of improved mood having
148
discussed their experience with family or friends or after beginning other tasks. Some
young drivers (15%) spoke of the potential of music to enhance or mediate their internal
state whilst driving. Another 11% of participants demonstrated more rational responses
to aggressive driving by adopting checking thoughts. This involved questioning the
accuracy or validity of their driving behaviour.
In summary, the findings of this study highlight coping strategies as an important
issue, which may assist in our understanding of the apparent over-representation of
young drivers in aggressive driving research. Perhaps it should be considered that
young drivers, as young adults, have a limited range of coping strategies available to
them when compared to older drivers. This is consistent with previous research into
young driver behaviours and risk taking (Jonah, 1997). As Jonah (1997) suggested, high
levels of on-road risk taking, more prevalent in young male drivers, may be a
developmental issue.
4.4.9 Addressing the Research Questions
The following discussion will summarise the study findings relevant to the
particular research questions identified in Section 4.1.
driving?
Many person-related and direct/indirect situational factors were cited as potential
contributors to aggressive driving, most of which were consistent with those identified in
the literature review. Although less person-related factors were identified than on-road
situational factors, the results suggest they are extremely important to the perception of
other driver behaviours and ultimately the behavioural outcome adopted by drivers.
Several factors previously identified as contributing to aggressive driving were also
identified. Among them were characteristics such as vehicle appearance and/or
modifications (Evans & Wasielewski,1983), size of a vehicle and travelling with peers
as passengers. Within the person-related factors, young drivers emphasised mood,
possible prior exposure (i.e. prior learning through other driver behaviours), stereotypes
and general attitudes. As such this study has added to the knowledge of potential factors
influencing aggressive driving among the at-risk group of young drivers.
149
RQ2 Are some drivers more likely to engage in aggressive driving and, if so, what are
their characteristics?
Although this study identified several young drivers who had reportedly engaged
in highly aggressive behaviour on the road, only socio-demographic data was collected
from each participant. However, the general person-related factors identified by
participants as influencing aggressive driving (see Figure 4.2), provide an insight into
the person-related characteristics that young drivers typically associate with aggressive
drivers. As such, these person-related factors require further investigation in the next
study.
behaviours?
Consistent with the distinction of types of on-road aggression as outward,
suppressed or displaced (Lawton & Nutter, 2002), this study found that a number of
young drivers adopt suppressed or displaced responses whilst driving. However, the
majority of both male and female young drivers reportedly engage in the outward
expression of aggression whilst driving (see Table 4.25). In answer to the research
question, the study suggests that on the surface the three methods of responding
examined by Lawton and colleague (2002) (i.e. outward, displaced or suppressed) are
not directly related to one another. Indeed, displaced or suppressed aggression appears
less likely to manifest in aggressive driving behaviour on the road. If the types of
outward behavioural responses adopted are examined alone, however, they appear to fall
into two categories in keeping with the instrumental/hostile distinction made by Shinar
(1998). Nonetheless, all of these behaviours may be considered instrumental or hostile
dependent on the context of the situation. Hence, this research question requires closer
examination in Study Two.
In response to this research question, the study findings suggest that for young
drivers, aggressive driving behaviours appear to serve several functions. Not only
would it appear to assist in overcoming obstacles to their on-road progress (Dollard et
al., 1939; Shinar, 1997), for some drivers they appear to serve more salient functions,
such as catharsis (Dollard et al., 1939) or a behavioural expression of high levels of
150
emotionality (Chang et al., 2003; Cummings et al., 2004; Loeber et al., 2001; Verona et
al., 2002). Additionally, the results suggest that some young drivers use their vehicles
and the on-road environment as a venue, however inappropriate, for the expression of a
wide range of emotions from frustration to excitation. Why young drivers adopt
aggressive driving behaviours when travelling with peer passengers is speculative.
However, whilst surrounded by their peers, perhaps it serves to demonstrate their driving
abilities or to inflate their self-esteem.
RQ5 What are the cognitive and emotional processes characterising aggressive
driving behaviour?
As detailed in Section 4.4.3, frustration and anger may not be the only emotions
associated with aggressive driving behaviour. Young drivers also reported experiencing
fear, nervousness, anxiety and excitation during episodes of aggressive driving.
Additionally, when discussing their own experiences with aggressive driving, the young
drivers in the study appeared quick to make negative attributions about other drivers and
their abilities. A small number of participants also reported having thoughts about
taking action against the other driver. These findings will be investigated further in
Study Two.
4.4.10 Strengths and Limitations of the Study
The current study has examined aggressive driving from within the framework of
the contemporary human aggression theories encompassed in the GAM (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002). The results of this study and the foregoing literature review have
identified some of the psychological characteristics of aggressive drivers. The study has
also identified several factors that appear to contribute to the perception of aggression by
young drivers, including stereotypes of young drivers and young driver participation in
social driving practices. Not surprisingly, the results also clearly highlighted the
importance of state and trait person-related characteristics of drivers in the perception of
other driver behaviours as aggressive or provocative.
The research provides valuable insight into the phenomenon of aggressive
driving from the perspective of young drivers i.e. those drivers who have been
repeatedly over-represented in aggressive driving (Harding et al., 1998; VCCAV, 1999).
Unfortunately, as the focus group participates comprised only young drivers aged 1724
151
years of age, generalisation of these results to the greater population of drivers is not
possible. In addition, there may also be limitations in the generalisation of these
behaviours to young drivers, as the majority of research participants were city drivers
and relatively inexperienced. As such, these limitations need to be borne in mind when
interpreting the findings.
4.4.11 Implications of Findings for the Development of a Psychosocial Framework for
Aggressive Driving
Guided by the Research Objective One identified in Section 1.7, the results of
this study suggest that elements of the GAM are valid and applicable to aggressive
driving. To assist in better understanding this phenomenon, however, it would be useful
to modify some of the concepts included in the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).
Figure 4.3 outlines the key psychosocial factors identified in the literature review and
this study as influencing the likelihood and nature of aggressive driving behaviour,
drawing on key components of aggression encapsulated in the GAM.
On-road
Experience
Socio-demographic
and Driving
Exposure Factors
Trait Person-related
Characteristics
Present
Internal
State
Emotional
&
Cognitive
Response
Negative
Emotions
Behavioural
Response
Instrumental
Post-event
Influence
Hostile
Threat
State Person-related
Characteristics
Negative
Attributions
Figure 4.3 Theoretical framework of psychosocial processes underpinning aggressive

driving
152
Consistent with the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), trait and state personrelated characteristics are proposed to give rise to a present internal state that drivers
bring with them to the task of driving. For example, an individual who has high trait
aggression levels brings this predisposition to the on-road environment (Deffenbacher,
Huff, Lynch, Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000; Deffenbacher, Lynch, Filetti, Dahlen, &
Oetting, 2001). Similarly, a driver who is experiencing state stress generated from work
or home life, may also bring this to the on-road environment (Navaco et al., 1990;
Wiesenthal & Hennessy, 1999).
This studys findings also suggest that within the present internal state a driver
brings to the on-road environment, heightened levels of emotional arousal or
excitation may pre-exist at the beginning of the journey being undertaken. The
findings are consistent with the GAM and suggest that high levels of excitation resulting
from extreme negative affect or the presence of peers as passengers, may contribute to
an increased likelihood for aggressive on-road behaviours in response to a perceived
provocation. In the absence of a perceived on-road provocation, highly aroused drivers
may engage in potentially dangerous or impulsive driving behaviours, such as excessive
speeding. Previous research also demonstrated that low to moderate levels of emotional
arousal, measured in terms of depression, may serve to increase the likelihood of a
reactive, aggressive response to perceived provocation (Cooper et al., 1995). Consistent
with human aggression research (Berkowtiz, 1993; Florian et al., 1995) this research
also found that greater feelings of threat in response to on-road provocation may also
result in aggressive driving behaviour. As such, the experience of a range of emotions
and the subsequent arousal associated with them, appears to increase the likelihood of
interpreting the on-road behaviour of other drivers as aggressive, increasing the
likelihood of an aggressive response.
Whether or not they are highly aroused, in response to the provocative or
ambiguous on-road behaviour of other road users, drivers appear to undergo an
automated appraisal process consistent with elements of the GAMs decision-making
model and as suggested by the authors (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). However, the
checking of available resources contained in the original GAM appraisal process
remains largely subconscious and therefore it seems highly improbable that accurate
153
recall of these processes can occur (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). For this reason,
therefore, focus in the current study turned to the cognitions that were able to be recalled
when participants recounted their personal experience of an on-road incident. Thoughts
able to be recalled primarily centred around negative attributions about other drivers and
their driving abilities and/or thoughts of danger or threat. Hence, little reference was
made to the subconscious cognitive processes proposed in the GAM, within the
proposed framework at Figure 4.3. However, the findings of this study did highlight
three key elements of the situational response to an on-road incident depicted in Figure
4.3: negative emotions, perceived threat, and negative attributions.
These key elements appear to have considerable impact on aggressive driving
outcomes. The findings of this study suggest that, in the face of perceived provocation,
or as a result of highly aroused driving, some drivers experience a negative emotional
response that will often be accompanied by higher levels of physiological arousal. It
also appears that upon perceiving provocation, drivers infer positive or negative
attributions about the other driver behaviour and their abilities (Yagil, 2001). Further,
the results of this study also indicate that drivers may experience cognitions about taking
action. However, it should be noted that most thoughts recalled by participants as being
associated with the aggressive driving incident were considerably less detailed than the
cognitive appraisal process outlined in the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).
Having had an initial response comprising emotions, cognitions and arousal, the
GAM indicates that drivers will respond with either impulsive or thoughtful (deliberate)
behavioural responses (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The current study was not
conclusive about this and it remains unclear whether participants were thoughtful or
impulsive in their responses. Notwithstanding this caveat, with reference to the
proposed framework, it could be that more impulsive behavioural responses are elicited
from participants who are more highly emotionally aroused prior to entering the on-road
environment. Alternatively, impulsive reactive behaviours may also originate within
participants high on trait impulsivity, not measured in this study (Caprara et al., 1987;
Stanford, Greve, & Dickens, 1995). Human aggression research suggests that drivers
who have low emotional arousal (or depression) and high levels of irritability, may also
experience high levels of frustration/anger when faced with an on-road provocation and
154
may also participate in impulsive, reactive aggressive behavioural responses (Caprara et

al., 1987; Stanford et al., 1995). However, not all participant responses cited in this
research can be explained by or reduced to impulsivity.
This research highlighted that many of the behavioural responses adopted by
drivers appear to be quite deliberate or thoughtful i.e. intentionally driven, in keeping
with the provisional definition proposed in Section 2.2.5.3. Some deliberate behavioural
responses cited include quite extreme behaviours such as following a vehicle. However,
other deliberate behavioural responses appear to include the decision to remove oneself
from a perceived danger or not to have an on-road behavioural response. Despite these
findings it is clearly not always possible to determine whether the decision-making
process preceding their behaviour response was thoughtful or impulsive, as outlined
in the original GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).
Finally, in relation to whether a behavioural response is adopted or not, this
research supports the concept of a residual post-incident state resulting from
experiences with on-road aggression. In support of previous findings concerning the
cumulative effect of stressors, the resultant emotions, cognitions and arousal may
contribute to a new or revised, present internal state for a driver (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002). As suggested by the findings of this study, the revised present
internal state is then subject to temporal considerations. In keeping with the findings of
Fiendler and colleagues (1984), if enough time elapses, negative affect from the angerprovoking event appears to dissipate. However, aggression researchers suggest that the
ready availability of the negative emotions associated with the present internal state is
kept active/or easily activated by ruminative thoughts (Bushman et al., 2005). In this
regard, the study found that 23% of participants reported thinking about the event for the
15 minutes immediately following the incident. As such, it seems reasonable to posit
that the potential for further on-road aggression also remained.
4.4.12 Chapter Summary
This study was designed to explore the phenomenon of aggressive driving from
the perspective of a particular high-risk group, previously identified in the literature. In
doing so, the study identified a wide range of situational and person-related factors that
young drivers believe influence the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour, many of
155
which were consistent with the available literature. Uniquely, this study also highlighted
elements of human aggression theory encapsulated in the GAM that appear relevant to
on-road aggression that have not previously been examined in other theory based
approaches to the phenomenon (Shinar, 1998). As such, a psychosocial framework
(Figure 4.3) for the further exploration of the psychological processes underlying
aggressive driving was proposed.
The research findings also suggested that aggressive on-road behaviour may
occur as a result of a wide range of on and off-road generated emotions including
excitation. Importantly, the study also suggested that for young drivers, adoption of
aggressive driving behaviour may serve several possible functions. However, more
research is required in order to confirm these findings. Due to the qualitative nature of
this study, it did not examine person-related factors in sufficient depth to reveal any
information about those drivers that are more likely to engage in the behaviour.
Therefore, there is a need to explore person-related factors in more detail in Study Two.
156
157
Chapter Five: A Quantitative Study of Aggressive Driving in Queensland
5.1
Introduction........................................................................................................... 161
5.1.1
5.2
Overview of Research Questions and Relevant Hypotheses .................. 161
Method ................................................................................................................ 166

5.2.1
Participants ............................................................................................. 166
5.2.2
Design ..................................................................................................... 167
5.2.3
Procedure ................................................................................................ 169

5.2.3.1 Scenarios .................................................................................. 170
5.2.4
Materials ................................................................................................. 171

5.2.4.1 Standardised Measures Used .................................................... 171
5.2.4.1.1
Aggression Questionnaire ..................................... 171
5.2.4.1.2
Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised........ 172
5.2.4.2 Research Specific Measures ..................................................... 172
5.2.5
5.3
5.2.4.2.1
Pre-Study Emotional State .................................... 173
5.2.4.2.2
Negative Emotional Response............................... 173
5.2.4.2.3
Negative Attributions ............................................ 173
5.2.4.2.4
Behavioural Responses.......................................... 174
5.2.4.2.5
Post-Event Influence ............................................. 175
Statistical Analysis ................................................................................. 175
Results ................................................................................................................ 179

5.3.1
Data Cleaning and Testing Assumptions ............................................... 179
5.3.2
Psychometric Properties of the Standardised Measures ......................... 179
5.3.3
Factor Analysis of Research Specific Measures .................................... 180

5.3.3.1 Negative Emotions ................................................................... 180
5.3.3.2 Negative Attributions ............................................................... 181
5.3.3.3 Behavioural Responses ............................................................ 182
5.3.3.4 Post-Event Influence ................................................................ 184
5.3.4
Check of Pre-Study Emotions ................................................................ 184
5.3.5
Sample Characteristics ........................................................................... 185

5.3.5.1 Age and Gender of the Study Participants ............................... 185
5.3.5.2 Self-reported Driving Behaviour and Behavioural
Intentions of the Sample ........................................................... 185
5.3.5.3 Trait Characteristics of the Sample .......................................... 188
5.3.6
158
Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioural Responses to On-Road

Incidents..................................................................................................189
5.3.7
Examination of the Components Proposed in the Theoretical

Framework of Aggressive Driving .........................................................190
5.3.7.1 Bi-variate Correlations of Variables for Consideration in
the Examination of the Components of the Framework ...........191
5.3.7.1.1
Driving Exposure and Socio-Demographic

Variables ................................................................191
5.3.7.1.2
Negative Emotions ................................................192
5.3.7.1.3
Perceived Threat ....................................................192
5.3.7.1.4
Negative Attributions ............................................193
5.3.7.1.5
Instrumental Behavioural Response ......................193
5.3.7.1.6
Hostile Aggressive Behavioural Response ............195
5.3.7.1.7
Post-Event Influence..............................................195
5.3.7.1.8
Self-Reported Measures for the Two Scenarios ....196
5.3.7.2 Regression Analyses of Socio-Demographic, Trait and

State Person-Related Variables on Participant Emotional,
Cognitive and Behavioural Responses .....................................197
5.3.7.2.1
Negative Emotions ................................................198
5.3.7.2.2
Perceived Threat ....................................................200
5.3.7.2.3
Negative Attributions ............................................202

Person-related and Emotional and Cognitive Response
Variables on Participant Behavioural Responses .....................205
5.3.7.3.1
Likelihood of an Instrumental Behavioural

Response ................................................................205
5.3.7.3.2
Likelihood of a Hostile Behavioural Response .....208

Person-Related, Emotional and Cognitive Response and
Behavioural Response Variables on the Likelihood of a
Post-Event Influence ................................................................212
5.3.8
Exploratory Analyses of Potentially Hostile Aggressive Drivers ..........215

5.3.8.1 Rationale ...................................................................................215
5.3.8.2 PHA Driver Selection ...............................................................215
159
5.3.8.3 Socio-demographic and Driving Characteristics of the

PHA Drivers ............................................................................. 216
5.3.8.4 PHA Driver Differences in Trait Characteristics ..................... 217
5.3.8.5 PHA Driver Self Reported Driving Behaviour and
Behavioural Intentions ............................................................. 218
Responses ................................................................................. 219
5.3.8.7 Ability of Variables to Predict PHA Driver Group
Membership .............................................................................. 221
5.4
Discussion
.................................................................................................. 222
5.4.1
Response Differences to On-Road Scenarios ......................................... 223
5.4.2
Exploration of the Components of the Proposed Theoretical

Framework of Aggressive Driving ......................................................... 225
5.4.3
The Nature and Purpose of Aggressive Driving Behaviours ................. 236
5.4.4
Exploration of the PHA Driver Findings................................................ 236

5.4.4.1 Socio-Demographic and Driving Characteristics of the
PHA Driver .............................................................................. 236
5.4.4.2 PHA Driver History of Driving Offences in the Previous
Three Years .............................................................................. 238
5.4.4.3 PHA Driver Self-reported Driving Behaviour ......................... 238
5.4.4.4 Differences in Psychological Characteristics ........................... 239
Responses ................................................................................. 240
5.4.4.6 Prediction of PHA Group Membership .................................... 241
5.4.5
Implications for the Proposed Theoretical Framework of

Aggressive Driving ................................................................................. 241
5.4.6
Overview of Findings and Theoretical Implications .............................. 243
5.4.7
Study Limitations ................................................................................... 244
5.4.8
Chapter Summary ................................................................................... 246
160
161
5.1 Introduction
This chapter will outline the methods, findings and implications of Study Two.
The study aimed to explore the elements of the theoretical framework for aggressive
driving based on the General Aggression Model and the findings of Study One (refer to
Figure 4.3). Consequently, this study investigated a range of psychosocial influences on
aggressive driving consistent with the key factors proposed in this framework.
The literature review and Study One findings highlighted multiple situational and
person-related factors that are believed to contribute to aggressive driving. Study One
also highlighted the role of driver perceptions in aggressive driving behaviour.
Therefore, the role of driver perceptions during an on-road incident is also explored in
this study. Further, while Study One specifically explored young driver experiences
with the phenomenon of aggressive driving, this study adopted a more general driving
population perspective, in order to examine more general age and gender differences.
The examination of a more general sample of drivers within this study, also aimed at
providing a more comprehensive understanding of the aggressive driving phenomenon
whilst endeavouring to determine the potential value of the GAM in explaining
aggressive driving.
5.1.1 Overview of Research Questions and Relevant Hypotheses
The following is an outline of the relevant research questions and hypotheses
arising from the literature review and the findings of Study One that guided the study.
More particularly, the hypotheses are informed by the theoretical framework derived
from the GAM (refer to Section 4.4.11). A rationale underpinning each hypothesis is
also provided.
driving?
H1
Drivers will report stronger emotional, cognitive, behavioural and postevent influence in response to an intentionally anger-provoking incident
than to an ambiguous on-road incident.
The Study One findings suggest that when an on-road behaviour is perceived as
intentionally anger-provoking, a person is more likely to adopt an aggressive response.
Alternatively, aggression researchers have found that in an ambiguous situation that is
162
not necessarily intentional, some individuals become angered which serves to reduce the
situational ambiguity, increasing the likelihood of hostile interpretations of the situation
(Anderson, Anderson, Dill, & Deuser, 1998). Consequently, two potentially angerprovoking scenarios, one of which was intentionally provocative in nature, are used in
the study to explore the influence of on-road situational factors on aggressive driving
outcomes. Specifically, analyses will be undertaken to examine whether drivers respond
differently when presented with a straightforward, intentional, anger-provoking situation
as opposed to an ambiguous situation.
H2
Driving exposure factors such as type of vehicle driven, exposure to

congestion and hours driven per week will be associated with driver
emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
Study One findings suggest that aggressive drivers are more likely to drive larger
or modified vehicles. Further, high levels of on-road congestion and a greater number of
hours spent driving have also been associated with the increased likelihood of
experiencing frustration and anger whilst driving (Gordhamer et al., 1996; Hennessy &
Wiesenthal, 1997; Underwood et al., 1999). In light of this, the experience of greater
levels of perceived threat, negative emotion and associated negative attributions may
also be more likely among these drivers, increasing the likelihood of either an
instrumental or hostile aggressive behavioural response.
H3
Socio-demographic factors will be significant predictors of emotional,

cognitive and behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
Hypothesis Three is based on the literature that maintains that young, male drivers
are more likely to participate in aggressive driving behaviours (Aberg & Rimmo, 1998;
Gordhamer et al., 1996; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; VCCAV, 1999). Human aggression
and traffic researchers have reported that as age increases aggression decreases (Aberg
& Rimmo, 1998; Harris & Knight-Bohnhoff, 1996a; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Based
on this information, young male drivers may experience greater levels of negative
emotions, perceived threat and negative attributions when faced with perceived
provocation. In turn, as suggested above higher levels of these emotions and associated
negative attributions would increase the likelihood of instrumental and hostile
163
aggressive behavioural responses (Berkowitz, 1993; Geen & Donnerstein, 1998;

Lajunen & Parker, 2001).
H4
Trait aggression will be a significant predictor of emotional, cognitive and

behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
Hypothesis Four is based on previous research (Lajunen & Parker, 2001) that
found drivers high on trait aggression are more likely to report a readiness to respond
aggressively to on-road provocation. Similarly, aggression theory maintains that those
individuals high on trait aggression are more likely to respond aggressively to perceived
provocation in any context (Buss & Perry, 1992; OConnor, Archer, & Wu, 2001).
Human aggression theory maintains that the expression of aggression is more likely if an
individual experiences more negative emotion, perceived threat and negative attributions
in an anger-provoking situation (Berkowitz, 1983; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Geen &
Donnerstein, 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar, 1998).
H5
Higher levels of ICS and NPO and lower levels of RPS will predict
Hypothesis Five is based on the findings that lower levels of rational problem
solving (RPS) and higher levels of the dysfunctional problem-solving styles,
impulsive/careless style (ICS) and negative problem orientation (NPO) are associated
with greater levels of expressed aggression (DZurilla et al., 2003). The likelihood of
aggression is further influenced by higher levels of negative emotion and negative
attributions experienced in an anger-provoking scenario (Berkowitz, 1983; Geen &
Donnerstein, 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). As suggested by other researchers higher
levels of these negative problem-solving styles increase the likelihood of experiencing
intense negative emotions and negative attributions in the face of a perceived
provocation (Elliott, Herrick, MacNair, & Harkins, 1994; Yagil, 2001).
H6
Pre-study emotions, as a measure of state person-related stress, will

influence emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to on-road
provocation.
This hypothesis is centred around the potential for off-road generated stress to
influence on-road behaviours (Navaco et al., 1990; Simon & Corbett, 1996; Smith,
1970). Study One findings also suggested that off-road stress caused by work or
164
relationship difficulties has the potential to negatively impact upon driving behaviour.
Therefore, for the purpose of this study, state person-related stress was assessed in
terms of pre-study emotions immediately prior to completing the questionnaire (see
Section 5.2.4.2.1).
RQ2 What are the cognitive and emotional processes characterising aggressive
driving behaviour?
H7
Higher levels of negative emotion, perceived threat and negative

attributions will predict the likelihood of stronger instrumental and hostile
aggressive behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
H8
Higher levels of negative emotion, perceived threat, negative attributions

and an increased reporting of a behavioural response to on-road
provocation will increase the likelihood of a post-event influence being
experienced.
Hypotheses Seven and Eight are based on the premise that higher levels of
negative emotions, perceived threat and negative attributions experienced in an on-road
situation will increase the likelihood of an aggressive behavioural response that may
continue to influence the driver after the on-road event has passed (i.e. post-event)
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Additionally, human aggression research has found that
individuals who are provoked have a greater likelihood of responding aggressively in
response to a subsequent trivial trigger, than those individuals who were not initially
provoked (Pedersen et al., 2000). Traffic researchers also maintain that on-road
provocation increases the experience of on-road stress that may, in turn, influence
behavioural responses to subsequent on-road interactions (Navaco et al., 1990;
Parkinson, 2001). Navaco and colleagues (1990) also maintain that the experience of
this stress may transfer into the work or home environment. The Study One findings
also indicated that thirteen young drivers continued to experience negative emotion for
some time after an on-road incident (Sections 4.3.4.4 and 4.3.5.8).
165

behaviours? and RQ4 What function does aggressive driving perform for
drivers?
H9
The response of drivers to an intentionally provocative on-road incident

can be categorised into two distinct but related types of behaviours,
instrumental or hostile, which serve different functions for drivers.
Section 2.6 outlined the rationale for RQ3. In this discussion, there appeared to be
some support for aggressive driving behaviour forming a continuum of less severe to
more severe on-road behaviours. This idea is indirectly supported by evidence
indicating that lesser acts of on-road aggression can sometimes lead to an escalation of
an on-road event, and in turn, to physical violence. However, Shinar (1998) proposed a
dichotomous classification of on-road aggressive behaviours as either instrumental or
hostile. He elaborated upon these two types of on-road behaviour, suggesting that both
types serve different functions for road users (Shinar, 1998).
RQ6 Are there differences in the characteristics of those drivers who are prepared to
engage in hostile acts of aggressive driving compared to those who only report
engaging in instrumental acts of aggressive driving?
Chapter Three literature review findings and Study One findings highlighted a
number of potentially important socio-demographic, psychological and person-related
factors that increase the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour. Considering these
results, this study will also explore possible differences that can be found between
general road users and those drivers identified as potentially hostile aggressive (PHA)
who are prepared to engage in relatively severe acts of aggressive driving.
Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation into these PHA drivers,
specific hypotheses were not proposed. However, particular issues were examined,
including the extent to which PHA drivers differed from other drivers in terms of their:
socio-demographic characteristics and general driving behaviour;
trait aggression and problem-solving ability;
self-reported crash and offence involvement; and
166
emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to provocative on-road

incidents.
The literature review reports that male drivers are more likely to participate in
aggressive driving behaviours (DCPC, 2005; Harding et al., 1998; VCCAV, 1990;
Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar, 1998). The literature review also suggests that more
aggressive individuals are more likely to have had less formal education (Harris &
Knight-Bohnhoff, 1996; Shinar et al., 2001), drive more hours per week and more
frequently encounter higher levels of traffic congestion (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001;
Underwood et al., 1999). Study One findings also suggested that aggressive drivers may
drive larger vehicles.
PHA drivers as potentially more aggressive individuals may have a significantly
greater history of on-road risk-taking behaviours in the past three years. Specifically, it
is anticipated that they will have had higher levels of crash involvement, more speeding
fines, drink-driving and unlicensed driving charges than other drivers. Similarly, it is
anticipated that PHA drivers may report a greater willingness to engage in on-road risktaking behaviours. Specifically, they may be more likely to exceed the limit by 10km/h
or more on urban roads and highways than other drivers. They may also be more likely
to indicate a willingness to drink/drug drive than other drivers. The literature review
findings suggest that trait aggression and problem-solving styles were found to be
associated with emotional, cognitive and behavioural response characteristics.
Therefore, it is possible that PHA drivers will differ from other drivers on these trait
person-related characteristics.
Finally, the literature reviewed in Chapter Three suggests that more intense
emotions, higher levels of threat and the greater likelihood of negative attributions are
associated with the increased likelihood of aggressive behaviours. Therefore, it is
possible that those drivers identified as PHA will have a greater emotional, cognitive
and behavioural response to both scenarios one and two than other drivers.
5.2 Method
5.2.1 Participants
Two participant pools were utilised for this research: 5,000 current members of
the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ) and students of the Queensland
167
University of Technology (QUT). The final sample consisted of 853 RACQ members
(350 male and 503 female) and 73 QUT first-year psychology students (12 male and 61
female). The only selection criteria applied was that participants needed to hold a
current drivers licence.
Use of the RACQ membership pool allowed researchers to target a wide age
range of Queensland drivers. A stratified random sample was drawn from the RACQ
database consisting of equal numbers of male and female drivers aged under 25 years,
2544 years, 4564 years and 65 years and older (refer to Appendix E for more details
of the RACQ sample). In an effort to obtain a representative cross-section of the
Queensland driving population a range of areas was targeted, with those contacted being
drawn from Brisbane, Ipswich and surrounding geographic areas, the Gold Coast, South
West Queensland, Central Queensland, the Wide Bay area, North Queensland and Far
North Queensland (see Appendix E).
Considering the traditional over-representation of young drivers in aggressive
driving research and a possibility that younger RACQ members may be less likely to
participate in the survey, QUT students were also approached in order to ensure that
sufficient numbers of younger drivers were involved in the research. QUT participants
were recruited from the first-year psychology participant pool.
5.2.2 Design
For the purposes of Study Two, the adoption of a research design which involved
the provocation of participants in either a simulated or actual driving environment
presented several ethical and professional problems, as found in earlier human
aggression research (Baron, 1977). Additionally, observational methods were also
considered, however, it was considered that such methods would be inappropriate for the
exploration of the underlying emotional and cognitive processes involved in aggressive
driving behaviour. Alternatively, many traffic researchers have relied upon self-report,
diary or questionnaire methods to investigate the phenomenon of aggressive driving.
Adoption of such methodological approaches has raised questions concerning the
truthfulness of participant responses, particularly in terms of behavioural response, as
some participants may wish to present themselves in a socially desirable manner (Baron,
1977). However, the careful design and manipulation of the variables of interest (Baron,
168
1977, p. 42) may minimise the potentially negative effect of this phenomenon.
Therefore, given the inevitable practical and ethical problems with conducting on-road
studies, it was decided to use self-report measures in Study Two and to manipulate the
emotional, cognitive and behavioural response variables of interest using scenarios.
A self-report questionnaire was designed to examine the theoretical framework
of aggressive driving described in Section 4.4.11. Appendix F contains a copy of the
Study Two questionnaire. The cover page varied depending on the targeted participant
pool (Appendices G and H).
The first part of the questionnaire was designed to collect a range of sociodemographic and driving behaviour information. This included age, gender, education
attained and various driving exposure variables, including the likelihood of engaging in
speeding and/or drink/drug driving behaviour (Appendix F). The second part of the
questionnaire contained standardised measures in order to ascertain participant scores on
trait characteristics (Appendix F). As such, participants were asked to complete the
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) and three subscales of the Social Problem Solving
Inventory Revised (SPSI-R). Details of these standardised measures are provided in
Section 5.2.4.1.
The questionnaire was also designed to explore the emotional state of
participants prior to their participation. In particular, self-reported levels of stress,
agitation and positive affect were assessed (Appendix F). This check was considered
necessary due to the potential influence of emotional state on participant emotional and
behavioural responses to a potentially anger-provoking scenario, as suggested by
previous research and the GAM (present internal state) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002;
Berkowitz, 1983; Carver, Sheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001;
Knight, Guthrie, Page, & Fabes, 2002; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Prior to the conduct
of the analyses, the variables were sorted into broader subject categories consistent with
the psychological components of the GAM (see Table 5.1).
169
Table 5.1: Breakdown of individual variables into broader subject categories

Variables
Broad Subject Categories
Socio-Demographic
Age
Gender
Driving Exposure Variables
Trait Person-Related Characteristics
AQ Scores
SPSI-R Subscales NPO, ICS and RPS
State Person-Related Characteristics
Pre-Study Emotions
Emotional and Cognitive Responses
Negative Emotional Response

Threat Response
Negative Cognitive Response
Instrumental Aggressive Behavioural Response

Potentially Hostile Aggressive Behavioural Response
Post-Event
Post-Event Influence
The remainder of the questionnaire was designed to measure participant

emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to two particular driving scenarios (see
Section 5.2.3.2 and Appendix F). In order to facilitate analyses, an average total score
for the emotional, cognitive, behavioural responses and post-event influence variables
was calculated for each participant in response to both Scenarios One and Two.
Specifically, their average total scores were computed for negative emotion, negative
cognition, likelihood of an instrumental aggressive response, likelihood of a hostile
aggressive response and potential post-event influence for each scenario.
5.2.3 Procedure
RACQ members were randomly selected and approached via mail to participate
in the study. The members were mailed the questionnaire directly by the RACQ, to
ensure their privacy. Completion of the questionnaire took approximately 20 minutes,
although no time limit was applied. Completed questionnaires were returned directly to
QUT by post. Completion and return of the questionnaire by RACQ participants was
deemed as their consent to participate. All RACQ members that chose to participate
170
were given the opportunity to enter into a competition for a free, one year RACQ
membership.
Of the 5,000 questionnaires distributed to RACQ members, 878 drivers returned
the questionnaire representing an 18% response rate. Upon examination, 25 of these
were missing substantial data and were therefore not used in the research.
Prior to completing the questionnaire the QUT participants were asked to read
the information package attached to the front of the document and sign the sheet
indicating their consent to participate (see Appendix H). These participants completed
their questionnaire on campus. Upon completion of the questionnaire, these participants
were granted credit towards the completion of their first year Psychology Program. Of
74 questionnaires obtained from QUT, only one questionnaire was unable to be used in
the study.
5.2.3.1 Scenarios
Two differing scenarios were presented to participants in the study questionnaire
in order to explore their likely responses to potentially provocative on-road incidents.
Specifically, the intentionality of the other driver behaviour was manipulated in each
scenario. Scenario One was designed to present a clearly provocative on-road incident
which portrayed the other driver behaviour as intentional:
You are driving down a two lane road (one lane each way) travelling at the
speed limit and you notice that the car behind you is travelling very close to your
vehicle. Instead of waiting for an opportunity to overtake you, the driver
proceeds to flash his/her lights and beep his/her horn.
In contrast, Scenario Two was designed to be more ambiguous, though
potentially anger-provoking. In this scenario, the intentionality of other driver
behaviour was intended to be unclear in nature.
You have just had an argument with someone close to you, prior to getting in
the car. You then approach an intersection and the light changes to red. You
come to a stop behind another car. The light seems to take a long time to change
back to green. When the light finally changes the driver in front does not move
off, preventing you from moving forward.
171
The dependent variables used to assess responses to each scenario were: negative
emotional response; perceived threat; likelihood of negative attributions; likelihood of
an instrumental and/or hostile behavioural response; duration of post event emotion; and
likelihood of a post-event influence.
The two scenarios were piloted prior to the finalisation of the questionnaire.
This process confirmed that Scenario One tended to be perceived as an intentional,
anger-provoking act, irrespective of the emotional state of the driver being tailgated.
However, the piloting did highlight differences in the interpretation of Scenario Two,
which prompted the inclusion of a pre-existing emotional state in the scenario (i.e. You
have just had an argument with someone close to you, prior to getting in the car) for
two reasons. Firstly, the participants in the pilot phase reported that, due to the
ambiguity of the situation, their response would likely vary based on how they were
feeling at that particular point in time. Secondly, some pilot participants indicated that
they would not necessarily experience anger in this situation, unless they were already in
a somewhat heightened emotional state. Hence the inclusion of a pre-existing emotional
state in the second scenario was designed to both standardise the influence of this
factor across the participants and to ensure that a threshold level of anger was achieved
for at least some participants. However, it is recognised that the inclusion of the preexisting emotional state in Scenario Two introduced a factor not specifically addressed
in Scenario One. The implications of this are further discussed in the Study Limitations
Section (refer to Section 5.4.7).
5.2.4 Materials
5.2.4.1 Standardised Measures Used
5.2.4.1.1 Aggression Questionnaire. All four subscales of the AQ were
administered to participants: the physical and verbal aggression subscales, the general
anger scale and the hostility subscale (Buss & Perry, 1992). The overall reliability of the
full 29 items of the AQ has previously been estimated at Cronbachs = .92, in a sample
of 1955 year old males (OConnor, Archer, & Wu, 2001). Thus the overall measure of
trait aggression consisted of 29 items (refer to Appendix F). Participants rated how
characteristic the items were of themselves on a 5 point Likert Scale (1 = extremely
characteristic of me, 5 = extremely uncharacteristic of me).
172
For the purpose of this study a composite score measuring trait aggression was
constructed for each participant in order to conduct further analysis. Items 7 and 19
were reverse scored.
5.2.4.1.2 Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised. The SPSI-R is designed
to measure an individuals general ability to solve problems, without emphasising
specific situations. Specifically, the measure assesses two constructive/adaptive
dimensions and three dysfunctional dimensions of problem solving. Five subscales are
used to measure these dimensions: positive problem orientation (PPO) and rational
problem solving (RPS) versus negative problem orientation (NPO),
impulsivity/carelessness (ICS) and avoidance style (ACS). These subscales focus on
two primary distinctions made in problem-solving research: positive versus negative
problem orientation. Problem orientation encompasses the ways in which problems and
events are perceived and interpreted by an individual. In two separate studies focusing
on the problem- solving styles of young adults (n = 1053) and middle-aged adults (n =
100) respectively, researchers have reported sound reliability estimates for the three
subscales used in this study: NPO ( = .83, n = 1053; = .80, n = 100); ICS ( = .74,
n = 1053; = .78, n = 100); and RPS ( = .78, n = 1053; = .88, n = 100) (Kant,
DZurilla, & Maydeu-Olivares, 1997).
The SPSI-R requires that participants indicate how characteristic the items are of
themselves on a five point Likert Scale (1 = not at all true of me to 5 = extremely true
of me). For the purpose of this study only three of the SPSI-R subscales were used, as
they have been found in previous research to have strong associations with aggression
(Kant et al., 1997): NPO, ICS and RPS (refer to Appendix F). Consequently, calculation
of a composite problem solving score would not be appropriate or overly meaningful
as only three of the original five subscales were used.
5.2.4.2 Research Specific Measures
The following is a brief outline of the measures that were developed by the
researcher to assess the applicability of the components identified in the theoretical
framework of aggressive driving first proposed at Figure 4.3. Also included is a brief
outline of the logic behind their development. The internal reliability of each measure
will be dealt with in Section 5.3.3, in conjunction with the factor analyses.
173
5.2.4.2.1 Pre-Study Emotional State. Previous research suggests that the

emotional or stressful state that a driver brings to the on-road environment has the
potential to increase the likelihood of aggressive behaviour and driving errors (Aseltine
et al., 2000; Deffenbacher et al., 2000; Gulian et al., 1989; Hartley & Hassani, 1994;
Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999; Navaco et al., 1990). In an attempt to measure the
emotive or stressful state which participants brought to the study (and hence the
scenarios), they were asked to indicate on a five point Likert scale whether they were 1=
very happy to 5 = very unhappy; 1 = very calm to 5 = very agitated; and 1= not
stressed at all to 5 = very stressed at the time of completing the questionnaire.
For each participant, an average of the three items was calculated to provide a
measure of pre-study emotions. Higher scores reflected higher self-reported levels of
stress, unhappiness or agitation prior to completing the questionnaire.
5.2.4.2.2 Negative Emotional Response. As identified in the literature review, it
has been proposed that there are three key components to an aggressive response: an
emotional response, a cognitive response, and a behavioural response. In order to
measure the emotional response of participants to the on-road incidents portrayed in the
scenarios, participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they would feel angry,
annoyed, agitated and/or threatened on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very
much).
5.2.4.2.3 Negative Attributions. The second component of an aggressive
behavioural response is cognition. Cognitions associated with the adoption of
aggressive driving behaviour are often negative and personal (i.e. negative attributions).
Consistent with Yagils (2001) research into negative attributions and aggressive driving
behaviour, the thoughts reflected in this measure are classed as negative attributions.
Participants were asked to nominate the likelihood of their having three negative
thoughts about the offending driver in response to each scenario (Table 5.2). These
items called for a response on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = extremely unlikely to 5 =
extremely likely).
174
Table 5.2: Items in the negative attribution scale

Items
a) What an idiot!
b) How did that fool get his licence!
c) That idiot shouldnt be allowed on the road!
5.2.4.2.4. Behavioural Responses. The set of behaviours reported in Table 5.3

were used to assess the participants reported response to the two scenarios. This
behavioural response set was derived from prior aggressive driving research (refer to
Section 2.2). In response to each scenario, participants were asked to indicate the
likelihood of engaging in each of the behavioural responses. Participants were asked to
indicate on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = extremely unlikely to 5 = extremely likely) the
likelihood of their responding to the scenario in the manner indicated. Items three and
seven gave participants the option of not having a behavioural response, as it is not
axiomatic that all drivers will respond to on-road provocation with a form of reactive
aggression. Consequently, as this research focuses on the expression of potentially
aggressive responses on the road, both items were not specifically considered in the
majority of the subsequent analyses.
Table 5.3: Questionnaire behavioural response set
Behavioural Response Set
1. Swear or mutter to yourself or others in your car.
2.
Give a blast of your horn and/or flash lights.
3.
Carry on driving normally.*
4.
Gesture at the other driver.
5.
Swear at and/or verbally abuse the other driver.
6.
Drive close to/follow the other vehicle.
7.
Ignore the driver/incident as if nothing has happened.*
8.
Stop the vehicle and get out of your vehicle, ready to argue.
9.
Stop the vehicle and get out prepared to engage physically with the other driver.
10. Shout or scream out loud but not at the offending driver.
11. Use your vehicle to physically damage the other drivers vehicle.
* Items 3 and 7 were not included in the factor analysis of aggressive behavioural outcomes
5.2.4.2.5
175
Post-Event Influence. Table 5.5 outlines the potential post-event
experiences used to construct this measure. For each item, participants were asked to
indicate the likelihood of the on-road incident influencing their subsequent behaviours
on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = not at all likely to 5 = extremely likely).
Table 5.4 Items in post-event experiences

Items
a) During the rest of your trip.

b) Doing other tasks during the day.
c) In your dealings with others.
5.2.5 Statistical Analysis

A series of regression analyses were used to examine the psychological components of
the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) that have been found relevant to aggressive
driving behaviour. This statistical approach was considered appropriate for exploring the
relationships between the various stages of the GAM based model of aggressive driving.
Figure 5.1 below depicts the staged exploration of the theoretical framework of aggressive
driving derived from the findings of Study One and the literature review (see Section
4.4.11). As can be seen, stage one analyses examined the relationships between driver
socio-demographic, trait and state related characteristics and their reported levels of
negative emotions, feelings of threat and the likelihood of them adopting negative
attributions in response to each of the on-road scenarios. Notably, Figure 5.1 does not
include reference to the participants present internal state, encapsulated in the full GAM
(see Figure 4.3). This component of the model was not operationalised in this study due to
the inherent limitations of self-report, scenario-based studies. In particular, it would have
been highly artificial to require the participants to reflect on their likely internal present
state in response to the scenarios. Rather, it was decided to focus on the emotional and
cognitive responses of the participants to the scenarios provided (as an indicator of their
present internal state), which was referred to as their emotional and cognitive response.
176
Nonetheless, the decision not to operationalise the present internal state component of
the GAM is a limitation which needs to be borne in mind and is further discussed in
Section 5.4.7.
The stage two analyses examined the relationships between the drivers emotional and
cognitive responses and the likelihood of them adopting either an instrumental and/or
hostile behavioural response. The final, third stage examined the relationship between the
likelihood of behavioural response and a post-event influence.
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was not utilised as the aim of the study was not
to establish the structural integrity of the model itself, but rather to explore the
relationships between the various components in the framework. Furthermore, due to the
specific requirements of SEM, it would have been necessary to include additional
subscale items in the questionnaire which would have increased its length and possibly
reduced the overall response rate. Accordingly, it was considered that SEM would be a
more appropriate analytical method in future research, once the various components
within the framework had been explored and established.
Prior to conducting the multiple regression analyses, the following ratio of cases to
independent variable calculation was assessed: N 50 + 8m (m is the number of IVs)
(Tabachnik & Fidell, 1996, p.132). All regression analyses met this criteria. Many of the
variables that were measured by Likert scales, although not strictly representing interval
data, were treated as continuous variables to facilitate the use of parametric statistics.
This restrictive assumption should be borne in mind when interpreting the results. In
addition, the categorical age variable was recoded by utilising the mid-point of each of the
age categories, enabling it to be treated as a continuous variable in the multiple regression
analyses. Similarly, the education level variable was recoded into a dichotomous variable
to facilitate its inclusion in the multiple regression analyses.
In consideration of the order of entry of the variables into the analyses, the logic of
the research, causal priority, research structure and attempts to minimise spurious
relationships were examined (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). This choice of
cumulative sequencing of IVs was also made in advance and determined primarily by
structural properties of the GAM model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Notably, the
GAM sequence reflects relevant temporal considerations.
177
Sociodemographic
Characteristics
(Age, gender,
educational
attained, driving
exposure variables)
Trait Personrelated
Characteristics
(Total AQ, SPSI-R
subscales)
State Personrelated
Characteristics
Emotional
&
Cognitive
Response
Likelihood
of
Behavioural
Response
Negative
Emotions
Instrumental
Threat
Hostile
Post-event
Influence
Negative
Attributions
(Pre-study
Emotions)
Stages of Analysis
___ Stage One
- - - Stage Two
.. Stage Three
Figure 5.1 Diagrammatic presentation of the three stage exploration of theoretical
components
For example, one brings their socio-demographic, state and trait characteristics to the
on-road environment on each occasion. Subsequently, exposure to a potentially angerprovoking scenario may result in an emotional and cognitive response, and in turn a
behavioural response. Therefore, the adoption of this three-tiered regression strategy
and subsequent entry of variables into the equation in blocks, was the preferred
analytic approach (refer to Figure 5.1). However, it is recognised that the use of
hierarchical regression inevitably gives more precedence to those variables entered
earlier in the model. As such, this is a limitation that needs to be borne in mind when
interpreting the results (see Section 5.4.7).
178
The general significance level for the analyses adopted was = .05. Where
necessary Bonferroni adjustments were made to control for Type I error. In addition,
given that a number of regression analyses were conducted a more conservative
significance level of < .001 was chosen for these analyses to guard against
experiment-wise error. However, significant results at < .01 and < .05 are also
noted. Only significant correlation coefficients of .2 and above are generally reported.
For the exploratory analyses involving the potentially hostile aggressive (PHA)
drivers (Section 5.3.8), non-parametric tests were considered necessary to account for
the problematic skewness and kurtosis associated with a number of the variables
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). As a consequence, in an effort to determine where, if any,
differences exist between the PHA drivers (n = 88) and other drivers (n = 838) a series
of non-parametric tests were conducted comparing the two groups on the measured
variables.
In order to examine any differences between the PHA driver group and other
drivers on categorical data using Chi Square techniques, many of the variables needed to
be collapsed as some of the obtained cell frequencies were less than 5, contrary to what
is required for use of this statistical technique (Cohen et al., 1996). In these analyses,
when overall significance was found, post hoc analyses were undertaken within each
variable using the adjusted standardised residual (i.e. ). This statistic assists in
identifying cells with observed frequencies significantly higher or lower than expected.
The adjusted standardised residuals can be interpreted as Z-scores (Haberman, 1978).
The strength of association between the categorical variables was assessed using the Phi
co-efficient () for tables 2 x 2 or Cramers V ( c ) for tables with more than 2 x 2 (Aron
& Aron, 1999).
For the purpose of the logistic regression analysis of the PHA driver group the
age variable was dummy coded and collapsed into four categories: 1724 years; 2539
years; 4059 years and 60 years and over. The 1724 year age group was used as the
reference group in this analysis. This approach was adopted as opposed to the recoding
used for the multiple regression analyses, to allow direct comparison of the different age
categories. As before, the categorical variable education was collapsed to create a
dichotomous variable, i.e. 0 = less than year 10 education and 1 = greater than a year
179
10 education. Three other discrete variables concerning driving exposure were

collapsed and dummy coded to enable the regression analyses (type of vehicle, level of
traffic congestion most frequently exposed to, and hours driven per week). Details of
the resultant changes are outlined in the relevant tables of each analysis.
5.3 Results
5.3.1 Data Cleaning and Testing Assumptions
Data cleaning was applied to all independent and composite variables.
Participant questionnaires with missing data for four or more items, were visually
examined. Those participants with missing values that represented a pattern, or
sufficient missing data in any one of the measures to render a whole measure unusable,
were deleted from the data set. Other missing items were replaced with the mean
response for that item.
Examination of Levenes test of homogeneity of variance, assessed at p < .05 has
been considered extremely strict (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1996), therefore, the probability
for a significant breach was reduced to p < .001. Despite this, several variables appear
to have breached Levenes test of homogeneity of variance.
In testing the assumptions prior to the conduct of regression analyses, the
multivariate data cleaning entailed examination of z scores, Mahalanobis distances and
scatter plots for all variables. Inspection of frequencies and normal probability plots for
all variables including composites revealed a number of univariate outliers and some
skewness. Those variables that were somewhat affected were: trait aggression (AQ
scores), ICS and NPO problem-solving styles, negative emotions, and instrumental and
hostile behavioural response variables. However, by the very nature of this study and its
examination of aggression, it was anticipated that there would be a number of
participants whose responses would gravitate towards the extreme end of scores. As a
result, it was decided to retain the outliers.
5.3.2 Psychometric Properties of the Standardised Measures
The overall means and standard deviations of trait aggression as measured by the
AQ (Buss & Perry, 1992) and coping style as measured by the three SPSI-R subscales
are presented below (Table 5.5).
The internal reliability of the three SPSI-R subscales used in this study was
180
evaluated separately using Cronbachs alpha: NPO (.84), ICS (.76), and RPS (.82) (refer
to Appendix I). The internal reliability of the full 29 items of the AQ was evaluated at
Cronbachs alpha .90 (refer to Appendix I). Therefore, the internal reliability of the
three problem solving subscales and the AQ was considered sufficient.
Table 5.5: Means and standard deviations of trait characteristics (n=926)
Variable
SD
Total AQ Score
46.96
15.57
Negative Problem Solving
5.21
.52
Impulsive/Careless Style
5.16
.54
Rational Problem Solving
3.32
.87
5.3.3 Factor Analysis of Research Specific Measures

Factor analyses were conducted to investigate the dimensionality of the measures
used in this study. For each measure, separate factor analyses were conducted on
participant responses to each scenario (i.e. Scenarios One and Two). As the research
specific measures used were exploratory in nature i.e. they were designed for this
survey, it was pre-determined that a reasonably high factor loading should be used.
Therefore, only items loading >.5 were retained. The internal reliability for each of the
following scales can be found at Appendix I.
5.3.3.1 Negative Emotions
The dimensionality of the four items detailed at Section 5.2.4.2 was subjected to
principal axis factoring in order to determine their measurement of one or more factors.
The analysis of the responses to Scenario One revealed one factor with an eigenvalue >
1 (eigenvalue = 2.105), explaining 56% of the variance in this factor. Inspection of the
scree plot also supported the existence of one factor. Consequently, principal axis
factoring, using oblimin rotation, excluding items loading <.5, revealed the item
loadings on the factor presented at Table 5.6. All items except threat loaded well on
one factor. Similar results were obtained for Scenario Two. Consequently, the threat
181
item was excluded from the scale. The three item factor was subsequently named
negative emotional response. The internal reliability of the three item factor in
response to Scenario One was evaluated at Cronbachs = .79. This analysis was
repeated for participant responses to Scenario Two and the analysis were almost
identical, revealing one factor (eigenvalue = 2.3) explaining 65% of the variance, with a
Cronbachs of = .85 (refer to Table 5.6) (see Appendix I).
Table 5.6 Factor loadings for negative emotional response for Scenarios One and Two
Scenario One
Factor Loading
.853
Scenario Two
Factor Loading
.831
Annoyed
.707
.786
Agitated
.674
.801
Cronbachs
.79
.85
Items
Angry
5.3.3.2 Negative Attributions

Principal axis factoring was used to determine the dimensionality of the three items
in this measure. Consistent with the scree plot, the analysis for Scenario One revealed
one factor with an eigenvalue = 2.181, explaining 62% of the variance explained by the
factor (Table 5.7). The internal reliability of the three item factor was Cronbachs =
.81 (Appendix I).
Table 5.7 Factor loadings for negative attribution factor for Scenarios One and Two
Items
Scenario One
Factor One
Loading
.898
Scenario Two
Factor One
Loading
.919
b) How did that fool get his licence!
.880
.918
c) That idiot shouldnt be allowed on the

road!
.541
.623
Cronbachs
.81
.84
a) What an idiot!
The exploratory factor analysis procedure was repeated with participant responses
to Scenario Two, yielding comparable results. Again, the principal axis factoring
182
revealed one factor (eigenvalue = 2.334) explaining 69% of the variance in this factor,
Cronbachs = .84.
It should be noted, however, that deletion of the first item What an idiot!,
resulted in a higher reliability estimate in response to Scenario One and Scenario Two (
= .88 and = .91 respectively). However, this item was retained in the calculation of
average scores of negative cognition in response to Scenarios One and Two, since the
original Cronbachs s were considered adequate.
5.3.3.3 Behavioural Responses
The factor analysis of the behavioural measure, designed specifically for this
study, not only examined the structure of the measure, but was also relevant to the
following hypotheses:
H9
The response of drivers to a provocative on-road incident can be

categorised into two types of behaviours, instrumental or hostile. These
types of behaviours will serve different functions for drivers.
The nine reactive aggressive behaviours detailed in Section 5.2.4.2 were used in
the following factor analyses (refer to Table 5.8). As previously noted, items three and
seven did not involve the adoption of a potentially aggressive behavioural response and
were thus excluded from the factor analysis procedure.
Examination of the resultant scree plot in conjunction with principal components
analysis, revealed two factors with an eigenvalue > 1, explaining 59% of the variance in
these two factors (Factor One, eigenvalue = 3.612 and Factor Two, eigenvalue = 1.684).
The overall internal reliability of this measure using Cronbachs alpha was .77 (see
Appendix I). The individual reliability estimates for Factors One and Two were = .76
and = .85 respectively.
In addition, the exploratory factor analysis procedure was repeated with
participant behavioural response to Scenario Two. Again, examination of the scree plot
and eigenvalues revealed two factors (factor one, eigenvalue=3.498 and factor two,
eigenvalue=1.802) explaining 59% of the variance. The overall Cronbachs was .74.
Having considered differences in the items and their loadings, the behaviours
appeared to group into two distinct concepts. Factor One appeared to involve lesser acts
of reactive aggression, representing behaviours consistent with Shinars preposed
183
construct of instrumental aggression. In other words, these behaviours may be adopted

in order to release aggression or remove the source of on-road frustration in order to
continue on ones journey. Conversely, Factor Two clearly involved extreme forms of
reactive aggression with the potential to involve interpersonal violence and also a
preparedness to put immediate goals aside. Consistent with Shinars model (1998), this
factor was labelled hostile aggression.
Contrary to expectations, item 6 drive close to/follow the other vehicle loaded
onto Factor One in response to both scenarios (see Table 5.8). Although, the
consequences of such behaviour may increase the likelihood of an on-road incident
escalating to a more serious altercation, the results suggest that the participants did not
consider this behaviour to be extreme, or hostile, in isolation.
Table 5.8 Factor loadings of behavioural response set for Scenarios One and Two
Questionnaire Item
Scenario One
= .77
Factor
One
Factor
Two
Scenario Two
= .74
Factor
One
5.
Swear at and/or verbally abuse the other driver.
.791
.763
4.
Gesture at the other driver.
.811
.792
2.
.697
.683
.536
.566
.613
.655
.484
.497
10. Shout or scream out loud but not at the offending

driver.
Factor
Two
1.
Swear or mutter to yourself or others in your car.
6.
Drive close to/follow the other vehicle.
9.
Stop the vehicle and get out prepared to engage

physically with the other driver.
.918
.923
8.
Stop the vehicle and get out of your vehicle, ready to

argue.
.827
.765
.840
.853
11. Use your vehicle to physically damage the other

drivers vehicle.
Cronbachs
.76
.85
.74
.83
Examination of the correlation between the average total instrumental and

hostile aggression scores of participants for each scenario indicated that the two types of
behaviour have a significant but moderate association (Scenario One, r = .37, p < .001;
184
Scenario Two, r = .28, p < .001). Therefore, whilst it appears that instrumental and
hostile on-road aggressive behaviours fall into two distinct groups, they do appear to be
related constructs. The relevant items for each construct were subsequently computed to
produce an average instrumental behavioural response and an average hostile
behavioural response scores for each participant, in response to each scenario.
5.3.3.4 Post-Event Influence
Using Scenario One data, principal components analysis produced evidence of
one factor, eigenvalue = 2.295, explaining 77% of the variance in this factor. Table 5.9
details the factor loadings for the three relevant items. The internal reliability of the
measure was Cronbachs = .82.
Table 5.9 Factor loadings of items onto likelihood of post-event influence for Scenarios
One and Two
Scenario One
Factor One
Scenario Two
Factor One
a. During the rest of your trip.
.806
.816
b. Doing other tasks during the day.
.934
.931
c. In your dealings with others.
.880
.915
Cronbachs
.82
.85
Items
Again, the analysis was applied to participant responses for Scenario Two. The
analysis also produced one factor with an eigenvalue = 2.370, producing highly
comparable results with a Cronbachs = .85. The three items were, therefore, used to
calculate an average likelihood of a post-event influence score for each participant in
response to each of the scenarios.
5.3.4 Check of Pre-Study Emotions
A 2 x4 ANOVA evaluating age group (four levels) by gender (two) effects on
self-reported emotionality at the time of completing the questionnaire was significant, F
(7,918) = 14.652, p < .001, 2 = .10. However, only a simple main effect (SME) was
found between the age groups, F (3,918) = 28.496, p < .001, 2 = .09. No SME was
found for gender F (1,918) = .166, p = .577. Nor was there a significant interaction
between age and gender F (3,918) = .710, p = .546.
185
Post hoc comparisons of the age groups found that 1724 year olds reported
significantly greater levels of pre-study negative emotion than all other drivers, p < .05.
However, there was no significant difference between the 2539 year old age group and
4059 year olds, p > .05. Older participants aged 60 years plus reported significantly
less pre-study negative emotion than the other age groups, p < .05. As such, the results
suggest that the pre-study emotions need to be included in the regression analyses to
control for their potential influence on the other factors measured in the research.
5.3.5 Sample Characteristics
5.3.5.1 Age and Gender of the Study Participants
Table 5.10 outlines participant gender by age groups within both participant
pools. The age groups were created to facilitate the analyses and were based on
categories commonly used in road safety research.
Table 5.10 Age and gender of the participants by source
Participant Pool
Age Groups
Sex
Female
Male
1724 years
186
97
2539
101
39
4059
123
104
60 years plus
93
110
503
350
1724
40
2539
15
4059
60 years plus
nil
Subtotal
61
12
73
TOTAL
564
362
926
RACQ
Subtotal
QUT
853
5.3.5.2 Self-reported Driving Behaviour and Behavioural Intentions of the Sample

Table 5.11 provides an overview of the findings related to the driving behaviour
characteristics and the behavioural intentions of the sample. As can be seen in the tables
at Appendix J, due to the overrepresentation of young drivers in on-road aggression,
special attention needs to be given to those drivers aged 1724 years of age in the
186
sample. Full details of the chi-square analyses associated with the significant results
relating to driving behaviours are included at Appendix J.
The majority of participants (n = 797) reported that they drove mainly on city/town
roads, while 694 participants indicated that they drove more frequently in medium to
heavy traffic. Interestingly, 710 participants reported driving a mere 010 hours per
week. However, 241 participants reported driving 11 or more hours per week.
When asked whether they had been fined for speeding in the last three years, 173
participants reported having been fined once, 62 fined twice and 25 had been fined three
or more times. Chi-square analysis of age by the number of self-reported speeding fines
in the past three years revealed no significant difference between drivers aged 1724
years and other drivers, 2 (df2) = 4.456, p > .05 (Table J1). This result is not surprising
as a number of young drivers aged 1724 years may have held a licence for less than
three years. However, female drivers were significantly less likely to have received a
speeding fine in the past three years than males, + 2.8, p < .01, whilst males were
significantly more likely to have received two or more speeding fines in the same period
than females, + 3, p < .005 (refer to Table J2).
When asked about behaviours such as driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI),
unlicensed driving or other unspecified on-road offences that resulted in a loss of points,
relatively small numbers indicated that they had been fined. Therefore, chi-square
analysis of this data was not possible (see Table J3).
A reasonably large number of participants (n = 234) reported having been involved
in between one and three vehicular crashes in the past three years. A small proportion of
participants (n = 3) indicated having been involved in four to eight crashes for the same
period. Young drivers aged 1724 years ( + 4.4, p < .001) were significantly more
likely to have been involved in a crash in the past three years than older drivers, 2 (df1)
= 19.2, p < .001, = .15 (see Table J4). No significant gender differences were found,
2 (df1) = .157, p > .05 (see Table J5).
Table 5.11 details the statistical tests conducted to examine age and gender
differences in the behavioural intentions of the sample. Due to the skewed distribution
of participant responses to the four intention variables, non-parametric Mann-Whitney U
Tests were utilised. The tests revealed that young drivers aged 1724 years of age were
187
more likely to participate in on-road risk-taking behaviours such as speeding behaviour

and drink/drug driving than other drivers aged 25 years or more. Young drivers aged
1724 years of age [561.68 and 582.47] had an average ranking higher than older drivers
[406.88 and 397.00] to exceed the speed limit by 10km or more on urban roads and
highways (z = -9.394, p < .001 and z = -10.521, p < .001 respectively). Drivers aged
1724 years [479.14 and 481.29] also had average higher ranking than other drivers
[453.17 and 451.96] to drink or drug drive (z = -2.720, p < .05 and z = -4.252, p < .001
respectively). No significant gender differences were found for intention to speed on
urban roads or highways, drink drive, or drug drive (refer to Table 5.11).
Table 5.11 Driving behaviour characteristics and behavioural intentions of the sample
Drivers
17-24
Years
Drivers
25
Years
Male
Female
None
34.5
65.5
35.8
64.2
One
35.5
64.5
42.2
57.8
Two or more fines
46.4
53.6
53.6
46.4
Variable
Significance
Level
Driving Behaviour
Characteristics
Speeding Fines in previous
3 years
Number of Crashes in
previous 3 years
Age:
2 (df2) = 4.456, p > .05, c =.11
Gender:
2 (df2) = 10.803, p < .05, c =.1
Age:
2 (df1) = 19.2, p < .001,
= .15
Gender:
2 (df1) = .157, p > .05, c =.03
None
31.9
68.1
39.6
60.4
One or more
48.1
51.9
38.1
61.9
Behavioural Intentions
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Speeding 10km/h or more

urban roads
561.68
406.88
459.06
464.72
Speeding 10km/h or more

highways
582.47
397.00
470.11
459.24
Age: z = -10.521, p < .001

Gender: z = -.628, p > .05
Drink Driving
479.14
453.17
469.70
457.24
Age: z = -2.720, p < .05

Gender: z = -1.26, p > .05
Drug Driving
481.29
451.96
464.98
460.91
Age: z = -4.252, p < .001

Gender: z = -.600, p > .05
Age: z = -9.394, p < .001

Gender: z = -.350, p > .05
5.3.5.3
188
Trait Characteristics of the Sample
Using 2 x 4 ANOVAs, analyses were undertaken to determine whether there were

any gender or age differences across the sample in terms of the trait aggression (AQ) and
social problem solving ability (SPSI-R) (see Appendix K). For the purpose of these
results, only significant
simple main effects and any relevant post hoc comparisons are mentioned. No
significant interactions were found.
Male participants scored significantly higher on total trait aggression than
females (p < .001, 2 = .03). Age also appeared to have a significant effect on total trait
aggression (2 = .24), with younger drivers 1724 years of age scoring significantly
higher trait aggression than any other age group (p < .05). In regard to the AQ
subscales, males also scored significantly higher on physical, verbal and hostile
aggression (p < .05), than females. There was no significant gender difference for angry
aggression. Significant age SMEs revealed that young drivers 1724 years scored
significantly higher (p < .05) on all of the AQ subscales than other age groups. Post hoc
comparison also revealed that there was no significant (p > .05) difference between 25
39 and 4059 year old participants on physical, verbal and hostile aggression. Without
exception, participants aged 60 years and older reported significantly lower scores than
other age groups on all subscales (p < .05).
The 2 x 4 ANOVAs examining the NPO and ICS subscales of the SPSI-R were
significant (p < .001) (refer to Appendix K). Significant SMEs were found for age
groups by NPO and ICS (p < .001). Using Dunnetts C post hoc comparisons, 1724
year olds were significantly higher in NPO than all other age groups (p < .05) and
significantly higher in ICS than those aged 40 years and over (p < .05). A significant
SME for gender by NPO also indicated that females reported significantly higher levels
of NPO than males, although the difference was relatively small.
189
5.3.6 Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioural Responses to On-Road Incidents

H1
Drivers will report stronger emotional, cognitive, behavioural responses

and post-event influence in response to an intentionally anger-provoking
incident than to an ambiguous on-road incident.
Addressing H1 above, a series of pairwise t-tests were conducted to examine the

effect of on-road situational characteristics (as reflected in the two scenarios) on
participant emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses.
As detailed in Section 5.2.2.1, whilst the situation in Scenario One was
intentionally anger-provoking, Scenario Two was more ambiguous and not overtly, or
intentionally, anger-provoking. Research would suggest that the ambiguity of Scenario
Two would evoke anger in only some participants (Anderson et al., 1998). As shown in
Table 5.12, the statistical significance of these tests was predetermined at p < .025 (i.e.
using the Bonferroni adjustment .05 2) in order to control for Type 1 error.
In summary, the results indicate that in response to Scenario One participants are
more likely to report significantly stronger negative emotion, greater levels of perceived
threat and more negative attributions than when faced with an ambiguous on-road
situation (Scenario Two). In addition, participants also reported significantly greater
likelihood of responding with both instrumental and hostile reactive aggressive
behaviours in response to Scenario One. Notwithstanding, examination of the means
would suggest that the behavioural response difference between the scenarios is more
apparent for the instrumental behaviours, rather than the hostile behaviours. When faced
with Scenario One, as opposed to the more ambiguous situation in Scenario Two,
participants also reported significantly greater likelihood of the event influencing their
subsequent behaviours, either on or off-road.
190
Table 5.12 Pairwise t-tests of mean emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to
Scenarios One and Two
Variables
by
Scenario
Emotional & Cognitive Response
SD
Negative Emotion
Scenario One
Scenario Two
2.97***
2.50
1.04
1.09
Threat
Scenario One
Scenario Two
2.53***
1.18
1.31
.52
Scenario One
Scenario Two
3.36***
2.14
1.15
1.12
Instrumental Behavioural Response

Scenario One
Scenario Two
1.96***
1.87
.75
.73
Hostile Behavioural Response

Scenario One
Scenario Two
1.07**
1.05
.35
.29
Scenario One
Scenario Two
1.51***
1.25
.74
.55
Behavioural Response
** p<.025, *** p<.001
5.3.7 Examination of the Components Proposed in the Theoretical Framework of

Aggressive Driving
The following analyses were undertaken to test hypotheses 28 detailed in
Section 5.1.1. As detailed in Section 5.2.2, in order to explore the psychological
components of the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) that have been found potentially
relevant to aggressive driving behaviour, the use of hierarchical regression analyses was
considered appropriate. This approach allows for exploration of the various stages of
the GAM based framework for aggressive driving. Specifically, a three stage analysis of
191
the model was utilised, in accordance with the diagrammatic presentation at Figure 5.1.
The first stage of the exploration examined the relationships between the sociodemographic, state and trait person-related characteristics of participants in relation to
their emotional and cognitive responses to Scenario One and Scenario Two. The second
stage involved an examination of the relationship of the socio-demographic, trait and
state person-related characteristics, and participant emotional and cognitive responses
with the likelihood of either an instrumental and/or hostile aggressive behavioural
response. The final stage examined how these variables relate to the likelihood of a
post-event influence. Prior to these analyses, the bivariate relationships between the
relevant variables were examined to identify those for inclusion in the regression
analyses.
5.3.7.1 Bi-variate Correlations of Variables for Consideration in the Examination of
the Components of the Framework
As detailed in Table 5.13, there were many person-related characteristics and a
small number of socio-demographic variables that were significantly correlated to a
participants emotional, cognitive and behavioural response to Scenarios One and Two,
p < .001. As previously explained, the initial response comprises negative emotions,
feelings of threat and attributions, whilst the behavioural responses consist of
instrumental and hostile aggressive behavioural responses. A number of significant
associations, with correlations approaching .2 or greater, are discussed below. In some
instances, however, significant associations with correlations below .2 are mentioned for
ease of reference.
5.3.7.1.1 Driving Exposure and Socio-Demographic Variables. The type of
vehicle driven had a small but significant relationship with negative emotions in
response to Scenario One only (r = -.11, p < .001). Therefore, it was not incorporated
into the regression analyses exploring the components of the model. Similarly,
congestion and hours driven per week were not significantly correlated with the DV. As
such, they were not included in the regression analyses. However, participant age,
gender and education level attained were included in the regression analyses as they had
multiple significant relationships with variables across Scenarios One and Two. These
relationships will be highlighted in more detail below.
192
5.3.7.1.2 Negative Emotions. Several of the variables were significantly

correlated with the strength of negative emotions reported as a result of exposure to both
Scenarios One and Two (refer to Table 5.14). Participant total AQ scores (S1, r = .42, p
< .001 and S2, r = .49, p < .001)
were significantly related to the negative emotions reported following exposure to
Scenarios One and Two. Examination of the SPSI-R subscales also revealed NPO (S1, r
= .33, p < .001 and S2, r = .33, p < .001) and ICS (S1, r = .19, p < .001 and S2 , r = .18,
p < .001) are positively, albeit moderately, associated with negative emotions, indicating
that as negative problem-solving orientation and/or impulsive/careless style of problem
solving increase so does the amount of negative emotion reported by participants. The
strength of the associations is similar for both scenarios, indicating that higher levels of
NPO and ICS brought to either on-road situation will result in similar levels of negative
emotion. The RPS subscale was not significantly associated with negative emotions
reported by participants in response to either situation (p > .05).
As a measure of state characteristics, the participants reported pre-study
emotions were significantly (S1, r = .32, p < .001 and S2 , r = .34, p < .001), but
moderately correlated with the DV. This result indicates that if participants reported
greater positive emotions prior to completing the questionnaire they were more likely to
report less negative emotions in response to either scenario. The presence of this
significant association would indicate, once again, a need to account for pre-study
emotions in the following hierarchical regression analyses.
5.3.7.1.3 Perceived Threat. Gender had a significant association with threat in
response to Scenario One only (r = -.30, p < .001), indicating that females were more
likely to perceive threat in such a situation. However, all other state and trait variables
had a significant relationship with perceived threat in response to Scenarios One and
Two: age (S1, r = -.19, p < .001 and S2 , r = -.13, p < .001); total AQ (S1, r = -.12, p <
.001 and S2, r = .21, p < .001), NPO (S1, r = .28, p < .001 and S2 , r = .22, p < .001);
ICS (S1, r = .07, p < .05 and S2 , r = .08, p < .05); and, pre-study emotion (S1, r = .18, p
< .001 and S2 , r = .14, p < .001). These results indicate that as age decreases and
negative orientation and impulsive/careless style of problem solving increases so does
the likelihood of perceiving threat in response to both scenarios. Interestingly, the
193
correlations for trait aggression indicate that in response to Scenario One, lower levels of
trait aggression were associated with the experience of threat. Conversely, for
Scenario Two higher levels of trait aggression were associated with reported feelings of
threat.
The correlation of education levels with feelings of threat in response to Scenario
One was also significant (r = .07, p < .05) suggesting that as education level increases so
does the likelihood of perceiving threat in such a situation. The type of vehicle driven,
levels of congestion most frequently encountered and hours driven per week also had
small to moderate, significant relationships with perceived threat in response to Scenario
One (r = -.11, p < .001, r = -.12, p < .001, r = -.13, p < .001 respectively). These results
indicate that those drivers more likely to perceive threat will drive smaller vehicles, will
more frequently drive in lightmedium levels of congestion and drive approximately 1
16 hours per week. However, as these variables were only significant with regard to
Scenario One, they were not included in the regression analyses that follow.
5.3.7.1.4 Negative Attributions. There was a significant relationship between
the total AQ scores and negative attributions (S1, r = -.26, p < .001 and S2 , r = -.25, p <
.001), as well as the two SPSI-R subscales, NPO and ICS in response to both scenarios
(NPO - S1, r = .15, p < .001 and S2 , r = .22, p < .001; ICS - S1, r = .12, p < .001 and
S2 , r = .16, p < .001). These latter results indicate that higher scores on negative
problem orientation and impulsive/careless style are associated with experiencing
negative attributions in response to potentially anger-provoking on-road incidents. Prestudy emotions were also found to be positively, though weakly (S1, r = .16, p < .001
and S2, r = .21, p < .001) related to the likelihood of negative attributions, with higher
levels of negative, pre-study emotion being associated with a greater likelihood of
having negative attributions in response to an on-road incident.
5.3.7.1.5 Instrumental Behavioural Response. Of the trait characteristics
measured, AQ scores (S1, r = .57, p < .001 and S2 , r = .59, p < .001) and two of the
SPSI-R subscales, NPO (S1, r = .21, p < .001 and S2 , r = .28, p < .001) and ICS (S1, r
= .28, p < .001 and S2 , r = .24, p < .001) were found to have significant, positive
194
Table 5.13 Bivariate correlations of the person-related, driving exposure, emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses, and post-event
influence variables Scenario One (S1) and Scenario Two (S2) (N=926)
Negative
Emotions
Likelihood
of
Instrumental
Behavioural
Response
Negative
Attributions
Feelings of Threat
Variable
S1
S2
S1
S2
S1
S2
S1
S2
Likelihood
of
Hostile
Behavioural
Response
S1
S2
Likelihood
of
Post-event Influence
S1
S2
Gender1
.12***
.03
-.30***
-.02
-.05
-.03
-.05
-.03
-.11***
-.06
.17***
.06
Agea
-.44***
-.45***
-.19***
-.13***
-.41***
-.42***
-.41***
-.42***
-.08*
-.04
-.23***
.18***
Total AQ Score
.42***
.49***
-.12***
.21***
.57***
.59***
.57***
.59***
.32***
.19***
.32***
.29***
NPO
.33***
.33***
.28***
.22***
.21***
.28***
.21***
.28***
.07*
.19***
29***
.25***
ICS
.19***
.18***
.07*
.08*
.28***
.24***
.28***
.24***
.18***
.10***
.14***
.16***
RPS
-.05
-.06
-.01
-.06
-.08*
-.06
-.08*
-.07*
-.05
-.03
-.04
Pre-Study Emotion
.32***
.34***
.18***
.14***
.31***
.31***
.31***
.31***
.11***
.10***
.31***
.21***
Education Levelb
(< Yr 10 or > Yr 10)
Type of Vehiclec
.16***
.19***
.07*
.04
.19***
.23***
.19***
.23***
.05
.02
.10***
.11***
-11***
-.06
-.11***
-.01
-.06
-.04
-.06
-.04
-.08*
.06
-.10***
-.04
-.04
-.01
-.12***
-.02
.05
.02
.05
.02
.05
.03
-.04
-.03
Congestion
-.06
-.00
.01
-.13***
-.01
.05
.04
.05
.04
.06
.02
-.07*
-.04
Hours Driven Per
Week
*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
a. Age variable was recoded to reflect midpoints of original categories.
b. Education Level was collapsed.
c. The categorical variable, congestion was rank ordered from lowest to highest levels of each variable to enable Spearmans rho measure of association (r s ). Also, the categorical variable type of
vehicle was also rank ordered from small vehicles to larger vehicles such as trucks to enable Spearmans rho measure of association (r s ).
1
In order to explore for any gender by age differences in participant responses, two way ANOVAs were conducted on the responses to Scenario One. A conservative probability of = .008 (.05 6 =
.008) was chosen consistent with the number of tests performed. Post hoc test used Dunnetts C at p <.05. All of the overall ANOVAs were significant at p < .001, however, only one interaction was
evident between age and gender for likelihood of a hostile aggressive response [F (3,918) = 4.89, p < .008] although the effect size was small 2= .02. Males were more likely to adopt a hostile
behavioural response than females (p < .001) and 17-24 year old drivers were significantly more likely to adopt such behaviour than drivers aged 25-39 and 60 years and over (p < .001). Significant
SMEs were also found for perceived threat and likelihood of a post-event influence (p < .05). In respect of both variables, females were significantly more likely than males to experience feelings of
threat and a post-event influence. Drivers 17-39 years of age were also significantly more likely to experience feelings of threat than drivers aged 40 years and over (p < .05). Of the other significant
SMEs, post host tests revealed that 17-24 year old drivers were significantly more likely to experience negative emotions and adopt instrumental behavioural responses than any other age group (p < .05).
However, there was no significant difference between drivers 25-39 and 40-59 years of age on the likelihood of adopting an instrumental behavioural response (p < .05). Examination of the means
generally indicate that as age increases the emotional and cognitive response, behavioural response and likelihood of a post-event influence decreases.
195
relationships with the likelihood of an instrumental aggressive behavioural response to

both scenarios. The relationship of total AQ scores to the likelihood of adopting
instrumental aggression in response to either scenario, was particularly strong.
Another relatively weak, yet positive relationship was found between education
attained (0 < Yr 10 and 1 > Yr 10) and the DV in response to both scenarios (S1 - r pb
= .19, p < .001 and S2 - r pb = .23, p < .001 ), indicating that participants with greater
than a Year 10 education were more likely to have an instrumental aggressive
behavioural response to both scenarios.
The measure of participant state characteristics i.e. pre-study emotion, was also
found to be positively correlated with the likelihood of an instrumental aggressive
behavioural response in both situations (S1 - r = .31, p < .001 and S2 - r = .31, p <
.001).
5.3.7.1.6 Hostile Aggressive Behavioural Response. The results revealed two
interesting and significant relationships (p < .001). The total AQ scores were found to
have a positive relationship with the likelihood of a hostile aggressive behavioural
response to both scenarios (S1 - r = .32, p < .001 and S2 - r = .19, p < .001). Similarly,
ICS scores were also positively correlated with the likelihood of a hostile aggressive
behavioural response in both of the scenarios, albeit weakly (S1 - r = .18, p < .001 and
S2 - r = .10, p < .001).
5.3.7.1.7 Post-Event Influence. The bi-variate correlations of the state and trait
person-related and driving exposure variables with the likelihood of a post-event
influence following Scenario One revealed four significant, moderate associations equal
to, or approaching r = .2 at p < .001: age (r = -.23, p < .001), total AQ (r = .32, p <
.001), NPO (r = .29, p < .001) and pre-study emotions (r = .31, p < .001). Similarly,
these variables were significantly correlated with participant responses to Scenario Two:
age (r = .18, p < .001), total AQ (r = .29, p < .001), NPO (r = .25, p < .001) and prestudy emotions (r = .21, p < .001). However, the correlation between age and the
likelihood of a post-event influence in response to Scenario One was negative, indicating
that younger drivers would be more affected after such an incident. Conversely, the age
correlation with the likelihood of a post-event influence in response to Scenario Two
suggests that older drivers will be more affected.
196
The correlations for total AQ, NPO and pre-study emotions indicate that as trait
aggression levels, negative problem orientation and negative pre-study emotions
increase, the likelihood of a post-event influence also increases in response to both
scenarios.
5.3.7.1.8 Self-Reported Measures for the Two Scenarios. The bi-variate
correlations of the emotional, cognitive, behavioural and post-event influence variables
with the self-reported participant responses to Scenarios One and Two are included in
Table 5.14. As would be expected, multiple significant correlations (p < .05) were
found between the participant responses to Scenarios One and Two. Significant
correlations of .10, .30 and .50 have been interpreted as weak, moderate and strong
respectively, consistent with other behavioural science research (Green, Salkind, &
Akey, 2000).
Two of the emotional and cognitive response variables for Scenario One were
moderately to strongly related to the same emotional and cognitive response variables
for Scenario Two: negative emotions (r = .51) and negative attributions (r = .37).
However, there was evidence of only a weak to moderate relationship between the
perceived threat reported in Scenarios One and Two (r = .21). The behavioural response
variables for Scenario One were strongly associated with the behavioural response
variables for Scenario Two ranging from r = .48 to r = .65. Though the emotional and
cognitive variables in response to Scenario One appeared to have a significant
association with the likelihood of an instrumental behavioural response to Scenario Two,
there were no significant relationships between the Scenario One emotional and
cognitive response variables and the likelihood of a hostile aggressive behavioural
response to Scenario Two. The behavioural response variables for Scenario One were
also significantly associated with Scenario Two emotional and cognitive responses,
although the associations varied from weak to moderately strong.
197
Table 5.14 Bivariate correlations of participant negative emotion, threat, negative

attributions, likelihood of behavioural response and post-event influence - Scenarios
One and Two
Negative
Emotions
(S2)
Threat
(S2)
Negative
Attributions
(S2)
Likelihood
of an
Instrumental
Behavioural
Response
(S2)
Likelihood of a
Hostile
Behavioural
Response (S2)
Post-event
Influence
(S2)
Emotional & Cognitive

Responses
Negative
Emotions (S1)
.51***
.40***
.51***
.42***
.02
.15***
Threat (S1)
.23***
.21***
.10**
.14***
-.01
.14***
Negative
Attributions (S1)
.29***
.09**
.37***
.29***
-.01
.05
.45***
.17***
.39***
.65***
.19***
.14***
.12***
.24***
.19***
.31***
.58***
.15***
.30***
.23***
.19***
.26***
.12***
.48***
Likelihood of
Instrumental Behavioural
Response (S1)
Likelihood of a Hostile
Behavioural Response
(S1)
Post-event Influence (S1)
*** p < .05, ** p < .01, * p < .05

5.3.7.2 Regression Analyses of Socio-Demographic, Trait and State Person-Related
Variables on Participant Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioural Responses
Tables 5.15 and 5.16 report the results of the hierarchical regression analyses
conducted for Scenarios One and Two respectively. These analyses were undertaken to
further test hypotheses 2 to 8. Further to Section 5.3.7, total pre-study emotions were
also found to have a moderate, significant association with the negative emotional
responses reported by participants (S1 - r =.32, p < .001 and S2 r = .34, p < .001) (see
Table 5.15). As such, in the regression analyses it was considered necessary to account
for total pre-study emotion, as a measure of state stress. Therefore, pre-study emotions
were entered into the hierarchical regressions after the more enduring trait, personrelated predictor variables as detailed in Blocks 1 and 2 of the following analyses.
198
Table 5.15 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated variables on participant negative emotion responses to Scenario One (n = 926)
M
SD
Std.
Error
sr2
40.5
19.6
-.014***
.002
.046
.05
Gender
.100
.064
-.264
Education Level2
.009
.085
.003
Variables
Adj R2
R2
Block One
Age1
.19***
Block Two
Total AQ
47
15.6
.014***
.003
.204
.02
NPO
5.2
.52
.279***
.065
.139
.01
ICS
5.2
.54
-.004
.061
-.002
RPS
3.3
.87
-.007
.035
-.006
.27***
.08***
.28***
.01*
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
2.0
.77
.124*
.044
.091
.01
1. Age variable recoded to reflect midpoints of original categories.

2. Education level was recoded into a dichotomous variable.
*** p < .001 * * p < .01 * p < .05
5.3.7.2.1 Negative Emotions. The overall regression analyses for Scenarios One
and Two were significant, F (8, 917) = 44.82, p < .001, R2 = .28 and F (8, 917) = 54.15,
p < .001, R2 = .32 respectively (refer to Tables 5.15 and 5.16). Socio-demographic
variables contributed a significant amount of the variance in the negative emotional
responses reported by participants in response to both scenarios [F (3, 922) = 72.44, p <
.001, R2 = .19 and F (3, 922 ) = 78.18, p < .001, R2 = .20 respectively]. The trait, personrelated variables also contributed a significant amount of the variance over and above
the socio-demographic variables [S1 - F (4, 918) = 26.68, p < .001, R2 Change = .08 and
S2 - F (4, 918) = 37.84, p < .001, R2 Change = .11].
199
Table 5.16 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated variables on participant negative emotion responses to Scenario Two (n=926)
M
SD
Std.
Error
sr2
40.5
19.6
-.015***
.002
-.263
.05
Gender
-.081
.065
-.036
Education Level2
.044
.087
.015
Variables
R2
Adj R2
Block One
Age1
.20***
Block Two
Total AQ
47
15.6
.019***
.003
.271
.04
NPO
5.2
.52
.295***
.067
.141
.01
ICS
5.2
.54
-.064
.062
-.031
RPS
3.3
.87
-.023
.036
-.019
.31***
.11***
.32***
.01*
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
.77
.121*
.045
.084
.01

*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
In response to both scenarios, three of the trait predictor variables were

significant: age (S1 - = .046, p < .001 and S2 - = -.263, p < .001), total AQ (S1 -
= .204, p < .001 and S2 - = .271, p < .001), and NPO (S1 - = .139, p < .001 and
S2 - = .141, p < .001). These results suggest that younger drivers are more likely to
experience higher levels of negative emotion in response to either situation. They also
indicate that higher trait aggression levels and negative orientation towards problem
solving (NPO) increases the likelihood of a negative emotional response in both
situations.
Having controlled for the socio-demographic and trait person-related variables,
pre-study emotions reported by participants contributed a significant, but small amount
of additional variance in the self-reported negative emotion for Scenario One and Two
200
[F (1, 917) = 7.76, p < .05, R2 Change = .01 and F (1, 917) = 7.09, p < .05, R2 Change = .01 ].
As such, participants who reported higher levels of negative emotion prior to completing
the questionnaire tended to record higher levels of negative emotion in response to the
scenarios. However, the R2 statistics indicate that pre-study emotions added only a small
amount to the overall variance in self-reported negative emotions in response to
Scenario One and Two.
5.3.7.2.2 Perceived Threat. The overall regression of socio-demographic, trait
and state person-related characteristics on self-reported levels of perceived threat was
significant for both scenarios [F (8, 917) = 21.22, p < .001, R2 = .15 and F (8, 917) =
8.2, p < .001, R2 = .06] (refer to Tables 5.17 and 5.18). Socio-demographic data
contributed a significant amount of the variance in self-reported threat in response to
Scenarios One and Two [S1 - F (3, 922) = 36.73, p < .001, R2 = .11 and S2 - F (3, 922) =
5.61, p < .001, R2 = .02]. However, gender was the only uniquely significant predictor
variable of perceived threat in response to Scenario One, females being more likely to
experience the emotion (S1- = .238, p < .001). None of the socio-demographic
variables listed contributed significantly to the likelihood of perceived threat in response
to Scenario Two.
In the second step, the trait person-related variables also contributed to a
significant proportion of the variance in perceived threat having controlled for the sociodemographic variables [S1 - F (4, 918) = 12.04, p < .001, R2 Change = .05 and S2 - F (4,
918) = 11.91, p < .001, R2 Change = .05].
In the case of Scenario One, NPO uniquely added a significant proportion of the
variance in reported perceived threat ( = .212, p < .001), suggesting that those
participants with higher levels of negative problem orientation were more likely to
report feeling threatened in response to Scenario One. Similarly, in response to Scenario
Two, NPO scores contributed to a significant proportion of the variance in self-reported
threat ( = .155, p < .001). Notably, participant total AQ scores were also significant
predictors of the likelihood of perceiving threat in response to Scenario Two ( = .126,
p < .05). The latter result may suggest that in a more ambiguous, anger-provoking
scenario, higher trait aggression scores will increase the likelihood of detecting or
perceiving threat.
201
Table 5.17 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated variables on participant perceived threat responses to Scenario One (n = 926)
Std.
Error
-.004
.003
-.064
Gender
.639***
.087
.238
Education Level2
.115
.115
.033
Variables
SD
40.5
19.6
sr2
Adj R2
R2
Block One
Age1
.05
.11***
Block Two
Total AQ
47
15.6
-.001
.003
-.014
NPO
5.2
.52
.531***
.089
.212
ICS
5.2
.54
-.052
.082
-.021
RPS
3.3
.87
.051
.047
.034
.03
.16***
.05***
.17***
.01***
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
.77
.140***
.060
.082
.01

*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
In the final step, the entry of pre-study emotions added significantly only to the
likelihood of perceived threat in response to Scenario One, but only minimally [S1 - F
(1, 917) = 5.36, p < .05, R2 Change = .01 and S2 - F (1, 917) = .40, p > .05, R2 Change = .00].
202
Table 5.18 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated variables on participant perceived threat responses to Scenario Two (n = 926)
Std.
Error
-.001
.001
-.037
Gender
-.014
.036
-.013
Education Level2
-.019
.048
-.014
Variables
SD
40.5
19.6
sr2
Adj R2
R2
Block One
Age1
.02***
Block Two
Total AQ
47
15.6
.004*
.001
.126
.01
NPO
5.2
.52
.154***
.037
.155
.02
ICS
5.2
.54
-.023
.034
-.024
RPS
3.3
.87
-.017
.020
-.028
.07***
.05***
.07***
.00
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
.77
.016
.025
.024

*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
5.3.7.2.3
Negative Attributions. The regression model for person-related factors
on the likelihood of negative attributions in response to Scenarios One and Two are
detailed in Tables 5.19 and 5.20. The overall regression analyses for both scenarios
were significant [F (8, 917) = 14.16, p < .001, R2 = .10 and F (8, 917) = 22.73, p < .001,
R2 = .16].
203
Table 5.19 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated variables on participant negative attributions in response to Scenario One (n =
926)
M
SD
Std.
Error
sr2
40.5
19.6
-.010***
.002
-.172
.02
Gender
.024
.078
.010
Education Level2
-.193
.104
-.063
Variables
R2
Adj R2
Block One
Age1
.07***
Block Two
Total AQ
47
15.6
.016***
.003
.217
NPO
5.2
.52
.016
.080
.007
ICS
5.2
.54
.005
.074
.002
RPS
3.3
.87
-.031
.043
-.023
.03
.11***
.04***
.11***
.00
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
.77
.020
.054
.013

*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
The first step in the analyses for both scenarios was significant [S1 - F (3, 922) =
23.34, p < .001, R2 = .07 and S2 - F (3, 922) = 27.40, p < .001, R2 = .08], indicating that
socio-demographic factors contribute significantly to the variance in negative emotions
experienced on the road. However, participant age proved to be the only significant
predictor variable in both scenarios (S1 - = -.172, p < .001, sr2 = .02 and S2 - = .129, p < .001, sr2 = .01), indicating that younger drivers are more likely to make
negative attributions in response to the two scenarios. In response to Scenario Two,
gender was also found to be a significant predictor ( = -.106, p < .001, sr2 = .01);
males being more likely to make negative attributions in response to Scenario Two.
204
Table 5.20 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated variables on participant negative attributions in response to Scenario Two (n =
926)
M
SD
Std.
Error
sr2
40.5
19.6
-.007***
.002
-.129
.01
Gender
-.243***
.073
-.106
.01
Education Level2
-.081
.098
-.027
Variables
R2
Adj R2
Block One
Age1
.08***
Block Two
Total AQ
47
15.6
.019***
.003
.258
.04
NPO
5.2
.52
.179*
.075
.084
.01
ICS
5.2
.54
.000
.070
.000
RPS
3.3
.87
-.097*
.040
-.075
.01
.16***
.08***
.16***
.00
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
2.0
.77
.038
.051
.026

*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
In step two, trait person-related characteristics were also found to contribute a

significant amount of the variance in negative attributions in response to both scenarios
[S1 - F (4, 918) = 10.12, p < .001, R2 Change = .04 and S2 - F (4, 918) = 22.85, p < .001,
R2 Change = .08], over and above the socio-demographic person-related measures. The
Scenario One regression revealed only one significant trait predictor of negative
attributions, total AQ ( = .217, p < .001, sr2 = .03), with higher AQ scores being
associated with an increased likelihood of negative attributions. In contrast, the
regression on Scenario Two found three individually significant trait predictor variables:
AQ scores ( = .258, p < .001, sr2 = .04), NPO ( = .084, p < .05, sr2 = .01) and RPS
205
( = -.075, p < .05, sr2 = .01). These results indicate that higher AQ scores, higher NPO
scores and lower RPS scores are associated with an increased likelihood of negative
attributions in response to Scenario Two.
In the final step, pre-study emotion failed to contribute significantly to the
likelihood of negative attributions in response to either Scenario One or Two [S1 - F (1,
917) = .14, p > .05, and S2 - F (1, 917) = .56, p > .05].
5.3.7.3 Regression of Socio-Demographic, Trait and State Person-Related and
Emotional and Cognitive Response Variables on Participant Behavioural
Responses
5.3.7.3.1 Likelihood of an Instrumental Behavioural Response. The regression
of the socio-demographic, trait and state person-related and emotional and cognitive
response variables on the likelihood of an instrumental behavioural response to
Scenarios One and Two are detailed in Tables 5.21 and 5.22 respectively. As can be
seen in the tables, the overall regression analyses were significant [S1 - F (11, 914) =
76.31, p < .001, R2 = .47, and S2 - F (11, 914) = 106.24, p < .001, R2 = .56].
The first step in both regression analyses was significant, suggesting that
participant socio-demographic characteristics contribute to a significant amount of
variance in the DV in response to both scenarios [S1 - F (3, 922) = 69.63, p < .001, R2 =
.19 and S2 - F (3, 922) = 76.46, p < .001, R2 = .20].
In the second step of each analysis, trait person-related characteristics were also
found to contribute a significant proportion of the variance in response to each scenario
R2 Change = .19]. Entry of pre-study emotions to both analyses, in step three, was not
significant [S1 - F (1, 917) = 2.2, p > .05, and S2 - F (1, 917) = .16, p > .05]. However,
in the final step, entry of the emotional and cognitive response variables yielded a
significant proportion of the variance in the likelihood of instrumental aggression in
response to both scenarios [S1 - F (3, 914) = 68.86, p < .001, R2 Change = .12 and S2 - F
(3, 914) = 120.21, p < .001, R2 Change = .17].
The regression performed on Scenario One identified a number of individually
significant socio-demographic, person-related and emotional and cognitive predictors of
206
the likelihood of an instrumental behavioural response including: age ( = -.073, p <

.05, sr2 = .00); total AQ ( = .345, p < .001, sr2 = .06); NPO ( = -.079, p < .05, sr2 =
.00; ICS ( = .088, p < .001, sr2 = .01); negative emotions ( = .356, p < .001, sr2 =
.07); perceived threat ( = -.091, p < .001, sr2 = .01); and negative attributions ( =
.114, p < .001, sr2 = .01). However, it is acknowledged that many of these predictors
account for a very small, unique amount of the variance in the dependent variable.
Indeed, much of the variance appears to be shared.
Table 5.21 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated and emotional and cognitive response variables on participant instrumental
response to Scenario One (n = 926)
Std.
Error
sr2
-.003*
.001
-.073
.00
Gender
-.066
.040
-.043
Education Level2
.046
.052
.023
Variables
SD
40.5
19.6
Adj R2
R2
Block One
Age1
.19***
Block Two
Total AQ
47
15.6
.017***
.002
.345
.06
NPO
5.2
.52
-.113*
.041
-.079
.00
ICS
5.2
.54
.123***
.037
.088
.01
RPS
3.3
.87
-.014
.021
-.017
.37***
.18***
.37***
.00
.49***
.12***
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
.77
.019
.027
.019
Block Four
Negative Emotions (S1)
1.1
.255***
.023
.356
.07
Perceived Threat (S1)
2.5
1.3
-.052***
.016
-.091
.01
Negative Attributions (S1)
3.4
1.2
.075***
.018
.114
.01

*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
Table 5.22 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated and emotional and cognitive response variables on participant instrumental
response to Scenario Two (n = 926)
Std.
Error
sr2
-.002*
.001
-.064
.00
Gender
-.017
.035
-.011
Education Level2
.096*
.047
.049
Variables
SD
40.5
19.6
Adj R2
R2
Block One
Age1
.00
.20***
Block Two
Total AQ
47
15.6
.015***
.001
.320
NPO
5.2
.52
-.024
.036
-.017
ICS
5.2
.54
.039
.033
.028
RPS
3.3
.87
-.018
.019
-.021
.05
.39***
.19***
.39***
.00
.56***
.17***
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
.77
-.020
.024
-.021
Block Four
2.5
1.1
.212***
.022
.318
1.9
.52
-.001
.033
-.001
(S2)
2.1
1.1
.150***
.019
.229

*** p < .001 ** p < .05 * p < .01
.05
.03
207
208
In comparison, the regression conducted on Scenario Two identified only four

individually significant predictor variables: age ( = -.064, p < .05, sr2 = .00);
education level ( = .049, p < .05, sr2 = .00); total AQ ( = .320, p < .001, sr2 = .05);
negative emotions ( = .318, p < .001, sr2 = .05); and negative attributions ( = .229,
p < .001, sr2 = .03). Again, however, individually these variables do not appear to
account for much of the unique variance in the likelihood of adopting an instrumental
behavioural response.
The above results indicate that those drivers who were more likely to report an
instrumental behavioural response to Scenario One were more likely to be younger and
have higher trait aggression levels. They were also more likely to have higher levels of
impulsive/careless style (ICS) problem solving. With regard to emotional and cognitive
response variables, those drivers more likely to adopt an instrumentally aggressive
response were more likely to experience higher levels of negative emotion and negative
attributions in response to the scenario, whilst being more likely to perceive less threat.
In response to the more ambiguous, yet potentially anger-provoking scenario
(Scenario Two), total AQ, negative emotions and negative attributions appear to be the
only unique significant predictors. This would suggest that in an ambiguous, angerprovoking situation, those high on trait aggression will tend to adopt instrumental
aggression. They are also more likely to experience higher levels of negative emotions
and more negative attributions in response to such an on-road situation, prior to adopting
an instrumental behavioural response.
5.3.7.3.2 Likelihood of a Hostile Behavioural Response. As shown in Tables
5.23 and 5.24, the overall regression analyses of the relevant factors on the likelihood of
a hostile behavioural response were significant, albeit accounting for a relatively small
amount of variance [S1 - F (11, 914) = 12.68, p < .001, R2 = .12, and S2 - F (11, 914) =
13.70, p < .001, R2 = .13]. The first step in the regression analyses of the sociodemographic variables on the likelihood of a hostile behavioural response was
significant for Scenario One only [S1 - F (3, 922) = 6.87, p < .001, R2 = .02, and S2 - F
(3, 922) = 1.79, p > .05].
Having controlled for socio-demographic variables, step two revealed a
significant contribution by the trait person-related variables in the prediction of hostile
209
behavioural responses to both Scenarios One and Two [S1 - F (4, 918) = 28.75, p < .001,
R2 Change = .11, and S2 - F (4, 918) = 9.07, p < .001, R2 Change = .04]. Step three revealed
no significant contribution by pre-study emotions to the prediction of hostile behaviour
in response to either scenario [S1 - F (1, 917) = .63, p > .05, and S2 - F (1, 917) = .46, p
> .05]. Finally, having controlled for all other variables, the emotional and cognitive
response variables were found to significantly contribute to the likelihood of a hostile
behavioural response to Scenario Two only [S1 - F (3, 914) = .36, p > .05, and S2 - F (3,
914) = 34.6, p < .001, R2 Change = .10].
For Scenario One, there were two predictor variables that significantly
contributed to a proportion of the variance in the likelihood of a hostile behavioural
response: total AQ ( = .369, p < .001, sr2 = .07); and ICS ( = .102, p < .001, sr2 =
.01). These results indicate that higher levels of trait aggression and impulsive/careless
style problem solving are significantly associated with a greater likelihood of hostile
aggression in response to an anger-provoking on-road situation (i.e. Scenario One). In
comparison, analysis of Scenario Two revealed three statistically significant predictor
variables: total AQ ( = .178, p < .001, sr2 = .02); negative emotions ( = -.169, p <
.001, sr2 = .01); and perceived threat ( = .321, p < .001, sr2 = .09). Again, higher
levels of AQ were associated with an increased likelihood of adopting hostile
aggression. As can be seen in response to Scenario Two, significantly lower levels of
negative emotion were associated with an increased likelihood of hostile aggression,
whilst higher self-reported levels of perceived threat were associated with the increased
likelihood of hostile behaviour.
Upon examination of the unique variance (sr2) contributed by the predictors, the
results suggest that total trait aggression scores account for a larger proportion of the
variance in the dependent variable, especially in terms of Scenario One. However,
perceived threat accounted for a larger proportion of the variance in the dependent
variable in response to Scenario Two. Again, in the analysis of both scenarios a
considerable amount of variance remains unexplained.
210
Table 5.23 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated and emotional and cognitive response variables on participant hostile response
to Scenario One (n = 926)
Std.
Error
.001
.001
.073
Gender
-.044
.024
-.062
Education Level2
-.010
.031
-.011
Variables
SD
40.5
19.6
sr2
Adj R2
R2
Block One
Age1
.02***
Block Two
Total AQ
47
15.6
.008***
.001
.369
NPO
5.2
.52
-.045
.025
-.068
ICS
5.2
.54
.066***
.022
.102
RPS
3.3
.87
-.020
.013
-.051
.07
.01
.13***
.11***
.13***
.00
.13***
.00
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
.77
-.013
.016
-.028
Block Four
1.1
-.012
.014
-.036
2.5
1.3
.007
.009
.028
(S1)
3.4
1.2
.003
.011
.010
1. Age variable recoded to reflect midpoints of original categories

*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
211
Table 5.24 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated and emotional and cognitive response variables on participant hostile response
to Scenario Two (n = 926)
Std.
Error
.000
.001
.031
Gender
-.019
.020
-.032
Education Level2
-.003
.026
-.004
Variables
SD
40.5
19.6
sr2
Adj R2
R2
Block One
Age1
.01***
Block Two
Total AQ
47
15.6
.003***
.001
.178
NPO
5.2
.52
-.014
.021
-.025
ICS
5.2
.54
.023
.019
.042
RPS
3.3
.87
-.010
.011
-.029
.02
.05***
.04***
.05***
.00
.15***
.10***
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
.77
.012
.014
.031
Block Four
2.5
1.1
-.046***
.012
-.169
.01
1.9
.52
.184***
.019
.321
.09
(S2)
2.1
1.1
.016
.011
.059

*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
212
5.3.7.4 Regression of Socio-Demographic, Trait and State Person-Related, Emotional

and Cognitive Response and Behavioural Response Variables on the Likelihood
of a Post-Event Influence
The relevant regression analyses for Scenarios One and Two are detailed at
Tables 5.25 and 5.26. The overall regression analyses for both scenarios were
significant [S1 - F (13, 912) = 22.89, p < .001, R2 = .24 and S2 - F (13, 912) = 19.11, p <
.001, R2 = .20].
The first step in the analyses revealed socio-demographic variables contributed a
significant proportion of the variance in the likelihood of a post-event influence in
response to both scenarios [S1 - F (3, 922) = 23.34, p < .001, R2 = .07, and S2 - F (3,
922) = 10.38, p < .001, R2 = .03]. The second step in the analyses also found that trait
person-related variables contributed to a significant amount of the variance in the
likelihood of a post-event influence, over and above the socio-demographic variables
R2 Change = .08]. The subsequent entry of the pre-study emotions for Scenario One,
resulted in a small but significant change in the variance, F (1, 917) = 19.88, p < .001, R2
Change
= .02. Conversely, the entry of pre-study emotions for Scenario Two did not
significantly add to the variance in the likelihood of a post-event influence, F (1, 917) =
2.93, p > .05.
In the fourth step, entry of the emotional and cognitive response variables in the
regressions for both Scenarios One and Two revealed significant change in the variance
explained [S1 - F (3, 914) = 25.63, p < .001, R2 Change = .06, and S2 - F (3, 914) = 31.14,
p < .001, R2 Change = .08]. In the final step, the likelihood of adopting an instrumental
and/or hostile behavioural response was entered into the regression equation, having
controlled for all other variables. For Scenario Two, the likelihood of the behavioural
responses added a significant though small amount of additional variance in the
likelihood of a post-event influence, F (2, 912) = 10.18, p < .001, R2 Change = .02.
However, the same step applied to Scenario One was not significant, F (2, 912) = 1.2, p
> .05.
As can be seen in Table 5.25, the regression for Scenario One revealed several
individually significant predictors worthy of mention: gender ( = .085, p < .05, sr2 =
213
.01); total AQ ( = .174, p < .001, sr2 = .02); pre-study emotions ( = .129, p < .001,
sr2 = .02); and, perceived threat ( = .266, p < .001, sr2 = .05). These results indicate
that females are more likely to report a post-event influence than males. Also, higher
levels of pre-study negative emotions and perceived threat were associated with a
greater likelihood of a post-event influence. Perceived threat uniquely contributed a
greater proportion of the variance than the other two variables.
Table 5.25 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated, emotional, cognitive and behavioural response variables on the likelihood of a
post-event influence to Scenario One (n = 926)
Variables
SD
40.5
19.6
Std.
Error
sr2
.001
.048
.062
.002
.085
-.002
.01
Adj R2
R2
Block One
Age1
Gender
Education Level2
.000
.128**
-.004
.07***
Block Two
Total AQ
NPO
ICS
RPS
47
5.2
5.2
3.3
15.6
.52
.54
.87
.008***
.104*
.014
.007
.002
.049
.044
.025
.174
.074
.010
.009
.02
.00
.16***
.09***
.18***
.02***
.24***
.06***
.24***
.00
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
.77
.124***
.032
.129
.01
Block Four
(S1)
2.5
2.5
2.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
.030
.149***
-.046*
.029
.019
.022
.043
.266
-.071
.05
.00
Block Five
Likelihood of Instrumental
Behavioural Response (S1)
Likelihood of Hostile
1.1
.046
.041
.047
3.4
1.2
.047
.068
.022

*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
214
Table 5.26 Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state personrelated, emotional, cognitive and likelihood of behavioural response variables on the
likelihood of a post-event influence to Scenario Two (n = 926)
Std.
Error
.001
.001
.037
Gender
.075**
.036
.066
Education Level2
.043
.047
.029
Variables
SD
40.5
19.6
sr2
Adj R2
R2
Block One
Age1
.00
.03***
Block Two
Total AQ
47
15.6
.003
.002
.078
NPO
5.2
.52
.083*
.037
.079
ICS
5.2
.54
.047
.034
.046
RPS
3.3
.87
.015
.019
.024
.00
.11***
.08***
.11***
.00
.19***
.08***
.21***
.02***
Block Three
Pre-study
Emotion
.77
.034
.025
.047
Block Four
2.5
1.1
.026
.023
.052
1.9
.52
.217***
.035
.203
(S2)
2.1
1.1
.036
.020
.073
.03
Block Five
Likelihood of Instrumental
1.1
Likelihood of Hostile
3.4
1.2
.060
.035
.080
.216***
.062
.116
.01
1. Age variable transformed to reflect midpoints of original categories.

*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05
Similarly, in the regression of Scenario Two data (Table 5.26) there were only
two significant predictors of the likelihood of a post-event influence worthy of mention.
215
Perceived threat accounted for a significant proportion of the variance ( = .203, p <
.001, sr2 = .03), as did the likelihood of a hostile behavioural response ( = .116, p <
.001, sr2 = .01). Overall, the Scenario Two results indicate those more likely to perceive
threat and/or engage in hostile on-road behaviours in response to this scenario are more
likely to experience a post-event influence. Again, there was a lot of unexplained
variance.
5.3.8 Exploratory Analyses of Potentially Hostile Aggressive Drivers
5.3.8.1 Rationale
Using the available data, the researcher also endeavoured to explore the
characteristics of those participants who indicated a preparedness to engage in a hostile
aggressive response to the scenarios. For the purposes of these analyses these
participants are referred to as potentially hostile aggressive (PHA) drivers.
5.3.8.2 PHA Driver Selection
In order to later explore the characteristics of the driver that has the potential for
more hostile aggressive acts on the road, participants with a mean score greater than
one on the three hostile aggressive behavioural response items in response to either
Scenario One or Two were distinguished (n = 88) from the larger sample (n = 926). An
average score of greater than one on these three items for either scenario was interpreted
as indicating that a participant was, to some degree, prepared to adopt more extreme
behaviours in response to a potentially anger-provoking on-road incident. Specifically,
these participants indicated their preparedness to engage in:
8. Stopping their vehicle and getting out ready to argue;
9. Stopping their vehicle and getting out ready to engage physically with the other
driver; and/or
10. Using their vehicle to physically damage the other drivers vehicle.
The age and gender breakdown of the 88 drivers identified as PHA drivers is
presented at Table 5.27.
216
Table 5.27 Breakdown of gender by age group for the PHA driver group (n = 88)
Gender
17-24 years
25-39 years
40-59 years
60 + years
Male
24
23
Female
18
TOTAL
42
29
5.3.8.3 Socio-demographic and Driving Characteristics of the PHA Drivers

A significant difference was found between the two driver groups in terms of age
[2 (df3)=16.157, p < .001, c =.13] (refer to Table L1). Drivers aged 1724 years were
proportionately more likely to be categorised PHA drivers (47.7%) than other drivers
(34.6%) [ = 1.8, p < .05]. Not surprisingly, drivers 60 years and older were
significantly more represented in the other driver group (23.4%), than the PHA driver
group (9.1%) [ = 3.1, p < .005]. There was also a significant gender difference
between the PHA driver and other driver groups [2 (df1) = 24.361, p < .001, = .162]
(refer to Table L2). Males were significantly more represented in the PHA driver group
(63.6%) than the other driver group (36.6%) [ = 4.9, p < .001].
Although a significant overall difference in the level of education attained by
PHA drivers and other drivers was detected [2 (df3) = 12.672, p < .01, c = .117], none
of the comparisons at each level of the variable was significant at p < .01 (see Table L3).
However, examination of the frequencies in the cells indicates that a large proportion of
PHA drivers (92%) had attained a Year 12 or higher education (i.e. either senior
39.8%, TAFE or apprenticeship 31.8%, or university 18%).
Participants were asked to indicate the approximate number of hours they drive
per week in the categories outlined at Table L4. As can be seen, there were no
significant differences found between the two driver groups in the number of hours
driven per week [2 (df4) = 5.583, p > .01, c = .08].
Participants were also asked to indicate what type of vehicle they drove. As
some of the obtained cell frequencies were less than 5, various categories were collapsed
together. Utility vehicles, small/large trucks and all 4WDs were combined to be known
as 4WD, utility or truck. Finally, as the number of participants that indicated use of
217
either a motorcycle or a van/people mover/ mini-bus was less than 5, these items were
excluded from the analysis. Thus, the number of participant responses under
consideration was reduced to other drivers (n = 807) and PHA drivers (n = 83).
The overall difference between the two driver groups of other drivers and PHA
drivers [p = .017] was approaching significance at the predetermined alpha level, p >
.01. Examination of the frequencies at Table L5 suggests that PHA drivers may tend to
drive a medium-size vehicle or larger.
The measure of the type of road most frequently used distinguished between
urban, city, highway and open road. As can be seen in Appendix F, this measure made
simultaneous reference to the density of traffic to which a driver is most frequently
exposed, as traffic density is known to vary with type of roads travelled. For example,
the number of cars using a city/town road understandably varies from the number using
a country road. The categories were collapsed to reflect a measure of light, medium and
heavy traffic density, irrespective of type of road (see Table L6). However, no
significant differences between PHA drivers and other drivers were found in relation to
exposure to traffic density [2 (df2) = 2.574, p = .276, c = .05]. Also, it is worth noting
that on the original scale, approximately half of the PHA driver group (n = 47 or 53.4%)
reported most frequently driving on city/town roads in medium density traffic.
5.3.8.4 PHA Driver Differences in Trait Characteristics
A series of independent sample, Mann-Whitney U t-tests was conducted (Table
L7) comparing hostile aggressive drivers to other drivers on the various trait
characteristics measured via the survey (see Appendix F). Comparisons were made
between the potentially hostile aggressive driver (n = 88) scores and other drivers (n
= 838) on the AQ (Buss & Perry, 1992) subscales: physical aggression, verbal
aggression, angry aggression and hostile aggression. The results of the tests indicated
that the PHA drivers scored significantly higher on all four AQ subscales, as well as the
total AQ scale, than the other drivers (refer to Table L7).
Secondly, the PHA driver group was compared with other drivers on the three
SPSI-R subscales of interest in this study, i.e. negative problem solving (NPO),
impulsive/carelessness style (ICS) and rational problem solving (RPS) (refer to Table
L7). The Mann-Whitney U tests were significant for: NPO [ z = -2.882, p < .005]; and
218
ICS [z = -4.081, p < .001], with the PHA drivers having higher scores on both NPO and
ICS than other drivers. Although not statistically significant (p > .017), the PHA
drivers scores on rational problem solving were lower than the other drivers.
Finally, prior to completing the questionnaire participants were asked to indicate
their current stress, happiness and agitation levels. A total score of pre-study emotion
was subsequently calculated. A test comparing levels of pre-study emotion reported
prior to completion of the questionnaire between the PHA drivers and other drivers was
significant [z = -4.711, p < .001] (refer to Table L7). Interestingly, PHA drivers had an
average rank of 590.10, while other drivers had an average rank of 450.21, suggesting
that the PHA driver group may have higher levels of negative emotion than other
drivers at any given point in time.
5.3.8.5 PHA Driver Self Reported Driving Behaviour and Behavioural Intentions
Examination of the frequencies for the PHA driver group across the original
response categories indicates that 21.6% (n = 19) of PHA drivers reported being
involved in one crash in the last three years (see Table L8). In a more thorough
breakdown of the nine PHA drivers involved in two or more crashes as outlined above,
four reported having had two crashes, three reported having three crashes and one
reported having been involved in four crashes in the past three years. Interestingly, one
of the PHA drivers reported having had eight crashes in the past three years. However, it
should be noted that there was no overall significant difference in the self-reported crash
involvement of the PHA drivers compared to the other drivers (see Table L8).
Similar to the measure of crash involvement above, participants were asked to
indicate the number of speeding fines they had received in the past three years. To aid
interpretation of the data, the frequencies were collapsed into three categories (see Table
L9). Again, no significant difference was found between reported speeding fines for
other drivers and PHA drivers [2 (df2) = 1.927, p = .381, c = .05]. Examination
revealed that 34% (n = 29) of the PHA driver group and 27.3% (n = 221) of other
drivers had received one or more speeding fines in the past three years (Table L9).
Participants also reported whether they had been fined for any other offences
during the last three years. As shown in Table L9, these responses were recoded into
219
two categories. No significant difference was found between PHA drivers and other
drivers on this variable [2 (df1) = 1.885, p = .170, = .048].
When asked to indicate the number of drink-driving charges they have had in the
last three years, a significant difference was found between the obtained frequencies of
drink-driving charges for the driver groups [2 (df1) = 7.951, p < .05, c = .10] (see
Table L9). A significantly larger proportion of PHA drivers (4.1%) had reported one or
more drink-driving charges than the other driver group (.7%). However, caution
should be exercised when interpreting these results as one of the cell frequencies was
below 5, potentially influencing the results.
Participants were also asked if they had driven unlicensed in the past three years.
Unfortunately, 120 participants chose not to respond to this question, while only four
reported engaging in such behaviour. Therefore, it was not possible to detect any
meaningful differences between the two driver groups.
The self-reported driving behaviour and behavioural intentions of the PHA and
other drivers were also compared using Mann-Whitney U Tests due to the skewed
distribution of participant responses to the four intention variables (refer to Table L10).
The PHA drivers reported significantly stronger intentions than other drivers in relation
to their preparedness to exceed the speed limit by 10km/h or more on urban roads [z =
2.993, p < .05] and on highways [z = 4.188, p < .001]. PHA drivers also indicated
significantly stronger intentions to drink drive and drug drive [z = 4.714, p < .001 and z
= 5.127, p < .001 respectively].
5.3.8.6 PHA Driver Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioural Responses
Using Mann-Whitney U tests, PHA drivers and other driver emotional, cognitive
and behavioural responses to each scenario were compared. The results of these tests
are outlined at Table L11. Considering five tests were conducted for each scenario a
Bonferoni adjustment was made (.05 5) which resulted in the adoption of p < .01
value.
Significant differences were found between the driver groups on self-reported
negative emotions in response to both Scenarios One and Two [z = -3.509, p < .001 and
z = -3.973, p < .001]. PHA drivers reported higher scores in response to both Scenario
One and Scenario Two, than the other drivers.
220
As can be seen in Table L11, the comparison of PHA drivers and other drivers
on the likelihood of perceiving threat was significant for Scenario Two only [z = -5.725,
p < .001]. In this case, the PHA drivers reported a strong perception of threat than other
drivers in an ambiguous, though potentially anger-provoking, scenario. The nonsignificant result between PHA drivers and other drivers on perceived threat in
response to Scenario One [z = -.319, p >.01] indicates that there was no difference
between drivers in their tendency to perceive threat in an anger-provoking on-road
situation.
Though the comparison of the driver groups for Scenario One negative
attributions was not significant [z = -2.353, p > .01], the difference between the average
ranks for PHA [526.98] and other drivers [456.83] was in the direction anticipated.
The comparison of the PHA drivers and other drivers on Scenario Two responses was
significant [z = -4.711, p < .001]. Again, PHA drivers had a higher negative cognition
score in response to Scenario One than other drivers.
As previously detailed, six items on the behavioural response scale were used to
calculate a total score reflecting the likelihood of an instrumental aggressive response
for each participant. Similarly, the three items detailing more severe behavioural
responses were used to calculate the likelihood of having a hostile reactive aggressive
response. Mann-Whitney U tests comparing the PHA drivers and the other drivers on
the likelihood of an instrumental aggressive response was significant for both scenarios:
Scenario One [z = -9.164, p < .001]; and Scenario Two [z = -8.702, p < .001]. In both
scenarios the PHA driver group had higher average ranks [Scenario One 711.19,
Scenario Two 698.69] than other drivers, average rankings 437.49 and 438.80
respectively. As such, not only did the PHA driver group report a higher score for an
instrumental aggressive response to an anger-provoking incident (Scenario One), but
also when the on-road incident is ambiguous (Scenario Two).
Mann-Whitney U tests also compared self-reported likelihood of a post-event
influence following an on-road incident between PHA drivers and other drivers
following Scenarios One and Two. Both tests were significant, Scenario One z = 3.695, p < .001 and Scenario Two z = -3.362, p < .001. In response to Scenario One,
the PHA drivers [average rank = 556.91] were more likely to report stronger post event
221
influence than the other drivers [average rank = 453.69]. This result was also reflected
in response to Scenario Two. That is, hostile aggressive drivers [average rank = 535.00]
were more likely to report a stronger post event influence following an ambiguous onroad incident than the other drivers in the sample [average rank = 455.99].
5.3.8.7 Ability of Variables to Predict PHA Driver Group Membership
The final step in the analysis of Study Two data was to assess the extent to which
the various discrete and continuous variables of the proposed model of aggressive
driving predict PHA group membership. Consequently, a logistic regression was
conducted utilising the person-related, emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses
and individual driving exposure variables as predictor variables (refer to Table L12).
Person-related predictors were gender, age (1724 years, 2539 years, 4059 years and
60 years plus), trait aggression (as measured by the AQ), social problem solving
subscale score measures (NPO, ICS and RPS scores), pre-study emotions and education
(either < Year 10 or > Year 10). The emotional, cognitive and behavioural response
predictor variables were the total negative emotions, perceived threat, negative
cognitions and likelihood of an instrumental aggressive reaction, summed across the two
scenarios.
The majority of these variables are continuous and missing values were replaced
with the mean. Ninety-two cases with missing values on the categorical variables, age,
hours driven per week, type of vehicle and congestion exposure, were excluded from
analysis leaving 834 drivers for the analysis. There was no identifiable pattern to the
missing data.
A test of the full model with all predictors against a constant-only model was
statistically reliable [2 (df24, n = 834) = 170.99, p < .001, Nagalkerke R2 = .41]. The
predictors as a set reliably distinguished between PHA drivers and other drivers.
However, prediction of PHA group membership was relatively poor, with only 29.3% of
PHA drivers correctly predicted. Conversely, 98.4% of other drivers were correctly
predicted. The overall prediction success rate was 91%.
As shown in Table L12, three person-related predictors, three emotional,
cognitive and behavioural response predictors and one of the driving exposure predictors
reliably predicted driver group membership. Gender [B = -1.04, p < .01, odds ratio =
222
.36, CI = .18 - .70] and total AQ scores [B = .04, p < .01, odds ratio = 1.04, CI = 1.01
1.06] were significant predictors. The gender indices indicate that being female
increases the likelihood of other driver group membership, whilst the total AQ indices
suggest that higher trait aggression scores increase the likelihood of PHA group
membership. The categorical, person-related variable age also yielded a significant
result for 2539-year-old drivers [B = -1.13, p < .05, odds ratio = .32, CI = .12 1.07].
These indices indicate that drivers aged 2539 years old are more likely to belong to the
other driver group. However, this could be a product of the fact that proportionately
less 2539 year-old drivers were recruited than other age groups.
The three response predictors were negative emotions [B = -.83, p < .01, odds
ratio = .44, CI = .25 - .76], perceived threat [B = .32, p < .01, odds ratio = 1.37, CI =
1.09 1.73] and instrumental aggressive behavioural response [B = 2.08, p < .01, odds
ratio = 7.99, CI = 4.2 14.9]. These results indicate that greater negative emotions
and/or lower levels of perceived threat experienced by a driver increase the likelihood of
belonging to the PHA driver group. Finally, being more likely to engage in instrumental
aggressive behaviours rather than hostile behaviours increased the likelihood of
belonging to the other driver group.
Of the categorical driving exposure variables, type of vehicle yielded
significant results at p < .05:
Medium vehicle [B = 1.02, odds ratio = 2.78, CI = 1.18 6.53]
Large vehicle [B = 1.18, odds ratio = 3.25, CI = 1.18 8.96]
Four Wheel Drive [B = 1.39, odds ratio = 4.0, CI = 1.31 12.2]
These results indicate that drivers of medium/large vehicles and four wheel
drives are more likely to be categorised as PHA drivers than drivers of small vehicles
(i.e. reference group).
5.4 Discussion
The following section discusses the results of the study in terms of the relevant
research questions and specific hypotheses outlined in Section 5.1.1.
223
5.4.1 Response Differences to On-Road Scenarios

driving?
H1
Drivers will report stronger emotional, cognitive and behavioural

responses and post-event influence in response to a clearly angerprovoking incident than to an ambiguous incident.
In support of Hypothesis One, the pairwise t-test results at Table 5.12 (Section
5.3.6.1) suggest that drivers, in general, do respond differently to an intentionally angerprovoking on-road incident as opposed to an ambiguous, though potentially angerprovoking, on-road incident. Participants reported significantly greater levels of each of
the following factors in response to Scenario One (p < .001): negative emotion, feelings
of threat, likelihood of negative attributions, likelihood of instrumental and/or hostile
aggression and likelihood of post-event influence in response to an intentionally angerprovoking incident than in response to Scenario Two (ambiguous incident). Although
there was a significant difference between Scenarios One and Two in the likelihood of a
hostile aggressive behavioural response (p < .025), the difference between the means
was extremely small and there is evidence of a moderate-strong relationship between
hostile aggressive responses between Scenarios One and Two (r = .58, p < .001) (refer to
Table 5.14). This suggests that those more likely to respond with hostile aggression to
Scenario One were more likely to adopt this type of behavioural response to Scenario
Two.
In aggressive driving research there is considerable support for the above
findings concerning stronger levels of negative emotions being reported in response to
on-road incidents that are anger-provoking, and subsequently culminating in the
increased likelihood of aggressive behavioural responses (OBrien, Watson, & Tay,
2005; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Shinar, 1998). The results of these t-tests are also
consistent with Frustration-Aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939) and GAM theory
(Andersen & Bushman, 2001), both of which propose that stronger feelings of
frustration/anger increase the likelihood of an aggressive behavioural response.
The results relating to significantly stronger levels of threat being reported in
response to Scenario One and resulting in an increased likelihood of an instrumental or
224
hostile behavioural response, are consistent with human aggression research (Anderson
et al., 1998; Berkowitz, 1989, 1990; Dodge & Coie, 1987). For instance, Berkowitz
(1989, 1990) maintained that fear is a basic instinctive response to a provocative
incident that will result in flight or fight. This finding also lends support to the Study
One findings in which young drivers cited feelings of dangerousness, and/or more
explicitly fear, as a result of an on-road incident. Consequently, these findings also
support the inclusion of threat in the theoretical model of aggressive driving behaviour
(see Figure 4.3) as a legitimate contributing factor to on-road aggression.
The findings concerning the increased likelihood of having negative attributions
associated with such an incident, are also consistent with the human aggression theories
incorporated in the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002. The GAM emphasises the
interplay between emotions and cognitions in response to environmental stimuli; in this
instance, an on-road incident. These results are further supported by subsequent results
involving either an instrumental or hostile behavioural response, whereby participants
reported an increased likelihood of either type of behavioural response in the face of a
clearly anger-provoking incident. From the literature review of aggression theory,
negative cognitions are frequently associated with reactive aggressive responses
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Berkowitz, 1989; Deffenbacher et al., 2003; Dollard et
al., 1939).
Finally, consistent with previous research into displaced aggression (Lawton &
Nutter, 2002; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2000; Pedersen et al., 2000), the results of the
pair-wise t-tests suggest there is an increased likelihood of a post-event effect having
been confronted with an intentionally provocative incident, compared with an
ambiguous one. Specifically, consideration of the items presented to participants
indicated an increased likelihood of the incident influencing subsequent on-road
behaviours, in other tasks performance and/or in their dealings with others. Therefore, it
appears there is evidence to support the potential for an anger-provoking on-road
incident to generate sufficient emotion to transfer to the on and off-road environment.
Although it should be noted that the relatively small effect size may be due to
participants responding to artificial on-road scenarios and the effect in real-life may be
greater.
225
Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that there are two areas of the GAM that
were not assessed in this study due to the use of scenarios and their lack of realism.
Firstly, this study was not able to measure physiological arousal levels that a driver may
bring to the on-road environment, suggested as important to aggressive behavioural
outcomes in the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Secondly, the decision-making
process as strictly outlined in the original GAM was not fully explored. The decision
not to explore this process fully was based on Study One findings that suggested many
of the decisions associated with aggressive driving behaviour are performed at a
subconscious level. Additionally, the participants were not physically situated in the
driving environment at the time of their responses and, therefore, would not be subject to
the real-life temporal and environmental constraints.
5.4.2 Exploration of the Components of the Proposed Theoretical Framework of
Aggressive Driving
The results are discussed in keeping with the hypotheses formulated according to
the three stage exploration of the proposed theoretical framework derived from the
GAM, detailed at Figure 5.1.
H2
Driving exposure factors such as type of vehicle driven, congestion

exposure and hours driven per week will be associated with driver
Only partial support was found for H2. Though significant correlations were
found between several of the driving exposure variables and the behavioural outcomes
(refer Table 5.14), the strength of these relationships were small, falling below r = .2.
As a result, none of the driving exposure variables were included in the regression
analyses. Despite this, some of the significant correlations are worth noting.
Examination of the correlations revealed that smaller vehicles are driven by those
who experience greater levels of negative emotion (r = -.11, p < .001) and perceived
threat (r = -.11, p < .001) in response to Scenario One. Smaller vehicles were also found
to be significantly associated with hostile aggressive responses to Scenario One (r = .08, p < .05) and an increased likelihood of a post-event influence (r = -.10, p < .001).
These findings are contrary to the Study One findings that suggested that aggressive
drivers are more likely to drive larger or modified vehicles. However, it should be noted
226
that these results may be the product of the large and diverse sample surveyed for the
purpose of this study. In other words, the survey did not specifically target hostile
aggressive drivers, rather it was aimed at a cross-section of the general driving
population. Alternatively, the greater proportion of young drivers surveyed may have
influenced the results, given that young drivers in general tend to drive smaller, possibly
more affordable vehicles.
H3
Socio-Demographic factors will be significant predictors of emotional,

cognitive and behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
In each of the relevant multiple regressions, socio-demographic factors

contributed a significant proportion of the variance in the emotional, cognitive and
behavioural responses of the participants in support of H3. However, of the sociodemographic factors included in the regression on self-reported negative emotions in
response to Scenarios One and Two, participant age was the only individually significant
predictor (S1 - = .046, p < .001 and S2 - = -.263, p < .001). As such, younger
drivers appear more likely to experience greater levels of negative emotion when faced
with either on-road situation, in keeping with earlier aggressive driving research that
found that younger drivers are more likely to experience greater levels of frustration or
anger in response to an on-road incident (Lajunen & Parker, 2001; OBrien, Watson, &
Tay, 2004; Shinar, 1998). The regression analyses also indicate that driver gender
contributes little to the level of annoyance, frustration or anger experienced in response
to on-road provocation.
In contrast, gender was the only significant socio-demographic variable for selfreported feelings of threat in response to Scenario One ( = .238, p < .001, sr2 = .05).
Therefore, it would seem that females are more likely to report feeling threatened in
response to more clearly provocative on-road incidents. This is consistent with Study
One findings that found that females were more likely to report experiencing fear and
feelings of intimidation when faced with a provocative on-road incident. None of the
socio-demographic variables were found to be individually significant predictors of
perceived threat in response to Scenario Two. However, there was some evidence of a
significant association between age and perceived threat in response to this scenario (r =
-.13, p < .001), suggesting that younger drivers may perceive greater threat in an
227
ambiguous, yet anger-provoking scenario. This relationship may be indicative of their

relative inexperience with the driving environment.
In regard to the likelihood of experiencing negative attributions, age was found
to be a significant predictor in the case of Scenario One ( = -.172, p < .001, sr2 = .02),
whilst both age and gender were found to be significant predictors in the case of
Scenario Two (age - = -.129, p < .001, and gender - = -.106, p < .001). In both
scenarios, as age increases the likelihood of experiencing negative attributions appears
to decrease. This finding is consistent with Study One findings that found a substantial
number of young drivers in the sample (n = 28) reported having negative thoughts about
the other driver. In response to the ambiguous situation in Scenario Two, however,
males were found to be significantly more likely to experience negative attributions than
females.
The foregoing results confirm earlier aggressive driving research (Lennon,
Watson, Arlidge, & Fraine, under review; Yagil, 2001). As outlined above in Section
5.3.5.3, younger drivers (1724 years of age) have higher levels of trait aggression.
They are also more likely to experience greater levels of anger and frustration in
response to a potentially anger-provoking incident. Consequently, the results suggest
they are more likely to have negative attributions about the behaviour of other road users
(Lennon, Watson, Arlidge, & Fraine, under review; Yagil, 2001). These findings also
emphasise the findings of general aggression research that acknowledges the interplay of
intense negative emotions and activation of negative thoughts, potentially increasing the
likelihood of aggressive behaviour (Berkowitz 1988, 1989).
In further support of H3, the regression analyses on the likelihood of adopting
instrumental behaviours in response to Scenarios One and Two, revealed that sociodemographic factors contributed a significant proportion of the variance (S1 R2 = .19,
and S2 - R2 = .20). Although participant age was found to be the only individually
significant predictor (p < .05) in response to either scenario, the small semi-partial
correlations revealed that it accounted for very little of the variance. The trend that
younger drivers are more likely to adopt instrumental aggression is, however, consistent
with other aggressive driving research and Study One findings (Harding et al., 1998;
Lajunen et al., 1999; Shinar, 1998; VCCAV, 1999). Also consistent with Study One
228
findings, gender was not found to be a significant predictor for adopting an instrumental
behavioural response, contrary to the same research that simultaneously reported that
males will be more likely to adopt such behaviours on the roads (Harding et al., 1998;
Lajunen & Parker, 1998; Shinar, 1998; VCCAV, 1999).
The education level attained by participants was also found to be a significant
predictor, but it only accounted for a minimal amount of variance. In this instance, those
drivers with a Year 10 education or better were more likely to adopt an instrumentally
aggressive response. This finding is contrary to human aggression research which has
long associated lower levels of education with greater levels of human aggression and
road safety research (Harris et al., 1996a; Murray, 1998; Shinar, Schechtman, &
Compton, 2001). This contrary result could be due, in part, to a societal trend to pursue
greater than a Year 10 education. Alternatively, it may be due to the nature of
aggressive driving behaviour itself. Perhaps, the anonymity experienced whilst driving
(Ellison, Govern, Herbert, & Figler, 1995) allows a greater range of individuals, with a
wider range of educational achievements, to adopt an instrumental aggressive response
to on-road provocation.
H4
Trait aggression will be a significant predictor of emotional, cognitive and

behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
H5
Higher levels of ICS and NPO and lower levels of RPS will be predictive
of emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to on-road
provocation.
The trait person-related variables of interest significantly contributed to the

prediction of negative emotions reported by participants in response to both scenarios
(S1 - R2 = .08, and S2 - R2 = .11), having controlled for socio-demographic variables,
lending support for H4 and H5. Total AQ scores and NPO were both individually
significant predictors of negative emotions in response to both scenarios (S1 - AQ, =
.204, p < .001, sr2 = .02, and NPO - = .139, p < .001, sr2 = .01; S2 - AQ, = .271, p
< .001, sr2 = .04, and NPO - = .141, p < .001, sr2 = .01). These results indicate that as
trait aggression and negative problem orientation increase so do the negative emotions
experienced as a result of exposure to provocative on-road incidents consistent with
other aggressive driving research (Buss & Perry, 1992; DZurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-
229
Olivares, 2002; DZurilla et al., 2000; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). Examination of the
semi-partial correlations would indicate that trait aggression accounted for more of the
unique variance in the case of Scenario Two than Scenario One. This finding is
indirectly supported by the research of Dodge and colleague (1987) that found that
aggressive children are more likely to experience anger in response to ambiguity in
social situations.
In regard to levels of perceived threat, trait person-related factors also
contributed a significant proportion of the variance (S1 - R2 = .05, and S2 - R2 = .05). In
response to Scenario One, NPO was the only predictor to contribute a significant
proportion of the variance ( = 212, p < .001, sr2 = .03), higher levels of negative
problem orientation increasing the likelihood of perceiving threat in an anger-provoking
scenario. In contrast, both total AQ and NPO were individually significant predictors of
perceived threat in response to Scenario Two (AQ, = .126, p < .001, sr2 = .01, and
NPO - = .155, p < .001, sr2 = .02). This result indicates that those individuals high on
trait aggression and/or negative problem orientation are more likely to feel threatened in
an ambiguous on-road incident. Other human aggression research suggests that many
individuals with aggression difficulties have, at some point in their lives, been exposed
to environmental/developmental stimuli that have served to increase their trait
aggression levels (refer to Section 3.2) (Anderson et al., 1998; Dodge & Coie, 1987;
Silva & Marks, 2001). This research proposes that such exposure has the potential to
predispose some individuals to the adoption of anger and the detection of threat
within ambiguous situations.
Further, the regression analyses on negative attributions revealed that trait
person-related factors again contributed to a significant amount of the variation (S1 - R2
= .04, and S2 - R2 = .08). However, trait aggression was the only significant trait
predictor variable of negative attributions in response to Scenario One ( = .217, p <
.001, sr2 = .03). Conversely, for Scenario Two, trait aggression ( = .258, p < .001, sr2 =
.04), NPO ( = .084, p < .05, sr2 = .01) and RPS ( =-.075, p < .05, sr2 = .01) were
found to be individually significant predictors. In response to either scenario, these
results indicate that higher trait aggression levels are predictive of an increased
likelihood of negative attributions in the face of on-road provocation, consistent with
230
human aggression research (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Additionally, greater NPO levels are
also significantly predictive of more negative attributions in response to an ambiguous
on-road situation such as Scenario Two. This latter result may be considered consistent
with the human aggression research that has found a relationship between depression
and greater levels of irritability (Stanford et al., 1995), cognitive negativity being highly
related to depression (Caprara et al., 1987; Bushman et al., 2005).
Finally, as may have been anticipated by the human aggression and problemsolving research (DZurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002), lower levels of RPS were
also predictive of negative attributions in response to this scenario. The previous
research found that ICS and NPO are more highly related to the adoption of aggressive
behaviours (DZurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). Collectively, these results
would suggest that when faced with situational ambiguity, individuals with higher levels
of trait aggression, lower levels of rational problem-solving skills and/or those with
higher levels of negative problem-solving orientation will have a tendency to interpret
the driving behaviour of others in a more negative manner.
It is also worth noting, that trait person-related factors were also found to
contribute a significant amount of the variance in the likelihood of adopting instrumental
aggression in response to both Scenarios One and Two (S1 - R2 Change = .18 and S2 R2 Change = .19). In response to Scenario One, trait aggression levels ( = .345, p < .001,
sr2 = .06), NPO ( = -.079, p < .05, sr2 = .00) and ICS ( = .088, p < .001, sr2 = .01)
were identified as significant predictors lending support for H4 and H5. In contrast, trait
aggression ( = .320, p < .001, sr2 = .05) was the only significant trait person-related
predictor in the case of Scenario Two. In response to both scenarios, higher trait
aggression scores were predictive of a likelihood of adopting instrumental aggression.
Furthermore, those drivers with higher levels of impulsive/careless problemsolving style were also more likely to adopt instrumental behaviour in response to
Scenario One, consistent with other research into impulsivity and driving behaviours
(Eysenck et al., 1995; Dahlen et al., 2005; Deffenbacher et al., 2000; Karli, 1991).
Additionally, in response to Scenario One, lower levels of NPO were associated with a
greater likelihood of adopting an instrumental response. Upon reflection, these results
may suggest that those individuals that have less negative problem orientation and/or a
231
tendency to respond to provocation in an impulsive or careless manner, will be more

likely to adopt an instrumental behavioural response to Scenario One.
H6
Pre-study emotions as a measure of state person-related stress will be

predictive of emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to on-road
provocation.
Some support was found for H6. In the final set of regression analyses, prestudy emotions, as a measure of state stress, were found to account for a significant,
though small, proportion of the variance in negative emotions reported in response to
Scenarios One and Two (S1 - R2 change = .01 and S2 - R2
change
= .01). The results
indicate that off-road generated emotions may have the potential to influence on-road
emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses. That is, off-road generated emotion
will increase the likelihood of experiencing negative emotions when faced with a
provocative incident. Alternatively, they may indicate that pre-study emotions as a
measure of state stress may influence the negative emotions reported by participants in
surveys, albeit to a small degree.
Pre-study emotion was also found to be a significant predictor of perceived
threat in response to Scenario One ( = -.082, p < .001, sr2 = .01). As previous research
suggests, greater levels of frustration/anger or negativity brought to the on-road
environment may increase the likelihood of detecting threat in a subsequent angerprovoking on-road incident (Anderson et al., 1998; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Novaco et al.,
1990; Silva & Marks, 2001). Interestingly, it was not predictive of the likelihood of
negative attributions made in response to either scenario, contrary to the potential for
higher levels of negative emotions to contribute to the adoption of more negative
attributions (Berkowitz, 1983, Geen & Donnerstein, 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001).
However, it should be noted that these feelings are independent of the anger-provoking
situation and therefore temporally and situationally unrelated to the measure of the
emotional and cognitive response variables. As such, it appears that the temporal
differences may account for the lack of a relationship between pre-study emotions and
attributions.
In contrast, pre-study emotions did not significantly add to the prediction of the
likelihood of either instrumental or hostile aggression in response to Scenarios One and
232
Two. Given that the prior contribution of pre-study emotions to other dependent
variables has been relatively small this result is not overly surprising. Conversely, it
may also be a product of the artificiality of the use of scenarios.
H7
Higher levels of negative emotion, perceived threat and negative

attributions will predict the likelihood of stronger instrumental and hostile
aggressive behavioural responses to on-road provocation.
In response to both scenarios, emotional and cognitive response variables added

significantly to the likelihood of adopting instrumental aggression (S1 - R2 Change = .12
and S2 - R2 Change = .17) in general support of H7. Participant self-reported negative
emotions ( = .356, sr2 = .07), perceived threat ( = -.091, sr2 = .01) and negative
attributions ( = .114, sr2 = .01) were significant predictors of the likelihood of adopting
instrumental aggression in response to Scenario One. Similarly, negative emotions ( =
.318, sr2 = .05) and negative attributions ( = .229, sr2 = .03), but not perceived threat,
were predictive of instrumental aggression in response to Scenario Two. As such, the
results indicated that higher levels of negative emotion accounted for a greater
proportion of the variance in the prediction of the likelihood of instrumental aggression
than the other emotional and cognitive response variables consistent with other human
aggression and traffic psychology research (Berkowitz, 1989, 1993; Lajunen & Parker,
2001; Shinar, 1998). Further to this, higher negative attributions were more predictive
of an instrumentally aggressive response in the ambiguous anger-provoking situation.
Overall, the contribution of emotional and cognitive responses to the likelihood
of instrumental aggression is consistent with GAM theory and other human aggression
research (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Berkowitz, 1989; Dollard et al., 1939; Shinar,
1998). In keeping with this research, higher levels of negative emotions and a greater
likelihood of negative attributions do appear to contribute to the likelihood of adopting
an instrumental response. In addition, these results also support the proposition by
Berkowitz (1989) that negative emotions and negative schemas are linked in a cognitive
manner and will increase the likelihood of an aggressive response.
As previously noted, in the regression analyses examining the likelihood of a
hostile aggressive response to Scenario One, socio-demographic variables (R2 = .02)
collectively contributed significantly to the prediction of hostile aggressive behaviour, in
233
support of H3. Consistent with H4 and H5, two trait person-related variables (R2 change =
.11) were identified as individually significant predictors of the likelihood of a hostile
aggressive behavioural response: trait aggression ( = .369, sr2 = .07), and ICS ( =
.102, sr2 = .01). In this intentionally anger-provoking scenario, those drivers higher on
trait aggression and/or impulsive/careless problem solving appear more likely to engage
in hostile on-road aggressive behaviours, similar to the results for the likelihood of
adopting instrumental on-road behaviours. Though the proportion of variance explained
by ICS is small, these results are consistent with human aggression and traffic
psychology research that has found high levels of impulsivity associated with young
males and their driving behaviour (Eysenck et al., 1995; Connor et al., 2003; Dahlen et
al., 2005; Deffenbacher et al., 2003b; Karli, 1991).
Interestingly, however, the emotional and cognitive response variables were not
significant predictors of the likelihood of a hostile aggressive response to Scenario One
(see Table 5.23). The adoption of hostile aggressive behaviours to this intentionally
anger-provoking scenario, therefore, appears to be contingent on the trait characteristics
of the driver, indicating a lack of support for H7.
In contrast, in response to Scenario Two, although the socio-demographic
variables contributed a significant proportion of the variance in the likelihood of a
hostile behavioural response (R2 = .01), the trait person-related factors (R2
and cognitive and emotional response factors (R2
change
change
= .04)
= .10) also contributed
significantly to the variance. Of these variables, total AQ ( = .178, sr2 = .02), negative
emotions ( = -.169, sr2 = .01) and perceived threat ( = .321, sr2 = .09) were
individually significant predictors of the likelihood of hostile aggression in response to
Scenario Two.
H8
Higher levels of negative emotion, perceived threat, negative attributions

and an increased reporting of a behavioural response to on-road
provocation will increase the likelihood of a post-event influence being
experienced.
The regression analyses relating to the likelihood of a post-event influence

following Scenarios One and Two were both significant (S1 Adj R2 = .24, and S2
Adj R2 = .21). However, the results are complex and show mixed support for H8.
234
Before discussing the influence of the emotional, cognitive and behavioural response
variables on the likelihood of a post-event influence, it is worth noting the impact of the
socio-demographic factors and pre-study emotions on this outcome.
In response to Scenario One, female drivers were significantly (p < .001) more
likely to report a post-event influence ( = .085, sr2 = .01). In response to the more
ambiguous situation posed by Scenario Two, females were again more likely to
experience a post-event influence ( = .066, sr2 = .00), however, the semi-partial
correlation indicates gender contributes only a minimal amount of the variance. Trait
person-related factors contribute a significant amount of variance having controlled for
the socio-demographic variables in response to both scenarios (S1 - R2
2
S2 - R
change
change
= .09 and
= .08). Specifically, trait aggression ( = .174, sr = .02) and NPO ( =
.074, sr = .00) was identified as a significant predictor of a post-event influence in

response to Scenario One. However, in response to Scenario Two, NPO ( = .079, sr2 =
.00) was the only significant person-related predictor variable. As such, those high on
trait aggression and negative problem-solving style appear more likely to experience a
post-event influence. Perhaps this effect is due to the potential for aggressive or
negative individuals to ruminate about a provocative incident, as suggested in human
aggression research concerned with emotional susceptibility, ruminating and aggression
(Caprara et al., 1987; Bushman et al., 2005).
Pre-study emotions, as a measure of state factors, were also found to be
predictive of the likelihood of a post-event influence in response to Scenario One ( =
.129, sr2 = .01) (Novaco et al., 1990; Matthews et al., 1991; Parkinson, 2001).
However, the state person-related variable, pre-study emotions did not contribute to the
overall prediction of a post-event influence in response to Scenario Two.
Turning to the influence of the emotional and cognitive responses on the
likelihood of a post-event influence, in Scenario One they contributed a significant
proportion of the variance (R2
change
= .06) having controlled for socio-demographic, trait
and state person-related variables. Of these variables, perceived threat ( = .266, sr2 =
.05) was the only notable significant predictor of a post-event influence. As such, it
would appear that feelings of threat appear to persist longer than other negative
emotions, thereby having the potential to influence subsequent interactions.
235
In contrast, the emotional, cognitive and behavioural response variables did

contribute a significant proportion of the variance to post-event influence in response to
Scenario Two (R2
change
= .08 and R2 change = .02 respectively). Again, higher levels of
perceived threat were found to be a significant predictor variable of post-event influence

( = .203, sr2 = .03). As such, this result clearly demonstrates that feeling threatened
when faced with an ambiguous on-road situation increases the likelihood of
experiencing a post-event influence. Considering the items contained in the post-event
measure, the result suggests that drivers may be influenced on the remainder of their
journey, whilst conducting other tasks during the day or in their dealings with others.
The likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behavioural response,
however, was not predictive of a possible post-event influence in response to the
intentionally anger-provoking scenario portrayed in Scenario One. This finding may be
suggestive that expression of either instrumental or hostile behaviours may serve to
reduce any residual thoughts or emotions associated with such an on-road situation,
consistent with the cathartic effect first mentioned in frustration-aggression theory
(Dollard et al., 1939). However, this concept would require much closer examination
before definite findings would be reportable.
A greater likelihood of adopting a hostile aggressive behavioural response was
minimally predictive of a likelihood of a post-event influence ( = .116, sr2 = .01) in
response to Scenario Two. This finding suggests that perhaps the expression of hostile
aggressive behaviours in response to an ambiguous on-road situation does not
necessarily have a cathartic effect for some drivers. As noted above, human aggression
research would suggest the outward expression of aggression has a cathartic effect,
allowing the frustration-aggression threshold to return to its normal state (Dollard et
al., 1939). However, it would seem that for some drivers, the adoption of hostile
aggressive behavioural responses may increase the time-lapse required to return to the
normal state, exposing some individuals to the potential for residual effects.
Notably, the results of the regression analyses indicate that there was a
considerable amount of unexplained variance. Perhaps this was due to the artificiality of
the methodology. Alternatively, perhaps it is due to the limited number of variables that
were operationalised in order to examine the theoretical framework at Figure 5.1, as it is
236
well-known that a large range of variables have the potential to negatively influence onroad behaviour (refer to Figure 2.1 for example).
5.4.3
The Nature and Purpose of Aggressive Driving Behaviours
The results of Study Two show considerable support for Hypothesis Nine:
H9
The response of drivers to an intentionally provocative on-road incident

can be categorised into two distinct but related types of behaviours,
instrumental or hostile, which serve different functions for drivers.
Consistent with the research of Shinar (1998) and Lajunen & Parker (2001),
factor analysis of the behavioural response items indicated two distinct types of
behavioural responses. As detailed in Section 5.3.3.3 (Table 5.8), the behaviours
labelled instrumental aggression, can be adopted with little or no loss of time or
without deviating from the original goal of driving. As such, the adoption of
instrumental on-road aggression appears to facilitate ones journey. Alternatively,
those behaviours labelled hostile aggressive were more extreme in nature, sometimes
involving interpersonal violence. These behaviours reflected a preparedness to deviate
from ones original reason or goal for driving, investing the time to personally express
anger or annoyance. Therefore, the function served by hostile behaviours appears to
be personally, and intrinsically, important to the driver, suggesting the strong
involvement of person-related characteristics as confirmed by the foregoing research.
Finally, the total average participant instrumental and hostile aggressive
behavioural responses were found to be significantly associated (r = .36, p < .001). This
was largely anticipated, due to the role of aggression in the adoption of many of the
behaviours. However, it is only a moderate relationship, where 13% (r = .36) of the
total variance in the likelihood of adopting hostile aggressive behaviour is predicted by
the likelihood of adopting instrumental aggression. In summary, it would appear that
the behaviours adopted in aggressive driving fall into two distinct but related categories,
serving different functions for the aggressor.
5.4.4
Exploration of the PHA Driver Findings
5.4.4.1 Socio-Demographic and Driving Characteristics of the PHA Driver

Utilising the four age groups identified in earlier analyses, a significant age
difference was found between the PHA drivers and other drivers (p < .001). Young
237
drivers are proportionately more likely to be categorised PHA drivers than other drivers
(Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Harding et al., 1998; OBrien, Tay, & Watson 2005;
VCCAV, 1999). Conversely, older drivers (60 years and over) were more likely to fall
in the other driver category and there was no significant difference between drivers
aged 2539 and 4059 years of age. Thus this may be interpreted as being consistent
with the findings of Harris and Knight-Bohnhoff (1996), that an individuals
aggressiveness may be susceptible to modification over the course of their life,
increasing age being associated with lower aggression levels. However, this result also
indicates that the increased likelihood of adopting hostile aggressive behaviours on the
road is not exclusive to young drivers.
A significant difference in gender representation was also found between the two
driver types (p < .001). Males were found to be significantly more represented in the
PHA driver group than females, in keeping with earlier aggressive driving research
(Aberg & Rimmo, 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lawton et al., 1997; Reason et al.,
1991, VCCAV, 1999). Interestingly, no statistically significant differences were
detected in education levels attained. However, inspection of the frequencies did
suggest that a large percentage (92%) of PHA drivers have attained a considerable level
of education. They have completed their higher school certificate, completed an
apprenticeship or finished TAFE and even university. These results are rather
surprising, considering earlier traffic research, that found a relationship between lower
education and aberrant driving behaviour (Shinar, et al., 2001).
Consistent with earlier research concerning congestion (Hartley & Hassani,
1994; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999; Lajunen, et al., 1999) and study one findings, it
was anticipated that increased exposure to on-road traffic and subsequent congestion
would increase the likelihood of a driver having the potential for hostile aggression onroad. However, the results indicate there is no significant difference between the two
driver groups (p > .01), contrary to previous research (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999;
Lajunen, et al. 1999). There was no significant difference between the PHA and other
drivers in the traffic density they were most often exposed to. Notwithstanding, the
frequencies infer that PHA drivers (53.4%) may drive more frequently in medium
density traffic than any other (see Table L6).
238
The type of vehicle driven may also contribute to on-road aggression to some
degree, as the results approached significance. Inspection of the frequencies in Table L5
indicates that PHA drivers tend to drive a medium or large car, or a 4WD/Utility/Truck.
These results are consistent with the focus group findings, in which participants reported
vehicle presentation, mechanics, sense of security and size of car as potential causes of
aggressive driving. However, how the type of vehicle driven influences the likelihood
of on-road aggression remains unclear.
5.4.4.2 PHA Driver History of Driving Offences in the Previous Three Years
No significant differences were found between PHA and other drivers in the
number of crashes they reported having had in the past three years. Similarly, no
significant differences were found between the two driver groups in the number of
speeding fines and other general driving related fines incurred in the last three years.
However, it is worth noting that within the PHA driver group 34% indicated having
received one or more speeding fines in the past three years. Finally, a larger, significant
proportion of PHA drivers than other drivers, reported having one or more drinkdriving charges in the last three years.
5.4.4.3 PHA Driver Self-reported Driving Behaviour
A significant difference was found in the preparedness of PHA and other drivers
to engage in speeding behaviour. Significantly more PHA drivers indicated they would
be extremely likely to exceed the speed limit by 10km/h or more on an urban road than
other drivers (p < .05). Further, significantly more PHA drivers indicated they would be
extremely likely to exceed the speed limit by 10km/h or more on a highway than other
drivers (p < .001).
These results are particularly noteworthy, as they suggest that PHA drivers are
more likely than general drivers to travel at excessive speed not only on highways, but
urban roadways. The suggestion that this behaviour may be indicative of PHA drivers is
consistent with the focus group findings where n = 27 young drivers reported speeding
as a contributing factor or behaviour that characterises aggressive driving behaviour.
Consequently, the inclusion of speeding in studies of aggressive driving appears
justified.
239
A significantly greater proportion of PHA drivers reported it would be more

likely to extremely likely that they would drink then drive (p < .05). Further,
proportionately more PHA drivers did not rule out the possibility of driving under the
influence of drugs compared to other drivers (p < .05). These findings would suggest
that PHA drivers may be more likely to engage in on-road risk-taking behaviours.
5.4.4.4 Differences in Psychological Characteristics
The PHA driver group were found to have significantly higher overall AQ and
subscale scores, than the other driver group (p < .001). Thus, these results indicate that
PHA drivers may have greater levels of physical aggression, verbal aggression, angry
aggression and hostile aggression than the general driving population. Interestingly, as
this measure reflects trait tendencies for aggression, this result also indicates that
perhaps PHA drivers are also more likely to express aggression in contexts other than
the driving environment.
In the context of problem solving, measured using the SPSI-R (DZurilla et al.,
2002), PHA drivers were found to have significantly higher rank scores on NPO (p <
.005) and ICS (p < .001) than the other driver group, suggesting they adopt more
negative and impulsive problem-solving strategies when faced with on-road situations
that may or may not be interpreted as anger-provoking. However, there was no
significant difference between the drivers groups on RPS, indicating that perhaps PHA
drivers have access to similar levels of rational problem solving to other drivers. Why
PHA drivers do not adopt more rationale problem-solving strategies in the driving
environment remains unclear. Perhaps activation of their high trait aggression levels
influences the social problem-solving style adopted.
Finally, there was a significant difference in the level of negative emotion
reported by drivers prior to undertaking the study. PHA drivers again ranked
significantly higher than the other driver group (p < .001), on this measure. If
considered a reflection of the amount of stress being experienced by an individual, this
result suggests that PHA drivers experience, or are experiencing, greater levels of
general life stress than other drivers. At the same time, this result suggests that they
experience more negative emotion at any given point in time than other drivers. This
would be consistent with the findings for PHA drivers having higher levels of negative
240
problem solving, outlined above. As this study did not investigate individual state
stress in detail, it is recommended that more research be conducted in this area. Effort
should also be given to identifying the sources of such stress.
5.4.4.5 PHA Driver Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioural Responses
Recalling that the two scenarios presented to each participant involved a
potentially anger-provoking scenario (Scenario One) and an ambiguous, potentially less
anger-provoking scenario (Scenario Two), significant differences were found between
the two driver groups and their emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to each.
As detailed in L7, PHA drivers ranked significantly higher on emotional, cognitive and
behavioural responses in both situations.
Consequently, this suggests that PHA drivers experience stronger negative
emotional and more negative thoughts in response to an on-road incident, even a
relatively ambiguous one as represented by Scenario Two (p < .001). These results may
indicate that PHA drivers will have more difficulty controlling their emotions and as a
consequence greater difficulty controlling their behavioural responses. They are also
more likely to perceive threat than other drivers when faced with on-road ambiguity that
may have the potential to be anger-provoking as in Scenario Two (p < .001), consistent
with human aggression research that found that individuals high on trait aggression will
be more likely to detect threat in their surrounding environment (Dodge & Coie, 1987).
Further, the PHA driver is more likely to respond with instrumental aggressive
behaviour than drivers in general in either situation (p < .001). They are also more
likely to have such an incident influence their later on or off-road behaviour.
In light of the earlier findings concerning problem solving, perhaps this latter
result is due to PHA drivers having less constructive problem-solving strategies, which
in turn results in greater residual affect which these drivers appear to be unable to
regulate effectively. Also, as PHA drivers have been identified as being higher on ICS,
a number of them appear to be responding to these situations in an impulsive, reactive
manner involving little conscious thought. In the context of aggressive driving, these
findings would suggest that conscious decision making and evaluation of outcomes has
little to do with aggressive behaviour on-road, contrary to the GAM (Anderson &
241
Bushman, 2002). However, it would be wise to explore this concept further in Study
Three.
5.4.4.6 Prediction of PHA Group Membership
Overall, the factors contained in the theoretical framework of aggressive driving
reliably distinguished PHA drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39).
However, prediction of PHA group membership was not overly impressive, with only
29.3% of PHA drivers correctly predicted.
Of the person-related predictors, gender, age and trait aggression scores (as
measured by the AQ) were found to be significant. Females are more likely to be
identified with the other driver group and higher trait aggression was predictive of
PHA group membership. The response variables, negative emotion, perceived threat
and likelihood of an instrumental aggressive behavioural response also proved to be
significant individual predictors of PHA group membership. PHA drivers are more
likely to experience more intense negative emotion and perceived threat in response to
an on-road incident and more likely to engage in instrumental aggressive behaviours on
the road. Finally, the results also suggest that PHA drivers are significantly more likely
to drive medium to large vehicles or four wheel drives than small vehicles. In short,
there appear to be a number of psychosocial differences between PHA and other
drivers.
5.4.5 Implications for the Proposed Theoretical Framework of Aggressive Driving
Overall, the findings of Study Two confirm the applicability of the factors
contained in the proposed theoretical framework of aggressive driving (Figure 4.3). The
sequencing of the relationships illustrated in Figure 4.3 also appears to be robust.
Indeed socio-demographic, driving exposure, trait person-related and state personrelated variables are brought to the on-road environment at any time. Previous Study
One and Two findings suggest that trait person-related factors contribute to a drivers
initial interpretation of other driver behaviour as intentional or benign. Further, the
findings of both the general driving sample and the PHA driver group indicate that when
exposed to an on-road incident, individual drivers experience negative emotions such as
frustration/anger, rage and feelings of threat. These emotions also appear to influence
the likelihood of making negative attributions about the other driver. Thus, these
242
findings show support for the present internal state proposed within the GAM (Figure
3.1) that we inferred from the emotional and cognitive responses depicted in Figure
4.3. Indeed, these elements appear critical to the study of on-road aggression.
A drivers emotional and cognitive, encompassing negative emotions and/or
feelings of threat and negative attributions, influence the likelihood of adopting either an
instrumental or hostile behavioural response on-road. Although this study indicates that
the individual characteristics that a driver brings to the on-road environment contributes
more to the adopted behavioural response than other factors in the proposed model.
Finally, Study Two results appear to indicate that the possible post event
influence of on-road aggression influencing the likelihood of behaviour in subsequent
encounters on or off-road, is minimal. However, this may have been due to the
artificiality of the scenarios. From another perspective, it fails to account for the
evidence concerning psychological and physical injuries that can be caused by
aggressive driving, especially from the victims perspective (DCPC, 2005). As such,
further research on the actual psychological impact that aggressive driving has on
victims is recommended. In the interim, the inclusion of the post event influence in the
theoretical model of aggressive driving appears to add minimal exploratory value.
Notably, the factors included in the proposed theoretical framework did not
include all facets of the GAM decision making model (Section 3.5.3), specifically an
explicit measure of the adoption of thoughtful or impulsive behavioural responses. As
Study One findings suggested that the decision-making processes associated with
aggressive driving behaviour appear difficult to recall. However, the use of the two
scenarios and measure of behavioural responses may be interpreted to infer some
element of intentional or impulsive/risky behavioural responses based on the
extremity of the behavioural response likely to be adopted. Conversely, however, the
use of scenarios lacks the situational, real-time, cues that have the potential to influence
the likelihood of intentionally or impulsively adopting behavioural response. Also, it is
noted that in Study One findings participants had difficulty recalling their behaviours as
deliberately decided upon, therefore, this would suggest that this area of the model
requires closer examination. This is not meant to imply that these processes do not
243
occur or are not important in the study of aggressive driving. On the contrary, this
merely indicates that more research is required in this area.
5.4.6 Overview of Findings and Theoretical Implications
In the exploration of the theoretical framework based on the GAM (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002) this study has shown significant support for the psychological
components included in the proposed framework. The study has also illustrated the
complicated relationships that exist between the various components. In addition, the
results have highlighted the significance of on-road situational factors and their
interaction with various socio-demographic and person-related factors in determining the
likelihood of a drivers emotional, cognitive and subsequent behavioural response.
Indeed, the study of aggressive driving appears as complex as the study of human
aggression in other social settings.
The results indicate that socio-demographic, trait and state person-related
variables contribute to a drivers interpretation of an on-road incident as angerprovoking or not, consistent with Shinars (1998) model of aggressive driving as well as
the GAM model of human aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The use of the
two scenarios, one clearly provocative and the other ambiguous in nature, not only
highlighted driver differences in perception of on-road behaviours, but illustrated
differences in emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses in both cases.
Use of human aggression theory in the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002)
facilitated exploration of three main types of response to perceived provocation:
emotional, cognitive and behavioural. The study found that having perceived on-road
provocation, a driver will experience emotions such as frustration, anger and/or threat.
It is also likely that drivers that experience intense emotion will experience negative
attributions about the other driver. Subsequent to these responses, a driver may adopt
instrumental or hostile aggressive on-road behaviours. However, whilst the study found
some support for Shinars (1998) instrumental/hostile distinction of on-road aggression,
the characteristics of these behaviours require closer examination. In particular, there is
a need to further examine Shinars assertion that drivers will react in a hostile (as
opposed to instrumental) manner when the path to their goal is blocked. Indeed, the
results of this study raise the possibility that the decision to adopt a hostile behaviour
244
may reflect a preparedness by some to abandon their goals, at least in the short-term.
This issue is further discussed in Section 6.4.
In the study of the emotions associated with aggressive driving, the foregoing
analyses demonstrated considerable support for the inclusion of perceived threat as a
motivating factor in aggressive driving behaviour. Thus, reference made to the
perception of on-road behaviour as threatening in the provisional definition of
aggressive driving (Section 2.2.5.3) appears to be justified. This finding is also more
consistent with the GAM (Andersen & Bushman, 2001) that suggest feelings of threat or
dangerousness can result in aggressive behaviour, and contrary to Shinars solely
frustration-aggression based model of aggressive driving.
Importantly, the results also suggest that many of the psychological components
considered in the GAM based framework appear to be dependent on the trait personrelated characteristics of a driver. In the exploratory regression analyses, person-related
factors were repeatedly found to contribute a significant proportion of the variance.
Although, it should be acknowledged that the operationalised variables fell short of
explaining much of the variance and some researchers would suggest that this may be
explained, in part, by the order in which the variables were entered into the regression
equation (Cohen et al., 2003). As such, the results of this study and the review of human
aggression literature would suggest that a closer examination of the person-related
characteristics contributing to aggressive driving is warranted, particularly among
potentially hostile aggressive drivers.
5.4.7 Study Limitations
A primary limitation of the study centres on the possibility of social desirability
bias. As participants normally wish to present themselves in a favourable manner, there
is the possibility they will underreport on measures of aggression (McCloskey &
Coccaro, 2003). However, as detailed in Chapter One, due to the difficulties associated
with direct provocation and observational methods in the context of aggressive driving,
although the self-report is acknowledged as having its limitations, it has been found
useful in aggression research (McCloskey & Coccaro, 2003).
Other limitations centre around the use of, and design of, the scenarios. The
artificiality of presenting participants with on-road written scenarios may lack realism,
245
but arguably most drivers are able to relate to this topical issue and are able to imagine
their behavioural responses. Additionally, as explained in Section 5.2.2.1, the results of
piloting prompted the inclusion of a sense of off-road stress in Scenario Two.
However, it is possible that this may have introduced a potentially confounding factor
which may have unintentionally added another layer of complexity to Scenario Two.
Consequently, due regard should be given to this possibility when interpreting the
results.
Notably, future research may be able to measure actual participant responses in
terms of physiological changes such as heart rate and blood pressure, in response to
driving scenarios presented within a driving simulator. Such an approach combined
with qualitative information collected at the time may improve the reality of the use of
scenarios in driving research. Another limitation is that the use of tertiary students as
part of the sampling may have resulted in an overrepresentation of young drivers in the
final sample for Study Two. Further, this may have contributed to the slightly bimodal
distribution of the age groups as reflected in the 2 x 4 ANOVAs (Appendix I) and
regression analyses, the survey having netted greater numbers of 1724 year olds and
4059 year olds than the other two age groups. Therefore, due caution should also be
exercised in the interpretation of any age-related results.
Further, it is acknowledged that a number of the statistically significant loadings
for many of the variables in the regression analyses were quite low. It is acknowledged
that the order in which the variables were loaded into the regression equation may have
contributed to the relatively low variance accounted for by subsequent factors.
However, the order in which the variables were entered was driven by the GAM based
aggressive driving model that evolved from Study One and as outlined at Section 5.2.5.
Other limitations of note pertain to the theoretical framework of aggressive
driving proposed for this research (Figure 4.3). Firstly, the person-related and on-road
situational factors considered in this study, are only a small number that are considered
relevant to aggressive driving behaviour. Secondly, neither the theoretical framework,
nor the questionnaire, explored the decision-making process outlined in the original
GAM proposed by Anderson & Bushman (2001). In particular, due to the limitations of
the design, it was not possible to directly operationalise the present internal state
246
component of the model. Rather, the emotional and cognitive responses of the
participants were assessed as indicators of this construct. Further, the number of
measures employed needed to be limited in order to contain the length of the
questionnaire, increasing the likelihood of participant co-operation. Lastly, given the
role of driver perception of situational characteristics in on-road aggression (Lennon,
Watson, Arlidge & Fraine, under review), it was not possible to consider all the factors
that have the potential to trigger an aggressive behavioural reaction on the road (Lonero
& Clinton, 1998).
With regard to the examination of the identified PHA driver group, this study
demonstrated that person-related characteristics differentiate PHA drivers from general
road users. Unfortunately, in terms of person-related differences, the study only
examined trait aggression and problem-solving styles. As such, closer examination of
the person-related characteristics of the PHA driver is warranted. Additionally, many of
the strengths and weaknesses outlined above apply to the exploratory analysis involving
the PHA drivers.
This study has demonstrated the relevance of a number of psychosocial variables
to the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour. The findings also highlighted the
relevance of perception in the likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile
behavioural response. Importantly, consistent with human aggression theory, the study
highlighted a number of key psychological factors that contribute to the likelihood of onroad aggression, over and above a drivers trait aggression levels. Hence, for the
remainder of the research program a greater emphasis will be placed upon examining a
wider range of trait and state person-related characteristics of aggressive drivers.
In review, the foregoing results would suggest that the number of hours driven
per week, the traffic density experienced and the type of vehicle driven, do little to
identify the more aggressive driver. Contrary to some of the aggressive driving
literature, a history of crash involvement, speeding and/or other infringements also does
little to identify the more aggressive road user. However, the findings suggest that the
PHA driver is more likely to be 1724 years of age and male. This driver is also more
likely to have been charged with drink-driving in the last three years. The results also
247
indicated that the more aggressive drivers may be more prepared to engage in risk-taking
behaviour such as speeding and drink/drug driving. They are also potentially more
likely than general drivers to have higher levels of trait aggression and poorer problemsolving ability. As such the results suggest that the most significant differences lie at the
deeper, person-related level. Therefore, Study Three will approach the examination of
aggressive driving from the perspective of self-reported hostile aggressive drivers. In
this final study, significantly more attention will be paid to the person-related
characteristics of the hostile aggressive driver.
248
249
Chapter Six: Examination of the Psychosocial Characteristics of Self-reported

Hostile Aggressive Drivers
6.1
Introduction........................................................................................................... 253
6.1.1
6.2
Relevant Research Questions and Areas to be Explored........................ 254
Method ................................................................................................................ 255

6.2.1
Design ..................................................................................................... 255
6.2.2
Procedure ................................................................................................ 257
6.2.3
Participants ............................................................................................. 257
6.2.4
Statistical Analysis ................................................................................. 258
6.2.5
Measures ................................................................................................. 258

6.2.5.1 Stressful Life Experiences Screening ....................................... 258
6.2.5.2 Aggression Questionnaire ........................................................ 259
6.2.5.3 Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised .......................... 259
6.2.5.4 Carlson Psychological Survey .................................................. 259
6.2.5.5 Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 (BIS-11) ................ 261
6.3
Results ................................................................................................................ 263

6.3.1
Socio-Demographics .............................................................................. 263
6.3.2
Driving Characteristics ........................................................................... 263
6.3.3
History of Driving Offences and Charges .............................................. 264
6.3.4
Historical Background ............................................................................ 264

6.3.4.1 Familial Backgrounds .............................................................. 264
6.3.4.2 Victims of Abuse/Neglect ........................................................ 264
6.3.4.3 History of Delinquency and/or Violence ................................. 265
6.3.4.4 Negative Peer Associations ...................................................... 265
6.3.4.5 History of School Conduct Problems ....................................... 266
6.3.4.6 Clinical History ........................................................................ 266
6.3.5
Clinical Background ............................................................................... 266

6.3.5.1 Trait Aggression ....................................................................... 268
6.3.5.2 Social Problem Solving ............................................................ 268
6.3.5.3 Impulsivity ............................................................................... 268
6.3.5.4 Carlson Psychological Survey (CPS) ....................................... 269
6.3.5.4.1
Chemical Abuse (CA) ........................................... 269
6.3.5.4.2
Thought Disturbance (TD) and Validity (VAL) ... 270
6.3.5.4.3
Anti-Social Tendencies (AT) ................................ 271
6.3.5.4.4
Self-Deprecation (SD) ........................................... 272
6.3.5.5 CPS Typing .............................................................................. 272
6.3.6
250
Qualitative Analysis of Hostile Aggressive Driving Incidents ..............273

6.3.6.1 Situational On-Road Triggers...................................................273
6.3.6.1.1
Road Characteristics ..............................................273
6.3.6.1.2
Passenger Effect ....................................................273
6.3.6.1.3
Gender of the Other Driver....................................273
6.3.6.1.4
Reference to the Other Driver's Vehicle ................273
6.3.6.1.5
Behavioural Triggers .............................................274
6.3.6.1.6
Range of 'Other Driver' Behaviours ......................274
6.3.6.1.7
Perceived Attitude of 'Other Driver' ......................275
6.3.6.2 Situational Off-Road Triggers ..................................................276

6.3.6.3 Emotional Responses................................................................276
6.3.6.4 Cognitive Responses ................................................................278
6.3.6.5 Physiological Arousal ...............................................................279
6.3.6.6 Behaviours Engaged by Hostile Aggressive Driver Group ......279
6.3.6.7 Consequences of the Hostile Aggressive Driver Behaviour ....281
6.3.6.8 General Attitudes of the Hostile Aggressive Driver.................282
6.3.6.9 Lack of Personal Insight ...........................................................283
6.3.6.10 Other Experiences as the Perpetrator .......................................283
6.4
Discussion .............................................................................................................283
6.4.1
Case Study Experiences as a Hostile Aggressive Driver .......................284

6.4.1.1 On-Road situational factors ......................................................284
6.4.1.2 Situational Off-Road Triggers ..................................................285
6.4.1.3 Emotional Responses................................................................286
6.4.1.4 Cognitive Responses ................................................................286
6.4.1.5 Physiological Arousal ...............................................................287
6.4.1.6 Behaviours Adopted by the Hostile Aggressive Driver ...........288
6.4.1.7 Consequences of the Hostile Aggressive Driver Behaviour ....288
6.4.1.8 General Attitude of the Hostile Aggressive Driver ..................289
6.4.1.9 Levels of Personal Insight in the Hostile Aggressive Driver ...289
6.4.1.10 Other Experiences as the Perpetrator .......................................290
6.4.2
Person-Related Characteristics of the Hostile Aggressive Driver

Group ......................................................................................................290
6.4.3
Exposure to Developmental Risk Factors for Aggression......................292
6.4.4
Trait Person-Related Characteristics ......................................................295
6.4.5
General Psychological Characteristics ...................................................296
6.4.6
Hostile Aggressive Drivers and the Theoretical Framework of

Aggressive Driving .................................................................................299
251
6.4.7
Strengths and Limitations of the Research ............................................. 302
6.4.8
Recommendations for Future Research.................................................. 303
6.4.9
Chapter Summary ................................................................................... 304
252
253
6.1 Introduction
Study One explored the psychosocial factors contributing to aggressive driving
from the perspective of young drivers due to their over-representation in aggressive
driving statistics (Harding et al., 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lawton & Nutter,
2002; VCCAV, 1999). The results of this study also identified a number of on and
off-road factors that may contribute to driver aggression. Additionally, they
identified a number of psychological processes encapsulated within the GAM
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002) that appear to influence the likelihood of aggressive
driving behaviour (refer to Figure 4.3). Study One also indicated that highly
aggressive drivers appear to engage in on-road aggression in two ways:
Using a vehicle and the on-road environment as a means of expressing offroad generated aggression; and/or
Whilst driving, responding to provocative triggers that are encountered in the

on-road environment.
Study Two examined the explanatory value of the psychosocial factors included
in the theoretical framework outlined at Figure 4.3. The results indicated that a
number of person-related factors were significant predictors of both instrumental and
hostile aggressive behavioural responses. These include age, trait aggression, and
negative problem solving and impulsive/careless problem-solving styles. However,
only trait aggression and impulsive/careless problem-solving style were found to be
uniquely predictive of hostile aggression. Additionally, the emotional and cognitive
response variables (negative emotions, perceived threat and negative attributions)
were found to significantly predict self-reported instrumental aggression (Table
5.21), but not hostile aggression in response to Scenario One (Table 5.23).
In a set of exploratory analyses undertaken at the end of Study Two, 88
potentially hostile aggressive drivers (PHA) were identified and their responses
compared to the remaining drivers in the sample (n = 838). The analysis found that
while hostile aggressive drivers are more likely young drivers, 2559 year old drivers
were no more likely to be categorised as hostile aggressive drivers. In response to
the two scenarios detailed in Study Two, hostile aggressive drivers also ranked
significantly higher on their emotional, cognitive and behavioural response scores
than the remaining drivers (refer to Table K5). As such, they appear to initially
experience greater negative emotionality and cognitions in the face of perceived
provocation. Subsequently, they appear more likely to respond with both
254
instrumental and hostile reactive aggression to on-road provocation. These drivers

were also more likely to report engaging in speeding behaviour, drink and/or drug
driving. These findings support the existing body of evidence which suggests that
the differences between hostile drivers and other drivers lies at the person-related
level. It also suggests that hostile aggressive drivers are more likely to engage in
illegal or socially unacceptable behaviours, consistent with the risk factors for
aggression, as previously outlined in Chapter Three.
Overall, these results suggest that hostile reactive aggressive behaviour on the
road is influenced more by internal, person-related factors and less by situational, onroad situational factors. There appear to be two main areas of difference at the
person-related level: hostile aggressive drivers appear to have higher levels of trait
aggression as well as impulsive/careless problem-solving style. In terms of on-road
situational factors, however, the hostile aggressive driver also appears more likely to
perceive provocation when faced with ambiguous, as well as provocative on-road
behaviours than other general drivers. Therefore, the differences between highly
aggressive drivers and other drivers appear to exist at a trait, person-related and
cognitive level. Consequently, Study Three was driven by the need to obtain a better
understanding of the psychosocial indicators that characterise hostile aggressive
drivers. Given the general lack of research evidence available regarding this group
in the road safety literature, and the difficulties associated with recruiting a
representative sample of these drivers, it was decided to adopt a case-study approach
to this final component of the research. It is recognised that hostile aggressive
drivers represent only a minority of the drivers on the road. However, from a road
safety and public safety perspective, this is a group warranting further investigation
due to the potentially severe consequences of the behaviour which they may be
prepared to engage in on the road.
6.1.1 Relevant Research Questions and Areas to be Explored
The findings of Studies One and Two suggest that there are several important
issues that need to be explored specific to hostile aggressive drivers, consistent with
the following research questions.
RQ5

driving behaviour?
If self-reported hostile aggressive drivers do differ from other drivers at the
person-related level, do they adopt/experience the same cognitive and affective
255
processes as those drivers prepared to engage in instrumental, aggressive driving

behaviours? Although this study will not directly involve a comparison between
hostile aggressive and other drivers, it will enable an in-depth exploration of the
cognitive and affective experience of aggressive driving from the perspective of the
self-reported hostile aggressive driver. This exploration will be framed within the
proposed theoretical framework of aggressive driving developed from the GAM
(Figure 4.3).
RQ6
Are there differences in the characteristics of those drivers who are

prepared to engage in hostile acts of aggressive driving compared to those
who report engaging in only instrumental acts of aggressive driving?
Study Three will explore in greater depth the psychosocial characteristics of selfreported hostile aggressive drivers. Further to the findings of both Studies One and
Two, and the issues emerging from the Chapter Three literature review, it is
proposed that the self-reported hostile aggressive driver may:
have a history of violence/aggression in areas of their life other than the

road;
be more likely to exhibit signs of drink/drug abuse;
have higher levels of trait aggression than the general population;
have greater maladaptive problem-solving orientation than the general

population;
exhibit distorted thinking;
have had more close encounters with law enforcement officials;
exhibit anti-social tendencies;
exhibit difficulties with emotion management; and
be more likely to engage in impulsive/reactive behaviours.

6.2 Method
6.2.1 Design
The use of a qualitative case-study approach to this study was considered
necessary for several reasons. Primarily, the exploration of trait person-related

characteristics and developmental risk factors for aggression warranted the
personalised attention of a qualified counsellor. Additionally, a case study approach
facilitates the comparison of similarities and differences between participants.
Consequently, a questionnaire was designed to facilitate the exploration of
256
participant exposure to developmental risk factors for aggression (see Appendix L).
In the first instance, participant socio-demographic data and history of driving
violations were collected. Participants were then assessed on several psychological
measures (refer to Section 6.2.4) in order to facilitate comparison between the
studies: Stressful Life Experiences Screening Short Form (SLES-S); the Carlson
Psychological Survey (CPS); and the Barrett Impulsiveness Scale 11 (BIS-11).
Participants were also assessed on several of the measures used in Study Two (refer
to Section 6.2.4). A semi-structured interview was also devised to explore
participant experiences as perpetrators of aggressive driving (see Appendix M).
Several methods of recruitment were considered. Firstly, recruitment of selfreported highly aggressive drivers via a media release was considered. However,
this was discounted as the target group of interest may have been less likely to come
forward and/or continue to co-operate for the purpose of research. The researcher
had access to the Mens Information and Support Association (MISA), a community
based counselling organisation, where a predominantly male clientele seek assistance
for a wide range of issues e.g. relationship and anger management difficulties.
Subsequently, a number of participants were recruited through MISA. It is
acknowledged that participants recruited from this source may result in a sample that
is not necessarily representative of all potentially hostile aggressive drivers in the
general driving population. However, the use of this sample allowed the researcher
to access a group who potentially may have experienced anger-management
problems on the road. The criteria for selecting participants for this study were
driven by the three behaviours which helped identify the hostile aggressive driver
group in Study Two (refer to Section 5.2.1). Specifically, the participants needed to
report engaging in one of the following behaviours within the last two years:
having gotten out of their vehicle to physically or verbally abuse

another driver;
using their vehicle to intimidate another road user; or
using their vehicle to damage the vehicle of another road user.
The selection of the two-year period was designed to balance the likelihood
of identifying such drivers with the need to include sufficient recency to avoid
potential recall problems.
257
6.2.2 Procedure
MISA participants were recruited via in-house advertising (Appendix N). If
interested in participating, MISA clients left their name and contact number with
reception for contact by the researcher. Similar advertising was also placed across
three Queensland University of Technology (QUT) campuses and the Northpoint
College of TAFE campus in order to attract interested staff or students. The
advertisement was also placed on the QUT internet noticeboard. In all cases,
interested parties were invited to contact the researcher by phone or email. Upon
contact, participants were screened by the interviewer to ensure that they met the
selection criteria.
Prior to commencing the interview participants were asked to read and sign a
consent package (Appendix O). The administration of this study was broken into
two stages: a survey stage and an interview stage. Firstly, participants were asked
socio-demographic questions as well as questions relating to their driving history.
They were then administered the SLE, AQ, SPSI-R subscales, CPS and BIS-11
respectively. At the end of the survey stage, they were asked if they had ever been
officially charged with any driving offences or other general offences. The full
survey was read to participants to account for the possibility of literacy difficulties.
Full administration of the survey and interview took approximately 1.5 hours.
During the interview stage of the process, participants were asked to recall
the aggressive driving incident that met the above selection criteria. At relevant
points throughout the interview participants were asked key questions consistent with
the factors identified in the theoretical framework at Figure 4.3, similar to the
questions that were explored in Study One (refer to Appendix M). This was
considered necessary in order to examine whether self-confessed hostile aggressive
drivers experience similar psychological processes as less aggressive drivers when
involved in an on-road incident. At the completion of the interview, participants
were reimbursed $60.00 for their time and travelling expenses. All interviews were
conducted within the confines of the MISA counselling premises, to ensure the safety
of the researcher.
6.2.3 Participants
From a total of 22 potential participants recruited through QUT and MISA,
10 participants met the selection criteria outlined in Section 6.2.1. Only one of the
258
participants was female. Participant ages ranged from 24 to 55 years (M = 41.6

years). Nine participants were recruited through MISA and one from QUT.
6.2.4 Statistical Analysis
Although this study primarily adopted a qualitative case study approach, it
was possible to test for statistical differences between the self-reported hostile
aggressive drivers and other relevant groups on all of the standardised measures
detailed above. Given the inherent difficulties in comparing different samples
recruited via different recruitment strategies, these tests were undertaken for
exploratory rather than confirmatory purposes. Despite the low sample size, when
comparing the 10 case studies to the other driver groups identified in other research
or Study Two (i.e. n = 88 or n = 926), a series of independent sample t-tests were
considered appropriate for these analyses (Sheskin, 2004). Additionally, the use of
independent t-tests provides a more accurate estimate of the underlying sampling
distribution for the data when the sample size is small and the sample variance is
problematic (i.e. less than 25) (Sheskin, 2004, p. 423). As several t-tests were
conducted, the tests were subject to appropriate Bonferroni adjustment (refer to
Tables 6.1 and 6.2).
Additionally, in order to determine any statistically significant difference
between the individual case study scores on the AQ, SPSI-R, CPS and BIS-11 and
the pre-published means of relevant comparison groups, participant scores were first
converted into z scores using the SD and M of the comparison group to determine if
there were any statistical differences: Z = (X - ) / (Sheskin, 2004).
6.2.5 Measures
6.2.5.1 Stressful Life Experiences Screening
The Stressful Life Experiences Screening Short Form (SLES-S) screens for
major life events that may be considered stressful and significant in a persons life
(Stamm et al., 1996). In this study, the SLES was used as a measure of the amount
of violence and stressful life events that participants have been exposed to
throughout their developmental years. The SLES-S consists of 20 items. In response
to each example of stressful life experiences, participants are required to indicate
their response on a 0 to 10 Likert type scale from I did not experience to
exactly like my experiences.
259
In Study One, six drivers referred to prior exposure to violence or aggression

in their lives. Use of the SLES-S in Study Three had the potential to provide a richer
understanding of high-level aggressive driver backgrounds. The data gathered via
this survey was used as personal, contextual information for each case study.
6.2.5.2 Aggression Questionnaire
All four subscales of the AQ were administered to participants: the physical
and verbal aggression subscales, the general anger scale and the hostility subscale
(Buss & Perry, 1992). Thus the measure of trait aggression consists of 29 items.
Participants rated how characteristic the items were of themselves on a 5 point Likert
Scale (1 = extremely characteristic of me, 5 = extremely uncharacteristic of me).
The internal reliability of the full 29 items was relatively high in Study Two, with a
Cronbachs of .90 (Appendix I).
6.2.5.3 Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised
As in Study Two, only three subscales of the SPSI-R (DZurilla, Nezu, &
Maydeu-Olivares, 2002) were used in Study Three. The internal reliability of each
of the subscales was evaluated for Study Two and the corresponding Cronbachs
alpha were: negative problem-solving orientation (.84); impulsive/carelessness style
(.77); and rational problem solving (.82) (Appendix I).
6.2.5.4 Carlson Psychological Survey
The Carlson Psychological Survey (CPS) is primarily designed for use with
individuals who have been accused or convicted of crimes, or otherwise referred to
the authorities for socially deviant behaviour. Considering this target group of
interest, this test has been designed to make few literacy demands of the individual
without sacrificing reliability (Carlson, 1982) (see Appendix N). High-level
aggressive driving behaviour may also be considered socially deviant behaviour and
at times may result in criminal behaviour, e.g. assault or property damage. As such,
administration of this survey was deemed particularly relevant to the exploration of
person-related characteristics of high-level aggressive drivers. The factors explored
by these measures included developmental, behavioural and cognitive factors that
have been statistically found to be associated with the increased likelihood to
respond aggressively and antisocially to perceived provocation.
260
As detailed in Section 3.2, such factors have been found to be associated with the
adoption of aggressive/antisocial behaviours.
The CPS requires participants to respond to 50 questions. Responses are
indicated on a graded scale (1 to 5) to allow participants to indicate the degree of
applicability of the item. Participants are also given space to comment on each of the
items should they wish to make any comments about each question. Scoring
involves totalling the items relevant to each subscale.
The items comprise four subscales: chemical abuse (CA); thought disturbance
(TD); antisocial tendencies (AT); and self-depreciation (SD). A validity scale (V)
was also added to provide an indication of the participants ability/willingness to
maintain an appropriate test-taking attitude.
The CA scale reflects the degree to which a person abuses drugs/alcohol and
the relevance of this abuse to their antisocial behaviour. The TD scale reflects
disorganised thinking, confusion and perceptual distortions and feelings of unreality.
These traits manifest themselves in unusual affect and/or anxiety. High scores on
this scale indicate that the individual has problems dealing with reality as they have
difficulty organising themselves in their work or private lives. They may be
emotionally upset, moody and miserable (Carlson, 1982).
The AT scale is a measure of hostility and socially defiant attitude. It also
reflects the persons willingness to be assaultive or threatening. This may or may not
manifest in the form of physical aggression, however, it is indicated by willingness to
engage in malicious conversation and a mocking, unfriendly manner (Carlson,
1982, p. 1). Receiving a high score on this scale indicates that the individual is likely
to be cynical of other people, interpreting their behaviour as unjust or self-serving.
They are also likely to be accepting of criminal behaviour, preferring the values of
those who commit crimes. They may act in unethical and untrustworthy ways,
feeling little or no guilt associated with this behaviour (Carlson, 1982).
The SD subscale indicates the degree to which the individual degrades or
belittles themself and their actions. Scores on this scale may be either a trait
disposition or a mood state. High scores on the SD indicate that the individual does
not value themself or their accomplishments, suggesting the existence of
despondency, depression and perhaps suicidal tendencies.
As part of the development of the measure, two groups of n = 216 male
offenders were tested to develop the validity of the instrument. In addition, the
261
validity of the measure was later verified with a group of 311 female offenders,
among other populations (Carlson, 1982). The measures of reliability associated
with these tests for males and females are reported at Table R1.
Participant scores on the five scales are plotted onto a profile sheet. The
graphic representation of their results indicates one of 18 profiles or offender types
that have been identified in the development of this measure. The range of scores on
each subscale and the type of offender they represent are outlined at Appendix S.
However, it should be noted that the CPS does not provide a brief descriptor of
offender types. Rather, it provides for numerical typing, i.e. Type 1 etc. As such, a
short descriptor of each offender type has been formulated in consultation with
another researcher who has extensive experience with the measure (refer to
Appendix S).
6.2.5.5 Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 (BIS-11)
Chapter Three outlined a brief review of the developmental risk factors for
aggression. In a review of impulsivity, high levels of impulsivity were found to be a
key indicator for a number of diagnosable disorders, such as ADHD, ADD, ODD
and ASD. Such diagnoses are characterised with aggressive tendencies and greater
risk-taking behaviour (e.g. ADHD, ADD, CD, ODD and ASD) (Section 3.2.2.4)
(Bor, 2004; Fossati, Barratt, Carretta, Leonardi, Grazioli, & Maffei, 2004; Iacano,
Carlson, Taylor, Elkins, & McGee, 1999; Volavka & Citrome, 1998). High scores
on BIS impulsivity have been found to be significantly correlated with the selfreported number of impulsive aggressive episodes in the previous month (Stanford et
al., 1995). Further, high impulsivity was found to be significantly but negatively
correlated with social problem solving (DZurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002;
McMurran, Blair, & Egan, 2002). As Study Two results indicated a potential
relationship between problem-solving style and the likelihood of aggressive driving
behaviours, this study adopted the use of the BIS-11 to further explore the
relationship between the SPSIRs problem-solving style and the trait measure of
impulsivity as measured by the BIS-11.
The available evidence suggests that there are three main components of the
first order personality trait, impulsivity: motor impulsiveness; attentional
impulsiveness; and non-planning (Miller Joseph, & Tudway, 2004; Patton, Stanford,
& Barratt, 1995). In 1995, these researchers administered the 30 item, BIS-11 to
262
four different samples: undergraduates, substance abusers, general psychiatric

patients and prison inmates (refer to Table R2). The internal consistency coefficients for the BIS for these groups ranged from .79 to .82 (Patton et al., 1995).
Table R3 is a list of the means, standard deviations and alpha co-efficients associated
with the BIS-11 subscales as per a general population of n = 245 (Miller et al., 2004).
Participant scores will be compared to both of the means and standard deviations
contained in both Tables R2 and R3.
Each of the 30 items in the BIS-11 demand a 1-4 Likert type scale response:
1 - rarely/never through to 4- almost always. Total BIS scores are the sum of
the full 30 items, whilst the subscales are the sum of the items relevant to each scale.
6.2.5.6 Collection of Socio-Demographic and Driving Behaviour Data and the SemiStructured Interview
In order to provide a contextual backdrop for the clinical and qualitative data
to be gathered, the following socio-demographic data was collected prior to the
administration of the above measures: gender, age, marital status, income, driving
experience (in years) and education attained were recorded (refer to Appendix N).
As an appropriate background question to some of the clinical data collected it was
also necessary to ask participants if they had any prior experience with mental health
professionals, and for what reason.
As participants were identified as self-reported hostile aggressive drivers, it
was also considered necessary to ask questions about their daily driving behaviour,
such as type of vehicle driven, hours driven per week and the density of traffic they
most often experience (Appendix N). Additionally, participants were asked
questions about their crash involvement and traffic offences in the previous three
years. They were also asked to report the likelihood of driving under the influence of
alcohol or drugs (Appendix N).
The second stage of the data collection process was qualitative and involved
the participant recalling their experience as a hostile aggressive driver. The protocols
exploring the hostile aggressive drivers experience with aggressive driving were
based on the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) and also guided by the protocols
designed for Study One, where young driver experiences with aggressive driving
were explored. The exploratory questions were also guided by Study Two findings
that highlighted several psychological constructs/processes as potentially relevant to
263
aggressive driving behaviour, specifically, emotions, cognitions, physiological

responses (see Appendix O).
6.3 Results
Individual participant scores on the AQ, SPSI-R, BIS-11 and CPS with their
statistical significance to pre-established means are outlined at Appendices U and V.
The relevance of these scores to each individual is discussed in the Case Study
Profiles outlined at Appendix W. The overall sample results are discussed under the
relevant headings below.
6.3.1 Socio-Demographics
Seven of the case study participants were either married (n = 2) or living in a
defacto relationship (n = 5). Three were either divorced (n = 1) or recently separated
(n = 2).
Participant incomes varied considerably. Four participants were low income
earners (n = 1) or in receipt of government benefits (n = 3). Another four earned
reasonable incomes i.e. $31,000 to $50,000 per year. Two participants earned in
excess of $70,000 per year.
None of the participants had attained a university level education. However,
seven of them had completed high school certificates (Year 10, n = 5; and Year 12, n
= 2). Two participants had either completed an apprenticeship or a TAFE certificate.
One participant left school after primary school (i.e. Year 7).
6.3.2 Driving Characteristics
Though three of the participants reported driving large vehicles or 4WDs, the
majority of participants reported driving medium (n = 5) or small vehicles (n = 2).
As road users, the sample most frequently drive on city/town roads (n = 6). Seven of
the case studies have been driving for more than 20 years. The remaining three have
been driving for various periods of time: 35 years (n = 1); 610 years (n = 1); and
1115 years (n = 1).
Four participants reported driving most frequently on highways or open
roads. Only one participant (a professional truck driver) reported driving more than
20 hours per week. Two other participants reported driving 1620 hours per week,
due primarily to work commitments. However, most of the participants reported
driving 615 hours per week: 610 hours (n = 2), and 1115 hours (n = 5).
264
When asked to indicate the likelihood of driving under the influence of

alcohol or drugs, the majority of participants indicated that it would be not at all
likely they would drink-drive (n = 6) or drive under the influence of drugs (n = 8).
6.3.3 History of Driving Offences and Charges
Within the last three years, four of the case study participants had been
involved in one to three road crashes. The remainder had not had any crash
involvement. None of the drivers reported having committed drink-driving offences
in the last three years. However, five of the drivers reported having received one or
two speeding fines in the past three years. Further, three of the participants
admitted to fines for unlicensed driving in the same time period.
Outside of this three-year period, all ten participants had a history of driving
violations. In light of the fact that many of the participants have been driving for
over 20 years, this may not be that surprising. However, some of the individual
histories of violations were extensive and, therefore, noteworthy (refer to Individual
Case Studies at Appendix U). Between them they had amassed: in excess of 25
speeding fines, 10 drink driving charges (n = 5 participants), four charges of
unlicensed driving, five counts of red light running or dangerous driving (n = 5), one
count of hooning, and three other road offences (n = 1).
6.3.4 Historical Background
6.3.4.1 Familial Backgrounds
One of the case study participants reportedly came from a supportive family
(CS1). Another reportedly came from a similar background, however, the
participants responses to other questions suggested that there may have potentially
been a history of psychological disorders (e.g. hypochondria) (CS9). Only two of the
participants came from single-parent families. Seven of the eight remaining
participants reported that they regularly witnessed domestic violence between their
parents. Six participants also reported a history of alcohol abuse by their mother
and/or father. Nine of the participants reported no family history of drug use. One
participant reported that his mother was a Bex addict as well as an alcoholic (CS5).
6.3.4.2 Victims of Abuse/Neglect
Eight participants reported growing up within problematic families. All eight
of these were subjected to various forms of abuse as children or young adults:
265
physical abuse by a parent, (n = 7), and sexual abuse by a family friend or stranger (n
= 2). Two participants spoke of being raped as adults: one was raped whilst serving
time in prison, and one was reportedly raped whilst extremely drunk.
6.3.4.3 History of Delinquency and/or Violence
Three participants reported no history of other, off-road offences or charges.
However, the remaining seven participants had attracted numerous other charges,
illustrating relatively high levels of anti-social behaviour. Some participants claimed
that these other charges were incurred primarily whilst they were younger. The
most recent charges involved wilful damage and actual bodily harm (n = 3),
specifically related to the hostile aggressive driving incident cited by the participants
(CS2, CS8 and CS9). The other charges self-reported by the seven participants are
summarised below:
six counts of assault or actual bodily harm (n=6) (CS1, CS2, CS5, CS8,
CS9, CS10);
one current Domestic Violence Order (n = 1) (CS7);
two counts of attempted murder (n = 1) (CS4);
two counts of arson (n = 1) (CS4);
two counts of criminal damage or wilful damage (n = 3) (CS2, CS8, CS9);
two counts of breaking and entering (n = 2) (CS2, CS5); and
four counts of stealing (goods and motor vehicles) (n = 4) (CS5, CS8, CS9).
It should also be noted that during the course of the interviews, four participants
reported having been involved in a number of bar fights that were never reported to
the authorities.
6.3.4.4 Negative Peer Associations
Four participants were reportedly involved in organised gang culture during
their adolescence (e.g. skinheads) (CS2, CS3, CS4 and CS5). Though not all
participants were directly involved in organised gangs, a total of nine participants
reported association with less than positive peer groups during their adolescence.
The nine stated that their friends came to the attention of local authorities some of
the time (n = 6), or often (n = 3).
266
6.3.4.5 History of School Conduct Problems

All but one participant reported having caused a little (n = 1) or
considerable (n = 8) trouble at school. Four participants reported regular truancy.
6.3.4.6 Clinical History
At various points in their lives, all ten participants have accessed
psychological/psychiatric or general counselling services. However, this is not that
surprising considering most of the participants were recruited through MISA. Only
three participants had not sought counselling for potentially clinically diagnosable
disorders. Five participants had sought counselling for depression, one of whom had
also been recently diagnosed with ADHD. One participant has been diagnosed with
Bipolar Disorder and another has been diagnosed with Dissociative Identity
Disorder.
In support of the proposal at Section 6.1.1 that hostile aggressive drivers will
exhibit difficulties with emotion management, six out of 10 case study subjects
expressed difficulty regulating their anger. However, in light of the selection
criterion to participate in this study, it would appear that all 10 participants may
experience this problem. Importantly, five of these individuals were not seeking
counselling for anger difficulties, but for other issues.
6.3.5 Clinical Background
A series of independent sample t-tests were conducted to test for differences
between the 10 self-reported hostile aggressive drivers and the participants in Study
Two (refer to Section 6.2.4 for rationale). Firstly, the participants in the case study
were compared to the overall Study Two sample (n = 926) to explore whether they
differed from the general driving population (See Table 6.1).
Secondly, the Study Three case study participants were compared to the hostile
aggressive driver group identified in Study Two (n = 88) (See Table 6.2). The results
of both sets of independent sample t-tests are discussed under the respective
headings.
267
Table 6.1 Independent sample t-tests of self-reported hostile aggressive drivers on

AQ and SPSI-R subscales compared to overall study two sample (n = 926)
Case Studies
(n=10)
Study Two
Sample
(n=926)
Total AQ Scores
90.40***
46.98
t(df9) = 5.785, p < .001
AQ Subscales
Physical Aggression
26.00***
10.48
t(df9) = 7.618, p < .001
Verbal Aggression
19.10*
11.21
t(df9) = 4.238, p < .01
Angry Aggression
20.40***
9.50
t(df9) = 6.147, p < .001
Hostile Aggression
24.90*
15.77
t(df9) = 3.377, p < .01
5.88**
5.21
t(df9) = 3.405, p < .017
5.66
5.16
t(df9) = 2.094, p > .017
3.30
3.32
t(df9) = -.123, p > .017
Variable
SPSI-R Subscales
Negative Problem Orientation
Significance Level
* p<.01, ** p< .017 and ***p<.001
Table 6.2 Independent sample t-tests of self-reported hostile aggressive drivers on

AQ and SPSI-R subscales compared to the PHA drivers identified in study two (n =
88)
Variable
Case
Studies
(n=10)
PHA
Drivers
(n=88)
Significance Level
Total AQ Scores
9.40*
62.32
t(df9) = 3.606, p < .01
AQ Subscales
Physical Aggression
Verbal Aggression
26.00***
19.10
16.42
13.63
t(df9) = 4.522, p < .001

t(df9) = 2.844, p > .01
Angry Aggression
20.40*
12.66
t(df9) = 4.237, p < .01
Hostile Aggression
24.9
19.61
t(df9) = 1.874, p > .01
5.88
5.66
5.33
5.38
t(df9) = 2.714, p > .017

t(df9) = 1.106, p > .017
3.30
3.16
t(df9) = .573, p > .017
SPSI-R Subscales
Negative Problem Orientation
*p<.01, **p< .017 and ***p<.001
268
6.3.5.1 Trait Aggression

When the sample mean of the 10 case studies was compared to the overall
Study Two sample (n = 926), the case studies were found to have a significantly
higher mean on the AQ and all four subscales at p < .01 or better (Table 6.1).
Overall, these results suggest that the self-reported hostile aggressive drivers in this
study have trait aggression levels higher than the Study Two participants in general.
As detailed in Table 6.2, the mean of the 10 case studies on the AQ and two of
the subscales was found to be significantly higher than that for the Study Two
hostile aggressive driver group (n = 88). The results of the test for the total AQ
score and the significant subscales were: total AQ, t(df9) = 3.606, p < .01, physical
aggression, t(df9) = 4.522, p < .001, and angry aggression, t(df9) = 4.237, p < .01. In
each case the sample mean was significantly greater than the mean of the comparison
group. However, there was no significant difference between the case study mean
and the potentially hostile aggressive drivers identified in Study Two on the hostile
aggression and verbal aggression subscales, t(df9) = 1.874, p > .01 and t(df9) =
2.844, p < .01 respectively.
6.3.5.2 Social Problem Solving
When the case study means were compared with the means of the overall
Study Two sample (n = 926), again, a significant difference was found in negative
problem orientation (NPO), t(df9) = 3.405, p < .017, but no other subscales.
Interestingly, there were no significant differences in levels of ICS and RPS between
the case studies and either of the comparison groups.
The mean of the case study group was compared with the hostile aggressive
driver group (n = 88) on the three SPSI-R subscales (Table 6.1). The case study
group means were not found to be significantly higher than the potentially hostile
aggressive driver group on any of the SPSI-R subscales, suggesting there were no
differences between these two groups in social problem-solving abilities.
6.3.5.3 Impulsivity
As Study Two results did not include a measure of impulsivity, individual
case study scores on the BIS-11 were compared to previously published means
(Muller, Joseph, & Tudway, 2004; Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995). The results of
these analyses, using Z scores, are presented at Appendix V.
269
Both male and female participants scores on the BIS-11 subscales were
compared to the published means of a general population (n = 245, 108 male and
137 female) (Muller, Joseph, & Tudway, 2004). Tests of the individual scores
revealed no significant difference between participant scores and the general
population on motor impulsivity. Two participants (CS1 and CS7) scored
significantly higher on non-planning impulsivity (z = 2.16, p < .05; z = 2.16, p < .05
respectively). Further, three participants (CS1, CS4 and CS6), scored significantly
higher on cognitive impulsivity than the general population (z = 1.96, p < .05; z =
2.26, p < .05; and z = 1.96, p < .05 respectively).
There were no significant differences on the total BIS-11 scores, between the
male case study participants and the mean published for an inmate population (Patton
& Barrat, 1995). No significant difference was found between the female
participants total score on the BIS-11 and the mean published for a female general
psychiatric group (Patton & Barratt, 1995). The general psychiatric group mean was
chosen as a mean for female inmates was not available. Further, the female
participant reported that she had been previously diagnosed with a psychological
disorder (i.e. Bipolar Disorder). Therefore, this seemed an appropriate comparison
for exploratory purposes.
6.3.5.4 Carlson Psychological Survey (CPS)
Individual participant scores were compared to the published means (see
Table R1) (Carlson, 1982). The results for each participant are presented at
Appendix V. Note that these means relate to an incarcerated population, whilst
referring to their normal drug and alcohol intake prior to prison (Carlson, 1982).
6.3.5.4.1 Chemical Abuse (CA). Comparison of individual scores on the
chemical abuse (CA) subscale revealed only one significant difference. Case Study
Two (male) recorded significantly higher on the scale than the prison population (z =
1.98, p < .05). Closer examination of the individual responses to questions relating
to the past and future consumption of alcohol and/or drugs revealed more detailed
results.
Two participants reported that they drank alcohol all of the time and four
participants indicated that they drank alcohol more than once a week. Whilst two
participants reported that they would drink about once a week, three of the
270
participants indicated that they would drink once in a while (n = 1) or never (n =

2).
When asked if they had ever used drugs, only two participants reported
having no experience with them. The remaining participants had experimented with
them or were still using the substance of choice (i.e. primarily marijuana): once or
twice (n = 3); most of the time (n = 4); and all the time (n = 1).
With reference to their future use of alcohol or drugs, only two participants
responded that they would never use either again. The remaining participants
responded accordingly: once in a while (n = 2), once a week (n = 1), two or
three times per week (n = 4), and more than three times per week (n = 1).
6.3.5.4.2 Thought Disturbance (TD) and Validity (VAL). Comparison of
the scores on the thought disturbance subscale revealed one significant difference
(see Appendix V). Case Study Four recorded a significantly higher score on levels
of thought disturbance when compared to the prison population (z = 2.06, p < .05).
This participant also scored significantly higher on the validity subscale (VAL) than
the incarcerated group (z = 2.63, p < .05).
Examination of the individual responses to TD items provided some
contextual emphasis for these results. Given five possible responses to CPS
Question 5, five subjects reported feeling a little down but OK. Three responded
that they felt sad some of the time, whilst two reported feeling sad a lot of the
time. In addition to these responses, the case study participants showed a degree of
changeability in their emotional state. Specifically, in response to CPS Question
27, three participants indicated that they change from happy one minute to sad the
next, once in a while. Five of the participants responded that they change from
happy to sad, some of the time. The remaining two participants responded that
they experience such change in emotions most of the time (n = 1) and all of the
time (n = 1).
In addition, as an insight to the possibility of more substantial thought
disturbance patterns the case study responses to CPS Question 8 were examined.
In response to this question, only one participant reported that he had never seen or
heard things that were not there. Three participants responded that they had
experienced this phenomenon once or twice. However, five of the participants
responded that they had seen or heard things that were not there more than once or
271
twice. The remaining participant (CS2) reported having had this experience often,
however, this is consistent with his diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder.
6.3.5.4.3. Anti-Social Tendencies (AT). Again, only one participant (CS2)
scored higher on anti-social tendencies (AT) than the reference group (z = 1.99, p <
.05) (refer to Appendix T). There were no other significant differences between
participant scores on anti-social tendencies and the mean scores for the incarcerated
group. Again, the study examined individual participant responses to the items
concerning anti-social tendencies, to gain contextual insight into these results.
In response to CPS Question 9, nine of the ten case studies advised that
they had told others off, often (n = 3) or many times (n = 6). Interestingly, four
of the participants said that they enjoyed fighting a little (n = 1) or some (n = 3).
Six of them indicated they did not enjoy fighting at all. When presented with if
someone hit me, I would. (CPS Question 37), only one person was unsure of
what they would do. The remaining participants responded: hit him once (n = 3),
hit him several times (n = 4), and beat him up (n = 2). Such results warrant
concern as participants indicated the number of times they have carried a weapon
(CPS Question 50): never (n = 2), once or twice (n = 5), some of the time (n =
1), most of the time (n = 1), and all of the time (n = 1).
When asked if they would be in trouble again (CPS Question 45), only
one participant suggested that he would never again be in trouble. Three
participants answered that they do not want to be in trouble again. Although,
whilst six of the participants did not want to be in trouble again, they probably
would be (n = 5) or will be once or twice more (n = 1).
However, when asked to reflect about the illegal things that they have done
(CPS Question 31), two individuals reported that they feel very sorry and three
felt sorry. However, five participants reportedly were not sorry, or never think
about the illegal things they have done.
Participant responses to CPS Question 34, were informative. The item
posed: if someone tried to cheat me, I would Seven participants responded that
they would forgive but not forget when faced with such a situation. The remaining
case studies (n = 3) reported that they would make him/her sorry. These results
suggest that as a whole this group are less likely to forget wrongdoings and are
perhaps more likely to hold onto a grudge.
272
As detailed in the case studies at Appendix W, six participants indicated that

they had caused trouble more than 7 times whilst at school (CPS Question 13).
Only one participant reported never causing trouble at school.
6.3.5.4.4. Self-Deprecation (SD). There were no significant differences
between the individual scores on SD when compared to the mean of the incarcerated
group (Appendix T). Examination of the participant scores on certain items, again,
provided a contextual backdrop to assist with the interpretation of the results.
When presented with CPS item 21, most people seem to think I am
participants were to respond with how good or bad people thought they were. Five
of the participants responded that they were perceived as a bit better than others (n
= 2) or a very good person (n = 3). Two indicated that they were just like
everyone else, whilst three reported they were perceived as a bit worse than others.
Despite these reported perceptions, when presented with CPS item 32, people
seem to like it better when I nine participants indicated that others liked it better
when they: talk a little (n = 3), I am there but do not bother them (n = 2), I just
listen (n = 3), and I am not there (n = 1). Only one participant reported that
people would like it better, if he talked a lot. Interestingly, this participant was
profiled as Type 13 self-centred.
Participants were asked to indicate, in general, how good or bad their lives
have been (CPS item 49). Six participants responded that they have had an
average (n = 2) to bad life: as bad as most people (n = 3), and worse than most
peoples (n = 1). Four cases reported that they had lives as good as most peoples (n
= 2), or better than most peoples (n = 2). The responses to this item also provide
insight into the positive or negative thinking of the participants. In particular, the
former results would suggest more negative thinking.
6.3.5.5 CPS Typing
Consistent with the traditional use of the CPS on groups that deviate from the
socially acceptable norms, the scores of the ten case studies were plotted into one of
18 Types (Carlson, 1982) (Appendices T & W). Seven of the participants were
classified Type 5 - markedly antisocial. Two of the case studies were classified
Type 16 negative/explosive, whilst the remaining participant was classified as
Type 13 self-centered (Appendices T & W).
273
Examination of the detailed profiles at Appendix W suggest that the hostile

aggressive drivers in this sample have a psychological profile not dissimilar from
that of an inmate population on measures of chemical abuse, anti-social tendencies,
thought disturbance and self-depreciation (Carlson, 1982). All participant scores
were either not statistically different from the mean for this population, or were
found to have significantly higher scores on the various subscales (refer to
Appendices V and W).
6.3.6 Qualitative Analysis of Hostile Aggressive Driving Incidents
The following analyses focus on the circumstances and processes involved in
the hostile aggressive driving incidents discussed with the participants. In all of the
cases investigated the participants reported being the instigators of the hostile
aggressive behaviour.
6.3.6.1. Situational On-Road Triggers
6.3.6.1.1 Road Characteristics. Eight of the incidents reported by
participants were initiated on a main, city/town road. Two of the incidents occurred
on a highway/freeway. The level of traffic congestion experienced at the time of the
incident was either medium
(n = 5) or heavy (n = 5).
6.3.6.1.2 Passenger Effect. Only two participants were travelling with
passengers at the time of the incident. However, in both cases the passenger either
directly or indirectly influenced the behaviour of the driver, as detailed in the case
studies (CS8 and CS10, Appendix U). These incidents will be addressed in more
detail below under Situational Off-Road Triggers (Section 6.3.6.2).
6.3.6.1.3 Gender of the Other Driver. Although not necessarily the trigger
or cause of the incident, it was observed that in the majority of incidents the other
driver, or victim, was male (n = 8). In only two instances, the victims were female.
6.3.6.1.4 Reference to the Other Drivers Vehicle. When recounting their
stories as aggressive drivers, three participants made reference to the vehicle of the
other driver (refer to comments at Table 6.3). In all three cases, the comments
appeared to reflect a negative perception of the other driver.
274
Table 6.3 References made about the vehicles of the other drivers
Case
Study
Comment
CS5
He had a nice, black car, tinted windows and the rest.
CS6
I was driving a sbox and he was driving a nice Toyota ute.
CS8
I thought, what an ahole. Im in my shiny new car, youll give way,

Im coming out (CS8 assuming the thoughts of the other driver).
6.3.6.1.5 Behavioural Triggers. Across the ten case studies, three

behaviours were cited as the primary trigger for the resultant aggressive driving
incidents: being cut-off (n = 5), tailgating (n = 3), and being subjected to slow
driving (n = 2). It is important to note that driver perception of these behaviours as
deliberate or personally meaningful appear to contribute to the increased likelihood
of an aggressive response to these behaviours. Table 6.4 is an example illustrating
each of the behaviours, linked to the relevant case studies.
Table 6.4 Examples of primary behavioural trigger for aggressive driving incidents
Case
Study
Behaviour
Comment
CS2
Cutting Off
.I was driving along all mellow and I got cut off.
CS6
Tailgating
..merging onto the highway.got onto the highway and

an old mate in a ute come flying up my ae. He sat right
on my pickle for a kilometre.
CS4
Slow Driving This guy was doing 50 in a 70k zone and there were no
other restrictions.
6.3.6.1.6 Range of Other Driver Behaviours. Immediately following the

primary trigger behaviours, participants cited a range of subsequent behaviours that
were adopted by the other driver. Table 6.5 outlines the range of other behaviours
adopted and their frequency. As can be seen, more than one other behaviour was
adopted by seven participants, suggesting that in many cases the other driver
contributed to the escalation of the on-road incident. CS1 did not report any
275
additional behaviour for the other driver aside from the primary trigger, slow
driving.
Table 6.5 Subsequent behaviours adopted by the other driver

Other Behaviours
Frequency
Case Study
Gesticulating
CS2, CS4, CS8, CS9
Verbal Abuse
CS5, CS6, CS7, CS8, CS9
Stopping
CS5, CS6, CS7
Red Light Running
CS3
Tailgating
CS10
6.3.6.1.7 Perceived Attitude of Other Driver. During the course of the

interviews, seven participants made comments about the other driver and their
apparent attitudes and related behaviour. Participants made reference to feeling
intimidated (n = 5) by the other driver, whilst others made reference to their
behaviour as inconsiderate (n = 2), stupid (n = 1) or angry (n = 1). Examples
are outlined at Table 6.6.
Table 6.6
Case
Study
References to the perceived attitudes of the other drivers

Perceived
Attitude
Comment
CS5
Intimidating
he wanted me to get out of his way, he was trying

to intimidate me.
CS8
Inconsiderate This bloke was just inconsiderate!
CS7
Angry
His attitude. It was a real angry attitude.
CS9
Stupid
that he (...the other driver) had done something

stupid anyway.
276
6.3.6.2 Situational Off-Road Triggers

Prior to the aggressive driving incident two case study participants reported
that they had been drinking (CS4 and CS6). When participants were asked how they
were feeling immediately before the act of aggressive driving, six participants
reported a range of stressful off-road factors: tired as a result of working all day (n =
1), recent separation from spouse (n = 1), argument with partner (n = 1), death of a
parent (n = 1), a child having run away from a foster home (n = 1), and having to
move house (n = 1). As illustrated in Table 7.7 below, these precursor events appear
to have increased the amount of state stress the individual was experiencing
immediately prior to the event.
Table 6.7 Pre-event off-road stressors cited by participants
Case
Study
Comment
CS1
I was tired.I had done a full days work.I just wanted to go home.
CS3
Stressed. I had just separated from my wife after 20 odd years and there
was a lot going on.
CS4
I was really p.off because (my partner) and I had had a verbal that
afternoon and I jumped in the car and took off.
CS5
My dad had recently passed away from a sudden heart attacksuppose I

was still pretty upset about it. I remember being pretty cut up.
CS8
I was upset because we had just got a phone call from my partners
daughter (in foster care) saying that she had just run away and she wanted
us topick her up. I was upset and I had my partner in the car who was
being a bit hysterical at the time.
CS9
I suppose having to move and the hassle of moving.
6.3.6.3 Emotional Responses

Nine of the case studies cited experiencing a considerable amount of anger in
response to the other drivers behaviour. A small proportion of these also used the
word rage, or used words that could reasonably describe rage to explain their
feelings. One participant used the word excited when talking about the feelings he
experienced during the aggressive driving incident. The female subject (CS10), also
277
expressed a small amount of fear associated with her experience. Table 6.8
illustrates the four main emotions experienced across the case studies at the time of
the aggressive driving incident.
Table 6.8 Examples of range of emotions experienced by participants

Emotion
Experienced
Anger
N
9
Comment
I was angry. I was pissed off.(CS6)
..pissed off.I was pissed off with him. (CS8)
Rage
my G rate was boiling. I was foaming. (CS1)

Pissed off. I was furious. (CS4)
Fear
I was scared a bit. (CS10)
Excitement
Actually, I was feeling pretty excitedreally stoked

upI lived for that sort of thing. (CS5)
Interestingly, when the subjects were asked to explore the emotions

associated with the aggressive driving incident, and some of the other major
incidents in their lives, it was observed that five of them had considerable difficulty
articulating them (CS2, CS4, CS7, CS9 and CS10). Some of these difficulties may
be due to dissociative tendencies, others appeared to lack the words to express
themselves. For example, despite the use of probing questions, one subject was
unable to recall any emotions associated with the aggressive driving incident (CS2).
His inability to express his emotions also extended to the discussion surrounding
earlier traumatic events in his life. When this observation was shared with him, he
responded:
Yeh, because I have learned to block a lot out during my life, I can even
block out pain. I can block out a lot of things. Thats like when my girlfriend
stabbed me in the back with a fork, I just said what are you doing?The
first wife held a knife to my throat. I just thought, I want to use that, hurry
up. (CS2)
278
6.3.6.4 Cognitive Responses

Exploration of the negative cognitions associated with the aggressive driving
incident revealed two main themes. Most participants had negative thoughts about
the other driver (n = 7) and many had thoughts of taking negative or aggressive
action in response to the situation (n = 8). The latter theme is one that was
previously identified in the focus group discussions of Study One. In that study,
most participants merely had negative thoughts about the other driver and their
abilities as a driver. However, ten young drivers reported having thoughts of the
action they would take. In this study, thoughts of taking negative or aggressive
action appear to be a common process for the hostile aggressive drivers under
investigation. Again, some participants had difficulty recalling the thoughts
associated with the incident (CS4, CS7, CS9, CS10). Table 6.9 provides examples of
the cognitive themes.
Table 6.9: Examples of the negative cognitions associated with hostile aggressive
drivers
Negative
Cognitions
Other Driver
N
7
Comment
you stupid prick you shouldnt be sitting that
close up my arse. (CS5)
..smart arse (CS6)
I thought what an arsehole (CS8)
He was such an idiot. (CS9)
Actions to be taken
I felt like running her off the road. You know, get
out of my way or I will put you out of the way. I
was really geed up. (CS1)
hit him before he hits me. (CS2)
I thought, I want to hurt you real bad. (CS7)
Im gonna get you! (CS10)
279
6.3.6.5 Physiological Arousal

The subjects reported experiencing a range of physiological reactions to the
aggressive driving incidents. Table 6.10 identifies the range of physiological
changes identified by the subjects. These physiological changes are consistent with
increased levels of adrenaline (Carlson & Buskit, 1997). Two of the participants
were unable to recall or identify any physiological characteristics (CS2 and CS9).
6.3.6.6 Behaviours Engaged by Hostile Aggressive Driver Group
A number of combined behaviours were adopted by the hostile aggressive
driver group in response to the perceived provocation. Table 6.11 provides a detailed
breakdown of the behavioural responses adopted by this group.
Without exception, all of the case study participants verbally abused the other
driver. Additionally, although two of the subjects initially used their horn to express
their anger, all ten incidents escalated to the adoption of highly aggressive
behaviours: following the other driver (n = 3), stopping and alighting from the
vehicle (n = 8), using their vehicle to nudge the other drivers vehicle (n = 2),
braking to cause a collision with a following vehicle (n = 1), damaging the other
drivers vehicle (n = 6), and physical assault (n = 4).
Table 6.10 Range of physiological changes identified by the case studies
Physiological
Changes
Hyped
n
6
Example Comments
my rate was up, my heart was pumping. (CS1)
my adrenaline was pumping. (CS5)
I was pumped! (CS6)
I felt a rush of blood to my head which put me on a
bit of a high. (CS8)
Tense, very tense in the chest. (CS3)
Tight
Butterflies and
Nausea
...I felt tight in the chest. (CS7)

I was feeling sick. I had a bad case of butterflies.
felt like I was going to be sick. (CS4)
Narrowing of Vision
Tunnel vision it was him and I. (CS7)

my eyes, I reckon they become real sharp.
(CS10)
280
Table 6.11 Range of behaviours adopted by the hostile aggressive driver group
Behaviour
Horn honking
Verbal Abuse
10
Case Study Examples
I was fairly vocal behind the wheel..get out of my fn way, you

blind bch.: (CS1)
I went round to his window and said a few choice words, told him
he was an fg idiot. (CS8)
Stopping and Alighting

from vehicle (n=4
alighted from vehicle at a
set of lights)
Following the other

driver
I grabbed my club lock from under the seat and I got out. (CS5)
We stopped at the next set of lights, so I got out of my car and
walked up to his window to give it to him. (CS3)
He eventually went around me and turned off, so I followed him.

(CS5)
He went around the corner and I followed him. I followed him home
actually. It was just around the corner. (CS9)
She stopped following usso I did a U-turn and went back.
(CS10)
I actually tapped her in the boot. (CS1)
Nudging a vehicle from

behind
Braking to cause a
collision
I chucked on the anchors and sent him far up my arse. He hit me at

90km per hour. (CS6)
Damaging another
vehicle
His whole front end was just smashed. (CS6)
I put my foot down and nudged him a few times. (CS4)
Started laying into his car with the club lockthe bonnet, the
windscreen, his driver door and side mirror. (CS5)
I started wriggling his side mirror side to side. (CS8)
I grabbed my big Maglite and smashed the mirror on the side of her
car. (CS10)
Physical Assault
he cut me off. It was just a normal reaction. Ive been taught not
to back down from anything. Hes got out of the car, so I just belted
himI broke my knuckle. (CS2)
I said mate, its on..and so I just hit him and it was onfor a few
minutes, until they pulled us apart. I got a broken jaw out of it.and
three police cars turned up. (CS7)
When he went to open his door to get out, I slammed the door back
on his hand. (CS8)
He clipped me behind the earI hit him and he went down and hit
his head on the concrete. Over the fence he just went through, and
into the concrete..(found out later) ambulance came and took him
to hospital. (CS9)
281
6.3.6.7 Consequences of the Hostile Aggressive Driver Behaviour

Despite the potential for all of the above behaviours to attract the
involvement of police, only four of the aggressive incidents cited did so (see Table
6.12). Of these, only two of the participants were charged.
After the incident, nine of the drivers reported that they gave the matter little
or no further thought (Table 6.12). Following a particularly violent incident (CS5,
Table 6.12), one driver reported that he had a celebratory drink. Only two drivers
commented that they continued to ruminate over the event. One driver reported that
he continued to be a bit worried, due to his previous criminal history and the
possibility of police involvement.
Table 6.12 Examples of real or perceived consequences
Consequences
Comment
Police
Involvement
6
None
He wound the window up and took off through a red light(end of

the incident) (CS3)
Nothing. Nothing at all. (CS4)
Partial
I went straight to the police station and reported it all for insurance. I
wrapped him up pretty good! (CS6)
You know, three police cars turned up. (When asked if either of them
wanted to press charges)I said no, its not worth it. Lot of it was
self-defence. (CS7)
Charges Laid
he must have got me regoreported it to the police. I have been

charged with wilful damage of this blokes car, estimated at $1,000.
(Case pending) (CS8).
as I drove away they got me number. I was stupid enough to ring
the police, when I heard they were looking for megot 150 hours
community service, no time. (CS9)
Post-Event
Influence
8
None
never gave it another thought. Went home and was happy to be

home. (CS1)
not at all, I went down the pub and had a celebratory drink! (CS5)
Other
I got to a friends place and I parked my car in his garage, because I

was worried that he would see it...in case the next day he was on patrol
or something and spotted my car. (Incident involved an off-duty
policeman) (CS4)
That wrecked my whole day. I couldnt get it out of my mind.
(CS10)
282
6.3.6.8 General Attitudes of the Hostile Aggressive Driver

Within the transcripts, several more general attitudes of the hostile aggressive
driver emerged: lack of remorse (n = 8), sense of justification (n = 10), lack of regret
(n = 8), intentionality (n = 10), and deliberate intimidation (n = 3) (refer to Table
6.13). In addition to the substantial evidence of lack of remorse among this group,
all of the participants felt justified, or offered justification for taking the action that
they did. Only two participants spoke of regret. However, it should be noted that
one of these expressed regret for having been caught (CS9), and the other at having
caused damage to his own vehicle (CS6). When asked questions about the
intentional nature of their behavioural response, all ten participants expressed
deliberate intent. Further, three of the case study participants spoke of deliberately
trying to intimidate the other driver in order to influence their behaviour.
Table 6.13 General attitudes of the hostile aggressive driver group

General Attitudes
Lack of Remorse
N
8
Example Comments
I felt good! I got in before him. (CS2)
because I saw it was a young bloke, I didnt give a shit.
(CS4)
Nuh, no remorseI think its quite hilarious myself.
(CS8)
Sense of Justification
10
I just wanted to teach him a lesson! (CS6)

He was being a bully and a smart arsehe actually
deserved it. (CS8)
Intentionality
10
Guaranteed, it was intentional! (CS1)

Bloody oath (I intended to do it). (C5)
Oh yeh! Intended to hit him. (CS7)
Deliberate
Intimidation
I was doing it to intimidate. (CS1)

I just wanted to give him the shits, or scare him, so he
would get out of the fg road. (CS4)
I was a bit bigger than him intimidating. (CS6)
283
6.3.6.9 Lack of Personal Insight

As mentioned earlier under Emotional Responses, some of the participants
had difficulty identifying the emotions they experienced during the incident. It was
also noted that a number (n = 7) of the participants had limited levels of personal
insight. As such they were unable to, or had difficulty, accepting responsibility for
their behaviour when asked Do you think your behaviour could be considered
aggressive? Consequently, much of the evidence for this observation is in the lack
of a response, or avoidance of a response to this question. Table 6.14 presents quotes
that overtly illustrated the difficulty.
Table 6.14: Comments illustrating difficulty with personal insight

Case Study
Comment
CS4
YehI guess. Still
CS9
Yeh. But, I could have been a smartarse and put a hanky over it
the minute I pulled up.
CS10
Yeh. But thats just my reaction.
6.3.6.10 Other Experiences as the Perpetrator

Seven of the participants admitted that they had been involved in other
aggressive driving incidents. Four of the participants admitted to being involved in
at least one other incident. Three subjects admitted to involvement in multiple
others. No specific details were sought about these experiences. The remaining
three participants reported having no other experiences with aggressive driving.
However, one of them was extremely evasive and did not directly respond to the
question (CS8). Another, responded that he had not been involved in any other
incidents in the role of the perpetrator (CS9):
No, not on the giving end. No. Ive been on the receiving end for nothing.
6.4 Discussion
Before discussing the results of this study, it is necessary to reiterate that the
small sample used was not randomly selected from the general population of
potentially aggressive drivers. Notwithstanding, the study allowed the researcher to
284
investigate whether individuals with potential anger issues are more prone to
transferring these difficulties to the on-road environment.
Under the relevant research questions, individual results are reported below
where appropriate. The discussion of the person-related results will not only focus
on the socio-demographic characteristics of the case studies, but on the various risk
factors for the development of aggressive tendencies. The latter will be discussed
from a historical, as well as a clinical, perspective.
6.4.1 Case Study Experiences as a Hostile Aggressive Driver
RQ5

driving behaviour?
6.4.1.1 On-road situational factors

The results concerning the on-road situational factors surrounding the hostile
aggressive incidents discussed with participants are similar to those identified in the
literature review and Study One i.e. type of road, levels of congestion, passenger
effect and gender of the other driver (Elliott, 1999; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997;
OBrien, Watson,, & Tay, 2004; RACWA, 1997; VCCAV, 1999).
The type of road on which the incidents most commonly occurred was a
main, city/town road in either medium or heavy levels of congestion. Further, two
participants appear to have been influenced by passenger effect. CS8 was directly
affected by his passengers overt distress about an off-road incident. CS10 cited that
she had been travelling with friends, one male and one female. Potentially, their
presence influenced her behaviour indirectly, as the presence of passengers has been
found to influence driving behaviour (Doherty, Andrey, & MacGregor, 1998; Rolls,
Ingham, Hall, & McDonald, 1991; Williams, 2003).
The gender of the other driver was male in eight of the 10 incidents cited by
participants. In most instances, the perpetrator was male. The female perpetrator
in the study perpetrated her aggression against a female. These results are consistent
with previous findings that suggest that males are not only more likely to be the
perpetrator, but the victim of on-road aggression (OBrien, Watson, & Tay, 2004;
VCCAV, 1999). However, they may also be a product of the characteristics of the
hostile aggressive driver sample i.e. 9 males and 1 female, n = 10.
The specific on-road behaviours that initially triggered the participants
hostile aggressive response mirrored those identified in Study One and in the
285
literature review. Specifically, cutting-off, tailgating and slow driving instigated

negative feelings within the hostile aggressive driver group. It is important to note
that these behaviours may not necessarily be perceived as aggressive by all drivers.
Pivotal to them causing negative emotions, is the perception of the driver. These
behaviours were initially perceived as intentional and personally meaningful by the
hostile aggressive participants. On the other hand, the general population may be
more prepared to perceive them as driving errors, or simply poor judgement on the
part of the other driver. In addition it is noted that the other driver also adopted a
range of other behaviours during the course of the incident: gesticulating, verbal
abuse, stopping their vehicle, red light running and tailgating which appear to have
contributed to the escalation of the incident in some instances (AAMI, 2001; Mizell,
1997; NHTSA, 2002; VCCAV, 1999).
In summary, though qualitative, the foregoing findings provide support for
previous aggressive driving research and Study One findings. The ability for some
on-road behaviours to be perceived as provocative or aggressive by a perpetrator,
supports the proposition that hostile aggressive drivers have trait or state personrelated differences that differentiate them from the general driving population.
6.4.1.2 Situational Off-Road Triggers
The qualitative, case study findings support the suggestion by other
researchers that off-road factors contribute to state stress levels and subsequent onroad driving aggression (Arnett, Offer, & Fine, 1997; Navaco, Stokols, & Milanesi,
1990). Six of the case studies indicated that they were under varying degrees of state
stress at the time of the incident, ranging from having worked hard all day to recent
separation from a spouse and a family bereavement. In all cases, the precursor
triggers appear to have influenced the amount of state stress experienced. Although,
it should be noted that in most cases the link between this stress and the aggressive
driving behaviour that participants adopted was not made explicit. Research
suggests, however, that the experience of state stress increases the likelihood of
perceiving an incident as provocative (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Crick & Dodge,
1996; Yagil, 2001). It has also been associated with the activation of feelings of
anger and/or fear, increasing the likelihood of aggressive behavioural responses
(Anderson, 1995). This link is proposed to be made through the activation of
286
aggressive schemas/scripts that increase the likelihood of an aggressive response to

provocation (Anderson, 1995).
6.4.1.3 Emotional Responses
In response to the perceived provocation, anger was most frequently cited as
the primary emotion. However, these drivers spoke of having considerably high
levels of anger in response to the perceived provocation. A small proportion
nominated the word rage to describe their feelings. These results are not surprising,
as they are consistent with the Study Two results and the literature review that
maintains higher levels of anger are associated with more aggressive acts
(Deffenbacher, Deffenbacher, Lynch, & Richards, 2003; Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch,
Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000; Lajunen & Parker, 2001; Lynch, Deffenbacher, Filetti, &
Dahlen, 1999). Consistent with excitation transfer theory, one participant (CS5)
cited excitement as the main emotion experienced in relation to his hostile
aggressive behaviour on the road (Geen, 1990; Zillmann, 1972). He did not cite
anger as an emotion experienced. Another participant, the only female,
experienced a degree of fear in response to the perceived provocative behaviour.
This finding is consistent with Study One findings concerning female drivers and
their experiences with aggressive driving.
Interestingly, it was noted that five of the hostile aggressive drivers had
difficulty articulating the feelings they experienced during the event. In two cases, a
tendency towards dissociation was suspected. In the main, however, most
participants appeared to lack the words to express themselves, suggesting the
potential for emotional difficulties or dysfunction. If participants are unable to
express themselves, or connect with their emotions, perhaps this reflects an inability
to know and regulate their own emotions. Research suggests that difficulty, or an
inability to regulate ones emotions is associated with defensiveness and a tendency
to ruminate, that may lead to impulsive and/or inappropriate behavioural reactions to
the slightest provocation (Caprara et al., 1987; Chang et al., 2003).
6.4.1.4 Cognitive Responses
Consistent with the findings of Studies One and Two and the literature
review, the subjects recalled numerous negative cognitions they had about the other
driver (Yagil, 2001). In this study, however, the results suggest that hostile
aggressive drivers have two types of negative cognitions about the incident: those
287
about the attributes or abilities of the other driver; and those about what aggressive
action they would like to take. A total of eight of the case studies had negative
thoughts about what action they would like to take in response to the situation. For
example: I felt like running her off the road (CS1)
If negative thoughts about the attributes or abilities of the other driver have
the potential to influence driving behaviour, perhaps having thoughts of taking
aggressive actions further increases the likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour.
After all, conscious and/or subconscious thought precedes action. Hence, perhaps
thoughts about positive or negative actions to be taken may be more apparent among
hostile aggressive drivers.
During the course of the interview, nine of the hostile aggressive drivers also
made reference to the perceived attitude of the other driver. Five of the case
studies reportedly felt the other driver was trying to intimidate them. Four of
them reported that the other driver was inconsiderate, generally angry or behaved
stupidly. This suggests that hostile aggressive drivers may perceive more negative
attitudes emanating from the other driver.
Finally, whilst discussing the incidents, three of the hostile aggressive drivers
made reference to the other drivers vehicle. In all three cases the participants
comments reflected their negative perception of the other driver. As can be seen in
Table 6.9, the participant comments appear to be underpinned by jealousy. This
finding was particularly interesting, as there has been little work done on aggressive
driving and attitudes other than vengeance (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001, 2002).
Perhaps, hostile aggressive driving behaviours are at times also motivated by feelings
of jealousy and resentment.
6.4.1.5 Physiological Arousal
It is widely accepted that the activation of emotions and cognitions associated
with an anger-provoking incident initiates a physiological response (Berkowitz,
1993; Huesmann, 1988; Zillman, 1988). In response to the emotions experienced,
the participants became aware of a range of physiological changes within their
bodies. The majority described feeling hyped or pumped. Four participants
experienced tightness in the chest area. Two of the subjects described changes in
their vision, whilst one participant reported feeling nauseous. These physiological
changes are consistent with increased adrenaline levels.
288
6.4.1.6 Behaviours Adopted by the Hostile Aggressive Driver

All of the participants adopted instrumental, on-road aggression, namely
horn-honking and verbal abuse. However, all of the participants also resorted to
extreme forms of on-road aggression that could easily have resulted in criminal
charges. These behaviours included: stopping their vehicle and alighting from their
vehicle to pursue the matter with the other driver at a verbal and sometimes
physical level, resulting in injury or property damage; deviating from their original
journey to follow the other driver; using their vehicle to nudge or push the vehicle
of a slower driver; and intentionally braking hard in order to cause a collision with a
close-following vehicle.
Results from this sample suggest that hostile aggressive drivers may
intentionally engage in both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours on the
road. Consistent with the Study Two findings concerning those behaviours that
should be considered hostile aggressive in nature, most of the observed hostile
behaviours again involved a deviation from the original goal of their journey in order
to deal with or send a message to the other driver. This illustrates the extent to
which hostile aggressive drivers may be prepared to go in order to rectify a perceived
wrong. However, it should be bourne in mind that engaging in hostile aggressive
driving behaviour was the selection criteria for inclusion in the study. Hence, it is
unclear whether instrumental behaviours tend to precede hostile aggressive
behaviours in general, or this was simply a characteristic of the drivers included in
this study.
6.4.1.7 Consequences of the Hostile Aggressive Driver Behaviour
Following the incident, only one subject expressed some concern over the
possible consequences of his actions, due to his previous criminal history (CS4). The
majority of the case studies reported that they gave the incident little or no thought
soon afterwards, suggesting little remorse or regret over their involvement in the
incident. Further, CS5 reportedly went to his local pub and had a celebratory drink.
In human aggression research, low levels of remorse have been found to be
associated with anti-social tendencies (Carlson, 1982). Immediately following the
on-road incident, two participants continued to worry or ruminate over the incident
(CS4 and CS10). Such rumination has been associated with emotional
289
susceptibility which reflects a general inability to regulate emotions, increasing the

likelihood of aggressive responses (Caprara et al., 1987).
Interestingly, six of these highly aggressive on-road incidents were not
brought to the attention of authorities. In two instances, authorities were only
partially involved: to report the incident for insurance purposes; and to break up a
public fight on a main road (no charges were laid). Only two subjects were
formally charged as a result of an aggressive driving incident. One was waiting a
court date at the time they were interviewed; the other was found guilty of assault.
These results raise the possibility that aggressive driving incidents may be
underreported.
6.4.1.8 General Attitude of the Hostile Aggressive Driver
Without exception the participants indicated that they felt justified in having
taken the action that they did. Some indicated that the other driver needed to be
taught a lesson, while others justified their actions by commenting that the other
driver deserved it. Perhaps, therefore, hostile aggressive drivers have more
vengeful attitudes, in keeping with earlier traffic research that suggests that highly
vengeful drivers are more likely to perceive provocation as aggressive and adopt
more highly aggressive behavioural responses (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001).
Consistent with this thinking, all ten participants admitted that their behavioural
response was intentionally directed at the other driver.
Additionally, three hostile aggressive drivers admitted to deliberately
attempting to intimidate, in order to influence the driving behaviour of the other
driver. This finding is supported by the general attitudes identified as causes of
aggressive driving behaviour in Study One (p. 48).
The overall findings also appear consistent with social interaction theory that
is incorporated in the GAM decision making model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).
The theory maintains that perpetrator thoughts of justice and the process of laying
blame are highly relevant to aggressive outcomes (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994).
Indeed, thoughts of obtaining justice appear highly relevant to the hostile aggressive
drivers in the sample.
6.4.1.9 Levels of Personal Insight in the Hostile Aggressive Driver
As previously stated, a number of the participants were observed to have
difficulty with identifying the emotions they experienced during the course of the
290
aggressive driving incident. Similarly, when asked questions concerning their

exposure to stressful life experiences throughout the course of their lives, it was
observed that seven out of 10 experienced some difficulty expressing the emotions
associated with these events. Further, when examining their personal experience as a
perpetrator of aggressive driving, these seven drivers avoided/failed to accept
responsibility for their behaviours. Also noted was a reluctance to accept their
behaviour as aggressive or inappropriate.
6.4.1.10 Other Experiences as the Perpetrator
Although no specific details were collected, many of the case studies openly
admitted to having been involved in several other incidents during the course of their
lives. Though this result was anticipated, it must be considered that seven of the
drivers have been driving for more than 20 years. They have had increased exposure
to the opportunity for aggressive behavioural responses on the roads. Alternatively,
this result may mirror the findings of Study Two where a wider age range was
identified as belonging to the hostile aggressive driver group than had been
suggested by previous research which suggested higher rates of aggressive driving
behaviour in 1724 year old drivers (VCCAV, 1999; Yagil, 2001). Indeed, if hostile
aggressive driving behaviour is primarily due to person-related factors developed
over the course of ones life, then aggressive driving behaviour would not necessarily
be isolated to young drivers (i.e. 1724 years of age). Notwithstanding, these results
may also simply reflect the under-reporting mentioned earlier.
6.4.2 Person-Related Characteristics of the Hostile Aggressive Driver Group
RQ6

who report only engaging in instrumental acts of aggressive driving?
In light of the strict selection criteria used to assess participant eligibility for
this study the age and gender of the hostile aggressive drivers recruited resulted in
some interesting observations. Notably, the age of the hostile aggressive drivers
ranged from 24 to 55 years of age (M = 41.6 years). This finding may be interpreted
as consistent with the finding of Study Two examining the age and gender
differences in the larger sample (n = 926). As detailed in Section 5.3.6.5, there was
no significant difference in the likelihood of a hostile aggressive behavioural
response between drivers 1724 years of age and those aged 4059 years. Further,
291
the age of the participants is in keeping with the results of the comparison of the
hostile aggressive driver group (n = 88) in Study Two with the other drivers (n =
838) from the larger sample (Table 5.2). In Study Two, the drivers in the groups
aged 2539 years of age and 4059 years of age were not significantly likely to be
categorised as belonging to either the potentially hostile aggressive driver group or
the other driver (i.e. non hostile aggressive) group. Therefore, it would appear that
young drivers are not necessarily the only at-risk group for hostile aggressive driving
behaviour.
Despite the small sample size in this current study, the subsequent
recruitment of nine males and one female may be interpreted as consistent with the
previous studies in this research program and the foregoing literature review: male
drivers appear to be more likely to participate in hostile aggressive behaviours on the
roads (Aberg & Rimmo, 1998; Gordhamer et al., 1996; Lajunen & Parker, 2001).
However, a relevant confound in this finding is that the community health centre
from which the majority of participants were recruited is most frequently accessed by
males (i.e. MISA). Consideration of the other socio-demographic factors also found
some interesting findings concerning hostile aggressive drivers.
Contrary to human aggression research which has long associated lower
levels of education with greater levels of human aggression (Harris & KnightBohnhoff, 1996; Murray, 1998; Shinar, Schechtman, & Compton, 2001) this study
found that a larger proportion of the self-reported hostile aggressive drivers had
attained a certificate level of education i.e. Year 10 or better (Shinar et al., 2001).
This was consistent with Study Two findings where higher education levels were
found to be significantly predictive of the likelihood of adopting instrumental
aggression (p. 196). The majority of subjects were married or living in a de-facto
relationship. Further, six of the drivers earned a reasonable to high level income,
ranging from $31,000 to income exceeding $70,000 per year.
A large proportion of the case studies reported driving for over 20 years. As
road users, the case studies reportedly drive most frequently on city/town roads, and
to a lesser degree, highways, in medium density traffic, consistent with Study Two
findings. Also consistent with Study Two findings, the hostile aggressive drivers
were more frequently identified as driving medium to large vehicles. The majority
also spend 615 hours driving per week.
292
In the self-reported driving characteristics, half of the case study subjects had
attracted speeding fines in the past three years. Further, three participants admitted
to being fined for unlicensed driving. Although participants reported few other onroad transgressions in the past three years, when asked about driving-related charges
outside of this period the results indicated extensive histories of violations (see
Appendix W). As detailed in the results, in addition to amassing considerable
speeding fines outside of this three-year period, the participants reported 10 drinkdriving charges, a number of unlicensed driving charges, red-light running,
dangerous driving, hooning, and several other on-road offences.
These results support the proposal that hostile aggressive drivers may be
more likely to exhibit signs of drink/drug abuse, demonstrated by the relatively
large number of drink- driving charges amassed by these drivers. It also appears that
hostile aggressive drivers may be more likely to have a history of other drivingrelated offences consistent with the proposal that hostile aggressive drivers may be
more likely to have had more frequent encounters with law enforcement officials
(Appendix W). Upon review, the violations detailed may also be indicative of a
tendency towards anti-social behaviours.
6.4.3 Exposure to Developmental Risk Factors for Aggression
The results suggest that hostile aggressive drivers may also be more likely to
originate from dysfunctional family backgrounds. There was very little evidence of
drug abuse in the family of origin. However, the results indicate that the highly
aggressive drivers family of origin is perhaps more likely to have a history of
alcohol abuse and domestic violence between the parents. These findings are
consistent with existing literature which has found that exposure to domestic
violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and anti-social tendencies (Bor,
McGee, & Fagan, 2004). By itself, exposure to parental alcohol abuse may not
directly cause the development of aggressive tendencies. Rather, the aggressive or
anti-social tendencies are developed via the dysfunctional parenting associated with
the alcohol abuse or via domestic violence that may result from alcohol abuse (Bor et
al., 2004; Dahlberg, 1998; Fagan & Najman, 2003). Children raised in such
backgrounds are more susceptible to the development of delinquent behaviour and
aggressive tendencies, due to poor parent/child communications (Fagan & Najman,
2003). Twin studies have also shown that adolescents with a history of parental
293
alcohol abuse are more likely to develop negative emotionality, aggression and
negative reactions in response to stressors (Elkins, McGue, Malone, & Iacono,
2004).
Results from this sample also indicated that hostile aggressive drivers may be
more likely to have been subjected to child abuse or neglect than the general driving
population. Seven of the participants reported being subjected to physical abuse by
either their father or mother. Two participants reported sexual abuse within the
family of origin or by a family friend. Exposure to such negative experiences and
less than ideal role models is believed to have increased the risk of these participants
engaging in delinquent or aggressive behaviours in the off-road environment
(Klassen & OConnor, 1994). As such, it would also seem feasible that this may
have the potential to apply to the on-road environment.
Six of these participants also reported having difficult relationships with the
non-abusive parent (CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5, CS6 and CS10). As a consequence, these
participants also experienced neglect in the form of low levels of love, care or
interest and were therefore at risk of participating in delinquent behaviours during
adolescence (Kensella, 1996).
A number of participants were involved in gang activities. This finding,
again, demonstrates some support for the proposal that hostile aggressive drivers will
exhibit antisocial tendencies. Also, as gang membership can be conceptualised as a
way in which to enhance or develop feelings of belonging and identity (NCV, 1990),
it can be viewed as a maladaptive coping style, supporting the proposal that the selfconfessed hostile aggressive drivers will exhibit higher levels of maladaptive coping.
Additionally, the majority of participants reported associating with generally
less than positive peer groups during their adolescence. These peers came to the
attention of authorities to varying degrees. Thus the association of these participants
with peer groups that behaved in such a manner as to attract the attention of police,
shows partial support for the proposal that hostile aggressive drivers may have had
more close encounters with law enforcement officials than the general population.
As the findings of the National Committee on Violence (NCV, 1990) suggest,
perhaps involvement in such groups provides a refuge for such troubled youth, where
they were able to develop a sense of belonging and identity through participation in
delinquent behaviours.
294
The majority of participants reported having caused considerable trouble at

school, indicative of conduct problems. Four of these also reported regular truancy.
Although these transgressions occurred when they were adolescents, causing trouble
at school and truancy may be considered maladaptive styles of coping with problems.
Such problems have also been associated with later delinquency and aggression
(Hawkins et al., 1998; Farrington, 2002).
As exposure to the foregoing variables has been found to either directly or
indirectly influence delinquency and violence, participants were also asked if they
had ever incurred off-road charges of any kind. Seven participants had amassed 18
other charges between them. These ranged through breaking and entering, assault
to attempted murder. A smaller proportion reported involvement in bar fights
which had not come to the attention of authorities. The number of charges associated
with physical assault or violence show support for the proposal that hostile
aggressive drivers may exhibit aggression/violence in other areas of their lives, may
have previously had close encounters with law enforcement officials, and may
exhibit antisocial tendencies. These results also appear to be consistent with the
problematic childhoods experienced by the participants (Appendix U) and literature
concerning the risk factors for aggression. Specifically, some human aggression
researchers have concluded that aggressive children tend to be aggressive teenagers,
who in turn become aggressive adults (McDonald & Brown, 1997).
Several of the participants had previously sought counselling for potentially
clinically diagnosable disorders i.e. depression, ADHD, Bi-polar Disorder and
Dissociative Identity Disorder. This rather high incidence rate of clinical disorders is
consistent with other research that found 80% of aggressive drivers in a sample of
30, had clinically diagnosable disorders (Galovski & Blanchard, 2002). Notably, six
participants expressed difficulty regulating their anger. However, considering the
hostile aggressive behavioural responses adopted by the case studies, perhaps all of
them may have such difficulties. Together, these results suggest that hostile
aggressive drivers are more likely to have emotional regulation difficulties. Once
again, however, this may in part reflect the fact that the participants were recruited
from a mens health service.
295
6.4.4 Trait Person-Related Characteristics

The self-reported hostile aggressive driver group scored significantly higher
scores on the overall AQ and its four subscales than did the general drivers identified
in Study Two (n = 838) consistent with other traffic research (Deffenbacher, Oetting,
& Lynch, 1994; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). These results show support for the
proposal that hostile aggressive drivers have higher levels of trait aggression than
other general road users. Also, the fact that the hostile aggressive drivers in this
study had a significantly higher mean score for all but two AQ subscales (i.e. verbal
and hostile aggression) than the hostile aggressive drivers identified in Study Two (n
= 88), may be accounted for by the deliberate selection of highly aggressive drivers
for this study.
Consistent with the rational problem-solving results in Study Two (see Table
K4) the results of Study Three suggest that there is no significant difference in the
levels of rational problem solving and impulsive/careless style reported by hostile
aggressive drivers and the general driving population (n = 838) (Table 6.2).
However, the hostile aggressive driver group appear to have significantly higher
levels of negative problem orientation (NPO) than the general population of drivers
(n = 838) (Table 6.2). These results provide partial support for the proposal that
hostile aggressive drivers may have higher levels of maladaptive coping styles. As
effective problem solving has been found to mediate the level of stress experienced
by an aversive event (DZurilla & Nezu, 1999), hostile aggressive drivers appear to
be poor problem solvers. Indeed, they may be more negative in their approach to
problematic situations than the general driving population.
Examination of the BIS-11 subscale scores also showed partial support for
the proposal in Section 6.1.1 that hostile aggressive drivers may be more likely to
engage in impulsive/reactive behaviours. Comparison of individual subscale scores
with the subscale scores of a general population (Muller et al., 2004) revealed some
statistically significant differences. CS1 and CS7 had significantly higher scores for
non-planning impulsivity, whilst CS1, CS4 and CS6 scored significantly higher on
cognitive impulsivity than the general population.
However, when the total BIS-11 scores were considered, the hostile
aggressive driver group did not significantly differ from the male inmate or female
general psychiatric comparison groups, where considerably high impulsivity levels
were apparent (Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995). Nonetheless, it would appear that
296
hostile aggressive drivers may have higher overall levels of trait impulsivity than
other drivers.
6.4.5
General Psychological Characteristics
The following discussion of the general psychological characteristics of the

10 case studies and their psychological typing is based on the reported findings from
administration of the CPS (Carlson, 1982).
Individual participant chemical abuse scores were compared with the
published mean for an incarcerated group. Note that the CPS is normally
administered on intake to the prison system, therefore questions relating to chemical
abuse refer to the inmates normal drug and alcohol intake prior to incarceration
(Carlson, 1982). There were no significant differences between the hostile
aggressive driver group and the comparison group, except for CS2 who reported
significantly higher levels of drug/alcohol intake. This result supports the proposal
that hostile aggressive drivers may be more likely to exhibit signs of drug and/or
alcohol abuse. Alcohol has been associated with increased rates of aggression and
violent crime (McDonald & Brown, 1997; Taylor & Hulsizer, 1998). Additionally,
other research indicates that aggressive drivers are more frequently diagnosed with
alcohol abuse (Galovski & Blanchard, 2002).
Further, research into the motivations for alcohol consumption suggests that
the high levels of NPO and ICS evident in this driver group may be associated with
an inability to cope in the absence of other constructive/adaptive ways of coping.
Motivation for alcohol consumption has also been found to be strongly associated
with negative emotionality (as measured by levels of depression) (Cooper et al.,
1995). Therefore, as the majority of participants have at some time experienced
problematic alcohol consumption, perhaps this is also a reflection of their inability to
appropriately regulate their emotions consistent with the proposal in Section 6.1.1.
Examination of the thought disturbance results as measured by the CPS,
demonstrated that hostile aggressive drivers may have higher levels of distorted
thinking than the population in general. Only one case study (CS4) reported a
significantly higher score on levels of thought disturbance and validity than the
reference group. This was anticipated in light of his previous diagnosis with
Dissociative Identity Disorder. There were no other significant differences on the
297
levels of thought disturbance and validity between participant scores and the
reference group (i.e. an inmate population).
Individual responses to CPS questions relating to thought disturbance
suggested that the hostile aggressive driver in this sample is sometimes a little down
some of the time to sad a lot of the time. These hostile aggressive drivers are also
likely to change from happy one minute to sad the next from some to all of the
time, suggestive of a susceptibility to sudden mood changes. Further, this driver is
likely to have seen or heard things that were not there, more than once or twice
(Carlson, 1982).
CS2 scored higher on antisocial tendencies than did the inmate population
(Carlson, 1982). However, there were no other significant differences between the
hostile aggressive driver group and the reference group, demonstrating support for
the proposal that hostile aggressive drivers may exhibit higher levels of antisocial
tendencies. Thus, it would appear that hostile aggressive drivers may exhibit some
or all of the antisocial behaviours explored within the CPS questions including verbal
abuse, a degree of enjoyment for fighting, a preparedness to engage in physical
fighting, and carrying a weapon (refer to Questions 6, 9, 24, 28, 37 and 50 of the
CPS at Appendix N). Further, the increased availability of weapons and the higher
levels of trait aggression apparent in this group highlights the potential for extreme
violence (Miller, Azrael, Hemenway & Solop, 2002) (see individual case studies at
Appendix V). In addition, the AT scores and the self-reported histories of other
charges and offences outlined above supports Elliotts (1999) viewpoint that road
rage is a product of pre-existing criminal or anti-social tendencies.
When queried about the illegal things that they have done, few felt sorry.
This suggests that this group may have little remorse associated with their anti-social
behaviours. Certainly, this lack of remorse is reflected in their individual case
studies as hostile aggressive drivers (Appendix W). Further, these drivers indicated
through their responses, that they would be less likely to forget wrongdoings and
more likely to hold a grudge.
No significant difference was found between the hostile aggressive driver
group and the inmate reference group on levels of self-deprecation. This result
suggests that either at trait or state level, the hostile aggressive driver degrades or
belittles himself to a similar degree to what would be expected in an inmate
population. Further, in the extreme, he may not value himself or his
298
accomplishments, reflecting despondency and/or depression. The result is also

consistent with the number of subjects noted to have sought counselling for
depression and other diagnosed disorders. The higher levels of SD may result in
increased irritability in the face of provocation (Stanford et al., 1995).
If self-deprecation is loosely considered a measure of negative
emotionality (Cooper et al., 1995), these results are also consistent with the
foregoing findings that demonstrate high levels of chemical abuse by the hostile
aggressive driver. These results also suggest that hostile aggressive drivers may
indeed experience difficulty managing their emotions.
Of the 18 different profiles or types offered by the CPS (Carlson, 1982),
seven of the hostile aggressive drivers were classified Type 5 markedly antisocial. Two were classified Type 16 negative/explosive, and one was classified
Type 13 self-centered.
Interestingly, across the descriptors for the three types identified there exist
several consistent themes. First, all three types focus on the inability of these
individuals to regulate their emotional expression and behavioural responses. Where
Type 13 (self-centred) experiences impulse control difficulties, Type 16
(negative/explosive) is described as short-tempered and explosive. As Type 5,
the majority of participants in the case study analysis are intolerant, hostile,
aggressive and impulsive. These characteristics were repeatedly evident in the
individual recounting of their experience with aggressive driving in the role of the
perpetrator. Further, such difficulties with anger regulation or impulsivity, have
been associated with earlier research into aggressive driving behaviour (Fong, Frost,
& Stansfeld, 2001; Galovski & Blanchard, 2002b; Lajunen et al., 1999; Malta,
Blanchard, & Freidenberg, 2005).
Secondly, in keeping with some of this earlier research, the case study
participants also reported past and/or present difficulties with alcohol consumption
(see Appendix W) (Malta et al., 2005). Though some of the reported individual
scores may seem low in comparison to the mean for the incarcerated group, during
the interview most participants indicated that their drinking habits have changed over
time. By way of explanation, some suggested that they now had a reduced capacity
to drink due to either current medication or a reduced physical capacity (i.e. having
only one kidney). In some cases, underreporting was suspected. It was clear,
299
however, that all participants had, for some period in their lives, experienced
problematic alcohol consumption.
Finally, all but two of the case study participants reported marginally higher
mean scores on anti-social tendencies than the mean of the inmate population (refer
to Appendix T). One participant scored significantly higher on anti-social tendencies
than the comparison group (i.e. CS2, as outlined above). As the comparison group of
inmates are understood to have high levels of anti-social tendencies than the rest of
the general population, the trend of these results would suggest that hostile
aggressive drivers may possess relatively high levels of anti-social tendencies.
Further, such tendencies appear to extend beyond the on-road environment.
6.4.6 Hostile Aggressive Drivers and the Theoretical Framework of Aggressive
Driving
Both the quantitative and qualitative results indicate that there may be some
distinct differences between hostile aggressive drivers and the general driving
population on state and trait, person-related factors. These differences will be
highlighted in the following discussion of how effectively the GAM derived factors
proposed in the theoretical framework at Figure 4.3 apply to the hostile aggressive
driver group.
State and trait person-related factors appear to contribute to the present
internal state that the hostile aggressive driver brings to the on-road environment.
The previous two studies support this suggestion, however, for the hostile aggressive
driver there appear to be some differences. The present internal state brought to the
on-road environment by these drivers appears to be more negatively influenced by
off-road generated stressors, such as suggested by their complex psychological
backgrounds (Appendix V). Thus, this would reflect support for the Study Three
findings, that hostile aggressive drivers have higher NPO and ICS than general road
users. As such, when faced with stress these drivers may more readily adopt their
maladaptive coping styles and negativity. At the trait level, as many of the drivers
reported having experienced considerable difficulty with alcohol abuse at sometime
throughout their lives, these drivers may also have higher levels of negative
emotionality as a general state of being. Although negative emotionality was not
directly measured, previous research supports this concept, having found evidence of
300
a strong relationship between alcohol consumption and depression (Cooper et al.,

1995).
As a result of the state stress experienced by these drivers, they may also
bring to the on-road environment heightened levels of arousal. As illustrated in CS4
and CS8 (Appendix U), both case studies were markedly affected by their off-road
generated stress that would have elevated their physiological arousal levels. This is
consistent with research that would suggest such heightened levels of arousal has
been found to increase the likelihood of aggressive behaviour (Geen, 1990;
Zillmann, 1988). However, this finding is contrary to the suggestion emerging from
Study One that heightened arousal caused by less stressful events such as cruising
with friends may lead directly to aggressive on-road behaviour in the absence of a
provocative event. Therefore, perhaps aggressive driving caused by heightened
arousal of this nature applies more to young drivers when they engage in on-road
behaviours that in themselves are highly aggressive or dangerous, such as excessive
speeding or hooning consistent with Study One. Alternatively, the self-reported
hostile aggressive drivers of this study may be prone to readily interpret ambiguous
situations with high levels of aggression consistent with previous human aggression
research (Anderson et al., 1998; Berkowitz, 1989, 1990; Dodge & Coie, 1987).
Comparing the young driver research from Study One with these findings
confirms the impression that aggressive drivers engage in on-road aggression in one
of the two ways suggested earlier: by using a vehicle and the on-road environment as
a means of expressing off-road generated aggression; and/or, whilst driving, by
responding to provocative triggers that are encountered in the on-road environment.
When exposed to other driver behaviours, the results indicate that the
hostile aggressive driver will initially, and more readily, perceive the other driver
behaviour as aggressive and deliberate, than will the general driving population.
Consistent with the theoretical framework proposed earlier (Figure 4.3) and the
human aggression literature, the initial response of the hostile aggressive driver to the
perceived provocation will comprise three elements: emotions, arousal and
cognitions. The order in which these elements occur cannot be distinguished, rather
they are considered to have an interactive, triadic relationship (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002; Berkowitz, 1993). As such, they are discussed below in no
particular order.
301
The results indicate that the hostile aggressive driver may be more likely than
others to assume knowledge of a negative attitude on the part of the other driver.
Consistent with the findings of Studies One and Two, the hostile aggressive driver
may make strong negative attributions about the other driver. An observation
unique to this study is that hostile aggressive drivers may appear more likely to have
thoughts of negative actions to adopt, potentially increasing the likelihood of an
aggressive response (Berkowitz, 1993; Berkowitz, 1989). Further, it was observed
that a number of the case studies had difficulty recalling aspects of the incident. In
the main, they were able to recall pieces of the event clearly, but at times
demonstrated difficulty with recalling some thoughts and feelings.
Like many in the general driving population, the hostile aggressive driver
experiences anger, and sometimes fear or excitement. However, the difference
between these groups appears to exist in the intensity of the emotion experienced.
The hostile aggressive drivers in Study Three appear to experience intense levels of
anger, rage or excitement, in response to a perceived on-road provocation. The
results of this study are consistent with other research (Geen, 1990; Zillmann, 1988)
which suggests that the hostile aggressive driver will be more likely to experience
heightened physiological arousal in conjunction with these intense emotions.
As a consequence of the hostile aggressive drivers emotional and cognitive
response, there appears to be little or no conscious weighing up of consequences
attached to the behaviours adopted, consistent with Study One findings. Rather, the
hostile aggressive driver behavioural responses described by participants appear to
have been quite deliberate due to the vengeful thoughts associated with the
behaviour. Further, participant NPO and ICS scores are also consistent with their
impulsive or deliberate retaliations to provocation.
Study Three results indicate that the hostile aggressive driver also appears
more likely to readily adopt instrumental aggression in response to perceived
provocation, such as finger gestures, verbal abuse and horn-honking. However, they
are also more likely than the general driving population to adopt hostile aggressive
driving behaviours. There is a higher chance that they will follow or pursue the
other driver. They are also more likely to remove themselves from their vehicle in
order to engage physically or verbally with those drivers. If physical aggression is
adopted by this type of driver, it is usually in an extreme form that may result in
injury.
302
There is also a greater chance that they may cause damage to the other
drivers vehicle as a result of their intense emotions. For example, they may get out
of the vehicle and set upon the other drivers vehicle, or deliberately cause a
collision. The results of this study and Study Two illustrate that the factors that
determine the type of behavioural response exists at the trait and state person-related
level.
Contrary to Study Two, only two of the hostile aggressive driver group
reported having any post-event influence as a result of the incident. Instead, the
majority gave the incident little or no thought shortly afterwards, potentially
indicative of a lack of remorse. Although a post-event influence does occur in some
instances, perhaps it does not add much to our understanding of the on-road
phenomenon of aggressive driving.
6.4.7 Strengths and Limitations of the Research
Although qualitative and quantitative methods were utilised in the conduct of
this study, the sample size was relatively small for quantitative purposes.
Nonetheless, for clinical case study purposes, the sample size of 10 is arguably
adequate as within the fields of clinical psychology a single case study is widely
accepted as valuable research that allows the in-depth examination of a particular
phenomenon and/or psychological disorder (Aaron & Aaron, 1999). This research is
often seen as a valuable precursor to other more statistically rigorous research in such
areas (Aron & Aron, 1999). A main strength of this study is that the design was again
driven by the human aggression theories contained within the GAM (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002). The first part of the study focussed on key psychosocial and
developmental factors that have been found to increase the likelihood of aggressive
behaviours both on and off-road (Chapters Two and Three). The latter, qualitative,
part of the study focused on exploration of the proposed theoretical framework of
aggressive driving (Figure 4.3) based on the GAM and Study One findings.
This research has provided insight into the person-related differences
between the self-confessed hostile aggressive driver and the general driving
population. These include insights into age, cognitions and emotions associated with
the event and the general attitudes of the hostile aggressive driver. Notwithstanding,
the results should be treated with caution as much of the data was self-reported by
individuals essentially selected for anti-social behaviour.
303
The findings of this research would suggest that policing strategies may be
problematic, as many of the differences between hostile aggressive drivers and other
drivers exist at the person-related level. Although we have moved towards a better
understanding of the characteristics of a hostile aggressive driver, the majority of
them are not observable to external parties. Therefore, although the findings of this
study may not directly assist the policing of this illegal behaviour, the research offers
considerable information on the factors that may need to be addressed in courtreferred, individual, interventions. Additionally, in a modified form, this information
may serve to reduce aggressive driving behaviour, if included in driver education and
rehabilitation programs.
The final limitation that should be given consideration is the manner in which the
participants were recruited. Nine of the 10 participants were recruited via MISA,
where seven of these individuals were attending counselling for a variety of personal
issues. Given the fact that participants were seeking support at MISA for a variety of
reasons, including anger management in some instances, the method of recruitment
must be considered a potential confound for some of the findings contained within
the study.
As previously mentioned, use of such a small and non-random sample
prevented the generalisation of results to the wider population of hostile aggressive
drivers. However, the nature of the sample allowed the exploration of individuals
with potential anger issues and whether they are likely to transfer their anger
management difficulties to the on-road environment. Hence, the study provides
potentially useful information to aid in understanding the hostile aggressive driver.
Further, this study may assist in the design of larger, controlled studies into the
characteristics of hostile aggressive drivers.
6.4.8 Recommendations for Future Research
The qualitative findings of this research would benefit from confirmation by
quantitative methods. For instance, more research is required into the attitudes of
hostile aggressive drivers. Also, closer examination of the incidence of
psychological disorders in this group of drivers is also warranted.
This body of work has detailed the phenomenon of aggressive driving in such
a way that may assist the further development of existing preventative and direct
intervention approaches to aggressive driving. Specifically, the research may inform
304
the refinement of counselling programs for court-referred aggressive drivers and

assist in the development of suitable education modules that may be included in
existing driver education programs. Therefore, the development and testing of a
module to augment existing driver education programs based on this research is
recommended.
A final limitation of this research is that it does not account for biological or
neuropsychological factors that have been found to contribute to an individuals
predisposition for aggression, as acknowledged earlier in Chapter Three (p. 62).
Therefore, it is recommended that research into these factors be conducted in the
future.
As in Study Two, this study highlighted the significance and applicability of
the proposed theoretical framework for aggressive driving (Figure 4.3) to hostile
aggressive drivers. From the perspective of the hostile aggressive driver, the study
demonstrated the psychological elements and processes associated with this extreme
behaviour. This study also highlighted the significance of state and trait personrelated factors that appear to increase the likelihood of hostile aggressive driving
behaviour on the roads.
Further, examination of hostile aggressive driver exposure to a number of
developmental risk factors known to increase the likelihood of aggressive behaviour
in any context suggests that hostile aggressive drivers may have come from difficult
or dysfunctional backgrounds that the existing literature suggests increases the
likelihood of adopting hostile behaviours on the roads. The findings also suggested
that the hostile aggressive driver is more likely to have a history of anti-social
behaviours on and off-road.
In summary, the findings of this study have provided information about the
psychological characteristics of a sample of hostile aggressive drivers and the
psychological processes that are involved in the behaviour. As such, the results may
contribute to the further development of existing counselling and educational
interventions and contribute towards increasing the knowledge base of law
enforcement officials about the hostile aggressive driver.
305
Chapter Seven: Discussion
7.1
Discussion ....................................................................................................... 307
7.2
Review of Findings ......................................................................................... 307
7.3
Review of the Provisional Definition ............................................................. 315
7.4
Theoretical Implications ................................................................................. 316
7.5
Implications for Road Safety .......................................................................... 318

7.5.1
Public Intervention Implications ...................................................... 319
7.5.2
Targeting Young Drivers .................................................................. 320
7.5.3
Targeting Professional Drivers ......................................................... 321
7.5.4
Targeting Convicted Aggressive Drivers ......................................... 321
7.5.5
Evaluation of Strategies .................................................................... 322
7.5.6
Penalties and Sanctions Associated with Aggressive Driving ......... 323
7.6
Strengths and Limitations of the Research ..................................................... 323
7.7
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................... 325
7.8
Concluding Remarks ...................................................................................... 326
306
307
7.1 Introduction
This research program has explored the psychosocial factors influencing
aggressive driving behaviour on Queensland roads, therefore providing insight into
the psychological and social nature of aggressive driving. The findings have also
shed light on the person-related and socio-demographic characteristics of those
drivers that are more likely to participate in both instrumental and hostile acts of onroad aggression.
In this chapter the key findings from the research program will be brought
together, in order to consider the possible theoretical and policy implications. The
findings will also be discussed from the perspective of the GAM theory of human
aggression emphasising the relative contribution of the findings to our understanding
of the phenomenon.
The following review of the main findings of the three studies will be
discussed in terms of the key research questions. The remainder of the chapter will
focus on both the theoretical implications of the findings and their applied relevance
to road safety policy and practice.
7.2 Review of Findings
RQ1
What are the person-related and situational factors contributing to

aggressive driving?
Study One focus group findings highlighted many person-related and
situational factors that young drivers, identified as an at-risk group, believe

contribute to aggressive driving behaviour (refer to Figure 4.2). Among the personrelated factors, the findings confirmed earlier research that a drivers state related
characteristics such as mood, job stress, life stress and driving stress impact upon
their driving behaviour (Hartley & Hassani, 1994; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997;
Matthews et al., 1998; Simon & Corbett, 1996). Specifically, it would appear that
higher levels of these state characteristics will increase the likelihood of an on-road
aggressive response to perceived provocation.
Some of the trait-related factors identified in Study One such as age and
gender have previously been found to influence the likelihood of aggressive driving
behaviour (Aberg & Rimmo, 1998; Harding et al., 1998; Lajunen & Parker, 2001;
Lawton & Nutter, 2002; Shinar, 1998; VCCAV, 1999). Study Two findings also
emphasised the statistical significance of trait, person-related characteristics such as
308
age, gender and problem-solving styles in instrumental and hostile aggressive driving
outcomes. However, personality and driver attitudes associated with aggressive
driving have been explored to a lesser degree in previous research. With reference to
personality, much of the existing research into these factors has focused on specific
facets of personality, such as trait aggression and impulsivity levels (Deffenbacher et
al., 2003; Karli, 1991; Lajunen & Parker, 2001). The discussion of the findings
relating to the personality of drivers more likely to engage in hostile on-road
aggression is outlined under the sixth, and final, research question.
Existing research into driver attitudes and their potential to influence
aggressive driving behaviour has previously focussed on driver vengeance
(Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2002). However, this research program suggests that
although driver vengefulness would appear to contribute to aggressive driving,
more can be understood about the phenomenon if the source and development of
such negative driver attitudes and stereotypes are identified and explored. In
particular, the focus group findings suggest that through exposure to less than
positive prior learning experiences (i.e. social learning) a driver may be more likely
to develop negative attitudes and stereotypes that increase the likelihood of
aggressive driving behaviour. This possibility was further suggested by the finding
of Study Three which indicated that hostile aggressive drivers are more likely to
originate from dysfunctional, even problematic, childhoods.
The situational factors contributing to aggressive driving that were identified
in the program of research appeared to fall into two main categories: facilitating
factors and the observed, on-road behaviour of others. As facilitating factors,
participants identified the indirect factors that they believe contribute to the
likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour. Notably, several of the factors identified
by the young driver participants in Study One have not previously been associated
with aggressive driving, such as driving with peers as passengers, music, vehicle
appearance and mechanical modifications.
The focus group participants also identified multiple behaviours that they
believe directly contribute to episodes of aggressive driving behaviour. All of these
behaviours have been frequently cited as common triggers in aggressive driving
research (refer to Chapter Two). Admittedly, however, these behaviours may be
perceived by some drivers as mere errors in judgement. As such, the participant
309
identification of these behaviours emphasises the importance of perception in

aggressive driving.
In Study One, the reported behavioural responses of the young driver group
to perceived on or off-road provocation ranged from verbalising under ones breath
to tailgating, following closely and other risky behaviours that can contribute to crash
involvement. In Study Two, participants were asked to nominate the likelihood of
their adopting the behaviours nominated in the behavioural response set constructed
from Study One findings and the work of Lajunen and colleagues (1999). Many of
these participants indicated a preparedness to engage in instrumental aggression,
whilst n = 88 of the participants were unable to rule out the possibility of adopting
hostile aggressive behaviours in response to a provocative or ambiguous on-road
incident. Hence, both studies suggest that hostile aggressive driving behaviour is
more likely to occur among a relatively small group of drivers. However, the
indication that a considerable proportion of drivers are prepared to engage in
instrumental on-road aggression is of concern, especially as instrumental behaviours
may lead to the escalation of an on-road conflict particularly where one of the drivers
has a higher trait potential for hostile aggression.
The use of two scenarios, an overtly provocative incident (Scenario One) and
an ambiguously provocative incident (Scenario Two), also demonstrated the
potential contribution of on-road situational factors to the likelihood of emotional,
cognitive and behavioural responses. In a clearly provocative on-road incident,
drivers are more likely to experience frustration, anger, threat and negative thoughts.
Further, they are more likely to adopt either an instrumental or hostile behavioural
response to such provocation than when faced with an ambiguous on-road situation.
Hostile drivers identified in Study Two (n=88), however, are more likely to
experience more frustration, anger, threat and negative thoughts in either on-road
situation. These drivers are also more likely to adopt both instrumental or hostile
aggressive behaviours in response to either situation, again highlighting the role of
person-related factors in aggressive driving.
RQ2
Are some drivers more likely to engage in aggressive driving and, if so,
what are their characteristics?
In general, the focus group research and Study Two findings would suggest
that a large proportion of drivers are prepared to engage in some form of

instrumental on-road aggression given sufficient on-road provocation and the right
310
contextual circumstances. Interestingly, in the results of the young driver study

(Study One), young females appear to be increasingly prepared to engage in on-road
aggression than previously reported in the literature review (VCCAV, 1999).
Specifically, more than half of the participants in the study who reportedly
participated in outward expressions of on-road aggression were female (16 females
and 14 males). However, it was found in Study Two that male drivers were
statistically more likely to engage in both instrumental and hostile aggressive
behaviour than female drivers. Interestingly, in the potentially hostile aggressive
driver group (n = 88) identified in Study Two a wide age range was evident.
Although young drivers 1724 years of age were significantly more likely to be
identified as potentially hostile aggressive (refer to Table 5.2), the regression
analyses did not reveal age to be a significant predictor of the likelihood of a hostile
aggressive behavioural response to either Scenario One or Two (refer to Section
5.3.8.3.2). These results would suggest that hostile aggressive driving behaviour is
not exclusive to the young driver group.
So what are the characteristics of those drivers that are more prepared to
engage in hostile aggressive driving? The second phase of Study Two did not reveal
any statistically significant socio-demographic differences between the participants
classified as hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) and the other driver group (n =
838). Between these driver groups there were no significant differences in terms of
reported levels of education, hours driven per week, type of vehicle, crash
involvement, or the number of speeding and other fines in the past three years.
However, several trait person-related factors were identified as having a significant
influence upon the likelihood of being categorised as a hostile aggressive driver.
The drivers that were more prepared to engage in hostile aggression on the
roads (n = 88) were significantly higher in trait aggression and negative/impulsive
problem-solving styles than the other driver group (n = 838). When faced with a
potentially anger-provoking scenario these drivers experienced significantly more
negative emotion and perceived threat. They were also more likely to have negative
attributions about the other driver. In turn, they were more likely to respond to onroad provocation with more instrumental aggression and hostile aggression than
those in the other driver group. The self-report measures used also indicate that
these drivers were more likely to engage in speeding behaviours on urban roads or
highways and were more likely to drink/drug drive. These self-reported behaviours
311
may be indicative of the potentially hostile aggressive driver possessing underlying

anti-social tendencies, not normally found in the general road user.
The foregoing evidence would suggest that person-related characteristics
appear to have a greater overall influence upon the likelihood of aggressive driving
than the on-road situational triggers. Therefore, Study Three explored the personrelated characteristics of self-reported hostile aggressive drivers in greater detail.
Study Three confirmed the significance of several person-related factors and
suggested various risk factors for the development of aggressive tendencies that
increase the likelihood of extreme on-road aggression. These findings will be
discussed in greater detail under RQ6.
RQ3
Is it appropriate to conceptualise aggressive driving as a continuum of

related behaviours?
RQ4
What function does aggressive driving perform for drivers?

These research questions will be addressed concurrently. In Study Two, the
factor analysis of the behavioural response items suggested the existence of two
distinct but related factors, which were later termed instrumental and hostile
behaviours consistent with earlier research (Shinar, 1988). The instrumental
behaviours included: swearing/muttering or shout out loud to yourself, gesturing at
the other driver, use of a car horn, flashing of lights, and driving close/following the
other driver. The hostile behaviours included: stopping the vehicle prepared to argue
or physically engage the other driver and using your vehicle to damage the other
drivers vehicle.
Adoption of instrumental behaviours would appear to serve a joint
frustration-relieving and practical purpose. Such behaviours are consistent with
trying to overcome an on-road obstacle, or source of delay, whilst some of the
behaviours also suggest a personal need to vent frustration or anger. However,
adoption of instrumental aggression, for either reason, does not necessarily lead to
hostile on-road behaviours. Therefore, instrumental aggression would appear to have
a frustration-relieving effect for some drivers (Dollard et al., 1939). Conversely, the
adoption of hostile aggressive behaviours on the road appears to serve less functional
purposes. These behaviours are frequently associated with high levels of negative
emotion and thoughts of retaliation. When such behaviours are adopted, in most
cases, the incident has escalated to involve some form of interpersonal contact. So
motivated, hostile aggressive drivers are more likely to deviate from their original
312
journey, (thus temporarily abandoning their original goal) in order to send a message
to the perceived offending driver. Therefore, these behaviours serve no immediate
practical purpose in terms of a persons trip goals. Consistent with frustrationaggression theory, however, these behaviours may also serve a cathartic effect
(Dollard et al., 1939), since many potentially hostile aggressive drivers in Study Two
and Three reporting little post-event influence, having given the matter very little
afterthought.
Given the scenarios presented to the participants in Study Two (particularly
the ambiguous Scenario Two), the adoption of hostile on-road behaviours could be
interpreted as an over-reaction. In this sense, drivers prepared to adopt hostile onroad aggression would seem to have some difficulty regulating their responses.
Based on human aggression research into emotional regulation (Chang et al., 2003;
Cummings et al., 2004; Loeber et al., 2001), this difficulty may stem from their
inability to regulate the emotions they experience when faced with on-road
provocation. Similarly, this inability to regulate emotions and subsequent
behavioural responses may stem from high levels of trait impulsivity generally
observed as being more apparent in young drivers (Deffenbacher et al., 2003). Study
of the potentially hostile aggressive drivers in Chapter Five and the self-reported
aggressive drivers in Study Three, would suggest that such difficulties are deeply
person-related and developed across the course of ones life experiences. For some
of these drivers the adoption of hostile aggressive behaviour seems to be impulsive.
Nonetheless, the decision to engage in hostile behaviours appears to be clearly
intentional, as suggested by Study Three findings.
RQ5

driving behaviour?
The Study One exploration of potential contributing factors was guided by
the key elements in the original GAM (see Figure 4.1). In Study One, focus group
participants readily identified with these elements verifying the relevance of human
aggression theory to the phenomenon of aggressive driving. Focus group
participants identified how negative emotions prior to the on-road incident may have
influenced their driving behaviours. They also readily identified the negative
emotions they had during their recalled experience with aggressive driving, such as
annoyance, frustration, anger and fear. It also appeared that the more intense
experience of these negative emotions led to more aggressive on-road behaviours.
313
However, a few participants spoke of feeling excited during the incident. This
feeling of excitation, and its association with aggressive driving, was later confirmed
in the final study examining self-reported hostile aggressive drivers.
Notably, when asked what thoughts they had during their personal
experiences with aggressive driving, not one focus group participant spoke of
conscious decision-making processes, suggesting a lack of deliberate thought
processes associated with aggressive driving behaviour. However, in Study Three
the self-reported hostile aggressive driver reported having thoughts of taking specific
actions, intended to harm and/or take revenge, against the other driver. Although it
is acknowledged that the participant responses were limited by their recall abilities, it
does appear that conscious decision making appears to be obscured, or blocked,
during aggressive driving incidents, particularly those of a more hostile nature.
Indeed, perhaps the adoption of either instrumental or hostile behaviours is more
dependent on problem-solving abilities as suggested by the findings of Studys Two
and Three. In Study Two the hierarchical regression analyses illustrated that
significance of problem-solving style as measured by SPSI-R subtests (NPO, ICS,
and RPS) in the likelihood of instrument and hostile behavioural outcomes. Further,
Study Three results also suggested that NPO style as measured by the SPSI-R is
more prevalent among self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers.
Following an aggressive driving incident, some young drivers in Study One
reported the continuation of emotions and thoughts of the incident for a short period
of time. However, the transfer of these thoughts and emotions to subsequent driving
behaviour and off-road environments appeared to have little impact upon their
subsequent behaviours.
RQ6

who report only engaging in instrumental acts of aggressive driving?
Study Three examined the person-related characteristics of self-confessed
hostile aggressive drivers in considerable depth. These drivers appear to differ

significantly on a range of person-related characteristics from the general driving
population. Similar to the Study Two examination of potentially hostile aggressive
drivers (n = 88), Study Three self-reported hostile aggressive driver ages ranged from
24 to 55 years of age (M = 41.6 years). However, male drivers were more prevalent
than females in the hostile aggressive drivers identified in both Studies Two and
314
Three. The majority of participants in Study Three were married/defacto and had
reportedly completed Year 10 or better. The income of six of the drivers ranged
from $31,000 to $70,000 per annum.
Many of the Study Three participants also reported over 20 years driving
experience and driving most frequently on city/suburban roads. Consistent with the
findings in Study Two, the hostile aggressive drivers identified in this albeit small
study are also more likely to drive a medium to large vehicle. Additionally, the
hostile aggressive driver in the Study Three sample was found to be more likely to
have a history of driving offences such as speeding, drink-driving, driving unlicensed
and/or dangerous driving. The hostile aggressive driver in the sample was also more
likely to have a history of violence or delinquency in his earlier life.
Study Three drivers were also found to have higher than average trait
aggression and negative or impulsive/careless problem-solving styles than the
general driving population identified in Study Two (n = 838). Further, when
compared to the hostile aggressive drivers identified in Study Two (n = 88), they
again scored significantly higher on both characteristics. However, these results
need to be interpreted with caution due to the small and selective nature of the
sample used in Study Three.
In terms of personality, the Study Three drivers were found to have
statistically similar levels of chemical abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social
tendencies and self-depreciation to those in the comparison sample of incarcerated
individuals (Carlson, 1982). Also their impulsivity levels, as measured by the BIS11, did not significantly differ from the male inmate or female general psychiatric
comparison groups, where considerably high impulsivity levels were apparent
(Patton et al., 1995).
Using the SLEs to explore life experience and prior exposure to trauma or
violence, the study showed that the individuals in the sample were more likely to
have come from dysfunctional families characterised by difficult childhoods. The
types of difficulties identified include child abuse/neglect, association with less than
positive peers, youthful exposure to law enforcement, parental alcohol abuse and
poor familial attitudes to school and authority. Not surprisingly, therefore, a
considerable number of the participants in Study Three had reportedly sought
counselling for a range of potential disorders ranging from depression through to
315
dissociative identity disorder. Many of these individuals also expressed difficulty in

controlling their anger in other areas of their lives.
The results of Studies Two and Three would suggest that in response to
particular on-road situations the hostile aggressive driver will more readily interpret
other driver behaviour as threatening, aggressive or antagonistic. They would
appear to be more likely to experience stronger negative emotions and more negative
attributions together with thoughts of taking action against the other driver. In
Study Three, the self-reported experiences of the participants suggest that the
perceived attitude of the other driver appeared to be an important catalyst for the
hostile aggressive driver response. Furthermore, these self-confessed hostile drivers
not only responded with greater levels of aggression or violence, but were prepared
to deviate from their journey and follow an offending driver in order to right a
perceived wrong.
7.3 Review of the Provisional Definition
Aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is
intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and
is associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat.
The above definition, used throughout this research (Section 2.2.5.3), was
constructed from the three primary themes identified in previous attempts at defining
aggressive driving i.e. emotion, behaviour and intent (Dula & Geller, 2003). For the
purpose of this research the definition has proved most useful. The definition
allowed the broad exploration of a wide variety of emotions that this research has
found to be associated with aggressive driving behaviour, namely frustration, varying
degrees of anger, and feelings of threat.
Using an exploratory approach, Studies One and Three identified a wide
range of on-road behaviours that may be classified as aggressive from the
perspective of young drivers and self-reported hostile aggressive drivers respectively
(Figure 4.2 and Section 6.3.6). In Study One, allowing for a third party assessment
of driver behaviour as threatening or intimidating facilitated the identification of a
large number of behaviours that may be considered aggressive to general road users.
Consistent with the definition, these behaviours appeared to be identified as
aggressive because of the degree of intentionality that is perceived to be associated
with the adoption of such behaviours on the road.
316
For the purpose of aggressive driving research, levels of intentionality

detected in response to exposure to real-time on-road triggers is difficult to ascertain,
as evidenced in Studies One and Three. Notwithstanding, Studies Two and Three
findings suggest that the on-road behaviour of the more hostile aggressive drivers is
often deliberate. Therefore, this definition has proven quite robust for the exploratory
examination of aggressive driving as a phenomenon, particularly from the
psychological perspective.
7.4 Theoretical Implications
Use of the GAM (Figure 3.1) facilitated the examination of aggressive
driving from a psychological perspective. Moreover, as the various components of
the GAM have been the subject of considerable research into human aggression in
other contexts, the theoretical framework was considerably robust (refer to Chapter
Three). A key contribution of the GAM was that it facilitated a detailed examination
of the three components of the present internal state (see Figure 3.1): emotions,
cognitions and arousal associated with aggressive driving. Examination of these
interrelated components has provided empirical support for the use of CBT in the
counselling of identified serious offenders, as CBT focuses on changing behaviours
by addressing maladaptive or dysfunctional thinking. Similarly, it has provided
insights into how driver educational programs could be enhanced to target the issue
of aggressive driving.
Despite evidence of some recall difficulties noted in Studies One and Three,
the adoption of different aggressive driving behaviours appears indicative of either
impulsive or thoughtful behavioural responses consistent with the GAM (Figure 3.2).
Further, the concept of cognitive resources was examined and found to be
important in determining the likelihood of a behavioural response. However, the
relationship between the concepts of goal satisfaction, reappraisal and
behavioural outcomes as detailed in the model (Figure 3.2) was not explicitly
examined in this body of work and as a consequence, more research is required in
this area. Nonetheless, the findings of this research suggest that much of the thought
processes are largely subconscious and somewhat automated, and not easily retrieved
from the memory of road users. Also, Studies Two and Three findings suggested
that the hostile aggressive drivers tend to respond differently to on-road provocation
than other road users, particularly in ambiguous situations (i.e. Scenario Two). More
317
specifically, they appear to process on-road situational factors and potential triggers
for on-road aggression in different ways. Indeed, they also appear more likely to
respond impulsively. This finding is in keeping with the impulsive behavioural
responses possible within the original GAM (Figure 3.1).
A number of findings in this research also support Shinars (1998)
frustration-aggression theory of aggressive driving. The person-related variables that
a driver brings to the on-road environment do appear to increase the likelihood of
aggressive behaviour on the roads. Shinars (1998) explanation of the
instrument/hostile distinction also warrants further research and clarification. His
distinction emphasised that the drivers path to goal is blocked precedes the
decision to respond with instrumental/hostile aggression. However, the results of
this research indicate that this process needs further consideration. The findings of
the current research suggest that it is whether a driver is prepared to abandon their
goal to engage in an aggressive action, which appears to characterise a hostile
behavioural response.
Furthermore, while the dichotomous, instrumental/hostile distinction made by
Shinar (1998) was supported by the factor loadings in Study Two, some of the
behaviours such as muttering under ones breath demands greater consideration as
to why they loaded onto each particular factor. As such, the results highlight the
need to better understand the function served by adopting these behaviours.
Another common theme emerging from the research is that aggressive
driving behaviour appears to serve an emotional function, although this relationship
is not at all clear. Also, in the case of hostile aggressive drivers, Shinars (1998)
suggested question of whether aggression is possible or not (Figure 2.3) seems
moot, as such drivers are likely to respond with aggression despite Shinars
suggested constraints (i.e. cultural norms and enforcement). Having considered the
behavioural factor loadings in Study Two, the adoption of instrumental behaviour
appears to be goal driven, in that the adopted behaviour will allow a driver to
continue with their original purpose for the journey. Alternatively, hostile
behaviours appear to require the abandoning of ones goals in order to right a
perceived wrong.
In addition, the research also found that aggressive driving behaviour is not
always frustration-aggression driven, differing slightly from Shinars theory (1998).
318
Consistent with the GAM, it was found that aggressive driving behaviour may also
involve feelings of excitation (Zillman, 1988).
Lastly, the findings suggest that person-related factors influence ones
perception of other driver behaviour as aggressive or benign. The use of the two
scenarios in Study Two highlighted this finding. Those drivers with a predisposition
for aggression were more likely to perceive aggression or wrong doing in an
ambiguous on-road situation and respond with instrumental and/or hostile behaviour.
Therefore, there is a need to explore further the perceptual processes involved in
aggressive driving behaviour. A perceptual stage has not been included in either the
GAM or the Frustration Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Shinar,
1998). Certainly, in terms of the GAM, a greater understanding of the way in which
drivers perceive their environment and potential provocation may assist in
understanding and addressing the behaviour of perpetrators.
7.5 Implications for Road Safety
This research has identified many important situational and person-related
characteristics associated with the expression of aggression on the road. In
particular, the person-related characteristics identified in the research add to the
psychological knowledge of the phenomenon. Though this knowledge may assist in
the formulation of strategies designed to reduce the incidence of aggressive driving,
the potential benefits from the implementation of such strategies are difficult to
quantify. At present, the current public liability or costs associated with aggressive
driving are difficult to quantify due to under-reporting (DCPC, 2005). However, the
AAMI report that potentially 50% of all insurance claims made in 1997 were due to
aggressive driving. Consequently, the potential financial savings to be made from
this research may be considerable. Notwithstanding, the potential physical and
psychological consequences of aggressive driving can still be severe, as illustrated by
some of the self-reported incidents outlined in this research program. As detailed in
Study Three (n = 10), five self-reported hostile aggressive drivers reported having
been fined for speeding and three for unlicensed driving. Though these drivers
reported few other on-road transgressions within the last three years, driving-related
charges outside of this period were quite extensive (see Appendix U) including
speeding, drink-driving, unlicensed driving, red light running, dangerous driving and
hooning among others. These findings suggest that those drivers more likely to
319
engage in hostile aggressive driving behaviour are likely to have a considerable

history of other on-road violations. These drivers appear to pose a significant road
safety risk, aside from their propensity to engage in acts of aggressive driving. This
suggests that innovative programs to target repeat offenders, such as vehicle
impoundment, may have spill-over benefits for reducing aggressive driving.
Unfortunately, the situational and person-related characteristics identified by
this study do not render the hostile aggressive driver easier to visually identify for
policing purposes. Most of the key person-related characteristics of the driver more
prone to hostile aggression are contained within their personal psychology. As such,
if involved in an on-road incident drivers will remain largely unaware of the range of
behavioural responses possible from another driver. Despite this, the research has
provided a clearer picture of the psychological processes involved in aggressive
driving incidents. Therefore, a two-tiered approach to combating aggressive driving
is suggested by the research findings.
Firstly, for the general driving population it would seem appropriate to adopt
a preventative approach through education with the view to reducing the incidence of
aggressive driving. Secondly, for those drivers who come to the attention of the
courts for on-road aggression or dangerous driving, rehabilitation/counselling
programs warrant trialling, to establish whether they are effective in reducing repeat
offending. Thankfully, however, it would seem that severe expressions of on-road
aggression involving interpersonal violence are relatively rare, suggesting that it is
not an issue warranting the use of extensive road safety or public safety resources.
7.5.1 Public Intervention Implications
Public intervention strategies in this area need to involve the education of
general drivers about the possible dangers, costs and penalties associated with
aggressive driving behaviours. In particular, it would be appropriate to advise the
public that you never know the potential the other driver has for hostile aggressive
driving behaviour. As a hostile aggressive response can be elicited by relatively
minor on-road transgressions, such as lapses in judgement or driving errors, it would
appear important to learn to diffuse potential incidents, preventing their escalation.
Therefore, informing participants on the action they can take to reduce the likelihood
of a provocative on-road incident escalating to a dangerous level is important. For
instance, due to the greater likelihood of the hostile aggressive driver interpreting
320
other driver behaviour as personal and deliberate, general drivers should be

instructed to avoid eye contact and deliberately adhere to normal driving behaviour.
It would also appear prudent to inform a driver of protective behaviours they
may adopt should they feel threatened. For example, should a driver begin to fear
the consequences of an escalating incident they should not return to their home.
Rather, they should make their way to a more heavily populated area, such as a
service station or police station. Additionally, as other researchers have reported,
there are steps that can be taken by a driver to reduce their experience of on-road
stress, thereby possibly reducing the likelihood of aggressive driving (Deffenbacher
et al., 2002). Much of this information has the potential to be disseminated to the
general driving population through public education channels. However, young
drivers as a high-risk group should be specifically targeted through novice driver
education programs as a preventative measure.
Despite the potential severity of aggressive driving outcomes, many incidents
fail to come to the attention of law enforcement officials. Among those that are
reported, few are pursued, and less are prosecuted. Perhaps, it is the blurring of the
victim/perpetrator status that leads to a general reluctance, or apathy, to report such
incidents to authorities. For example, drivers may adopt on-road aggression in
response to other driver aggression. Hence, reporting an incident to the police may
also require the reporting of ones own on-road behaviour, a risk that some drivers
may not be willing to take. However, due to a reluctance to report aggressive driving
incidents, drivers inadvertently accept these behaviours and perhaps help perpetuate
the problem. For on-road aggression to be reduced, there needs to be social
consensus on the unacceptability of it. Therefore, Government agencies and law
enforcement, as community leaders, need to assert their non-acceptance of
aggressive on-road behaviours.
7.5.2 Targeting Young Drivers
Targeting young drivers within relevant education programs may enhance the
effectiveness of aggressive driving countermeasures by imparting the information at
a critical point in the licensing process. Delivery of relevant information at the prelicence and/or learner driver stage will increase driver knowledge of how to avoid
potentially aggressive on-road incidents prior to taking to the on-road environment
unsupervised. It would also serve to make these drivers more conscious of their own
321
on-road behaviours and perhaps increase self-monitoring behaviours. It may also

address inappropriate perceptions regarding normative behaviour on the road.
Through existing driver education programs young drivers could be informed
of the range of situational and person-related factors that contribute to aggressive
driving. Further, these drivers could be informed about the psychology and
processes involved in on-road aggression. Particular emphasis should also be placed
on the perception of other driver behaviours, stereotypes and attitudes and the
influence of these upon their own driving behaviour. They also need to be informed
of the possible psychological and physical consequences, as well as the penalties and
sanctions associated with aggressive driving. Although some drivers may have the
potential to over-react given such information, by raising driver knowledge of
aggressive driving and its potential for injury or property damage, it is possible that
many young drivers will adjust their driving behaviours.
7.5.3 Targeting Professional Drivers
By the nature of their profession, professional drivers are exposed to high
levels of both on and off-road generated stress. These drivers are often placed under
pressure to meet company deadlines and also subject to higher levels of on-road
stress due to the greater number of hours spent driving (Cartwright et al., 1996).
Fleet management experts have acknowledged that there is a high monetary cost
associated with vehicle damage resulting from crash involvement (Downs et al.,
1999). This would suggest that it may be cost effective to include the issue of driver
aggression in various fleet driver education initiatives. Alternatively, professional
drivers that operate independently, outside of a fleet environment, could be
educated through the provision of self-education materials via post or a website.
7.5.4 Targeting Convicted Aggressive Drivers
Driver rehabilitation through psychological counselling needs to be
considered for those drivers convicted by a court of on-road aggressive behaviours.
As the trait, person-related characteristics of these drivers are likely to be fraught
with emotional regulation difficulties stemming from their personal history and/or
psychology, individual counselling is recommended.
These drivers, identified as high-risk, could be educated about the multiple
factors that contribute to aggressive driving and the psychology of the phenomenon
as proposed above for young drivers (see Section 7.3.1). However, for these drivers,
322
the information needs to be elaborated upon and given personal relevance to the
offender and their driving behaviour. Finally, this research would suggest that such
drivers need to be introduced to alternative coping strategies for stress, both on and
off-road. Notably, the findings of Study Three suggest that it may also be necessary
to counsel these drivers on substance abuse issues.
Importantly, examining aggressive driving from within the framework of the
GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), highlighted many components of aggression on
the road that are consistently emphasised in cognitive behaviour therapy, such as the
need to reduce the experience of on-road stress and enhance cognitive coping
strategies (Deffenbacher et al., 2002a). Therefore, a cognitive-behavioural approach
to therapy would seem appropriate for the rehabilitation process.
There are, however, some anticipated difficulties with the introduction of
such a program. Firstly, the Study Three findings suggest that the hostile aggressive
driver has little personal insight and lower than average levels of remorse, which
may contribute to a less than ideal result from counselling. Secondly, these drivers
may be unco-operative and less likely to actively participate in the counselling
process due to the fact that they have been required to attend counselling. Hence,
rehabilitation programs in this area would need to be carefully designed and
evaluated.
7.5.5 Evaluation of Strategies
As pointed out by the DCPC (2005) few initiatives aimed at reducing on-road
aggression have been properly evaluated, hence it is difficult to assess their
effectiveness. Therefore, further to the development and implementation of any
countermeasures outlined in Section 7.4 above, appropriate steps need to be taken to
ensure effective program evaluation. In the design of the educational materials
mentioned above, attention should be paid to the inclusion of program evaluation
criterion. From the outset, the intention should be to rigorously assess the quality
and effectiveness of the relevant training programs for young drivers, professional
drivers, the general driving population and court referred drivers. The professional
driver and court referred driver programs should also endeavour to measure changes
in driver behaviour three to six months after training or rehabilitation to assess
whether any relapse may have occurred. Further, all of the program evaluations
323
should also examine the overall effect of the program on aggressive driving rates and
related repeat offending.
7.5.6 Penalties and Sanctions Associated with Aggressive Driving
At present, in Queensland, certain behaviours that may be deemed by law
enforcement officials as aggressive, such as speeding and racing, attract the
penalties and sanctions laid down in the TORUM Act (1995). There is no specific
legislation relating to aggressive driving per se. However, more severe on-road
incidents that result in the physical injury or death of another road user are dealt with
under the Criminal Code 1899.
As illustrated in CS8 and CS9 of Study Three, some on-road incidents that
escalate to physical violence between two drivers may be dealt with under s335 and
s340 i.e. common assault or serious assault respectively of the Criminal Code
1899. Other instances are dealt with under s328A dangerous operation of a vehicle
(with or without aggravation). To be charged under s328A, the behaviours in
question need to be observed, or have specific outcomes, such as crash involvement.
Although no specific aggressive driving legislation exists, current Queensland laws
would appear sufficient to deal with aggressive driving behaviour in its many forms.
Arguably, therefore, any proposal to change to current legislation to accommodate
aggressive driving per se would not currently appear warranted.
Finally, whilst researchers may find the term aggressive driving useful, the
use of terms like road rage and road violence by the media and public do not
appear to be constructive. Overuse of these terms could possibly add to the
perception of a new and growing societal problem. Therefore, use of the term road
rage, in particular, should be discouraged (Elliott, 1999).
7.6 Strengths and Limitations of the Research
This research program featured a number of strengths. The first strength is
the wide variety of methods used to examine the phenomenon. Study One explored
the phenomenon from a qualitative perspective, producing a large amount of
information about the nature and psychology of aggressive driving behaviour. Study
Two adopted a quantitative approach in order to examine these findings on a large
sample of Queensland drivers (n = 926). This data was then used to identify those
drivers that have a greater likelihood of hostile aggressive driving behaviour (n =
324
88). In Study Three, a case study approach was adopted to examine in greater detail
the psychosocial characteristics of self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers.
An additional strength was the theoretical foundations underpinning the
research. Use of the human aggression theories contained within the GAM
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002) throughout the three studies, provided a useful
framework for guiding the design of the research studies and for interpreting the
findings.
The final strength lies in the practical implications of this research. The
findings of each study may contribute to enhanced education and individual
rehabilitation programs discussed above or to inform further research. However, this
research program was not without its limitations. Although the specific limitations
of each study are outlined at the end of the relevant chapters, the following
limitations are summarised for ease of reference.
Study One did not endeavour to measure the state and trait characteristics of
the participants. Therefore, although the potentially hostile aggressive drivers
identified in Study Two were easy to identify by their reported behaviours, their
person-related characteristics were not explored in exhaustive depth. Additionally,
as Study One focused on young drivers the results of the study cannot be generalised
to the greater driving population. Finally, the Study One data was also obtained
primarily from city drivers.
Study Two limitations stem primarily from methodological considerations.
Firstly, the use of scenarios lacks realism. Aggression research also shows that
participants tend to under-report on aggression measures and their likely responses to
scenarios (McCloskey & Coccaro, 2003). This is primarily due to the social
desirability bias, which maintains that people generally wish to present themselves in
a favourable light. The construct of the two scenarios may have also introduced a
potential confound to the findings. As outlined in Study Two, despite a pilot study,
Scenario Two included a contextual, off-road stress factor that may have influenced,
or added another layer of complexity to the findings.
An additional limitation of Study Two was the bi-modal distribution of the
age-groups represented in the sample (refer to Section 5.3.5.1). Despite targeting a
wide age range, the final sample yielded a bimodal distribution with more 1724 and
4059 year old drivers than other age groups, which may have influenced some of
the findings. Hence, the results should be interpreted with due caution.
325
Study Three needs to be replicated in a larger sample of self-reported hostile

aggressive Australian drivers to assess the validity of the findings. Also, as
previously stated, nine of these drivers were recruited through a local counselling
service (i.e. MISA) potentially confounding some of the findings. Additionally,
some of the key person-related characteristics of these drivers are themselves
limitations. For instance, these drivers were high on anti-social tendencies and
therefore potentially predisposed to stretch the truth. As such, some care needs to
be exercised when interpreting the results.
The final limitation of note is that only a finite number of situational and
person-related factors were able to be explored during Study Two. Knowing that a
large range of factors have the potential to influence any single aggressive driving
incident, this must be noted as a limitation.
7.7 Recommendations for Future Research
The research program identified a number of theoretical and applied issues
that require further research. Firstly, ongoing research into aggressive driving should
clearly define the phenomenon enabling more accurate measures of the behaviour.
Secondly, the full extent of aggressive driving in Australia needs to be examined in a
systematic fashion. In Queensland there are no systems currently in place to assist in
the identification of aberrant on-road behaviour as aggressive driving. Nor does the
current recording of charges under existing legislation (see Section 7.4.3) explicitly
identify an on-road incident as aggressive driving. Therefore, perhaps police and
insurance records could be modified to accommodate a simple coded entry that
identifies an incident as being consistent with aggressive driving behaviour.
Although such an assessment would be subjectively performed by key personnel,
training in how to identify and categorise aggressive driving incidents would enhance
the accuracy of the data input. Subsequently, more accurate rates of aggressive
driving would be obtained and the relevant insurance claims or charges could be
more closely examined for situational and person-related characteristics. It would
also be easier to determine the costs associated with aggressive driving behaviour.
Theoretically, the decision-making component of the GAM (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002) should be explored in greater detail within the general driving
population. For example, the results relating to the SPSI-R in Studies Two and
Three suggest that coping styles can have an impact on the decision-making process
326
underpinning aggressive driving responses. This information could, in turn, be

useful in the design of education packages and relevant cognitive behavioural
therapy programs for court identified offenders.
This research would also suggest that a more thorough exploration of driver
attitudes is necessary, extending existing research into driver vengeance (Hennessy
& Wiesenthal, 2001). Clearly, as suggested by this research driver attitudes and
stereotypes are shaped by life experiences. However, more information is required
on how such attitudes and stereotypes influence aggressive driving outcomes. Such
findings would enhance our understanding of the cognitions associated with
aggression on the roads, which could be incorporated into relevant programs.
The Study One findings also suggested that the presence of peer passengers,
exposure to music and vehicle appearance/modifications can impact on the
likelihood of aggressive driving behaviour. As such, it is recommended that further
research be conducted into the influence of these behaviours on aggressive driving
outcomes. These studies would benefit from the use of a driving simulator, where
the more controlled environment should minimise potential confounding variables.
Finally, more research is required into the contribution of biological and
neurological factors to the likelihood of aggressive driving as these factors were
outside of the scope of this research.
7.8 Concluding Remarks
This body of research indicates that aggressive driving is a complex
phenomenon. It appears to take many forms and involves a large range of possible
behaviours and outcomes. The likelihood of on-road aggression is also influenced by
a large number of person-related and situational factors. This program of research
has particularly highlighted the contribution of person-related factors to the incidence
and escalation of aggressive driving behaviours. Therefore, the research has
provided further support to the old adage in road safety, that people drive as they
live.
327
References
AAMI (2001). Young Drivers Index.
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (2008). 2008 Traffic Safety Culture Index. Washington,
DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, from
www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/2008TSCIndexFinalReport.pd.
AAMI (2002). Road Rage on the rise. Sharing the road: Drivers concerns. Crash
Index, Number 8. Retrieved October 22, 2002 from www.aami.com.au.
AAMI (2003). Aggression and bad habits: Australian motorists confess. Crash
Index, Number 9. Retrieved October 18, 2003 from www.aami.com.au.
Aberg, L. & Rimmo, P. A. (1998). Dimensions of aberrant driver behaviour.
Ergonomic, 41(1), 39-56.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of
Psychology. 53, 27-51.
Anderson, C. A., Deuse, W. E., & De Neve, K. M. (1995). Hot Temperatures,
Hostile Affect, Hostile Cognition, and Arousal: Tests of a General Model of
Affective Aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(5),
434-448.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (1995). Effects of frustration justification on hostile
aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 359-369.
Anderson, K. B., Anderson, C. A., Dill, K. E., & Deuser, W. E. (1998). The
interactive relations between trait hostility, pain, and aggressive thoughts.
Aggressive Behavior. 24, 161-171.
Arnett, J. J., Offer, D., & Fine, M. A. (1997). Reckless driving in adolescence:
state and trait factors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 57-63.
328
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1999). Statistics for psychology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aseltine, R. H., Gore, S., & Gordon, J. (2000). Life stress, anger and anxiety, and
delinquency: an empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Health
and Social Behaviour, 41, 256-275.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baron, R., & Bell, P. (1973). Effect of heightened arousal on physical aggression.
Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention, American Psychological
Association, pp. 171-172.
Barratt, E. S., Stanford, M. S., Dowdy, L., Liebman, M. J. & Kent, T. A. (1999).
Impulsive and premeditated aggression: A factor analysis of self-reported
acts. Psychiatry Research, 86, 163-173.
Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Self-esteem,
narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or
from threatened egotism? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9
(1), 26-29.
Baumeister, R., Smart, L., & Boden, J. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to
violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological
Review, 103, 5-33.
Beirness, D. J., Simpson, H. M., & Desmond, K. (2002). Risky driving. The Road
Safety Monitor. Retrieved November 10, 2003 from
www.trafficinjuryresearch.com.
Beirness, D. J., Simpson, H. M., Mayhew, L., & Pak, S. (2001). Aggressive driving.
The Road Safety Monitor. Retrieved September 10, 2003 from
www.trafficinjuryresearch.com.
329
Bergeman, C.S., & Montpetit, M. A. (2003). Genetic models of aggression

implications and related behaviours. In Coccaro, E. F. (Ed). Aggression:
psychiatric assessment and treatment, 19-40, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.
Berk, L. E. (1997). Child Development, Fourth Edition. Massachusetts, USA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Berkowitz, L. (1988). Frustrations, appraisals and aversively stimulated aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 14, 3-11.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and
reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59-73.
Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A
cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45(4),
494-503.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences and control. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Berkowitz, L. (1998). Affective aggression: The role of stress, pain and negative
affect. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.). Human Aggression:
Theories, Research and Implications for Social Policy (pp. 49-87). Sandiego:
Academic Press.
Berman, M. E., Fallon, A. E., & Coccaro, E. F. (1998). The relationship between
personality psychopathology and aggressive behaviour in research volunteers.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107 (4), 651-658.
Bernstein, I. H. & Gesn, P. R. (1997). On the dimensionality of the Buss and Perry
aggression questionnaire. Behavioural Research Therapy, 35(6), 563-568.
330
Bor, W. (2004). Prevention and treatment of childhood and adolescent aggression

and antisocial behaviour: A selective review. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 373-380.
Bor, W., McGee, T. R., & Fagan, A. A. (2004). Early risk factors for adolescent
antisocial behaviour: An Australian longitudinal study. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 365-372.
Bor, W., Najman, J. M., OCallaghan, M. Williams, G. M., & Anstey, K. (2001).
Aggression and the development of delinquent behaviour in children. Trends
and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 207. Australian Institute of
Criminology.
Borum, R. (2000). Assessing violence risk among youth. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 56 (10), 1263-1288.
Boyce, T. E. & Geller, E. S. (2002). An instrumented vehicle assessment of problem
behavior and driving style: Do younger males really take more risks?
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 34 (1), 51-64.
Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Finch, S. J., & Cohen, P. (1996). Young adult drug use
and delinquency: childhood antecedents and adolescent mediators. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35 (12), 15841592.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (1998). Methodology in the study of aggression:
integrating experimental and non-experimental findings. In R. G. Geen & E.
I. Donnerstein (Eds.). Human aggression: Theories, research and
implications for social policy (pp. 24-44). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
331
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile
versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108 (1),
273-279.
Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people aggress to
improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and
aggressive responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1),
17-32.
Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Pedersen, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., Miller, N. (2005).
Chewing on it can chew you up: effects of rumination on triggered displaced
aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (6), 969-194.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452-459.
Caprara, G. V., Gargaro, T., Pastorelli, C., Prezza, M., Renzi, P., & Zelli, A. (1987).
Individual differences and measures of aggression in laboratory studies.
Personality and Individual Differences, 8 (6), 885-893.
Carlson, D. S., & Perrewe, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressorstrain relationship: An examination of work-family conflict. Journal of
Management, 25 (4), 513-540.
Carlson, K. A. (1982). Carlson Psychological Survey Manual. Ontario, Canada:
Research Psychologists Press Inc.
Carlson, N. R., & Buskist, W. (1997). Psychology: The science of behaviour, 539557. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Cartwright, S., Cooper, C. L., & Barron, A. (1996). The company car driver:
Occupational stress as a predictor of motor vehicle accident involvement.
Human Relations, 49(2), 195-205.
332
Carver C. S., Sheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies:
A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56(2), 267-283.
Caspi, A. (2000). The child is father of the man: personality continuities from
childhood to adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1)
158-172.
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh
parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of
Family Psychology, 17 (4), 598-606.
Chapman, P. R., Evans, J., Crundall, D. E., & Underwood, G. (2004). Anger and
aggression in driving and non-driving contexts. In T. Rothenatter & R. D.
Hugenin (Eds.). Traffic and Transport Psychology Theory and Application:
Proceedings of the ICTTP 2000 (pp. 155-185). London: Elsevier Science and
Publications.
Coccaro, E. F. (2003). Aggression: Psychiatric Assessment and Treatment. Marcel
Dekker Inc: New York.
Coccaro, E. F., Berman, M. E., & Kovoussi, R. J. (1997). Assessment of life history
of aggression: development and psychometric characteristics. Psychiatry
Research, 73, 147-157.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S., (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Connell, D., & Joint M. (1996). Driver Aggression. Washington, DC, Road Safety
Unit, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety: 27-34.
333
Connor, D. F., Steingard, R. J., Anderson, J. J., & Melloni, R. H. (2003). Gender
differences in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Psychiatry and
Human Development, 33(4), 279-294.
Cooper, M. L., Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Mudar, P. (1995). Drinking to regulate
positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (5), 990-1005.
Cooper, M. L., Wood, P. K., Albino, A., & Orcutt, H. K. (2003). Personality and the
predisposition to engage in risky or problem behaviors during adolescence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 390-410.
Crick, N. R. & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social
information-processing mechanisms in childrens social adjustment.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social-information-processing mechanisms in
reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 9931002.
Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2004). Everyday marital
conflict and child aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(2),
191-202.
Dahlberg, L. L. (1998). Youth violence in the United States: Major trends, risk
factors, and prevention approaches. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 14(4), 259-272.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Deffenbacher, D. M., Lynch, R. S., & Richards, T. L. (2003a).
Anger, aggression, and risky behavior: A comparison of high and low anger
drivers. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 41 (6), 701-718.
334
Deffenbacher, J. L., Filetti, L. B., Richards, T. L., Lynch, R. S., & Oetting, E. R.
(2003b). Characteristics of Two Groups of Angry Drivers. Journal of
Counselling Psychology, 50(2), 123-132.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Filetti, L. B., Lynch, R. S., Dahlen, E. R., & Oetting, E. R.
(2002a). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of high anger drivers. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 40, 895-910.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Huff, M. E., Lynch, R. S., Oetting, E. R. & Salvatore, N. F.
(2000). Characteristics and treatment of high-anger drivers. Journal of
Counselling Psychology, 47 (1), 5-17.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Kemper, C. C., & Richards, T. L. (2007). Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(4), 220-230.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Filetti, L. B., Dahlen, E. R., & Oetting, E. R.
(2003c). Anger, aggression, risky behaviour, and crash-related outcomes in
three groups of drivers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41 (6), 1-18.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Oetting, E. R., & Swaim, R. C. (2002b). The
driving anger expressions inventory: a measure of how people express their
angers on the road. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(6), 717-737.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a driving
anger scale. Psychological Reports, 74, 83-91.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Thwaites, G. A., Lynch, R. S., Baker, D. A.,
Stark, R. S., Thacker, S., & Eiswerth Cox, L. (1996). State-trait anger theory
and the utility of the Trait Anger Scale. Journal of Counselling Psychology,
43, 131-148.
335
DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. (1988). The impact of daily stress on health
and mood: psychological and social resources as mediators. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 486-493.
De Meuse, K. P. (1985). The life events stress-performance linkage: An exploratory
study. Journal of Human Stress, 11, 111-117.
Dodge, K., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive
and proactive aggression in childrens peer groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1146-1158.
Dodge, K. A., Laird, R., Lochman, J. E., & Zelli, A. (2002). Multidimensional latentconstruct analysis of children's social information processing patterns:
Correlations with aggressive behavior problems. Psychological Assessment,
14(1), 1040-3590.
Doherty, S. T., Andrey, J. C., & MacGregor, C. (1998). The situational risks of
young drivers: the influence of passengers, time of day and day of week on
accident rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(1), 45-52.
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., Miller, N. E., & Sears, R. R. (1939).
Frustration and aggression. Yale University Press: New Haven.
Dorn, L., & Matthews, G. (1992). Two further studies of personality correlates of
driver stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(6), 949-951.
Downs, C. G., Keigan, M., Maycock, G., & Grayson, G. B. (1999). The safety of
fleet car drivers: A review. Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report
390. TRL, Crowthorne.
336
Dowson, J. H. (1992). Assessment of DSM-IIIR personality disorders by selfreport questionnaire: The role of informants and a screening test for comorbid personality disorders (STCPD). British Journal of Psychiatry, 161,
344-352.
Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee (DCPC) (2005). Inquire into violence
associated with motor vehicle use: final report. Government Printer for the
State of Victoria.
Dula, C. S., & Geller, E. S. (2003). Risky, aggressive, or emotional driving:
addressing the need for consistent communication in research. Journal of
Safety Research, 34, 559-566.
DZurilla, T. J., Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2003). Self-esteem and social problem
solving as predictors of aggression in college students. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 22, 424440.
DZurilla, T. J, Nezu, A. M. (1999). Problem-solving Therapy: A Social Competence
Approach to Clinical Intervention, Second Edition. New York: Springer.
DZurilla, T. J., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Kant, G. L. (1998). Age and gender
differences in social problem-solving ability. Personality and Individual
Differences, 25, 241-252.
DZurilla, T. J., Nezu, A. M., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2002). SPSI-R, Social
Problem Solving Inventory Revised. Canada: Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Eichelman, B. S. (2003). Phenomenological models of aggression and impulsivity:
Implications for clinical research and treatment of human aggression. In
Coccaro, E. F. (Ed). Aggression: psychiatric assessment and treatment, 119, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.
337
Elkins, I. J., McGue, M., Malone, S., & Iacono, W. G. (2004). The effect of parental
alcohol and drug disorders on adolescent personality. The American Journal
of Psychiatry, 161 (4), 670-676.
Elliott, B. (1999). Road rage: Media hype or serious road safety issue? Third
National Conference in Injury Prevention and Control. Brisbane,
Queensland.
Elliott, T.R., Herrick, S.M., MacNair, R.R., & Harkins, S.W. (1994). Personality
correlates of self-appraised problem solving ability: Problem orientation and
trait affectivity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(3), 489-505.
Ellison, P. A., Govern, J. M., Herbert, L. P., & Figler, M. H. (1995). Anonymity and
aggressive driving behaviour: A field study. Journal of Social Behaviour and
Personality, 10(1), 265-272.
Evans, L., & Wasielewski, P. (1983). Risky driving related to driver and vehicle
characteristics. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 15, 121-136,
Eysenck, H. J., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Barrett, P. (1995). Personality differences
according to gender. Psychological Reports, 76, 711-716.
Fagan, A. A., & Najman, J. M. (2003a). The gendered and long-term relationship
between family practices and childrens aggression and delinquency.
Commission for Children and Young People, Issue Paper No.2. Retrieved on
May 28, 2007 from http://www.aifs.gov.au/afrc/bibs/parenting.html
Fagan, A. A., & Najman, J. M. (2003b). Sibling influences on adolescent delinquent
behaviour: An Australian longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 26 (5),
546-558.
338
Farrington, D. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence: Early precursors and
later life outcomes. In Pepler, D. & Rubin, K. (eds.). The Development and
Treatment of Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Farrington, D. P. (1999). Editorial Validity of self-reported delinquency. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 9, 293-295.
Farrington, D. P. (2000). Psychosocial predictors of adult antisocial personality and
adult convictions. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 18, 605-622.
Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key
theoretical and empirical issues. Criminology 41, 221-255.
Farrington, D. P. (2004). Criminological psychology in the twenty-first century.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 14, 152-166.
Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Yin, Y., & Anderson, S. J. (2002). Are withinindividual causes of delinquency the same as between-individual causes?
Feindler, E. L., Marriott, S. A., & Iwatta, M. (1984). Group anger control training for
junior high school delinquents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8(3),
299-311.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to
mental health during a stressful real-life situation? The roles of appraisal and
coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 687-695.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged
community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 21, 219-239.
Fong, G., Frost, D., & Stanfeld, S. (2001). Road rage: A psychiatric phenomenon?
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 36 (6), 277-286.
339
Forest, S., Lewis, C. A., & Shevlin, M. (2000). Examining the factor structure and
differential functioning of the Eysenck personality questionnaire revised
abbreviated. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 579-588.
Fossati, A., Barratt, E. S., Carretta, I., Leonardi, B., Grazioli, F., & Maffei, C.
(2004). Predicting borderline and antisocial personality disorder features in
nonclinical subjects using measures of impulsivity and aggressiveness.
Psychiatry Research, 125, 161-170.
Francis, L. J., Brown, L. B., & Philipchalk, R. (1992). The development of an
abbreviated form of the revised Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQRA): Its use among students in England, Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia.
Personality and Individual Differences,139(4), 443-449.
Frick, P. J. (2004). Developmental pathways to conduct disorder: Implications for
serving youth who show severe aggressive and antisocial behaviour.
Psychology in the School, 41 (8), 823-834.
Galovski, T. E., & Blanchard, E. B. (2002a). Road rage: A domain for psychological
intervention? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 275, 1-23.
Galovski, T. E. & Blanchard, E. B. (2002b). The effectiveness of a brief
psychological intervention on court-referred and self-referred aggressive
drivers. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 40 (12), 1385-1402.
Galovski, T. E., Blanchard, E. B., Malta, L. S., & Freidenberg, B. M. (2003). The
psychophysiology of aggressive drivers: comparison to non-aggressive
drivers and pre- to post-treatment change following a cognitive-behavioural
treatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(9), 1055-1067.
Geen, R. G. (1990). Human Aggression. Stratford, UK: University Press.
340
Geen, R. G., & Donnerstein, E. (Eds.). (1998). Human aggression: Theories,

research, and implications for social policy. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Glendon, A. I., Dorn, L., Matthews, G., Gulian, E., Davies, D. R., & Debney, L. M.
(1993). Reliability of the driving behaviour inventory. Ergonomics, 36(6),
719-726.
Gnepp, E. H. (1979). A theory of frustration-aggression. Psychology, a Quarterly
Journal of Human Behaviour, 16(2), 1-10.
Goehring, J. B. (2000). Aggressive driving: Background and overview report. [On
line]. Available: [www.ncsl.org/programs/esnr/aggrdriv.htm]. Environment,
Energy and Transportation Program. National Conference of State
Legislature, March 27, 2002.
Goodman, L. A., Corcoran, C., Turner, K., Yuan, N., & Green, B. L. (1998).
Assessing traumatic event exposure: General issues and preliminary findings
for the stressful life events screening questionnaire. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 11, 521542.
Gordhamer, S. A., Martinex, F. H., Petrilli, R. T., Lynch, R. S., & Deffenbacher, J.
L. (1996). Characteristics of individuals with high and low driving anger.
Paper presented at the 69th Annual Convention of the Rocky Mountain
Psychological Association, Fort Collins, CO.
Green, S., Salkind, N., & Akey, T. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows, 2nd Ed,
Prentice Hall, USA.
Gregory, R. J. (1996). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications,
pp. 539-541. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
341
Gulian, E., Matthews, G., Glendon, A. I., Davies, D. R., & Debney, L. M. (1989).
Dimensions of driver stress. Ergonomics, 32(6), 585-602.
Haberman, S. J. (1978). Analysis of qualitative data, New York : Academic Press.
Harding, R. W., Morgan, F. H., Indermaur, D., Ferrante, A. M., & Blagg, H. (1998).
Road rage and the epidemiology of violence: Something old, something new.
Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 7(2), 221-238.
Hare, R. D., Harper, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D., & Newman, J. P.
(1990). The revised psychopathy checklist: descriptive statistics, reliability,
and factor structure. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 2, 338-341.
Harris, J. A. (1997). A further evaluation of the aggression questionnaire: Issues of
validity and reliability. Behavioural Research Therapy, 35(11), 1047-1053.
Harris, M. B., & Knight-Bohnhoff, K. (1996a). Gender and aggression II: Personal
aggressiveness. Sex Roles, 35(1/2), 27-39.
Harris, M. B., & Knight-Bohnhoff, K. (1996b). Gender and aggression I:
Perceptions of aggression. Sex Roles, 35(112), 77-83.
Hartley, L. R., & Hassani, J. E. (1994). Stress, violations and accidents. Applied
Ergonomics, 25(4), 221-230.
Hawkins, J. D., Herronkohl T., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., &
Harachi, T. W. (1998). A review of the predictors of youth violence. In
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (Ed). Serious and violent juvenile offenders:
Risk factors and successful interventions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1997). The relationship between traffic
congestion, driver stress and direct versus indirect coping behaviours.
Ergonomics, 40(3), 348-361.
342
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1999). Traffic congestion, driver stress, and
driver aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25(6), 409-423.
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2001). Gender, driver aggression and driver
violence: An applied evaluation. Sex Roles, 44, 661-676.
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2002). Aggression, violence, and vengeance
among male and female drivers. Transportation Quarterly, 56(4), 65-75.
Hoaken, P. N. S., Shaughnessy, V. K. & Pihl, R. O. (2003). Executive cognitive
functioning and aggression: Is it an issue of impulsivity? Aggressive
Behavior, 29, 25-30.
Holland, C. A. & Conner, M. T. (1996). Exceeding the speed limit: An evaluation of
the effectiveness of a police intervention. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
28(5), 587-597.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213318.
Houston, J. M., Farese, D. & La Du, T. J. (1992). Assessing competitiveness: a
validation study of the competitiveness index. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13(10), 1153-1156.
Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of
aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13-24.
Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., & Dubow, E. F. (2002). Childhood predictors of adult
criminality: Are all risk factors reflected in childhood aggressiveness?
Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., Walder, L. O. (1984). Stability of
aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20(6),
1120-1134.
343
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Grossman, P. B. (1997). A positive view of self:
Risk or protection for aggressive children? Development and
Psychopathology, 9, 75-94.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, (1998). Road Rage. Status Report. 33(10).
James, L., & Nahl, D. (2000). Aggressive driving is emotionally impaired driving.
Retrieved September 6, 2002 from
http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/board/messages/25/47.html
Jarred, W. (2002). Police Powers and Responsibilities and Another Act Amendment
Bill 2002: Confronting bad and nuisance road behaviour. (No. 2002/18).
Brisbane: Queensland Parliamentary Library.
Jessor, R. (1991). Risk behavior in adolescence: A psychosocial framework for
understanding and action. Journal of Adolescent Health, 12(8), 597-605.
Joireman, J., Anderson, J., & Strathman, A. (2003). The aggression paradox:
Understanding links among aggression, sensation-seeking, and the
consideration of future consequences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84 (6), 1287-1302.
Jonah, B. A. (1997). Sensation seeking and risky driving: A review and synthesis of
the literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29 (5), 651-665.
Kant, G.L., DZurilla, T. J., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (1997). Social problem solving
as a mediator of stress related depression and anxiety in middle-aged and
elderly community residents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 73-96.
Karli, P. (1991). Animal and human aggression (pp. 138-151). New York: Oxford
University Press.
344
Klassen, D., & O'Connor, W. A. (1994). Demographic and case history variables in
risk assessment. In J. Monahan, H. J. Steadman, J. Monahan, H. J. Steadman
(Eds.) , Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment, 229257. Chicago, IL US: University of Chicago Press.
Knight, G. P., Guthrie, I. K., Page, M. C., & Fabes, R. A. (2002). Emotional arousal
and gender differences in aggression: A meta-analysis. Aggressive Behavior,
28, 366-393.
Kolich, M., & Wong-Reiger, D. (1999). Emotional stress and information
processing ability in the context of accident causation. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, 24, 591-602.
Lajunen, T., & Parker, D. (2001). Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A
study of the relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness, driver
anger and aggressive driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 243-255.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Stradling, G. (1999). Dimensions of driver anger,
aggressive and highway code violations and their mediation by safety
orientation in UK drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 2 (12), 107-121.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Summala, H. (1999). Does traffic congestion increase
driver aggression? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 2, 225-236.
Larson, J. A. (1996). Drivers stress profile. In J. A. Larson (Ed.). Steering Clear of
Highway Madness, (p.25-28). Wilsonville, Oregon: Book Partners.
Lawton, R. & Nutter, A. (2002). A comparison of reported levels and expression of
anger in everyday and driving situations. The British Journal of Psychology,
93(3), 407-423.
345
Lawton, R., Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1997). The role of
affect in predictive, social behaviours: The case of road traffic violations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 27(14), 1258-1276.
Lennon A., Watson B., Arlidge C., & Fraine G. (2011). Youre a bad driver but I just
made a mistake: attribution differences between the victims and perpetrators
of scenario-based aggressive driving incidents. Transportation Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14(3), 209-211.
Lewis, G., Pelosi, A. J., Araya, R., & Dunn, G. (1992). Measuring psychiatric
disorder in the community a standardized assessment for use by lay
interviewers. Psychological Medicine, 22(2), 465-486.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., &
Lynam, D. (2001). Male mental health problems, psychopathy, and
personality traits: Key findings from the first 14 years of the Pittsburgh
Youth Study. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4 (4), 273-297.
Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W., & Farrington, D. P. (1991).
Initiation, escalation and desistance in juvenile offending and their correlates.
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 82 (1), 36-82.
Lonero, L. P., & Clinton, K. M. (1998). Changing road user behaviour: What
works, what doesn't. Toronto, Ontario.: PDE Publications.
Luengo, M. A., Carrillo-de-la-Pena, M. T., & Otero, J. M. (1994). A short-term
longitudinal study of impulsivity and antisocial behaviour. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (3), 542-548.
Malta, L. S., Blanchard, E. B., & Freidenberg, B. M. (2005). Psychiatric and
behavioural problems in aggressive drivers. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 43 (11), 1467-1485.
346
Mak, A. S., & Kinsella, C. (1996). Adolescent drinking, conduct problems, and
parental bonding. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48(1), 15-20.
Mann, R. E., Smart, R. G., Stoduto, G., Adlaf, E. M., & Ialomiteanu, A. (2004).
Alcohol consumption and problems among road rage victims and
perpetrators. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, March, 161-168.
Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, W. C., Miller, N., & Carlson, M. (2000). Displaced
aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78(4), 670-689.
Matthews, G., Dorn, L., & Glendon, A. I. (1991). Personality correlates of driver
stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(6), 535-549.
Matthews, G., Dorn, L., Hoyes, T. W., Davies, D. R., Glendon, A. I. & Taylor, R. G.
(1998). Driver stress and performance on a driving simulator. Human
Factors, 40(1), 136-150.
Maydeu-Olivares, A., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., Gomez-Benito, J. & DZurilla, T. J.
(2000). Psychometric properties of the Spanish adaptation of the Social
Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R). Personality and Individual
Maxon, S. (1996). Aggression from a developmental perspective: genes,
environments and interactions. In Bock G. R., & Goode, J. A. (Ed). Genetics
of criminal and antisocial behaviour, 56-98. Chichester, New York: Wiley.
McCloskey, M., & Coccaro, E.F., (2003). Self-report and interview measures of
aggression in adults (2003). Aggression: Assessment and treatment into the
21st century. (Coccaro, E.F. ed). 167-194. Marcel Dekker, New York.
347
McDonald, D., & Brown, M. (1997). Indicators of aggressive behaviour. Australian

Institute of Criminology, Research and Public Policy Series, Paper No. 8,
August, 1996. Retrieved September 11, 2007 from
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp
McFarlin, D. B., & Blascovich, J. (1981). Effects of self-esteem and performance
feedback on future affective preferences and cognitive expectations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 521-531.
McMurran, M., Blair, M. & Egan, V. (2002). An investigation of the correlations
between aggression, impulsiveness, social problem-solving, and alcohol use.
Aggressive Behavior, 28, 439-445.
McMurray, L. (1970). Emotional stress and driving performance: the effects of
divorce. Behavioral Research in Highway Safety, 1, 100-114.
Miller, E., Joseph, S., & Tudway, J. (2004). Assessing the component structure of
four self report measures of impulsivity. Personality and Individual
Miller, M., Azrael, D., Hemenway, D., & Solop, F. I. (2002). Road rage in Arizona:
Armed and dangerous. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 807-814.
Milosevic, S. (1997). Drivers fatigue studies. Ergonomics, 40(3), 381-389.
Mizell, L. (1997). Aggressive driving. In Aggressive driving: Three studies. AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety March 1997. Retrieved February 17, 2001 from
http://www.aaafts.org/Text/research/agdrtex.htm
Mortimer, J., & Shanahan, M. (1994). Adolescent work experience and family
relationships. Work and Occupations, 21(4), 369-384.
Moustakas, C. E. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
348
Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, R. A. (2004). Concurrent and
across time prediction of young adolescents social functioning: The role of
emotionality and regulation. Social Development, 13(1), 56-86.
Murray, A. (1998). The home and school background of young drivers involved in
traffic accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(2), 169-182.
Nash, M. R., Hulsey, T. L., Sexton, M. C., Harralson, T. L., & Lambert, W. (1993).
Long-term sequelae of childhood sexual abuse: Perceived family
environment, psychopathology, and dissociation. Journal of Clinical &
Consulting Psychology, 61, 276-283.
National Committee on Violence (NCV). (1990). Violence: Directions for Australia.
Australian Institute of Criminology: Canberra. Retrieved August 13, 2005
from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vda
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (2002). Strategies for
Aggressive Driving Reinforcement, Planner 22. Retrieved January 20, 2004,
from www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/22qp/how_to_pieces/how
_topl.html
Novaco, R. W., Stokols, D., & Milanesi, L. (1990). Objective and subjective
dimensions of travel impedance as determinants of commuting stress.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(2), 231-257.
OBrien, S. R., Tay, R., & Watson, B. (2005). Situational factors contributing to the
expression of aggression on the roads. Journal of International Association
of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 28(1), 101-107.
OConnor, D. B., Archer, J., & Wu, F. W. C. (2001). Measuring aggression: Selfreports, partner-reports and responses to provoking scenarios. Aggressive
Behavior, 27, 79-101.
349
Pardini, D. A., Lochman, J. E.,&Frick, P. J. (2003).Callous/unemotional traits and

social-cognitive processes in adjudicated youths. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 364371.
Parker, D., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer Relations and Later Personal Adjustment:
Are Low-Accepted Children At Risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3),
357-389.
Parker, D., Lajunen, T., & Stradling, S. (1998). Attitudinal predictors of
interpersonally aggressive violations on the road. Transportation Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1, 11-28.
Parkinson, B. (2001). Anger on and off the road. British Journal of Psychology,
92(3), 507-526.
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt
impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 768-774.
Pedersen, W. C., Gonzales, C., & Miller, N. (2000). The moderating effect of trivial
triggering provocation on displaced aggression. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78 (5), 913-927.
Queensland Transport. (2003). Queensland Road Toll a report on the road toll.
Retrieved September 12, 2003 from
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources
Reason, J. T., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, S. G., Parker, D., & Baxter, J. S. (1991).
The Social and Cognitive Determinants of Aberrant Driving Behaviour.
TRRL Contractor Report, 25,(22).
Reber, A. S., & Reber, E. S. (2001), Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 3rd ed.,
Penguin, London.
350
Renfrew, J. W. (1997). Aggression and its causes: A biopsychosocial approach. New

York: Oxford University Press.
Renner, W., & Anderle, F. (2000). Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlates
of juvenile driver traffic violations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32,
673-678.
Rimmo, P., & Aberg, L. (1999). On the distinction between violations and errors:
sensation seeking associations. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 2(3), 151-166.
Road Transport Legislation - Amendment Act. (1999). New South Wales Traffic &
Crimes Amendment Act, 1997, No. 75, from
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au.
Rolls, G. W. P., Ingham, R., Hall, R. D., & McDonald, M. (1991). Accident risk and
the behavioural patterns of younger drivers. AA Foundation for Road Safety
Research, Basingstoke.
Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia (RACWA). (1997). Road rage:
Driving related violence in Western Australia. Perth: University of Western
Australia Crime Research Centre
Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., De La Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M.
(1993). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test
(AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with
harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction, 88(6), 791-804.
Schlenker, B. R., Soraci, S., & McCarthy, B. (1976). Self-esteem and group
performance as determinants of egocentric perceptions in cooperative groups.
Human Relations, 29, 1163-1176.
351
Selzer, M. L., & Vinokur, A. (1975). Role of life events in accident causation.
Mental Health Society, 2(1-2), 36-54.
Sheskin, D. J. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical
procedures, 3rd Edition. Boca Ratan: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Shewchuk, R. M., Johnson, M. O., & Elliott, T. R. (2000). Self-appraised social
problem solving abilities, emotional reactions and actual problem solving
performance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 727-740.
Shinar, D. (1997). Aggression and frustration in driving: situational variables and
individual differences. Risk-Taking Behaviour and Traffic Safety Symposium,
October 19-22, 1997.
Shinar, D. (1998). Aggressive driving: The contribution of the drivers and the
situation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 2(12), 137-160.
Shinar, D., Schechtman, E., & Compton, R. (2001). Self-reports of safe driving
behaviours in relationship to sex, age, education and income in the US adult
driving population. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 111-116.
Shope, J. T., Waller, P. F., Raghunathan, T. E., & Patil, S. M. (2001). Adolescent
antecedents of high-risk driving behaviour into young adulthood: Substance
use and parental influences. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 640-658.
Silva, P., & Marks, M. (2001). Traumatic experiences, post-traumatic stress disorder
and obsessive-compulsive disorder. International Review of Psychiatry,
13(3), 172-180.
Simon, F., & Corbett, C. (1996). Road traffic offending, stress, age and accident
history among male and female drivers. Ergonomics, 39(5), 757-780.
352
Stamm, B. H., Rudolph, J. M., Dewane, S., Gaines, N., Gorton, K., Paul, G., McNeil,
G., Bowen, G., & Ercolano, M. (1996). Psychometric review of stressful life
experiences screening. In B. H. Stamm (Ed.) Measurement of Stress, Trauma
and Adaptation. Lutherville, MD: Sidran Press.
Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., Boudreaux, J. K., Mathias, C. W., & Brumbelow, J.
L. (1996). Impulsiveness and risk-taking behaviour: comparison of highschool and college students using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale.
Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., & Dickens Jr, T. J. (1995). Irritability and
impulsiveness: relationship to self-reported impulsive aggression.
Stanford, M. S., Houston, R. J., Villemarette-Pittman, N. R., & Greve, K. W. (2003).
Premeditated aggression: clinical assessment and cognitive
psychophysiology. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 773781.
Stokols, D., & Novaco, R. W. (1981). Transportation and wellbeing. In I. Altman, J.
F. Wholwill, & P. Everett (Eds.). Human Behaviour & Environment (5):
Transportation and Behaviour. London: Plenum Press.
Tabachnik B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York,
USA: Harper Collins Inc.
Tasca, L. (2001). A review of the literature on aggressive driving research. Ontario
Advisory Group on Safe Driving Secretariat, Road User Safety Branch,
Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Canada, from
http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/tasca/tasca.pdf
353
Taylor, S. P., & Hulsizer, M. R. (1998). Psychoactive drugs and human aggression.
In Geen, R. G. & Donnerstein, E. (Ed). Human aggression: Theories,
research, and implications for social policy, 139-165, San Diego, CA, US:
Academic Press.
Tedeschi, J.T, & Felson, R.B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions.
Washington: APA Books.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test
construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality
Questionnaire. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.),
Handbook of personality theory and testing: Personality measurement and
assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 261292). London, England: Sage.
Tillman, W., & Hobbs, G. (1949). The accident-prone automobile driver. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 106, 321-331.
Underwood, G., Chapman, P., Wright, S., & Crundall, D. (1999). Anger while
driving. Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 1(3), 55-68.
Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. (1995). Introduction to social psychology. Australia:
Prentice Hall.
Verona, E., Patrick, C. J., & Lang, A. R. (2002). A direct assessment of the role of
state and trait negative emotion in aggressive behaviour. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 111(2), 249-258.
Victorian Community Council Against Violence (VCCAV). (1999). Aggression
and/or violence associated with motor vehicle use. Melbourne.
354
Vigil-Colet, A., & Colorniu-Raga, M. J. (2004). Aggression and inhibition deficits,

the role of functional and dysfunctional impulsivity. Personality and
Individual Differences, 37, 1431-1440.
Vitiello, B., & Stoff, D. M. (1997). Subtypes of aggression and their relevance to
child psychiatry. Journal of American Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
36(3).
Volavka, J., & Citrome, L. (1998). Aggression, alcohol, and other substances of
abuse. In M. Maes & E. F. Coccaro (Eds). Neurobiology and Clinical Views
on Aggression and Impulsivity. (29-45). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Watson, M.W., Fischer, K.W., Andreas, J. B., & Smith, K. W. (2004). Pathways to
aggression in children and adolescents. Harvard Educational Review, 74 (4),
404-430.
Waylen, A. E., & McKenna, F. P. (2001). Is passenger presence associated with
more or less risk taking? Proceedings of the 10th Behavioural Research in
Road Safety Semina, Paper 12. Retrieved June 30, 2002 from
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/behavioural/archive
Wells-Parker, E., Ceminsky, J., Hallberg, V., Snow, R. W., Dunaway, G., Guiling,
S., Williams, M., & Anderson, B. (2002). An exploratory study of the
relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative
sample of US drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 271-278.
Werner-Wilson, R. J., & Osnat, A. (2000). Assessment of interpersonal influences on
adolescents: the parent and peer influence scale. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 28(3), 265-274.
355
West, R. J., Elander, J., & French, D. (1993). Mild social deviance, type-a
behaviour pattern and decision making style as predictors of self-reported
driving style and traffic accident risk, British Journal of Psychology, 84 (2),
207-219.
Westerman S. J., & Haigney, D. (2000). Individual differences in driver stress, error
and violation. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 981-998.
Widom, C. S. (1998). Childhood victimization: Early adversity and subsequent
psychopathology. In B. Dohrenwend (Ed.), Adversity, stress, and
psychopathology, 81-95. New York: Oxford University Press.
Widom, C. S., Ireland, T., & Glynn, P. J. (1995). Alcohol abuse in abused and
neglected children followed-up: Are they at increased risk? Journal of Studies
on Alcohol, 56, 207-217.
Wiesenthal, D. L., & Hennessy, D. A. (1999). Driver stress, aggression, and
vengeance: What is road rage? Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Road
and Traffic Safety Research Conference XI. Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Canada.
Wiesenthal, D. L., Hennessy, D. A., & Totten, B. (2000). The influence of music on
driver stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1709-1719.
Williams, A. F. (2003). Teenage drivers: patterns of risk. Journal of Safety
Research, 34, 5 15.
Yagil, D. (2001). Interpersonal antecedents of drivers aggression. Transportation
Research Part F (4), 119-131.
Zimbardo, P. G., Keough, K. A., & Boyd, J. N. (1997). Present time perspective as a
predictor of risky driving. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(6),
1007-1023.
356
Zillmann, D. (1972). Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggressive behavior.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 419-434.
Zillmann, D. (1988). Cognition-excitation interdependencies in aggressive

behaviour. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 51-64.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A
comparison of three structural models for personality: the big three, the big
five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 757768.
Zuckermann, M., & Neeb, M. (1980). Demographic influences in sensation seeking
and expressions of sensation seeking in religion, smoking and driving habits.
Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 197-206.
357
Appendices
A
Participant Information and Consent Package Study One ...................................... 358
Socio-Demographic questionnaire Study One ........................................................ 360
Focus Group Protocols Study One ......................................................................... 363
SPSS Output Socio-Demographic and Driving Exposure Data

Study One .................................................................................................................. 367
RACQ Sample Details ............................................................................................... 371
Study Two Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 372
Questionnaire Coverpage RACQ participants ........................................................ 381
Questionnaire Coverpage QUT participants ........................................................... 382
Internal Reliability Measures for Measures in the Study Two

Questionnaire ............................................................................................................. 385
Analyses of Driving Behaviour Characteristics and Behavioural Intentions

of the Study Two Sample .......................................................................................... 393
Differences in Trait Characteristics of the Study Two Sample ................................. 395
PHA Driver results from the Study Two Sample ...................................................... 399
Semi-structured Questionnaire Study Three ........................................................... 405
Interview Protocols Study Three ............................................................................ 421
Advertisement for Recruiting Mens Information and Support Association .......... 423
Participant Consent Package Study Three .............................................................. 424
Published M and SD associated with CPS and BIS 11 Measures .............................. 426
Range of CPS Subscale Scores by Offender Type .................................................... 428
Brief Descriptor of CPS Offender Type .................................................................... 438
Individual Participant Scores on the AQ and SPSI-R and Significance

Individual Participant Scores on the BIS-11 and CPS and Significance

Individual Participant Case Studies Study Three ................................................... 441
358
Appendix A:
Participant Information and Consent Package Study One
Where Does Young Driver Aggression Begin and End? The on and offroad Factors Associated with Aggressive Driving
Chief Investigator: Ms Sharon O'Brien
3864 4865
Email: sr.obrien@qut.edu.au
Supervisor:
Mr Barry Watson
3864 4955
Email: bwatson@qut.edu.au
Co-Supervisors:
Associate Professor R. Tay
3864 4806
Email: r.tay@qut.edu.au
Mr Graham Fraine
3864 4691
Email: g.fraine@qut.edu.au
The information gathered via this focus group, will be used to complete the Chief
Investigators, Masters of Applied Science (Research) thesis. The project is examining
the emotions experienced by South-east Queensland drivers and the range of behavioural
responses they engage in. In order to participate, you must hold a current drivers
licence.
Participants are requested to participate to the best of their ability. The focus group
should take approximately 1- 1 hours to complete.
Only aggregate data will be published and all information provided by you will be
anonymous and treated as strictly confidential. To ensure this, the signed consent sheet
shall remain separate from the completed demographic sheets.
Participation in this research is voluntary and you are free to withdraw from the study at
any time without comment or penalty. If the interview questions cause you any
discomfort, you are free to contact the QUT Counselling and Health Services, by
phoning 3864 4539, who have been informed about this study as a precaution and will
provide counselling support, free of charge.
Following the interview, if you have any queries I can be contacted on the number above
or via email. If you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of this research please
contact the Secretary, University Human Research Ethics Committee on 3864 2902.
Copies of the findings of this study shall be made available if you are interested.
359
Your signature below will indicate that you:
Have read the information provided above;
Understand that you are able to withdraw from this study at any time without
explanation;
Understand that any information you provide will be treated as confidential; and
Consent to participate in the research described above.
________________________
Participants Name
______________________
Signature of Participant
________
Date
360
Appendix B:
Socio-Demographic Questionnaire Study One
Group No.
Exploration of Aggressive Driving in South-east Queensland
Please take a moment to fill out this questionnaire.
First Name:
________________________________
Sex:
Male
Age (in years):
1.
Female
________________________________
Please circle the number beside the length of time you have been driving.
1 year
..
2 years
..
3 years
..
4 years
..
5 years
..
6 years
..
7 years
..
8 years
2.
361
From the options below, please circle the number beside the approximate
distance you would drive per year.

Kilometres
0-5 000
5 001 -10 000
10 001 - 15 000
..
15 001 20 000
..
20 001 30 000
..
30 001 or more
..
3.
Below, please circle the number which best describes the types of roads you
generally drive on.
City road only
..
Mainly city roads with

some highway/country
driving
..
Both city and highway/

country driving
..
Mainly highway/country
driving
..
Country roads only
..
4.
Approximately, how many times per week do you drive?

0-5 1
6-10 2
11-15 3
16-20.. 4
More 5
5.
Are you required to drive at all for work purposes? Please circle your
response.
YES or NO
6.
362
Do you believe that aggressive driving is on the increase in Australia?
YES .. NO UNSURE
363
Appendix C:
Focus Group Protocols Study One
Protocol for Focus Groups on Aggressive Driving

Hand out the demographic questionnaire/consent sheet as participants enter,
asking them to fill it out while settling in and while others are getting a cup of tea/coffee.
Also, hand out name tags.
Introduction
Good morning/evening and thank you for taking the time to be here. Let me
introduce myself. My name is Sharon OBrien and I am a researcher from QUT.
Assisting me is Susan Hart also from QUT.
Well base todays discussion around a series of general questions about driving.
There are no right or wrong answers to these questions and I expect that we may get
quite different points of view from the various people in the group. Please feel free to
share your views even if they differ from what others have said. You dont need to
agree with others, but Id like you to let others share their views.
Please speak up and if possible speak one at a time. My role as moderator will
be to encourage everyone to speak and to keep us on track during the discussion.
Well be on a first name basis today/tonight, but please be assured that your
names will not be used at any stage in the research and complete confidentiality is
assured. We shall be recording the session and be assured that your input today shall be
kept safe and confidential. The recordings shall be kept in a locked cabinet accessible
only to the researchers.
Our session will last about an hour and a half. While we wont be taking a
formal break, please feel free to use the toilets (indicate location) and refill your drinks if
you are thirsty.
Today well be talking about some of your experiences with aggressive driving
on the roads. The media would suggest that aggressive driving behaviour is increasing
in Australia. So we shall consider: What is aggressive driving? What causes it? and,
364
What do people think of it? Without a doubt the behaviour of some drivers can certainly
be annoying, to say the least.
Are there any questions? OK, lets get into it. With the first two questions well
have a short open discussion then we shall go around the table and afterwards open it up
for discussion. If you could say your name the first time around that would be great.
Q1:
What do you think are the main causes of aggressive driving?
Probe: Lack of courtesy, attitudes, intimidation, intention, stupidity, dangerousness,

poor driving
Q2:
What things make you particularly angry on the roads?
Q3:
What do you think aggressive driving is?
Instructions Q4&5 TO BE GATHERED FROM EACH PARTICIPANT

Q4:
a) Can you think of an instance where you may have acted angrily on the
road or responded angrily to someone?
b) How were you feeling immediately before the incident?
c) Specifically, what was it that prompted your feelings/behaviour?
d) Did you aim this behaviour at another driver?
e) Did you do so intentionally?
f) What feelings did you experience in this situation?
g) Can you recall having any particular thoughts while it was happening?
Q5:
365
a) How did the other driver(s) react ?
b) What went through your mind at this point?
c) Would you consider that your response could be interpreted as aggressive?
Probe justification
d) Immediately after the incident (say for the next 15 minutes) how did you
feel?
e) Some time after the incident (say 1 hour later), did you feel any differently
about the incident?
Q6:
Following an aggressive driving incident, have any of you felt

upset/frustrated/angry after you finished driving?
Probe: Do you think it affected your off-road behaviour?

How did this affect your off-road behaviour?
Q7:
Can you think of instances where you got into your vehicle feeling
upset/tense/under pressure?
Probe: Do you think this has affected your on-road behaviour?
How did this affect your behaviour?
Q8
What types of off-road things do you think may effect on-road
behaviour in general?
This question is not necessarily about personal experience

Finish
Unfortunately we are running out of time, but today/tonights discussion has

been extremely valuable for us. As we come to a close I again want to remind you that
366
all the comments you have made will remain entirely anonymous, and ask that you also
keep the comments of other group members to yourself so that each person can remain
anonymous.
Are there any questions I can answer for you?
Once again thank you, we very much appreciate your involvement.
367
Appendix D:
SPSS Output Socio-Demographic and Driving Exposure Data - Study One
GENDER
Statistics
GENDER
N
Valid
47
Missing
Mode
Range
1
GENDER
Valid
Frequency
22
Percent
46.8
Valid Percent
46.8
Cumulative
Percent
46.8
female
25
53.2
53.2
100.0
Total
47
100.0
100.0
male
AGE
Statistics
AGE
N
Valid
47
Missing
Mode
18
Range
7
AGE
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
18
12
25.5
25.5
25.5
19
19.1
19.1
44.7
20
4.3
4.3
48.9
21
19.1
19.1
68.1
22
8.5
8.5
76.6
23
10.6
10.6
87.2
24
2.1
2.1
89.4
25
10.6
10.6
100.0
47
100.0
100.0
Total
NUMBER OF YEARS DRIVING

Statistics
TIMEDRIV
N
Valid
47
Missing
Mode
Range
TIMEDRIV
Valid
Frequency
15
Percent
31.9
Valid Percent
31.9
Cumulative
Percent
31.9
2 years
17.0
17.0
48.9
3 years
10.6
10.6
59.6
4 years
12.8
12.8
72.3
5 years
12.8
12.8
85.1
6 years
6.4
6.4
91.5
7 years
4.3
4.3
95.7
8 years
4.3
4.3
100.0
47
100.0
100.0
1 year
Total
APPROXIMATE DISTANCE TRAVELLED PER YEAR

Statistics
DISTPYR
N
Valid
Missing
47
0
Mode
Range
5
DISTPYR
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0-5 000
17.0
17.0
17.0
5 001-10 000
17.0
17.0
34.0
10 001-15 000
14
29.8
29.8
63.8
15 001-20 000
19.1
19.1
83.0
20 001-30 000
8.5
8.5
91.5
30 001 or more
8.5
8.5
100.0
47
100.0
100.0
Total
368
TYPE OF ROAD
Statistics
TYPEROAD
N
Valid
47
Missing
Mode
Range
TYPEROAD
Valid
cityroadonly
Frequency
1
Percent
2.1
Valid Percent
2.1
Cumulative
Percent
2.1
30
63.8
63.8
66.0
14
29.8
29.8
95.7
4.3
4.3
100.0
47
100.0
100.0
citysomehwyorcn
tryroad
bothcity&hway/c
ntry
mainlyhwaycount
ry
Total
NUMBER OF TIMES DRIVE PER WEEK

Statistics
NOTIMPW
N
Valid
47
Missing
Mode
Range
4
NOTIMPW
Valid
Frequency
3
Percent
6.4
Valid Percent
6.4
Cumulative
Percent
6.4
6-10
12
25.5
25.5
31.9
11-15
14
29.8
29.8
61.7
16-20
12.8
12.8
74.5
more
12
25.5
25.5
100.0
Total
47
100.0
100.0
0-5
369
DRIVE FOR WORK

Statistics
WORK
N
Valid
47
Missing
Mode
Range
1
WORK
Valid
Frequency
21
Percent
44.7
Valid Percent
44.7
Cumulative
Percent
44.7
no
26
55.3
55.3
100.0
Total
47
100.0
100.0
yes
PERCIEVED INCREASE
Statistics
PERINCRE
N
Valid
47
Missing
Mode
Range
2
PERINCRE
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
yes
35
74.5
74.5
74.5
unsure
12
25.5
25.5
100.0
Total
47
100.0
100.0
DESCRIPTIVES
Descriptive Statistics
GENDER
N
47
Range
1
Minimum
1
Maximum
2
Mean
1.53
AGE
47
18
25
20.60
TIMEDRIV
47
3.15
DISTPYR
47
3.11
TYPEROAD
47
2.36
NOTIMPW
47
3.26
WORK
47
1.55
PERINCRE
47
1.51
Valid N (listwise)
47
370
371
Appendix E:
RACQ Sample Details
RACQ Region
Under 25 yrs
25-44 yrs
Male
Female
Brisbane, Ipswich & surrounding
400
400
200
areas
100
100
Gold Coast
95
S.W. Queensland
Total
Female
Male
Female
200
200
200
200
200
50
50
50
50
50
50
500
95
45
45
45
45
45
45
460
90
90
40
40
40
40
40
40
420
Central Queensland
125
125
75
75
75
75
75
75
700
Wide Bay
100
100
50
50
50
50
50
50
500
90
90
40
40
40
40
40
40
420
Far North Queensland
Female
65 or older
Male
North Queensland
Male
45-64 yrs
TOTAL
2,000
5,000
372
Appendix F:
Driving Questionnaire Study Two
The first of our questions are about you and your driving. Please circle one
number to show your answer for each question. Remember all the information you
provide is completely confidential and your anonymity is assured. If you decide you dont
want to answer a question, that is OK. Please just go on to the next question.
1. What type of vehicle do you drive most often?

Please circle one number only.
2. Where do you most often drive your vehicle?

3. How many hours do you usually drive a vehicle

per week? Please circle one number only.
Small car..
Medium car.
Large car.
Small/Medium 4WD..
Large 4WD..
Utility/small truck
Large Truck.
Motorcycle...
Van/people mover/mini-bus.
Other (please specify _____________________)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
City/Town roads light traffic..

City/Town roads medium traffic...
City/Town roads heavy traffic..
Highways/open roads light traffic.
Highways/open roads medium traffic.
Highways/open roads heavy traffic.
1
2
3
4
5
6
0-5.. 1
6-10 2
11-153
16-20.. 4
More than 205
4. During the last 3 years, how many crashes have you been involved in
(irrespective of whether you were considered at fault or not)?
______________________(write in the number)
A crash involves damage

occurring to a vehicle/vehicles
or property, with or without
injuries being sustained,
irrespective of whether it was
reported to the police.
373
5. Have you been booked for any traffic offences

(not parking tickets) during the last 3 years?
(Circle one number for each type of offence)
6. Please circle the appropriate response to the

following questions.
Speeding
3+
Drink driving
3+
Driving without a valid

Licence
3+
Other
3+
Not at all
Likely
Extremely
Likely
How likely are you to drive 10kms or more over the

speed limit on a rural road or highway?...
How likely are you to drive when you think you might
be over the legal alcohol limit?..
How likely are you to drive under the influence of

recreational drugs?
How likely are you to drive 10kms or more over the

speed limit on an urban road?..
7. Are you:
Male.................................1
Female ............................2
9. What is the postcode where you live?
8. What is your age?
17-18 .................... .1
19-20 ..................... ....2
21-24 ........................ .3
25-29 ......................... 4
30-39 ......................... 5
40-49 ......................... 6
50-59 ......................... 7
60 or more................. 8
10. What is your highest level of formal education

you have completed?
Primary...1
Junior (Grade 10).....2
Senior (Grade 12).3
TAFE/Tech College/Apprenticeship... .. 4
CAE/University ....5
Other (Please specify) ________________________6
11. On each of the scales below, could you please circle the appropriate number that best indicates how you
are feeling right now?
374
Very Happy
Very Calm
Not stressed at all
Very
Unhappy
Very
Agitated
Very
Stressed
12. Please circle the number which best indicates how characteristic the following statements are about you, from1 Extremely
Uncharacteristic to 5 Extremely characteristic.
Extremely
Uncharacteristic
Extremely
Characteristic
If somebody hits me, I hit back
I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them
When frustrated, I let my irritation show
There are people who pushed me so far that we came to

blows
I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy
When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them
I am an even tempered person
At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life
Once in a while I cant control the urge to strike another

person
I often find myself disagreeing with people
I flare up quickly but get over it quickly
Some of my friends think Im a hothead
Other people always seem to get the breaks
Given enough provocation, I may hit another person
I cant help getting into arguments when people disagree with

me
I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things
If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will
I have trouble controlling my temper
I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person
I know that friends talk about me behind my back
My friends say that Im somewhat argumentative
I sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to explode
I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers
375
I have threatened people I know
Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason
I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my

back
I have become so mad that I have broken things
I get into fights a little more than the average person
When people are especially nice, I wonder what they want
13. The following questions look at how you generally think and feel about problems and how you might
solve them. In this questionnaire, a problem is something important in your life that bothers you a lot, but
you dont immediately know how to make it better or stop it from bothering you so much.
The problem could be something about yourself (such as your thoughts, feelings, behaviour, health, or
appearance), your relationships with other people (such as your family, friends, teachers or boss), or your
environment and the things you own (such as your house, car, property or money).
Please read each statement carefully and choose one of the numbers below that best shows how much
the statement is true of you. See yourself as you usually think, act and feel when you are faced with
important problems in your life these days.
Not at all
True of Me
Slightly
True of
Me
Moderately
True of Me
Very
True of
Me
Extremely
True of Me
I feel threatened and afraid when I have an important problem

to solve.
When making decisions, I do not evaluate all my options

carefully enough.
I feel nervous and unsure of myself when I have an important

decision to make.
When my first efforts to solve a problem fail, I get very

frustrated.
When I am faced with a difficult problem, I doubt that I will be

able to solve it on my own no matter how hard I try
When I have a decision to make I try to predict the positive and

negative consequences of each option.
When I am trying to solve a problem, I go with the first good

idea that comes to mind.
When I have a problem to solve, one of the first things I do is

get as many facts about the problem as possible.
Before I try to solve a problem, I set a specific goal so that I

know exactly what I want to accomplish.
Difficult problems make me very upset.
When I have a decision to make, I do not take the time to

consider the pros and cons of each option.
376
After carrying out a solution to a problem, I try to evaluate as

carefully as possible how much the situation has changed for
the better.
When I am trying to solve a problem, I think of as many

options as possible until I cannot come up with any more
ideas.
When making decisions, I go with my gut feeling without

thinking too much about the consequences of each option.
I am too impulsive when it comes to making decisions.
377
The remainder of this questionnaire will present you with two driving scenarios. Following
each scenario you will be asked to rate how you would feel in the situation and how likely
you would be to respond in different ways. Please circle the number which best describes
your level of agreement with the questions provided. Please give your most immediate
response.
Scenario One
You are driving down a two lane road (one lane each way) travelling at the speed limit and you notice that the
car behind you is travelling very close to your vehicle. Instead of waiting for an opportunity to overtake you, the
driver proceeds to flash his/her lights and beep his/her horn.
1. Please circle the number on the scale below which best rates how you may feel in this situation.
Not at All
Very Much
a) Angry..
b) Threatened ...
c) Annoyed . .
d) Agitated..
2. How likely are you to have the following immediate thoughts about the other driver?
Extremely
Unlikely
Extremely
Likely
a) What an idiot! ..
b) How did that fool get his licence! .
3. Thinking about the scenario again, please circle the number beside each of the statements below, that would best
indicate the likelihood of you responding to the situation in this way. The scale is as follows:
Extremely
Extremely
Unlikely
Likely
1. Swear or mutter to yourself or others in your car
1
2
3
4
5
2. Give a blast of your horn.
1
2
3
4
5
3. Carry on driving normally.
1
2
3
4
5
4. Gesture at the other driver.
1
2
3
4
5
5. Swear at and/or verbally abuse the other driver.
1
2
3
4
5
6. After they have overtaken you, drive close to/follow the
1
2
3
4
5
Other vehicle.
7. Ignore the driver/incident as if nothing has happened.
1
2
3
4
5
8. Stop the vehicle and get out of your vehicle, ready to
argue.
1
2
3
4
5
9. Stop the vehicle and get out prepared to engage
physically with the other driver.
1
2
3
4
5
10. Shout or scream out loud but not at the offending driver.
1
2
3
4
5
11. Use your vehicle to physically damage the other drivers

vehicle.
378
4
4. After this incident, how likely are you to have the following reactions?
Not at all
likely
Extremely
likely
Forget about it almost immediately.
Feel better once you have responded in the manner you have
indicated above.
Feel upset or irritable until later in the journey.
Forget about it once you have left the car.
Forget about it once you start on another task.
Feel upset or irritable for the rest of the day.

Only feel better after having talked with a friend or relative upon
arrival at your destination.
5. How likely is it that this incident would affect you..
Not at all
likely
Extremely
likely
During the rest of your trip.
Doing other tasks during the day.
In your dealings with others.
Scenario Two
You have just had an argument with someone close to you, prior to getting in the car. You then approach an
intersection and the light changes to red. You come to a stop behind another car. The light seems to take a long
time to change back to green. When the light finally changes the driver in front does not move off, preventing you
from moving forward.
1. Please circle the number on the scale below which best rates how you may feel in this situation.
Not at All
Very Much
a) Angry..
b) Threatened ...
c) Annoyed . .
d) Agitated..
379
2. How likely are you to have the following immediate thoughts about the other driver?
Extremely
Unlikely
Extremely Likely
a) What an idiot! ....
b) How did that fool get his licence! .
3. Thinking about the scenario again, please circle the number beside each of the statements below, that would best
indicate the likelihood of you responding to the situation in this way. The scale is as follows:
1. Swear or mutter to yourself or others in your car

3. Carry on driving normally.
4. Gesture at the other driver.
5. Swear at and/or verbally abuse the other driver.
6. Drive close to/follow the other vehicle.
7. Ignore the driver/incident as if nothing has
happened.
8. Stop the vehicle and get out of your vehicle, ready to
argue.
9. Stop the vehicle and get out prepared to engage
physically
with the other driver.
10. Shout or scream out loud but not at the offending
driver.
11. Use your vehicle to physically damage the other
drivers
vehicle.
Extremely
Unlikely
Extremely Likely
4. After this incident, how likely are you to have the following reactions?
Forget about it almost immediately.

Feel better once you have responded in the manner you
have indicated above.
Feel upset or irritable until later in the journey.
Forget about it once you have left the car.
Forget about it once you start on another task.
Feel upset or irritable for the rest of the day.
Only feel better after having talked with a friend or relative
upon arrival at your destination.
Not at all
likely
Extremely
likely
5. How likely is it that this incident would affect you.

Not at all
likely
380
Extremely
likely
During the rest of your trip.
While doing other tasks during the day.
In your dealings with others.
381
Appendix G:
Questionnaire Information and Consent Sheet Study Two RACQ Participants
Driving Questionnaire
Dear Sir/Madam,
This research will explore the emotions experienced by Queensland drivers and the
range of behaviours they engage in as a result of anger-provoking incidents.
We would truly appreciate your assistance in improving our understanding of
general driver behaviour by completing the following survey. It should take
approximately 20 minutes to complete and a reply paid envelope has been
provided for the return of the questionnaire to CARRS-Q. Participants are
requested to answer the following questions to the best of their ability.
Remember, your participation is strictly voluntary and your confidentiality is
assured. However, if you choose to complete the survey, you will be automatically
entered into the competition for a free, 1 year, RACQ membership.
If the interview questions cause you any discomfort, you are free to contact the
QUT, Family Therapy and Counselling Clinic, by phoning (07) 3864 4578, who
have been informed about this study as a precaution and will provide counselling
support, free of charge.
If you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of this research please contact
the Secretary, University Human Research Ethics Committee on (07) 3864 2902.
Alternatively, if you have any questions about the research please feel free to
telephone me on (07) 3864 4685.
Thanks again for your co-operation.
Sharon OBrien
382
Appendix H:
Questionnaire Information and Consent Sheet Study Two QUT Participants
Where Does Driver Aggression Begin and End? The on and off-road
Factors Associated with Aggressive Driving
Chief Investigator: Ms Sharon O'Brien
3864 4865
Supervisor:
Mr Barry Watson
3864 4955
Email: bwatson@qut.edu.au
Co-Supervisors:
Associate Professor R. Tay
3864 4806
Email: r.tay@qut.edu.au
Mr Graham Fraine
3864 4691
Email: g.fraine@qut.edu.au
The information gathered via this semi-structured interview, will be used to complete the
Chief Investigators, Masters of Applied Science (Research) thesis. The project is
examining the emotions experienced by Australian drivers and the range of behavioural
responses they engage in. In order to participate, you must hold a current drivers
licence.
Participants are requested to answer all questions to the best of their ability. The
interview should take approximately 20 minutes.
Only aggregate data will be published and all information provided by you will be
anonymous and treated as strictly confidential. To ensure this, the signed consent sheet
shall remain separate from the completed interview sheets.
Participation in this research is voluntary and you re free to withdraw from the study at
any time without comment or penalty. If the questions cause you any discomfort, you
are free to contact the QUT Counselling and Health Services, by phoning 3864 4539,
who have been informed about this study as a precaution and will provide counselling
Following the interview, if you have any queries I can be contacted on the number above
or via email. If you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of this research please
contact the Secretary, University Human Research Ethics Committee on 3864 2902.
Copies of the findings of this study shall be made available if you are interested.
383
Have read the information provided above;
Understand that you are able to withdraw from this study at any time without
explanation;
Understand that any information you provide will be treated as confidential; and
Consent to participate in the research described above.
________________________
Participants Name
______________________
________
Date
I wish to receive feedback on the results of this study when it is completed
Circle One:
YES
NO
If you would like to receive feedback, please provide a phone number or e-mail address
where you would like us to contact you with the results.
(Phone/e-mail)________________________________________________
384
Appendix I:
Internal Reliability Measures for Measures used in the Study Two Questionnaire
Reliability - Aggression Questionnaire

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
.900
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.913
N of Items
29
Item-Total Statistics
SMEAN(AQ1)
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
54.8117
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
224.127
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.468
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.426
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.897
SMEAN(AQ2)
53.8058
228.501
.362
.355
.899
SMEAN(AQ3)
54.0660
223.148
.528
.419
.896
SMEAN(AQ4)
55.3130
224.182
.532
.419
.896
SMEAN(AQ5)
55.1173
224.354
.533
.405
.896
SMEAN(AQ6)
SMEAN(AQ7)
54.5225
223.934
.506
.451
.896
53.6799
240.969
-.004
.143
.908
SMEAN(AQ8)
54.8388
224.392
.491
.449
.897
SMEAN(AQ9)
55.7517
233.744
.473
.354
.898
SMEAN(AQ10)
54.7747
226.024
.528
.379
.896
SMEAN(AQ11)
54.6521
224.099
.484
.350
.897
SMEAN(AQ12)
55.4970
55.0856
226.367
225.366
.583
.515
.458
.488
.895
.896
SMEAN(AQ15)
55.2538
55.2150
224.370
224.453
.502
.607
.558
.470
.896
.895
SMEAN(AQ16)
SMEAN(AQ17)
55.2863
55.2099
224.743
225.372
.581
.484
.499
.504
.895
.897
SMEAN(AQ18)
SMEAN(AQ19)
55.4857
226.582
.596
.524
.895
53.9854
55.0671
240.202
224.885
-.003
.503
.172
.407
.910
.896
SMEAN(AQ22)
55.2791
55.4682
224.443
224.630
.595
.615
.486
.499
.895
.895
SMEAN(AQ23)
54.4205
224.677
.426
.418
.898
SMEAN(AQ24)
55.6845
229.452
.585
.510
.896
SMEAN(AQ25)
SMEAN(AQ26)
55.3807
226.582
.537
.481
.896
SMEAN(AQ27)
55.2956
55.3601
225.011
224.267
.561
.559
.544
.395
.895
.895
SMEAN(AQ28)
55.8000
233.953
.509
.474
.898
SMEAN(AQ29)
54.8063
223.897
.512
.479
.896
SMEAN(AQ13)
SMEAN(AQ14)
SMEAN(AQ20)
SMEAN(AQ21)
385
Reliability - Negative Problem Orientation Subscale (SPSI-R)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.843
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.844
N of Items
5
SMEAN(SPS1)
SMEAN(SPS3)
SMEAN(SPS4)
SMEAN(SPS5)
SMEAN(SPS6)
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
7.9480
7.6377
7.7140
8.1726
7.9555
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
9.789
8.962
9.458
9.992
9.442
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.664
.683
.649
.617
.637
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.473
.496
.424
.394
.414
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.808
.802
.811
.820
.815
Reliability - Impulsive/Careless Style (SPSI-R Subscale)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.765
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.766
N of Items
5
SMEAN(SPS2)
SMEAN(SPS8)
SMEAN(SPS11)
SMEAN(SPS14)
SMEAN(SPS15)
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
7.6803
7.5354
7.8338
7.4262
7.8130
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
8.996
8.477
8.373
8.150
8.253
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.483
.486
.543
.560
.606
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.247
.242
.309
.339
.377
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.740
.741
.720
.714
.698
386
Reliability - Rational Problem Solving (SPSI-R Subscale)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.821
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.823
N of Items
5
SMEAN(SPS7)
SMEAN(SPS9)
SMEAN(SPS10)
SMEAN(SPS12)
SMEAN(SPS13)
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
13.1582
12.9887
13.3158
13.4569
13.4239
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
13.250
12.002
12.800
12.637
12.386
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.478
.707
.616
.647
.634
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.244
.509
.417
.447
.435
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.827
.758
.785
.776
.779
Reliability - Negative Emotions (Scenario One)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.786
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.787
N of Items
3
Ite m-Tota l Sta tistics

Sc ale Mean if
Item Deleted
SMEA N(S 1ANGER)
6.2116
SMEA N(S 1ANNOY )
5.3914
SMEA N(S 1AGITAT)
6.2167
Sc ale
Variance if
Item Deleted
4.591
5.192
4.801
Correc ted
Item-Total
Correlation
.685
.607
.589
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.472
.389
.357
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.643
.730
.752
387
Reliability - Negative Emotions (Scenario Two)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.848
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.848
N of Items
3

Sc ale Mean if
Item Deleted
SMEA N(S 2ANGER)
5.2565
SMEA N(S 2ANNOY )
4.5089
SMEA N(S 2AGITAT)
5.2567
Sc ale
Variance if
Item Deleted
5.148
5.294
5.134
Correc ted
Item-Total
Correlation
.732
.703
.712
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.536
.495
.509
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.772
.800
.791
Reliability - Negative Attributions (Scenario One)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.812
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.808
N of Items
3

Sc ale Mean if
Item Delet ed
SMEA N(S 1COGA)
5.9816
SMEA N(S 1COGB)
7.1661
SMEA N(S 1COGC)
6.9891
Sc ale
Variance if
Item Delet ed
7.368
4.982
4.955
Correc ted
Item-Total
Correlation
.508
.752
.761
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.258
.636
.641
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.883
.644
.633
388
Reliability - Negative Attributions (Scenario Two)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.843
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.855
N of Items
3

Sc ale Mean if
Item Delet ed
SMEA N(S 2COGA)
3.6600
SMEA N(S 2COGB)
4.5619
SMEA N(S 2COGC)
4.6007
Sc ale
Variance if
Item Delet ed
5.179
5.470
5.529
Correc ted
Item-Total
Correlation
.595
.782
.782
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.354
.725
.724
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.915
.717
.719
Reliability - Behavioural Response Items (Scenario One)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.769
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.806
N of Items
9
SMEAN(S1BEH1)
SMEAN(S1BEH2)
SMEAN(S1BEH4)
SMEAN(S1BEH5)
SMEAN(S1BEH6)
SMEAN(S1BEH8)
SMEAN(S1BEH9)
SMEAN(S1BEH10)
SMEAN(S1BEH11)
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
11.3695
13.4445
12.9513
13.2969
13.4789
13.8755
13.9103
13.5950
13.9395
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
19.002
19.760
16.283
16.924
19.981
22.493
23.082
20.165
23.610
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.347
.503
.642
.700
.445
.496
.410
.482
.310
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.160
.277
.541
.586
.219
.644
.712
.249
.486
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.778
.740
.713
.701
.749
.755
.763
.743
.770
389
Reliability Instrumental Behavioural Response Items (Scenario One)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.764
N of Items
6
Ite m-Tota l Sta tisti cs

Sc ale Mean if
Item Deleted
SMEA N(S 1BE H1)
8.1468
SMEA N(S 1BE H2)
10.2218
SMEA N(S 1BE H4)
9.7286
SMEA N(S 1BE H5)
10.0742
SMEA N(S 1BE H6)
10.2562
SMEA N(S 1BE H10)
10.3723
Sc ale
Variance if
Item Deleted
14.633
15.602
12.461
13.274
16.115
16.254
Correc ted
Item-Total
Correlation
.378
.515
.656
.684
.410
.450
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.772
.729
.684
.679
.752
.744
Reliability Hostile Behavioural Response Items (Scenario One)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.853
N of Items
3

Sc ale Mean if
Item Deleted
SMEA N(S 1BE H8)
2.1156
SMEA N(S 1BE H9)
2.1503
SMEA N(S 1BE H11)
2.1795
Sc ale
Variance if
Item Deleted
.463
.482
.621
Correc ted
Item-Total
Correlation
.718
.842
.641
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.813
.679
.870
390
Reliability - Behavioural Response Items (Scenario Two)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.737
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.795
N of Items
9
SMEAN(S2BEH1)
SMEAN(S2BEH2)
SMEAN(S2BEH4)
SMEAN(S2BEH5)
SMEAN(S2BEH6)
SMEAN(S2BEH8)
SMEAN(S2BEH9)
SMEAN(S2BEH10)
SMEAN(S2BEH11)
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
11.4031
11.7315
12.7739
12.9862
13.0782
13.3177
13.3350
13.0715
13.3458
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
15.779
14.950
15.990
16.788
18.575
21.051
21.105
18.434
21.448
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.405
.445
.613
.675
.499
.325
.370
.463
.275
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.214
.241
.567
.625
.335
.470
.734
.241
.616
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.730
.724
.673
.669
.703
.732
.731
.706
.737
Reliability Instrumental Behavioural Response Items (Scenario Two)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.744
N of Items
6

Sc ale Mean if
Item Deleted
SMEA N(S 2BE H1)
8.2605
SMEA N(S 2BE H2)
8.5889
SMEA N(S 2BE H4)
9.6313
SMEA N(S 2BE H5)
9.8436
SMEA N(S 2BE H6)
9.9356
SMEA N(S 2BE H10)
9.9289
Sc ale
Variance if
Item Deleted
12.894
12.169
13.406
14.344
16.136
15.820
Correc ted
Item-Total
Correlation
.438
.473
.618
.647
.443
.442
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.731
.724
.670
.675
.723
.721
391
Reliability Hostile Behavioural Response Items (Scenario Two)
Cronbach's
Alpha
.826
N of Items
3

Sc ale Mean if
Item Deleted
SMEA N(S 2BE H8)
2.0800
SMEA N(S 2BE H9)
2.0972
SMEA N(S 2BE H11)
2.1080
Sc ale
Variance if
Item Deleted
.370
.352
.427
Correc ted
Item-Total
Correlation
.590
.839
.652
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.872
.603
.793
Reliability - Post Event Influence (Scenario One)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.817
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.844
N of Items
3

Sc ale Mean if
Item Deleted
SMEA N(S 1PB EH1)
2.7157
SMEA N(S 1PB EH2)
3.1481
SMEA N(S 1PB EH3)
3.2130
Sc ale
Variance if
Item Deleted
1.935
2.425
2.749
Correc ted
Item-Total
Correlation
.609
.803
.682
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.414
.699
.617
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.879
.636
.755
392
Reliability - Post Event Influence (Scenario Two)

Cronbach's
Alpha
.847
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.865
N of Items
3

Sc ale Mean if
Item Deleted
SMEA N(S 2PB EH1)
2.3650
SMEA N(S 2PB EH2)
2.5702
SMEA N(S 2PB EH3)
2.5680
Sc ale
Variance if
Item Deleted
1.175
1.393
1.389
Correc ted
Item-Total
Correlation
.631
.805
.764
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.405
.727
.703
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.910
.721
.750
393
Appendix J
Analyses of the Driving Behaviour Characteristics and Behavioural Intentions of the
Study Two Sample
Some of the variables were recoded to meet sufficient cell sizes (i.e. n > 5) to
enable Chi- Square (2) analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The effected variables
were self-reported speeding fines incurred in the past three years and crash involvement
in the past three years. Also, due to the overrepresentation of young drivers in on-road
aggression, special attention is given to those drivers aged 1724 years of age in the
sample. In order to test for any significant age and gender differences the age variable
was reduced to 1 - 1724 year olds and 0 25 years and older.
Table J1
Chi-square analysis of number of speeding fines in the previous three years by age
Number of Speeding
Fines in the Last
Three Years
(n = 896)
Drivers
17-24 years
of age
Drivers
25 years and
over
None
223 34.5%
423 65.5%
One
59 35.5%
107 64.5%
Two or More Fines
39 46.4%
45 53.6%
Significance Level
2 (df2)= 4.456, p > .05
Table J2
Chi-square analysis of number of speeding fines in the previous three years by gender
Number of Speeding
Fines in the Last
Three Years
(n = 896)
Female
Male
None
415 64.2%
231 35.8%
One
96
57.8%
70 42.2%
Two or More Fines
39
46.4%
45
53.6%
Significance Level
2 (df2)= 10.803, p < .05, c =.11
394
Table J3
Self-reported number of participants fined for DUI of alcohol, unlicensed driving and
other offences in the past three years
Frequency
Driving Under the

Influence Alcohol
Unlicensed Driving
Other Offences
42
3 or more
TOTAL
51
Table J4
Chi-square analysis of age by number of self-reported crashes in the previous three
years
Number of Selfreported Crashes in
the Last Three Years
(n = 921)*
17-24 Year
Old Drivers
Older Drivers
None
220 31.9%
470 68.1%
One or More
111 48.1%
120 51.9%
Significance Level
2 (df1) = 19.2, p < .001, = .15
*The self-reported number of crashes in the previous three years was recoded into a dichotomous variable, no
crashes versus one or more crashes so that the cell size requirement of > 5 was met (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).
Table J5 Chi-square analysis of number of self-reported crashes in the previous three

years by gender
Number of Selfreported crashes in
the Last Three Years
(n = 921)
Female
Male
None
368 60.4%
298 39.6%
One or More Fines
374
287 38.1%
61.9%
Significance Level
2 (df1)= .157, p > .05
395
Appendix K
Differences in Trait Characteristics of the Study Two Sample
Table K1
Results of gender by age-group ANOVAs on AQ and SPSI-R subscales with post-hoc tests
Variable by Scenario
17-24y
17-24y
25-39y
25-39y
40-59y
40-59y
60+ y
60+ y
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
(n = 106)
(n = 226)
(n = 41)
(n = 116)
(n = 105)
(n = 128)
(n = 110)
(n = 94)
Overall
ANOVA
Sig.
Level
Aggression
Questionnaire (AQ)
Total AQ
Physical Aggression
58.38
53.46
49.80
47.75
49.22
41.10
37.22
33.07
p < .001
14.84
11.58
11.93
10.02
11.83
8.72
8.20
6.40
p < .001
Verbal Aggression
13.27
12.48
11.95
10.98
11.59
10.01
9.91
8.49
p < .001
Angry Aggression
11.31
10.96
8.98
10.85
9.67
8.78
6.99
6.20
p < .001
Hostile Aggression
18.96
18.43
16.95
15.89
16.13
13.59
12.12
11.96
p < .001
Social Problem
Solving (SPSI-R)
Negative Problem
Solving (NPO)
Impulsive/Careless
Style (ICS)
5.21
5.49
5.08
5.17
5.14
5.14
4.92
5.14
p < .001
5.39
5.27
5.22
5.18
5.05
5.08
4.97
5.02
p < .001
Rational Problem
Solving(RPS)
3.19
3.25
3.39
3.41
3.40
3.39
3.43
3.16
p < .105
A conservative probability level of p < .006 was adopted to determine the significance of the ANOVAs, the multiple
tests performed (i.e. Bonferroni adjustment .05 4 = p < .0125). Post hoc comparisons were conducted using
Dunnets C at p < .05.
Total Trait Aggression

A 2x4 ANOVA for gender and age-group by total trait aggression scores was
significant [F (7,918) = 44.895, p < .001]. No significant interaction was found [F
(7,918) = 1.56, p = .197]. However, simple main effects (SMEs) were found for both
gender [F (1,918) = 24.25, p < .001, 2 = .03] and age-group [F (3,918) = 96.32, p <
.001, 2 = .24]. Male participants (M = 48.7) scored significantly higher on the total AQ
than females (M = 43.8). However, the effect size for the significant age-group SME (2
= .24) was considerably greater than for gender (2 = .03). Post hoc comparisons using
Dunnetts C showed participants aged 1724 years scored significantly higher levels of
overall trait aggression than any other age group, (p < .05). Older participants, 60 years
396
plus, reported significantly less trait aggression than other age-groups, (p < .05). Drivers
aged 2539 years and 4059 years reported similar total trait aggression scores as each
other, (p > .05).
Physical Aggression Subscale
The overall ANOVA to evaluate the effects of age-group by gender on selfreported levels of trait physical aggression was significant, [F (7,918) = 34.442, p <
.001]. Analysis revealed a significant simple main effect (SME) for gender, males (M =
11.7) reporting more trait physical aggression than females (M = 9.2) in the sample [F
(1,918) = 56.907, p < .001, 2 = .18].
Another SME was found for age-group [F (3,918) = 66.17, p < .001, 2 = .06].
Dunnetts C post hoc comparisons of the four age-groups revealed 1724 year olds
reported significantly higher levels of physical aggression than the other three age
groups at p < .05. Although the means scores for physical aggression appear to reduce
as age increases, there was no statistically significant difference between 2539 year old
(M = 11) and 4059 year old drivers (M = 10.3), p > .05. Drivers aged 60 years plus
scored significantly less on the physical aggression subscale than all other drivers.
Verbal Aggression Subscale
The overall ANOVA evaluating age and gender effects on trait verbal aggression
levels was significant [F (7,918) = 23.036, p < .001]. Significant SMEs were found for
age [F (3,918) = 46.654, p < .001, 2 = .13] and for gender [F (1,918) = 22.655,
p < .001, 2 = .02].
The gender SME revealed that male (M = 11.7) participants scored significantly
higher on verbal aggression than females (M = 10.5), p < .05. Using Dunnetts C post
hoc comparisons, young drivers 1724 years of age scored significantly higher on verbal
aggression than the other age groups under consideration (p < .05), whilst there was no
significant difference in the verbal aggression scores reported by 2539 and 4059 year
old drivers (p > .05). Older drivers, 60 years and over, also reported significantly less
trait verbal aggression than other age groups, p < .05. Similar to the trait physical
aggression scores, the means suggest that as age increases verbal aggression decreases.
397
Angry Aggression Subscale

The overall ANOVA evaluating age and gender effects on trait anger levels was
significant [F (7,918) = 26.296, p < .001]. A SME was found for age-group [F (3,918) =
54.113, p < .001, 2 = .15]. Dunnetts Cs post-hoc comparisons revealed significantly
greater levels of angry aggression for 1724 year olds than drivers aged 40 years and
over, (p < .05). However, there was no significant difference between self-reported
angry aggression for the 1724 and 2539 year old drivers, (p > .05).
Examination of the means suggests that as age increases angry aggression
decreases. Also, females aged 2539 years (M = 10.9) reported more angry aggression
than males of the same age (M = 9). However, in all other age groups females reported
less angry aggression than males.
Hostile Aggression Subscale
The overall ANOVA was significant [F (7,918) = 31.047, p < .001]. SMEs were
found for gender [F (1,918) = 7.625, p < .006, 2 = .01] and age groups [F (3,918) =
64.682, p < .001, 2 = .17 ]. Examination of the means for males and females across the
age levels indicates that males report marginally higher levels of hostility than females,
consistent with the grand means, males (M = 16) and females (M = 15).
Posthoc comparisons examining differences between the age groups revealed
that 1724 year olds scored significantly higher on hostile aggression than all other age
groups (p < .05). Conversely, participants aged 60 years and over scored significantly
lower than all other drivers, (p < .05). However, a significant difference was not found
between the 2539 and 4059 year olds on this subscale, (p > .05).
Social Problem Solving Subscales
The overall ANOVA for RPS was not significant, F (7,918) = 1.70, p = .105.
However, the ANOVAs for age group and gender by NPO and ICS problem solving
were significant [F (7,918) = 16.80, p < .001 and F (7,918) = 8.62, p < .001,
respectively]. Again, no significant interactions were reported for age group by gender.
Instead, several significant SMEs were found for age group by NPO and ICS [F (3,918)
= 17.84, p < .001, 2 = .06 and F (3,918) = 19.72, p < .001, 2 = .06, respectively]. Post
hoc comparisons revealed that 1724 year olds reported significantly more NPO than all
other age groups, p < .05. However, there was no significant difference in NPO between
398
the 2539 and 4059 year old age groups, p > .05. Post hoc comparisons also revealed
that 1724 year olds reported significantly higher levels of ICS than those aged 40 years
and over, p < .05. There was no significant difference between 1724 year olds and 25
39 year olds on levels of ICS, p > .05. Examination of the means indicates that as age
increases levels of NPO and ICS appear to decrease.
A significant SME was also found for gender by NPO, F (1,918) = 16.73, p <
.001. Females (M = 5.2) reported significantly higher levels of NPO (p < .05) than
males (M = 5), though the difference seems minute.
399
Appendix L
PHA Driver results from the Study Two Sample
Table L1 Age group breakdown by driver group membership
17-24 Years
Other drivers
(n = 838)
PHA Drivers
(n = 88)
1.
60 + Years
290
148
204
196
34.6%
17.7%
24.3%
23.4%
42
29
2 (df3) = 16.157, p
< .001, c = .13
10.2%
9.1%
47.7%
33%
The cells with significant (p < .01) adjusted standardised residuals were bolded
Table L2
Gender breakdown by driver group membership
Significance Level1
Female
Male
Other drivers
(n = 838)
531 63.4%
307 36.6%
PHA Drivers
(n = 88)
32
56 63.6%
1.
Significance Level1
Age Group
25-39 Years
40-59 Years
36.4%
2 (df1) = 24.361, p < .001, = .162
Table L3 Education level by driver group membership

Education Attained
Other Drivers
(n = 837)
PHA Drivers
(n = 88)
Significance
Level1
Primary/
Yr102
Senior
(Yr12)
TAFE/Tech/
Apprentice
CAE/Uni
148
226
214
249
17.7%
27%
25.6%
29.7%
35
28
18
2 (df3) = 12.672, p
< .01, c = .12
8%
31.8%
20.5%
39.8%
1. The cells with significant (p < .01) adjusted standardised residuals were bolded
2. Primary and Year 10 level education were collapsed to produce cell sizes of >5, as were TAFE,
Technical College, Apprenticeship and other.
Table L4
Hours driven per week by driver group membership

Hours Driven Per Week
Other Drivers
(n = 837)
PHA Drivers
(n = 88)
400
Significance
Level1
0-5 hours
6-10 hours
11-15
Hours
16-20
hours
>20 hours
291
345
117
44
40
34.8%
41.2%
14%
5.3%
4.8%
27
30
17
30.7%
34.1%
19.3%
8%
8%
2 (df4)= 5.583, p
> .01, c = .08
Table L5 Type of vehicle driven by driver group membership

Type of Vehicle
Significance
Level1
Small Car
Medium Car
Large Car
4WD/Utility/Truck
Other Drivers
(n = 807)
260
32.2%
285
34.8%
145
18%
121
15%
PHA Drivers
(n = 83)
13
15.7%
34
41%
18
21.7%
18
21.7%
1.
2 (df3) = 10.254, p
= .017, c = .11
Table L6 Traffic density exposure by driver group membership

Traffic Density
Significance Level
Light
Medium
Heavy
Other Drivers
(n = 821)
121
14.7%
595
72.5%
105
12.8%
PHA Drivers
(n = 86)
10
11.6%
60
69.8%
16
18.6%
1.
2 (df2) = 2.574, p
= .276, c = .05
The measure in its original state had a number of cells less than 5 (see Appendix F). As such, the
categories were collapsed to reflect a measure of light, medium and heavy traffic density,
irrespective of type of road.
Table L7
401
Comparison of PHA drivers to other drivers on trait characteristics
Variables
M
SD
Mean
Rank
Hostile Aggressive
Drivers
(n = 88)
Mean
Rank
Other Drivers
Mann-Whitney
Test
Z scores
(n = 838)
AQ Subscales
Physical Aggression
10.48
5.16
697.59
438.92
-8.675, p < .001
Verbal Aggression
11.21
3.73
628.95
446.13
-6.120, p < .001
Angry Aggression
9.5
4.28
639.93
444.97
-6.526, p < .001
Hostile Aggression
15.77
5.91
623.63
446.68
-5.914, p < .001
AQ Total Scores
46.96
15.57
683.80
440.37
-8.124, p < .001
Negative Problem
Orientation
5.21
.52
540.97
455.37
-2.882, p < .017
Impulsive/Careless
Style
5.16
.54
573.31
451.97
-4.081, p < .001
Rational Problem
Solving
3.32
.87
408.07
469.32
-2.049, p > .017
SPSI-R Subscales
Pre-questionnaire
Negative Emotion
2.00
.77
590.10
450.21
-4.711, p < .001
Use of a conservative measure of significance was decided upon for interpreting the results to protect
against family-wise error. Specifically, for the testing of the AQ subscales the chosen p < .01, was
calculated using a Bonferoni Adjustment .05 5 (number of subscales) = .01. Similarly, the significance
level of the tests involving the SPSI-R subscales was pre-determined at p < .017.
Table L8 Number of crashes in past three years by driver type

Crashes in Past Three Years
Significance Level
No Crashes
One Crash
Two or More
Crashes
Other Drivers
(n = 833)
630
75.6%
158
19%
45
5.4%
PHA Drivers
(n = 88)
60
68.2%
19
21.6%
9
10.2%
2 (df2) = 4.035, p
= .133, c = .07
To facilitate the analysis of this data the number of crashes reported by participants was collapsed into three
categories.
402
Table L9 Number of speeding fines and other fines in the past three years by driver
type
Speeding Fines, Other Fines and Drink Driving Charges
in the Past Three Years
Speeding Fines
None
One
Two or Three
Other Drivers
(n = 810)
589
72.7%
148
18.3%
73
9%
PHA Drivers
(n = 86)
57
66.3%
18
20.9%
11
12.8%
Other Fines
No Fines
One or More
Fines
Other Drivers
(n = 739)
697
94.3%
42
5.7%
PHA Drivers
(n = 72)
65
90%
7
9.7%
No Charges
One or More
Other Drivers
(n = 734)
729
99.3%
5
.7%
PHA Drivers
(n = 73)
70
95.9%
3
4.1%
Previous Drink
Driving Charges
Table L10
Significance Level
2 (df2) = 1.927,
p = .381, c = .05
2 (df1) = 1.885,
p = .170, = .05
2 (df1) = 7.951,
p < .05, c = .10
Comparison of PHA drivers to other drivers on Behavioural Intentions

Mean
Rank
PHA Drivers
(n=74)
Mean
Rank
Other Drivers
(n=850)
Mann-Whitney
Test
Z scores
10km/h Urban Roads
542.7
455.5
-2.993, p < .05
10km/h Highways
Likelihood of
Drink/Drug Driving
583.6
453.1
-4.188, p < .001
Drink Drive
535.7
456.1
-4.714, p < .001
Drug Drive
520
457.5
-5.127, p < .001
Variables
Likelihood of Speeding
Table L11
403
Mann-Whitney U tests of Emotional, Cognitive and behavioural responses
to scenarios by group membership
SD
Mean
Rank
PHA Drivers
(n = 88)
Negative Emotion
2.97
1.05
558.30**
453.54
-3.509, p < .001
Perceived Threat
2.53
1.31
471.93
462.62
-.319, p > .01
3.36
1.15
526.98
456.83
-2.353, p > .01
Instrumental Aggressive
Response
1.96
.75
711.19**
437.49
-9.164, p < .001
Hostile Aggressive
Response
1.07
.35
815.84**
426.50
-27.630, p < .001
1.51
.74
556.91**
453.69
-3.695, p < .001
Negative Emotion
2.5
1.1
570.78**
452.23
-3.973, p < .001
Perceived Threat
1.18
.52
557.44**
453.64
-5.725, p < .001
2.14
1.12
589.70**
450.25
-4.711, p < .001
Instrumental Aggressive
Response
1.87
.73
698.69**
438.80
-8.702, p < .001
Hostile Aggressive
Response
1.05
.30
639.67**
445.00
-19.142, p < .001
1.25
.55
535.00**
455.99
-3.362, p < .001
Variables by Scenario
Mean
Rank
Other Drivers
(n = 838)
Mann-Whitney
Test
Z scores
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
404
Table L12 PHA driver group membership as a function of person-related, emotional,

cognitive and behavioural responses and driving exposure variables
B
Std.
Error
Wald
Test
Odds
Ratio
Person-related
Gender
-1.04
.35
9.01**
.36
.18
.70
Age1
25-39 years
40-59 years
60 years and over
-1.13
.29
-.25
.57
.41
.57
3.96**
.50
.19
.32
1.34
.78
.12
.60
.26
1.07
2.97
2.39
Total AQ Score
.04
.01
7.7**
1.04
1.01
1.06
SPSI-R Subscales:
NPO
-.14
.34
.16
.87
.44
1.71
ICS
.13
.31
.17
1.14
.62
2.09
RPS
-.26
.20
1.83
.77
.53
1.13
Education Attained2
.09
.49
.03
1.09
.42
2.86
Total Pre-study Emotion
.18
.23
.60
1.19
.77
1.85
Emotional, Cognitive & Behavioural

Responses
Negative Emotions
-.83
.28
8.80**
.44
.25
.76
Perceived Threat
.32
.19
7.18**
1.37
1.09
1.73
Negative Cognitions
-.38
.22
3.07
.68
.44
1.05
Instrumental VS Hostile Aggressive

Responses
2.08
.32
42.86**
7.99
4.23
14.89
Driving Exposure
Hours Driven Per Week3
6-10 hours
11-15 hours
16-20 hours
More than 20 hours
-.13
.35
-.08
-1.79
.37
.46
.63
.98
.13
.57
.02
3.31
.88
1.42
.93
.17
.42
.58
.27
.02
1.81
3.48
3.16
1.15
Type of Vehicle4
Medium
Large
4WD
Truck/Ute
1.02
1.18
1.39
.98
.44
.52
.57
.73
5.50*
5.18*
5.93*
1.80
2.78
3.25
4.00
2.67
1.18
1.18
1.31
.63
6.53
8.96
12.20
11.27
Congestion Exposure5
Medium
.29
.51
.31
1.33
.49
3.62
.59
.62
.93
1.81
.54
6.1
Variables
Heavy
1. Age reference group = 17-24 years.

2. Education as a dichotomous variable: 0 < Year 10 & 1 > Year 10.
3. Type of vehicle reference group = small vehicle.
4. Hours driven per week reference group = 0-5hours.
5. Congestion exposure reference group = light.
* p<.05 ** p<.01
95% CI for
Odds Ratio
405
Appendix M:
Semi-Structured Questionnaire Study Three
Stage One Aggressive Driving Project

The following information is personal in nature, however, it is necessary in order for this research to increase our understanding of
aggressive driving behaviour. Please be assured that no person, other than the researcher involved, will have access to the information
you provide.
First Name:
____________________________________________________
Age (in years): _____________________________________________
406
The first of our questions are about you and your driving. Please circle one number to show your answer for each question. Remember
all the information you provide is completely confidential and your anonymity is absolutely assured. If you decide you dont want to
answer a question, that is OK. Please just go on to the next question.
1. What type of vehicle do you drive most often?

Small car..
Medium car.
Large car.
4WD.
Utility/ truck
Motorcycle...
Van/people mover/mini-bus.
Other (please specify _____________________)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2. Where do you most often drive your vehicle?

City/Town roads light traffic..

City/Town roads medium traffic...
City/Town roads heavy traffic..
Highways/open roads light traffic.
Highways/open roads medium traffic.
Highways/open roads heavy traffic.
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. How many hours do you usually drive a vehicle per

week? Please circle one number only.
0-5..1
6-10 2
11-153
16-20.. 4
More than 205
4. During the last 3 years, how many crashes have you been involved in
(irrespective of whether you were considered at fault or not)?
A crash involves damage

occurring to a
______________________(write in the number)
vehicle/vehicles or property,
5. Have you been booked for any traffic

related offences (not parking tickets) during the
last 3 years?
407
Speeding ..................................................................
Drink driving..............................................................
Driving without a valid Licence .................................
(Please write in the number of offences.)
6. Please circle the appropriate response to the

following questions.
How likely are you to drive when you think you
might be over the legal alcohol limit?.
How likely are you to drive under the influence of
recreational drugs?
7. What is your highest level of formal education you
have completed?
8. What is your marital status?
Not at all
Likely
Extremely
Likely
1
2
3
4
5
Primary ........................................................................ 1
Junior (Grade 10) ........................................................ 2
Senior (Grade 12) ........................................................ 3
TAFE/Tech College/Apprenticeship ............................ 4
CAE/University ............................................................ 5
Other (Please specify) ________________________ 6
Single .......................................................................... 1
Married ........................................................................ 2
Defacto ........................................................................ 3
Separated .................................................................... 4
Divorced ...................................................................... 5
9. How many years have you been driving?
1 2 YEARS ............................................................... 1
3 5 YEARS ............................................................... 2
6 - 10 YEARS .............................................................. 3
11 - 15 YEARS ............................................................ 4
15 - 20 YEARS ............................................................ 5
OVER 20 YEARS ........................................................ 6
10. Approximately, what is your annual income?
$0 - 10 000 .................................................................. 1
$11 000 - 20 000 ......................................................... 2
$21 000 30 000......................................................... 3
$31 000 40 000......................................................... 4
$41 000 50 000......................................................... 5
$51 000 60 000......................................................... 6
$61 000 70 000......................................................... 7
ABOVE $70 000 .......................................................... 8
408
11. Have you ever visited a psychologist or psychiatrist? If so, please briefly outline the reason.
409
Stressful Life Experiences

We are interested in learning about your experiences. Below is a list of experiences that some people have found stressful.
Please fill in the number that best represents how much the following statements describe your experiences. If you are not sure of
your answer, just give us your best guess.
I did not
experience
A little like
my
experiences
Describes
Experience
Somewhat
like my
experiences
10
Exactly like my
experiences
Life Experience
I have witnessed or experienced a natural disaster; like a hurricane or earthquake.
I have witnessed or experienced a human made disaster like a plan crash or industrial disaster.
I have witnessed or experienced a serious accident or injury.
I have witnessed or experienced chemical or radiation exposure happening to me.
I have witnessed or experienced a life threatening illness happening to me, a close friend or a family
member.
I have witnessed or experienced the death of my spouse or child.
I have witnessed or experienced the death of a close friend or family member (other than my spouse or
child).
I or a close friend or family member has been kidnapped or taken hostage.
I or a close friend or family member has been the victim of a terrorist attack or torture.
I have been involved in combat or a war or lived in a war affected area.
I have seen or handled dead bodies other than at a funeral.
I have felt responsible for the serious injury or death of another person.
I have witnessed or been attacked with a weapon in a family setting.
As a child/teen I was hit, spanked, choked or pushed hard enough to cause injury.
As an adult, I was hit, choked or pushed hard enough to cause injury.
As an adult or child, I have witnessed someone else being choked, hit, spanked, or pushed hard
enough to cause injury.
As a child/teen I was forced to have unwanted sexual contact.
As an adult I was forced to have unwanted sexual contact.
As a child or adult I have witnessed someone else being forced to have unwanted sexual contact.
I have witnessed or experienced an extremely stressful event not already mentioned.
Please briefly explain:
410
Aggression Questionnaire
Please circle the number which best indicates how characteristic the following statements are
about you, from1 Extremely Uncharacteristic to 5 Extremely characteristic.
Extremely
Uncharacteristic
Extremely
Characteristic
If somebody hits me, I hit back
I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them
When frustrated, I let my irritation show
There are people who pushed me so far that we

came to blows
I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy
When people annoy me, I may tell them what I

think of them
I am an even tempered person
At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life
Once in a while I cant control the urge to strike

another person
I often find myself disagreeing with people
I flare up quickly but get over it quickly
Some of my friends think Im a hothead
Other people always seem to get the breaks
Given enough provocation, I may hit another

person
I cant help getting into arguments when people

disagree with me
I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about

things
If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I

will
I have trouble controlling my temper
I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a

person
I know that friends talk about me behind my

back
My friends say that Im somewhat argumentative
411
I sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to

explode
Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good

reason
I sometimes feel that people are laughing at

me behind my back
I have become so mad that I have broken

things
I get into fights a little more than the average

person
When people are especially nice, I wonder

what they want
412
Social Problem Solving Inventory - Revised
The following questions look at how you generally think and feel about problems and how you might solve them. In this
questionnaire, a problem is something important in your life that bothers you a lot, but you dont immediately know how to make it
better or stop it from bothering you so much.
The problem could be something about yourself (such as your thoughts, feelings, behaviour, health, or appearance), your
relationships with other people (such as your family, friends, teachers or boss), or your environment and the things you own (such as
your house, car, property or money).
Please read each statement carefully and choose one of the numbers below that best shows how much the statement is true of
you. See yourself as you usually think, act and feel when you are faced with important problems in your life these days.
I feel threatened and afraid when I have an important

problem to solve.
When making decisions, I do not evaluate all my options
carefully enough.
I feel nervous and unsure of myself when I have an
important decision to make.
When my first efforts to solve a problem fail, I get very
frustrated.
When I am faced with a difficult problem, I doubt that I will
be able to solve it on my own no matter how hard I try
Difficult problems make me very upset.
When I have a decision to make I try to predict the positive
and negative consequences of each option.
When I am trying to solve a problem, I go with the first
good idea that comes to mind.
When I have a problem to solve, one of the first things I do
is get as many facts about the problem as possible.
Before I try to solve a problem, I set a specific goal so that I
know exactly what I want to accomplish.
When I have a decision to make, I do not take the time to
consider the pros and cons of each option.
After carrying out a solution to a problem, I try to evaluate
as carefully as possible how much the situation has
changed for the better.
When I am trying to solve a problem, I think of as many
options as possible until I cannot come up with any more
ideas.
When making decisions, I go with my gut feeling without
thinking too much about the consequences of each option.
I am too impulsive when it comes to making decisions.
Not at all
True of Me
Slightly
True of
Me
Moderately
True of Me
Very
True of
Me
Extremely
True of Me
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
413
1. I plan tasks carefully ..

2. I do things without thinking
3. I make up my mind quickly
4. I am happy-go-lucky ..
5. I dont pay attention .
6. I have racing thoughts .
7. I plan trips well ahead of time .
8. I am self-controlled .
9. I concentrate easily ..
10. I save regularly ..
11. I squirm at plays or lectures ...
12. I am a careful thinker
13. I plan for job security
14. I say things without thinking .
15. I like to think about complex problems
16. I change jobs .
17. I act on impulse .
18. I get easily bored when solving thought problems ...
19. I act on the spur of the moment .
20. I am a steady thinker .
21. I change where I live .
22. I buy things on impulse .
23. I can only think about one problem at a time
24. I change hobbies
25. I spend or charge more than I earn
26. I have outside thoughts when thinking .
27. I am more interested in the present than the future ..
28. I am restless at lectures or talks
29. I like puzzles .
30. I plan for the future ...
Almost Always
Often
Occasionally
Directions: People differ in the ways they act and think in different situations.
This is a test to measure some of the ways in which you act and think. Read
each statement carefully and DARKEN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCLE to the right
of the statement. Answer quickly and honestly.
Rarely / Never
Barratt Impulsiveness Scale -11 (Barratt & Patton, 1995)
414
Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982)
INSTRUCTIONS: Put an X for the one correct answer to each question.

COMMENTS
1.
I drink alcohol:
1) _____ never
2) _____ once in a while
3) _____ about once a week
4) _____ more than once a week
5) _____ all the time
2.
My thinking is:
1) _____ good, straight
2) _____ good, but a little mixed-up
3) _____ mixed-up but I can do O.K.
4) _____ mixed-up
5) _____ my head is all mixed-up
3.
I trust:
1) _____ everyone
2) _____ most people
3) _____ some people but not others
4) _____ only my best friends
5) _____ no one
4.
My life is:
1) _____ very interesting
2) _____ interesting
3) _____ both interesting and dull
4) _____ dull
5) _____ always boring and dull
5.
I feel:
1) _____ O.K.
2) _____ a little down, but O.K.
3) _____ sad some of the time
4) _____ sad a lot of the time
5) _____ really sad and depressed
6.
I would use a weapon to rob someone:

1) _____ never
2) _____ almost never
3) _____ maybe
4) _____ would do it
5) _____ have done it and would do it again
7.
I have used drugs:

1) _____ never
2) _____ once or twice
3) _____ some of the time
4) _____ most of the time
8.
I see or hear things that are not there:

1) _____ never
3) _____ more than once or twice
4) _____ often
5) _____ many times
9.
I have told others off:

1) _____ never
3) _____ more than once or twice
4) _____ often
5) _____ many times
10.
I think my future will be:

1) _____ very good
2) _____ pretty good
3) _____ not too bad
4) _____ bad
5) _____ nothing ever went right and nothing ever
will
I speak English and:
1) _____ no other languages
2) _____ 1 or 2 other languages
5) _____ 7 or more other languages
11.
12.
My nerves are:
2) _____ average
3) _____ jumpy but O.K.
4) _____ very poor
5) _____ shot
13.
In school, I have caused trouble:

1) _____ never
3) _____ 3 or 4 times
4) _____ 5 or 6 times
5) _____ more than 7 times
14.
The last time I got into trouble, I had:

1) _____ not been drinking or had not had drugs at
all
2) _____ only had a little
3) _____ had a fair amount
4) _____ had too much
5) _____ had so much I did not know what I was
doing
When I watch a T.V. show, I can understand what is going on:
1) _____ always
2) _____ almost all the time
3) _____ much of the time
5) _____ never
15.
16.
When I was younger, the police picked up:
415
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
_____ none of the my friends

_____ one or two of my friends
_____ some of my friends
_____ most of my friends
_____ all of my friends
17.
Compared to other people, I have:

1) _____ a lot less problems
2) _____ less problems
3) _____ about the same number of problems
4) _____ more problems
5) _____ many more problems
18.
In the future, I will drink alcohol, or take drugs:

1) _____ never
2) _____ once in awhile
3) _____ once a week
4) _____ 2 or 3 times a week
5) _____ more than 3 times a week
19.
Physically, my body and health are:

1) _____ perfect
2) _____ very good
4) _____ not too good
5) ______ poor
20.
The staff in this place are:

1) _____ nice and helpful
2) _____ helpful
3) _____ O.K.
4) _____ not too bad
5) _____ stupid
21.
Most people seem to think I am:

1) _____ a very good person
2) _____ a bit better than others
3) _____ just like everyone else
4) _____ a bit worse than others
5) _____ a very bad person
22.
I believe that drugs have made me think and do:

1) _____ I do not use drugs
2) _____ bad things
3) _____ have no effect on me
4) _____ better things than I usually do
5) _____ very good things
23.
I have trouble remembering the names of my friends:

1) _____ never
416
24.
I have been in gang fights:

1) _____ never
2) _____ never but wish I had
3) _____ once
4) _____ 2 or 3 times
25.
I think I do the best thing:

2) _____ almost all the time
3) _____ much of the time
26.
I have lived in this country and:

1) _____ no other country
2) _____ 1 or 2 other countries
5) _____ 7 or more other countries
27.
I change from happy one minute to sad the next:

1) _____ never
28.
I enjoy fighting:
1) _____ not at all
2) _____ a little
3) _____ some
4) _____ much
5) _____ very much
29.
Most of my friends drink alcohol:

1) _____ never
3) _____ about once a week
4) _____ more than once a week
30.
People I know seem like stranger to me:

1) _____ never
31.
When I think about illegal things I have done, I am:

1) _____ very sorry
2) _____ sorry
417
32.
People seem to like it better when:

1) _____ I talk a lot
2) _____ I talk a little
3) _____ I am there but do not bother them
4) _____ I just listen
5) _____ I am not there
33.
When I think about my problems, I:

1) _____ know they will work out
2) _____ never think about them or have no problems
3) _____ worry a little
4) _____ worry a lot
5) _____ get so scared I feel sick
34.
If someone tried to cheat me, I would:

1) _____ forgive and forget
2) _____ forgive but not forget
3) _____ not forgive them
4) _____ make him sorry
5) _____ make him very sorry
35.
Most of the time I sleep:

1) _____ every night
2) _____ twice a week
3) _____ once a week
4) _____ almost never
5) _____ never
36.
Dreams have made me wake up in the middle of the night:

1) _____ never
3) _____ 3 or 5 times
5) _____ I wake up every night
37.
If someone hit me, I would:

1) _____ I do not know what I would do
2) _____ go away or ask him why he did it
3) _____ hit him once
4) _____ hit him several times
5) _____ beat him up
38.
Most of my best friends use drugs:

1) _____ never
39.
I forget what I was going to say:

1) _____ never
418
40.
I think:
1) _____ all laws are good
2) _____ most laws are good
3) _____ laws are good and bad
4) _____ many laws are bad
5) _____ all laws are bad
41.
When I do things, I do them:

1) _____ very good
2) _____ good
3) _____ better than average
4) _____ average
5) _____ poor
42.
Little things worry me:

1) _____ never
43.
If I hurt someone, I would feel:

1) _____ very bad
2) _____ bad
3) _____ bad but not too bad
4) _____ depends on the person and how it would
feel
5) _____ would not care
44.
When I am drunk or on drugs, I:

1) _____ do not get drunk or take drugs
2) _____ never get into trouble
3) _____ try not to get into trouble
4) _____ sometimes get into trouble
5) _____ always get into trouble
45.
I will be in trouble:
1) _____ never again
2) _____ do not want to be again
3) _____ do not want to be but probably will be
again
4) _____ once or twice more
5) _____ for the rest of my life
46.
The drug I have taken the MOST is:

1) _____ no drugs
2) _____ marijuana or hashish
3) _____ LSD or drugs like LSD
4) _____ speed or drugs like speed
5) _____ heroin or drugs like heroin
47.
I feel sick:
1) _____ never
419
48.
49.
50.
420
I get a kick out of seeing someone put down:

1) _____ never
My life has been:
1) _____ better than most peoples
2) _____ as good as most peoples
3) _____ average
4) _____ as bad as most peoples
5) _____ worse than most peoples
I have carried a weapon on me:
1) _____ never
12. Have you been booked for any offences as a result of driving? If so, please provide brief details.
.
13. Have you been booked for any offences that have not been related to driving? If so, please
provide brief details.
..
.
.
.
.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION SO FAR.

YOU MAY HAVE A SHORT BREAK IF YOU WISH, AND THEN WE SHALL
CONDUCT THE INTERVIEW WHERE YOU WILL BE GIVEN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH AGGRESSIVE
DRIVING.
421
Appendix N:
Interview Protocols Study Three
Stage Two
Protocol for Interviewing
Aggressive Driving Case Studies
Thanks for your continued support of this research project. For the purpose of
this stage of the research you are asked to recall one of your most vivid experiences with
aggressive driving behaviour. During the last 12-18 months you need to have been so
angry on the road that you verbally or physically abused another driver, or you have
been really angry and jumped in your car, driving off to let off steam. As a result of this
action, you must have left your vehicle and verbally or physically abused the other road
user, and/or caused property damage.
Could you tell me about the incident?
Probes:
How were you feeling immediately before the incident?
Had you been drinking or taking recreational drugs prior to this incident?
What feelings did you experience?
Why did you behave the way you did?
Specifically, what was it that prompted your feelings?
Can you describe how you were feeling within your body at the time?
Did you intend to aim your behaviour at the other driver?
Can you recall having any particular thoughts while it was happening?
Can you recall whether anything major or important was happening in

your life at the time of the incident?
422
Have you ever been involved in such an on-road incident before?
Can you recall how the other driver reacted to your behaviour?
Probes:
What went through your mind at this point?

o Did you feel guilty/ or remorseful?
o Did you feel that your actions were justified?
Do you think this incident affected your behaviour once you left the road?
Probes:
How did this affect your behaviour?
Would you consider that your behaviour could be interpreted as aggressive?
_____________________________________________________________________
If you are interested, a follow-up appointment can be made to receive some feedback
concerning the questionnaires you completed earlier.
(obtain participant permission to contact them for follow-up interview)
423
Appendix O:
Advertisement for Recruiting Mens Information and Support Association
Are you a real Hot-head behind the wheel?
Have you ever felt so angry on the roads that you have lashed out
at another driver?
OR
Have you ever felt really angry and jumped in the car and driven off
just to let off steam? AND
Did your actions involve verbally or physically abusing another

driver?
Would you like to earn $$$ for 1 hours of your time, participating in road
safety research about aggressive driving?
If you answered yes to all of these questions, we would like to
talk to you. Please ring 3864 4685 and speak to Sharon from
CARRS-Q, QUT, or leave your first name and contact number
with staff on this number and she will be in touch shortly.
Alternatively, email her on sr.obrien@qut.edu.au.
424
Appendix P:
Participant Consent Package - Study Three
Welcome to the CARRS-Q

Driving Behaviour Research
Dear Participant,
The information gathered via your involvement in this project, will form part of the data
required for completion of the researchers Doctoral thesis. The project is examining
person-related and situational factors that may influence the expression of aggression on
the road. In order to participate, you must hold a current drivers licence and be able to
recall an on-road incident where you were either physically or verbally abusive toward
an unknown driver.
Todays process involves two stages, completion of a series of questionnaires with the
aid of the researcher and an interview. Participants are requested to answer the
questions to the best of their ability. The questionnaires should take approximately
1hour to complete. After a short break, you will be asked to recall one of your most
vivid experiences with aggression on the road. This interview should take
approximately 30 minutes. You will then be financially reimbursed for your time and
travelling expenses to the value of $60.00.
Please note, that information provided by you will be anonymous and treated as strictly
confidential. All records will be maintained in a locked filing cabinet accessible only to
the researcher.
Participation in this research is voluntary and you are free to withdraw from the
study at any time. If the interview questions cause you any discomfort, you are free
to contact QUT Counselling and Health Services, by phoning 3864 4539, who have
been informed about this study as a precaution and will provide counselling
Following the completion of the questionnaires, if you have any queries I can be
contacted on the number above or via email. If you have any concerns about the ethical
conduct of this research please contact the Secretary, University Human Research Ethics
Committee on 3864 4902. The results of the following questionnaires shall be discussed
with you during the next stage of the research, if you are interested.
Yours faithfully,
Sharon OBrien
425
have read the information provided above;
understand that you are able to withdraw from this study at any time without
explanation;
understand that any information you provide will be treated as strictly confidential;
understand that the interview stage of the research shall be taped using a recording
device;
consent to participate in the research described above; and
are aware that you shall be paid $60.00 upon completion of the second stage of the
project (ie., the interview).
Participants Name
Date
426
Appendix Q: Published M and SD Associated with the CPS and BIS-11 Measures
Table Q1
CPS norms for female and male offenders (Carlson, 1982, p. 6)
Age
Chemical
Thought
Antisocial
Abuse
Disturbanc
e
Tendencies
(=.91)
SelfDepreciation
(=.87)
(=.89)
(=.92)
Validity
(=.49)
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
Female
311
20.1
2.7
23.2
6.4
30.4
7.8
32.4
9.2
20.5
4.9
3.55
.81
Male
412
19
3.3
24
7.1
29
8.3
36.3
9.9
20.6
5.4
3.8
1.2
All figures rounded

Table Q2
Descriptive statistics and internal consistency coefficients for total BIS-11 scores on
four samples (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995)
Males
Group
Undergraduates
Substance-abuse Patients
General Psychiatric Patients
Prison Inmates
Females
Total Group
SD
SD
64.94d
10.19
63.32b,c
10.16
63.82b,c
10.17
10.51
69.26
10.28
71.37
12.61
69.00
69.74
11.54
a,b,c
11.86
76.30
10.21
69.78
72.78
Differs significantly from Undergraduates (p<.05)
Differs significantly from Substance Abuse Patients (p<.05)
Differs significantly from General Psychiatry Patients (p<.05)
Differs significantly from Prison Inmates (p<.05)
13.43
SD
427
Table Q3
General population means and standard deviations of the BIS-11 subscales (N = 245)
(Miller, Joseph & Tudway, 2004)
BIS-11 Subscales
SD
Consistency
Coefficient
Motor Impulsivity
22.4
4.46
.70
Non-Planning Impulsivity
24.23
4.99
.72
Cognitive Impulsivity
16.53
3.30
.61
428
Appendix R:
Range of CPS Subscale Scores by Offender Type (Carlson, 1982)
Type 1
Applicable Range of Scores
Chemical Abuse
27-37
Thought Disturbance
20-29
Anti-social Tendencies
30-39
Self-Depreciation
18-24
Validity
3-4
Descriptive Summary
Drug and alcohol abuse is a major characteristic of the group. Although some of
these individuals are concerned about getting into trouble again, they exhibit little
motivation toward bettering themselves. Others deny any drug/alcohol problems and do
not appreciate the severity of their situations, maintaining a matter-of-fact attitude
toward the negative aspects of their past.
This type is generally seen as sociable and friendly, with few apparent hostile
behaviours. However, many have a quick temper that may result in impulsive and
destructive behaviour.
Type 2
Chemical Abuse
13-20
Thought Disturbance
32-35
31-39
Self-Depreciation
18-21
Validity
3-4
Descriptive Summary
These individuals display an array of passive-aggressive features. They are
described as likable and friendly, yet they are also irresponsible, immature and
sometimes hostile. A major problem in the home environment appears to be a lack of
communication and guidance by parents. The individual of this type may have average
429
intelligence and possess good abilities. However, because of poor motivation, their
abilities are not used often for constructive purposes. These individuals also seem to be
sympathetic to the criminal way of life and are usually involved with socially
unacceptable peer groups. They use these gangs to gain recognition and tend to be
followers rather than leaders.
Type 3
Chemical Abuse
24-37
Thought Disturbance
19-30
40-56
Self-Depreciation
12-20
Validity
3-5
Descriptive Summary
These individuals are usually described as immature and rebellious but not
decidedly anti-social. They commonly look for support from their peers and get into
trouble while looking for this approval if they think some anti-social act will be looked
upon with favour. That is, their offences are generally unplanned, impulsive reactions to
situations with little financial gain.
They are restless and, although they may start a project with great enthusiasm,
their interest quickly fades and they are unable to complete a task. At that time, they
may consider themselves confused and in need of assistance but within a few days, they
are involved in a new project. Generally their motivation for change is crisis limited.
Type 4
Chemical Abuse
14-21
Thought Disturbance
21-26
21-34
Self-Depreciation
22-26
Validity
430
Descriptive Summary
A major characteristics of this individual is his severe family problems.
Discipline or the lack of it may be a major contributor to this types criminal activities.
They were considered to be troublemakers at school with attendance being somewhat
irregular. Motivation for achievement is marginal. Immature personality is also
characteristic of this type along with restlessness, foolishness and poor judgement.
Type 5
Chemical Abuse
27-37
Thought Disturbance
32-47
33-56
Self-Depreciation
16-24
Validity
3-5
Descriptive Summary
The individuals of this type are markedly antisocial. Their social adjustment has
been poor, demonstrating difficulties in relating to others. Real contacts are therefore
seldom made. They may on the surface appear as cooperative and charming, however,
beneath this exists characteristics of impulsivity, intolerance, hostility, aggression and
irritational behaviours. Depression is also apparent along with feelings of inferiority and
inappropriate affect. It is thus not uncommon for some of these individuals to entertain
suicidal thoughts.
Type 6
Chemical Abuse
11-22
Thought Disturbance
28-31
22-33
Self-Depreciation
17-24
Validity
3-4
431
Descriptive Summary
A passive-aggressive personality is indicative of this group. They are
cooperative, friendly, relate well with peers, are lacking in ambition and are somewhat
lazy. However, under the influence of alcohol they become belligerent, argumentative
and physically aggressive. Most realize that personal problems exist, yet there is little or
no motivation toward treatment. This group shows no remorse for their offences, often
denying responsibility for what happened.
Type 7
Chemical Abuse
10-25
Thought Disturbance
33-50
20-35
Self-Depreciation
23-33
Validity
3-5
Descriptive Summary
These individuals reflect a disturbed personality and psychiatric treatment is
often recommended. They are immature and emotionally labile. This group is very
dependent on others and desperately need attention and emotional support; at the same
time they drive people away by being so irrational and demanding. Hypochondria is
often present in this type. Somatizations in response to lifes pressures are displayed in
the form of constant recurring pains. Judgement is poor and guidance is needed in order
to control impulses.
Motivation for treatment is low. They accept their behaviour on a
superficial level but recurring troubles may cause them to withdraw and become passive.
They lack purpose or direction of concern and they themselves see little hope for the
future. Their self-image is poor and they suffer from guilt, despair, anxiety, depression
and a confirmed state of mind. Suicide attempts are not uncommon in this type, but
these may only be a means of seeking attention rather than a true attempt at death.
432
Type 8
Chemical Abuse
20-29
Thought Disturbance
22-29
38-46
Self-Depreciation
25-29
Validity
3-4
Descriptive Summary
These individuals are marked by chemical (drug) abuse which may have resulted
in some brain damage. Home life was unsettled with hostility and resentment being
shown toward the father. Poor peer relationships were made which resulted in these
individuals being badly influenced by their associates. Prognosis for the future is poor
as this type lacks responsibility and interest. Recidivism is therefore high for this group.
Type 9
Chemical Abuse
20-24
Thought Disturbance
15-26
20-36
Self-Depreciation
9-20
Validity
3-4
Descriptive Summary
Despite the fact that these individuals come from stable and good home
environments, they do display elements of emotional instabilities. There are apparent
feelings of inferiority and insecurity and there is the tendency to try to impress others
around them. They are somewhat passive, shy, serious minded and cooperative yet they
do display some negative type behaviours such as doing things for no apparent reasons.
There may also be elements of dangerous or hostile behaviour existing. There are also
some guilt feelings displayed over the offence.
433
Type 10
Chemical Abuse
11-22
Thought Disturbance
33-43
20-29
Self-Depreciation
9-22
Validity
4-7
Descriptive Summary
These individuals generally come from a good home environment where there
was lots of family support. Their social adjustment has been good and they are friendly
and cooperative with authorities. There may be a slight degree of pessimism and critical
outlook. However this is likely to be situational.
Type 11
Chemical Abuse
9-19
Thought Disturbance
20-28
35-41
Self-Depreciation
15-24
Validity
3-4
Descriptive Summary
This type generally is described as emotionally passive but having a favourable
long term prognosis. They can be short-tempered but it is usually their impulsivity and
associations with undesirable characters that gets them into trouble. Those of this type
are at times restless and may display some immature and strange behaviour but they
usually they present as pleasant and cooperative individuals.
434
Type 12
Chemical Abuse
25-34
Thought Disturbance
20-33
47-60
Self-Depreciation
21-29
Validity
3-4
Descriptive Summary
Those from this type come from a non-supportive home environment which
resulted in a poor attitude toward the family, especially the father. They were a
discipline problem in school, especially resenting male authority. These individuals
seek affection and attention and a common way of achieving this is through superficial
suicide attempts and temper tantrums.
They tend to be self-righteous in nature, assuming that they are always right and
everyone else is wrong. Elements of immaturity, irresponsibility, non-motivation and
instability are also present.
Type 13
Chemical Abuse
10-19
Thought Disturbance
16-26
19-32
Self-Depreciation
9-20
Validity
3-4
Descriptive Summary
This type presents himself as the victim of circumstances rather than the
offender. He rationalizes the offence and denies any guilt for it, with an excuse ready
for each crime committed. They are self-centered and do not listen to criticism or
advice. Their judgement is faulty and so is their impulse control, making them easy
targets for manipulative peers.
435
Feelings of insecurity, lack of identity, emotional immaturity and dependence are

also characteristics of this type. There is little insight, no ambition toward future goals,
and they are polite, cooperative and sometimes shy and quiet. Many of this type have
difficulties in understanding and directing their sexual desire. Sexual maladjustments
such as homosexuality are apparent in this type.
Type 14
Chemical Abuse
13-25
Thought Disturbance
16-26
20-33
Self-Depreciation
9-20
Validity
5-7
Descriptive Summary
Violence and aggressive behaviour are markedly characteristic of this type of
individual. Under stress, they tend to go into a panic reaction which leads to the
aggressive behaviour toward others as well as themselves. There is little emotional
involvement in the offence and they are quick to rationalize these behaviours to
themselves.
They suffer from a weak, immature personality and there is a serious lack of
foresight or responsibility. There is a history of drug abuse which may have begun as a
result of emotional problems in the past.
Type 15
Chemical Abuse
29-35
Thought Disturbance
42-54
47-60
Self-Depreciation
29-34
Validity
5-7
436
Descriptive Summary
These individuals are described as having inadequate personality disorders. In
some cases there are indications of minimal brain damage. They are irritable, get mad
quickly, are impulsive, irresponsible and their behaviours are difficult to predict. They
have an anxious temperament and there is a nervousness or fear when they are around
people.
Temper tantrums, aggressiveness and some violence are also characteristic of
this type. In reality, this toughness may be just a front as they do suffer from a lack of
self-confidence with feelings of inferiority and insecurity. They find it difficult to adapt
to rules and regulations. There are indications however, that offences are committed so
that they will be arrested and returned to a safe place such as the jail or institution. This
may in part be a result of an unhappy and difficult home life where they were beyond the
control of parents.
Type 16
Chemical Abuse
26-38
Thought Disturbance
34-53
46-60
Self-Depreciation
26-34
Validity
3-4
Descriptive Summary
A negative or dont give a damn attitude is predominant for those of this type.
They do not want or foresee any change nor do they care about themselves or what
happens to them. They are immature, explosive, irresponsible and short tempered
resulting in violent behaviour if provoked. Their belief is that one must establish oneself through muscle power. They are thus contemptuous of others and have little regard
for anyone elses feelings. They identify with a value system of revenge, fighting, and
hate for authority (especially that of males).
They are usually a product of a broken, pathetic and disturbed home situation. There is
also a history of excessive drug and alcohol abuse. These individuals usually lack
insight into their problems and refuse to believe that any do exist, making any type of
treatment difficult.
437
Type 17
Chemical Abuse
26-35
Thought Disturbance
17-31
24-34
Self-Depreciation
9-17
Validity
3-5
Descriptive Summary
Alcohol and drug abuse is predominant for this type. Their home life was
generally stable, although some of these individuals become too dependent on their
families. They are immature, antisocial and lack perseverance in their work.
Type 18
Chemical Abuse
22-24
Thought Disturbance
24-30
33-41
Self-Depreciation
21-24
Validity
3-4
Descriptive Summary
These individuals are usually described as quiet and passive. They feel
uncomfortable around other people and may use drugs or alcohol to be more sociable.
When depressed they will drink excessively. Attempted suicides have been reported for
those in this type. Relationships with teachers, school peers and authority figures are
poor.
Appendix S:
Brief Descriptor of Carlson Psychological Survey Offender Type
Brief Descriptors
Carlson Psychological Profile
(Gavin Palk & Sharon OBrien, 22 Mar 05)
Type
Keyword Descriptor
Poor insight and Substance abuser
Irresponsible
Immature and Rebellious
Immature, troublemaker
Markedly antisocial
Passive-aggressive
Disturbed Personality
Dysfunctional/problematic
Insecure/Inferiority
10
Socially well adjusted
11
Impulsive/Short tempered
12
Self-righteous and Attention seeking
13
Self-centered
14
Violent/Aggressive
15
Inadequate Personality Disorder
16
Negative/Explosive
17
Immature/Substance abuser
18
Depressed
438
439
Appendix T:
Individual Participant Scores on the AQ and SPSI-R and Significance Levels Study Three
Case
Number
Total
AQ
Scorea
Z
Score
Verbal
Aggression
Scoreb
Z
Score
Physical
Aggression
Scorec
Z
Score
Angry
Aggression
Scored
Z
Score
Hostile
Aggression
Scoree
Z
Score
NPO
Scoref
Z
Score
ICS
Scoreg
Z
Score
RPS
Scoreh
Z
Score
50
-.634
-1.44
21
.63
13
.068
-1.79
-.066
1.07
-.216
124
3.17*
25
2.91*
36
2.69*
27
2.86*
36
2.53*
.333
1.07
-1.57
58
-.022
11
-.67
15
-.2
13
.068
19
-.09
-.066
1.07
1.14
110
2.45*
24
2.65*
32
2.14*
22
1.86
32
1.91
.134
2.79*
-1.57
88
1.32
16
.61
27
1.45
19
1.27
26
.98
.134
-.655
1.14
103
2.09*
20
1.63
25
1.18
24
2.26*
34
2.22*
-.066
-.655
2.49*
69
.343
17
.86
20
.49
12
-.132
20
.06
.134
2.79*
1.14
107
2.29*
25
2.91*
28
1.59
26
2.66*
28
1.29
.134
1.07
1.14
86
1.22
25
2.91*
22
.77
23
2.06*
16
-.56
.134
1.07
-.216
10
109
2.4*
20
1.63
34
2.42*
25
2.46*
30
1.60
.134
.256
-.216
*significant at p<.05 (two tailed)

abcdefgh
Individual participant scores compared to the hostile aggressive driver group (n=88) scores: AQ, M=62.32, SD=19.47; Verbal Aggression,
M=13.63, SD=3.91; Physical Aggression, M=16.42, SD=7.23; Angry Aggression, M=12.66, SD=5.01; Hostile aggression, M=19.61, SD=6.49; NPO,
M=5.33, SD=.5; ICS, M=5.38, SD=.58; RPS, M=3.16, SD=.74.
440
Appendix U:
Individual Participant Scores on the BIS-11 and CPS and Significance Levels Study Three
Case
CAa
Z
TDb
Z
ATc
Z
SDd
Z
VALe
Z
BISf
Z
MIg
Z
NPIg
Z
CIg
Z
Number Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Total Score Score Score Score Score Score Score
Score
1
18
-.85
25
-.47
22
-1.45
13
-1.41
.15
87
.90
29
1.48
35
2.16*
23
1.96*
38
1.98*
41
1.46
56
1.99*
24
.65
.98
70
-.53
25
.58
24
-.05
21
1.36
27
.425
34
.62
42
.58
16
-.85
1.80
63
-1.12
20
-.54
23
-.25
20
1.05
33
1.27
46
2.06*
48
1.18
24
.65
2.63*
72
-.36
26
.81
22
-.45
24
2.26*
24
42
1.58
49
1.29
20
-.103
-.68
66
-.87
18
-.99
30
1.16
18
.45
30
.85
36
.86
43
.68
26
1.02
-.68
81
.39
24
.36
34
1.96*
23
1.96*
23
-.142
35
.74
41
.48
24
.65
.15
81
.39
26
.81
35
2.16*
20
1.05
11
-1.84
45
1.94
46
.98
28
1.39
-.68
60
-1.37
24
.36
22
-.45
14
-.77
13
-1.56
37
.98
49
1.29
28
1.39
-.68
75
-.11
27
1.03
26
.36
22
1.66
10
24
.132
38
.97
40
.83
18
-.51
-6.79
72
-.06
26
.81
25
.15
21
1.36
*significant at p<.05 (two tailed)

a
male case studies compared to Male Offenders M=24, SD=7.06 (n=412); female case study compared to Female Offenders M=23.15,
SD=6.42 (n=311) (Carlson, 1982)
b
male case studies compared to Male Offenders M=28.95, SD=8.3 (n=412); female case study compared to Female Offenders M=30.44,
SD=7.83 (n=311) (Carlson, 1982)
c
SD=9.15 (n=311) (Carlson, 1982)
d
SD=4.93 (n=311) (Carlson, 1982)
e
SD=.81 (n=311) (Carlson, 1982)
f
male case studies compared to Male Inmates M=76.3, SD=11.86; female case study compared to Female General
Psychiatric M=72.78, SD=13.43 ( Patton,Stanford & Barratt, 1995)
g
male and female case studies compared to the M and SD of the subscales outlined below (n=245; 108 males, 137 females)
(Miller, Joseph & Tudway, 2004):
BIS Motor Impulsiveness (MI)
M=22.4 SD=4.46
BIS Non-Planning Impulsiveness (NPI)
M=24.23 SD=4.99
BIS Cognitive Impulsiveness (CI)
M=16.23 SD=3.3
441
Appendix V:
Individual Participant Case Studies Study Three
Case One CS1

Whilst driving home after a long, hot day at work, CS1 recalls travelling on the highway.
He had moved into the right-hand lane to overtake a group of slower vehicles when he
drove up behind a female driver travelling in the right-hand lane, at approximately 8590km/h in a 100km zone. CS1 reported that he became so angry with her for blocking his
progress that he accelerated and tapped or nudged the rear of her vehicle. According
to CS1, the woman appeared shocked and quickly pulled over into the left-hand lane. The
incident was not brought to the attention of authorities.
CS1 is 47 years of age and currently undergoing counselling for assaulting his defacto
partner. He has been charged with common assault. He states that this is the first time in
his life he has lashed out physically at a woman. There is no reported history of violence
associated with his previous relationship to his wife of more than 25 years. His wife died a
number of years ago, which when discussed appeared to cause him some emotional
discomfort.
On presentation, CS1 presents as well-dressed and well-spoken. CS1 is quite successful
within the construction industry and earns over $70,000 per year. There is no reported
history of dysfunction within his family of origin. Despite this, he mentioned that as an
adult he has been involved in a number of fights. At school, he did not experience any
difficulties with his education and never got into trouble. He appears to have associated
with a positive peer group. He successfully completed Year 12.
Over the last three years, CS1 has been involved in one road accident and been booked for
speeding once. He owns a four-wheel drive, which he drives most often on highways/open
road in heavy traffic. CS1 has been driving for over 20 years. He covers considerable
distances for work purposes, driving approximately 1620 hours per week. He did not
report drink or drug driving in the last three years and further reported that it would be not
at all likely that he would do so.
CS1s scores on the total AQ (z=-.634), verbal aggression (z=-1.44), physical aggression
(z=.63), angry aggression (z=.068) and hostile aggression (z=-1.79) subscales were not
significantly different (p>.05) from the mean response for the previously identified hostile
aggressive drivers*. Further, his scores on the SPSI-R subscales, NPO (z=.066, p>.05),
ICS (z=1.07, p>.05) and RPS (z=1.216, p>.05) did not significantly differ from the hostile
aggressive driver group*. These results suggest that CS1s trait aggression and social
problem solving scores are consistent with those drivers previously identified as hostile
aggressive.
442
CS1s total score on the BIS-11 (z=.90, p>.05) did not significantly differ from the
previously published mean for male inmates (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995)*.
However, his scores on non-planning-impulsivity (z=2.16, p<.05) and attentionalimpulsivity (z=1.96, p<.05) were significantly higher than the mean published for a general
population (n=245) (Miller, Joseph & Tudway, 2004)*. He did not score significantly
differently from this group on motor-impulsivity (z=1.48, p>.05)*.
Interestingly, CS1s scores on the CPS subscales did not differ significantly from the
previously published mean for an incarcerated sample (n=412) (Carlson, 1982): CA (z=.85, p>.05); TD (z=-.47, p>.05); AT (z=-1.45, p>.05); SD (z=-1.41, p>.05); and, VAL
(z=.15, p>.05)*. When CS1s total score for each subscale were plotted, the profile best fit
the classification of: Type 13 self-centred. See Appendix R for a brief description of
type.
443
Case Two CS2

Driving in a built up area, CS2 says the vehicle travelling beside him changed lanes
suddenly, cutting him off. CS2 responded to this by gesticulating at the driver. In turn,
profanities were exchanged. The other driver indicated for CS2 to pull over. Both drivers
stopped and got out of their vehicles. They approached each other. Before the other driver
was able to speak, CS2 punched him once. The other driver went down and did not get up.
CS2 returned to his vehicle and drove off. He later realised that he had broken his knuckle
when he struck the other driver. CS2 heard nothing more about the incident.
CS2 is 39 years of age and has recently separated from his partner. He was born in New
Zealand, moving to Australia in his early teens. He works in the construction industry and
earns approximately $45,000 per year. He is currently attending counselling re his recent
separation and associated anger issues. He is also taking medication for depression.
CS2 outlined a troubled childhood during the interview. He described his childhood home
as a combat zone. His father regularly physically and verbally abused him. Further, he
had a detached relationship with his alcoholic mother. However, he enjoyed a close,
fatherly relationship with his grandfather. As a consequence of his troubled home life, he
repeatedly ran away from home and was eventually placed in a boys home. During his
childhood, CS2s peer group often came to the attention of the police. He also reports
having caused considerable trouble at school. He left school in Year 10. CS2s
involvement with negative peer groups continued into his early adulthood. He states that
he was involved in gangs in New Zealand and after coming to Australia. Whilst involved
in these groups, CS2 says he was involved in multiple fights.
CS2 openly admits to being a heavy drinker, even though he claims to have been dry for
the past six weeks. He also admits to being involved in many fights in the pub scene. He
indicated that it would be extremely likely that he would drink and drive. He also
indicated it would be moderately likely that he would drive under the influence of drugs.
As a self-confessed car enthusiast, CS2 drives a medium sized vehicle most frequently. He
drives for approximately 1115 hours per week on highways/open road in medium density
traffic.
In the past three years, CS2 has been involved in two road crashes. He has also been fined
for driving without a valid licence. Prior to this period, he has been charged for drinkdriving on three occasions. He has been advised that next time he will receive a jail
sentence and lose his licence for life. He has also been previously charged with dangerous
use of a motor vehicle, driving uninsured, failing to stop during a police chase,
hooning, driving with his arm out the window, failure to wear a seat belt and
excessive noise (caused by his muffler modifications). In the off-road context, CS2 has
been charged with breaking and entering, assault and vandalism.
444
During the course of the interview, CS2 repeatedly demonstrated difficulty identifying and
expressing his emotions. He also showed signs of dissociation. Specifically, he described
an incident where his ex-partner had stabbed him with a kitchen fork, to which he calmly
responded, what are you doing?. He stated that it did not hurt. Additionally, he did not
realise that he had injured himself during the course of the road altercation until some hours
later. Additionally, when asked his thoughts and feelings associated with the above onroad incident, he was unable to identify the emotions he experienced. When asked how he
felt as he approached the other driver, he stated that his only thought was to get him
before he gets me. He also commented that the behaviour he adopted during the incident
was normal to him.
CS2 scored significantly higher on total AQ (z=3.17, p<.05), verbal aggression (z=2.69,
p<.05), physical aggression (z=2.91, p<.05), angry aggression (z=2.86, p<.05) and hostile
aggression (z=2.53, p<.05) than the previously identified hostile aggressive driver group*.
These results would suggest that CS2 has considerably high levels of trait aggression.
Considering his developmental history, this result is not that surprising.
CS2s scores on the SPSI-R subscales did not significantly differ from those reported by
the hostile aggressive driver group*: NPO (z=-.066, p>.05); ICS (z=1.07, p>.05); and
RPS (z=-.216, p>.05). The results suggest that his problem-solving style is consistent with
other hostile aggressive drivers.
CS2s total score on the BIS-11 was not significantly different from the comparison mean
for an inmate group (z=.90, p>.05) *. However, nor were his scores on the individual
subscales different from the general population*: motor-impulsivity (z=1.48, p>.05); nonplanning impulsivity (z=-.05, p>.05); and attentional-impulsivity (z=1.36, p>.05).
Consequently, it appears that CS2s aggression appears to be emotionally and trait based,
rather than stemming from impulsivity.
On two of the CPS subscales, CS2 scored significantly higher than mean of the comparison
group, i.e. incarcerated individuals *: CA (z=1.98, p<.05) and AT (z=1.99, p<.05). This
would suggest that CS2 experiences considerable difficulty with chemical abuse, namely
alcohol, and that he has persistent anti-social tendencies. CS2s total scores for each
subscale were plotted and the resultant profile best fit the classification of: Type 5
markedly anti-social. See Appendix R for a brief description of type.
445
Case Three CS3

Driving on a busy, dual carriage road, CS3 was cut off by a driver. He responded by
beeping his horn and the driver, in turn, gave him the finger. Further down the road, the
other driver repeatedly sped up attempting to cut CS3 off. Stopped by a red light at the
next intersection, CS3 got out of his vehicle and approached the driver. At this point, he
states, he was ready for action The other driver wound up his window and CS3 began to
bash on the window. The other driver proceeded to drive through a red light. The incident
was not reported.
CS3 is a 55-year-old divorcee. Although he is currently unemployed due to a disability, he

participates in volunteer community services. In the past CS3 attended counselling for an
accident he was involved in. However, he is not currently in counselling.
Whilst growing up, CS3 recalls that his parents were constantly verbally and physically
abusive toward one another. Both parents were alcoholics. Occasionally, he would
become involved in the physical abuse in his attempt to protect his mother. CS3 recalls
having caused a moderate amount of trouble at school. However, it should be noted that he
spent the minimum amount of time at school, leaving after primary school. As a young
person, several of his friends attracted the attention of the police. He also says that as a
young adult he was involved in many bar fights and one gang fight.
CS3 drives a small vehicle for approximately 1115 hours per week. He most frequently
drives on city/town roads in medium density traffic. In the last three years, CS3 has been
fined twice for speeding. Prior to this period, he has received several speeding fines,
charged with running a red light and overtaking on double lines. Although, he had
admits to having been a heavy drinker in the past, he now drinks significantly less. He
states that these days it would be not at all likely he would drink or drug drive.
At the time of the above incident, CS3 states he was under considerable stress due to his
separation from his wife of 29 years. When discussing the above incident he stated that, in
general, he was not a patient driver.
CS3s scores on the AQ did not differ significantly from the previously identified hostile
aggressive driver group*: total AQ (z=-.022, p>.05); verbal aggression (z=-.67, p>.05);
physical aggression (z=-.2, p>.05); angry aggression (z=.068, p>.05); and hostile
aggression (z=-.09, p>.05). Nor, did his scores on the SPSI-R subscales differ from this
group: NPO (z=-.066, p>.05); ICS (z=1.07, p>.05); and RPS (z=1.14, p>.05). As such, it
appears that CS3 has similar trait aggression and social problem solving skills to other
hostile aggressive drivers.
446
Further, his total BIS-11 score was not significantly different from the mean for an inmate
population * (z=-1.12, p>.05). His individual subscale scores also failed to be significantly
different from the general population*: motor-impulsivity (z=-.54, p>.05); non-planning
impulsivity (z=-.25, p>.05); and attentional-impulsivity (z=1.05, p>.05). Consequently,
CS3 appears to have similar levels of impulsivity to the general population. Therefore, his
driving anger appears to be sourced by his trait aggression. Such a suggestion is consistent
with his developmental history.
CS3s scores on the CPS subscales, were not significantly different from the means for an
inmate population*: CA (z=.425, p>.05); TD (z=.62, p>.05); AT (z=.58, p>.05); SD (z=.85, p>.05); and VAL (z=1.8, p>.05). CS3s total scores for each subscale were plotted
and the resultant profile best fit the classification of: Type 5 markedly anti-social. See
Appendix R for a brief description of type.
447
Case Four - CS4

CS4 was driving along a main road in a built-up area when he began to slow down for a red
light. A driver travelling in the parallel lane had realised that he was in the wrong lane and
reportedly cut him off, coming to a stop in front of him. CS4 became so angry with the
driver that he yelled abuse. The other driver responded with a hand gesture, which seemed
to exacerbate the situation. As a result, CS4 left the vehicle running and approached the
other drivers vehicle on foot. A series of brief profanities were exchanged through the
driver-side window. As a result, CS4 punched the driver through the open window and
yelled at the driver to get out of his vehicle. The other driver wound up the window and
drove off quickly, through a red light. The incident was not brought to the attention of
authorities.
CS4 is 30 years of age and currently living in a defacto relationship. He is currently

undergoing anger-management training as a result of relationship difficulties. CS4 is
currently unemployed and receives a social security benefit.
CS4s background is complex. His parents were strict and quite religious. CS4 reports that
when he was young he was sexually abused by his Sunday School teacher. CS4 says that
when he tried to tell his parents about it, they refused to believe him. Subsequently, CS4s
life became more complicated. He caused considerable trouble at school and completed
Year 10 with minimal grades. Shortly after leaving school, he became involved in a
skinhead (neo-nazi) gang. Further, his best friend, to whom he was very close, died in a
car accident at 16 years of age.
At the age of 17, CS4 was imprisoned for 11 years for the attempted murder of his parents.
In addition to being charged with two counts of attempted murder, he was charged with
two counts of arson. CS4 continued to have difficulties in prison. He was reportedly
raped whilst serving his sentence. Whilst in prison, he received counselling for the
childhood abuse and for the rape. He states that he was also diagnosed with Dissociative
Identity Disorder (DID).
Due to his period of incarceration, CS4s driving experience has been limited i.e. only 3
years. He owns a large vehicle which he drives approximately 1015 hours per week. He
most frequently drives on city/town roads in medium density traffic. In the last two years
since his release, he has faced one charge of unlicensed driving and been involved in one
road crash. When asked how likely he would be to drink and drive, CS4 did not rule out
the possibility. It should be noted that he had been drinking prior to the aggressive driving
incident cited above. He stated that he was half way through his third stubby. He
reported that it would be not at all likely that he would drive under the influence of drugs.
CS4s score on the total AQ, verbal aggression subscale and physical aggression subscale
were significantly higher than the mean of the hostile aggressive driver group*: z=2.45,
p<.05; z=2.65, p<.05; and z=2.14, p<.05 respectively. However, his scores on the angry
aggression and hostile aggression subscales were not significantly different from the hostile
448
driver group: z=1.86, p>.05 and z=1.91, p>.05. Also, his scores on the NPO and RPS
subscales of the SPSI-R were not significantly different from hostile aggressive driver
group: (z=.134, p>.05) and (z=-1.57, p>.05). However, he scored significantly higher than
this group on ICS (z=2.79, p<.05). These results would suggest that CS4 has high levels of
trait aggression, accompanied by an impulsive/careless style of problem solving.
Consequently, in the face of direct or perceived provocation, CS4 may be predisposed to
respond in an impulsive manner. This suggestion is consistent with his score on
attentional-impulsivity of the BIS-11. CS4s score on attentional-impulsivity was
significantly higher than the mean for the general population* (z=2.26, p<.05). His motor
impulsivity and non-planning impulsivity scores were not significantly different from this
group: z=.81, p>.05 and z=-.45, p>.05.
CS4s scores on the CA, AT, and SD subscales of the CPS did not significantly differ from
the mean for an incarcerated population*: CA (z=1.27, p>.05); AT (z=1.18, p>.05); and
SD (z=.65, p>.05). However, his scores on TD and VAL score did differ significantly*:
z=2.06, p<.05; and z=2.63, p<.05. These results would suggest that CS4 has similar
chemical abuse, anti-social tendencies and self-deprecation levels as other incarcerated
individuals. However, he has significantly higher levels of thought disturbance, consistent
with the reported diagnosis of DID. His inflated VAL score would suggest that he failed to
maintain an appropriate mind-set during the administration of the CPS. As Carlson (1982)
would suggest, perhaps CS4 became careless, facetious whilst answering the questions.
Alternatively, he did not understand the questions (Carlson, 1982). Indeed, the latter may
be a more appropriate evaluation of the situation, as a number of questions needed to be
restated and at times explained further, in order for him to respond.
When CS4s total score for each subscale were plotted, the profile best fit the classification
of: Type 5 markedly anti-social. See Appendix R for a brief description of type.
449
Case Five CS5

Driving in the right-hand lane of a dual carriage road, CS5 noticed a car speeding towards
him in his rear view mirror. The vehicle then continued to follow him very closely. The
vehicle eventually passed and turned-off into a side road soon after. At this point, CS5
decided to follow the vehicle. The side road had multiple traffic slowing islands, causing
the driver of the other vehicle to drive slowly. Having noticed that CS5 was following him,
the driver stopped at the second island and got out of his vehicle. CS5 stopped his vehicle,
grabbing his club lock. Profanities were exchanged and CS5 proceeded to use the club
lock on the other drivers bonnet, windscreen, side door and side mirror. The other driver,
quickly jumped into his vehicle and sped off. No charges were laid as a result of this
incident.
CS5 is a 44 year old, married, security guard. He earns approximately $45,000 per year.
During the course of his life, CS5 has been actively involved in many different lines of
work (e.g. military service, construction and volunteer fire fighters). In the past CS5 has
been counselled for severe depression. He is not currently in counselling.
CS5 had a difficult childhood. His mother and father were alcoholics and he frequently
observed violence in the family home. Further, his father physically abused him. CS5 was
once hospitalised as a result of the abuse. He became involved with a negative peer group.
Some of his friends were picked up by the police and he became involved in a gang
which was frequently involved in fights. He stated that he was frequently in trouble at
school for his conduct and, during that time, had no respect for authority or the law. He
frequently skipped school. Despite this, he completed Year 10. During the interview,
CS5 stated, that as a young person he was always right. He also claimed to be
emotionally reactive his whole life.
CS5 currently drives a medium sized vehicle which he drives for approximately 1115
hours per week. He drives most often on city/town roads in medium density traffic. In the
last three years, CS5 has not been involved in any road crashes. During this same period he
has been booked once for speeding. Asked if how likely it would be that he would drink or
drug drive, he did not rule out the possibility of drink-driving.
CS5 has had many driving and other charges during his life. As an adult, he has been
charged with unlicensed driving, drink-driving, multiple counts of speeding, unlawful
right hand turns and passing a vehicle on the inside. Off-road charges include breaking
and entering, multiple counts of theft, assault and seriously affronting. He claims that
all of these charges were incurred between 14 and 17 years of age.
CS5s scores on the total AQ and its subscales did not differ significantly from the hostile
aggressive driver group*: total AQ, z=1.32, p>.05; verbal aggression, z=.61, p>.05;
physical aggression, z=1.45, p>.05; angry aggression, z=1.27, p>.05; and hostile
aggression, z=.98, p>.05. His scores on the SPSI-R subscales did not significantly differ
from the hostile aggressive group: NPO, z=.134, p>.05; ICS, z=-.65, p>.05; and RPS,
450
z=1.14, p>.05. Therefore, his trait aggression levels and social problem-solving style are
consistent with other hostile aggressive drivers.
His BIS-11 total score was not significantly different from an incarcerated comparison
group*, z=-.87, p>.05. Also, his scores on the BIS-11 subscales were not significantly
different from the general population*: motor-impulsivity (z=-.99, p>.05), non-planning
impulsivity (z=1.16, p>.05) and attentional impulsivity (z=.45, p>.05). Consequently,
CS5s aggression appears to be sourced from trait aggression and less by impulsivity.
Examination of CS5s scores on the CPS subscales, revealed no significant difference when
compared to the inmate means for the subscales*: CA,(z=0, p>.05); TD (z=1.58, p>.05);
AT (z=1.29, p>.05); SD, (z=-1.03, p>.05); and VAL, (z=-.68, p>.05). When plotted,
CS5s profile best fit the classification of: Type 5 markedly anti-social. Although, it
should be noted that his score for chemical abuse (x=24) fell slightly short of the range of
scores normally associated with this type (i.e. 27 to 38). See Appendix R for a brief
description of type.
451
Case Six CS6

CS6 was travelling down the left-hand lane of the highway at approximately 90km, when
the driver of a utility truck appeared to come out of nowhere. CS6 reported that the other
driver drove extremely close to the rear of his vehicle for the next kilometre. He also stated
that as he was in the left-hand lane and the driver had adequate opportunity to overtake
him. CS6 became extremely angry with the driver and decided to brake heavily, causing
the other driver to collide with the rear of his vehicle at approximately 90km. Both
remained on the road and continued driving for a short time. CS6 then pulled over and the
driver of the other vehicle kept going. Consequently, CS6 got back into the vehicle and
followed him.
Eventually, the other driver pulled over to the side of the road and CS6 pulled over 50
metres behind him. Profanities were exchanged and the other driver climbed back into his
vehicle and drove off. After recording the details of the vehicle, CS6 pursued him for some
time before losing him. He then went straight to the police station and reported the incident
for insurance purposes.
CS6 is 29 years of age and married. He earns approximately $36,000 per year. Although
not currently in counselling, CS6 has previously attended counselling for marital
difficulties and job related stress.
Whilst growing up CS6, his siblings and mother, were physically abused by his alcoholic
father. He also reported that his father had essentially taken the family hostage one time.
Consequently, he describes his childhood home as disruptive. He reported that he had
caused trouble at school a number of times and most of his peers came to the attention of
the police. Despite his difficult background, CS6 successfully completed a certificate level
course at TAFE and has gained responsible positions e.g. Council parking officer.
CS6 currently drives a small car. He reportedly drives most frequently on city/town road in
heavy traffic for 610 hours per week. In the past three years, CS6 has been involved in
three road crashes. He has not been charged with any traffic-related offences in the last
three years. However, prior to this period he was charged on three separate occasions with
speeding and red light running. CS6 has no history of other, off-road charges against him.
Interestingly, CS6 reported that he would be moderately likely to drive under the influence
of alcohol and/or drugs. It should be noted that CS6 had been drinking at the time of the
above incident.
CS6s scores on the total AQ, angry aggression and hostile aggression subscales were found
to be significantly higher than the hostile aggressive driver group*: total AQ, (z=2.09,
p<.05); angry aggression (z=2.26, p<.05); and hostile aggression (z=2.22, p<.05). He also
scored significantly higher on the RPS subscale of the SPSI-R, than this group (z=2.49,
p<.05). Thus these results would suggest that CS6 has considerably high levels of trait
aggression, particularly angry and hostile aggression. Despite this, he has a higher degree
of rational problem solving than most hostile aggressive drivers.
452
CS6s total BIS-11 score did not differ significantly from the mean of the comparison
group* (i.e. an inmate population) (z=.39, p>.05). Further, he scored significantly higher
than the general population* on non-planning impulsivity (z=.65, p>.05) and attentional
impulsivity (z=.65, p>.05). Therefore, these results suggest that CS6 has some difficulty
with impulsivity.
His CPS subscale scores were not significantly different from the mean for the incarcerated
group*: CA (z=.85, p>.05); TD (z=.86, p>.05); AT (z=.68, p>.05); SD (z=1.02, p>.05);
and VAL (z=-.68, p>.05). Profiling of CS6s total score for each subscale resulted in a
profile that best fit the classification of: Type 16 negative/explosive. See Appendix R
for a brief description of type. However, it should be noted that his score on anti-social
tendencies (x=43) was outside of the range for this type (i.e. 46 and above).
453
Case Seven CS7

CS7 was driving a truck through a heavily built up area when he noticed a sedan that was
speeding up behind him and cutting in and out of traffic. The vehicle came alongside of
him and indicated to cut in front of him. However, a set of lights turned red and the other
driver was forced to slow down and pull in behind his truck. At this point, CS7 was so
annoyed that he got out of his vehicle and walked back to the other drivers vehicle.
Profanities were exchanged whilst the other driver also got out of his vehicle. CS7 struck
the other driver and a fist-fight ensued. Several other drivers who witnessed the incident
got out of their vehicles and pulled them apart. Shortly afterwards, several police cars
arrived. No charges were laid.
CS7 is a 46 year old, professional truck driver. He earns over $70,000 per year. CS7 is
currently attending counselling after recently separating from his wife of 23 years. In the
past, CS7 has attended counselling for an attempted suicide. CS7 was born and raised for
much of his childhood in New Zealand. He is of Maori descent.
As a youth, CS7 has a difficult relationship with his mother. As the disciplinarian in the
family, CS7s mother physically abused the children. CS7s relationship with his father
was estranged. CS7 successfully completed Year 10. He also stated that he got into a little
trouble at school. During the interview, it was noted that CS7 had also suffered great loss
during his early adulthood. His mother, sister and a close friend died within one year of
each other.
Due to his profession as a truck driver, CS7 drives on all types of roads, in varying levels
of traffic density. CS7 drives more than 20 hours per week. In the past three years, he has
not been involved in any road accidents. During this same period, he has been booked
twice for speeding. Although, CS7 has lost count of the number of speeding fines he has
received over the years. Due to his profession as a truck driver, CS7 stated that it would be
not at all likely he would ever drink or drug drive. However, CS7 does drink socially.
CS7s scores on the AQ were not significantly different from the previously identified
hostile aggressive driver group*: total AQ, z=.343, p>.05; verbal aggression, z=.86,
p>.05; physical aggression, z=.49, p>.05; angry aggression, z=-.132, p>.05; and hostile
aggression, z=.06, p>.05. His ICS score was also significantly higher than the mean for the
hostile aggressive diver group (z=2.79, p<.05). Therefore, these results suggest that CS7
has reasonably high levels of trait aggression and high levels of impulsive/careless problem
solving style.
CS7s scores on the CPS subscales did not differ significantly from the mean of the
comparison group of inmates*: CA (z=.-.14, p>.05); TD (z=.74, p>.05); AT (z=.48,
p>.05); SD (z=.65, p>.05); and VAL (z=.15, p>.05). Plotting of the subscale total scores
resulted in a profile that best fit the classification of: Type 5 markedly antisocial. See
Appendix R for a brief description of type. Although, it should be noted that his chemical
abuse score (x=23) was outside of the range for this type (i.e. 27 to 38). However, his
lower score would be consistent with the need to maintain sobriety for the purpose of
driving professionally.
454
Case Eight CS8

CS8 and his partner were driving along a main road with businesses either side. A four
wheel drive, coming off private property, pulled out in front of his vehicle with little room
to spare. CS8 states that he had to jump on his brakes to avoid hitting him. Further up
the road, he and the other driver were stopped at a red light. At this point, CS8 got out of
his vehicle and approached the driver of the four wheel drive. He states that he leaned on
the driver side mirror of the vehicle and profanities were exchanged for a while. The other
driver shook his fist at him, and in response CS8 started to wriggle his side mirror from
side to side. The other driver opened his driver-side door in order to get out. At this time,
CS8, forced the door shut, jamming the drivers hand in the door. The lights turned green
and the other driver drove off.
The other driver reported the incident to the police and CS8 has been charged with wilful
damage of the four wheel drive. The damage is valued at $1000. The court case is
pending.
CS8 is 50 years of age and currently living in a defacto relationship. He is currently

unemployed but is a chef by trade. CS8 is currently attending counselling for depression
and financial problems. He reported that in the past he has attended counselling for
depression and fatigue.
As a youth, CS8 reported being repeatedly physically abused by his alcoholic father. He
reported having caused considerable trouble at school and association with a less than
positive peer group. Some of his peers came to the attention of the police for reasons
unspecified, and two of his close friends committed suicide in their teens. He successfully
completed Year 10. CS8 reported having been a heavy drinker in the past and maintains
that he no longer drinks. It was noted that CS8 was slightly evasive with his responses to
questions relating to alcohol consumption or drink-driving.
CS8 drives a medium sized vehicle and reportedly drives most frequently on city/town road
in medium density traffic. He drives approximately 1620 hours per week. CS8 reported
that he had not been involved in any road crashes, or received any speeding or drinkdriving fines in the past three years. However, during this same period, he had been fined
with driving an unregistered vehicle. He reported that it would be not at all likely that
he would drink or drug drive. Interestingly, prior to this period he had been fined for
drink-driving and drink-driving whilst disqualified. As a youth he was also charged
with theft of a motor vehicle and more recently he was charged with wilful damage to
property as outlined in the case above.
At the time of the aggressive driving incident outlined above, CS8 states that he had been
under considerable stress and strain associated with his partners young daughter. Further,
his partner was travelling with him at the time and was quite hysterical about her
daughters situation.
455
CS8s scores on total AQ, verbal aggression and angry aggression were significantly higher
than the means for the hostile aggressive driver group*: total AQ (z=2.29, p<.05); verbal
aggression (z=2.91, p<.05); and angry aggression (z=2.66, p<.05). His SPSI-R subscale
(NPO, ICS and RPS) scores did not differ significantly from the hostile aggressive group*.
Therefore, the results suggest CS8 has considerably high levels of trait aggression,
particularly verbal and angry aggression.
His total BIS-11 score was not significantly different from the mean for an incarcerated
group* (z=-1.37, p>.05). Also, his BIS-11 subscale scores were not significantly different
from the general population*: motor impulsivity (z=.36, p>.05); non-planning impulsivity
(z=-.45, p>.05); and attentional impulsivity
(z=-.77, p>.05).
On the CPS subscales CS8s scores did not differ significantly from the mean of the inmate
group*: CA (z=-1.84, p>.05); TD (z=1.94, p>.05); AT (z=.98, p>.05); SD (z=1.39,
p>.05); and VAL (z=-.68, p>.05). Profiling of CS8s total score for each subscale resulted
in a profile that best fit the classification of: Type 16 negative/explosive. See
Appendix R for a brief description of type. However, it should be noted that his score on
chemical abuse (x=11) is considerably below the range for this type (i.e. 26-37). However,
he has openly stated that he does not indulge in alcohol as much as he used to.
456
Case Nine CS9

CS9 was driving to the vet with his dog, when a car reversed out off commercial premises
in front of him. He was forced to brake heavily and flashed his lights at the other driver.
The other driver responded with the finger. At the next set of lights the other driver
turned off. At this point, CS9 decided to follow him. The other driver lived in the street
and pulled into his driveway. CS9 pulled up in front of his home. Both drivers got out of
their vehicles and started exchanging profanities. CS9 claims that the other driver tapped
him behind the ear first. In response, CS9 hit the other driver. The other driver went over
the fence and struck his head on the concrete. CS9 returned to his vehicle and drove off.
CS9 was later advised that an ambulance was called to the address. The other driver was
hospitalised for approximately 24 hours. Witnesses provided the authorities with CS9s
registration details. When he became aware that the police were looking for him, he
approached them of his own volition. He was subsequently charged with actual bodily
harm. The Court instructed that he complete 150 hours community service for this
offence and attend counselling for his anger.
CS9 is 52 years old and living in a defacto relationship. He currently earns approximately
$15,000 per year. CS9 is currently attending court order counselling as outlined above. He
states that his family doctor has diagnosed him with late onset ADHD and depression.
He is currently taking medication for both disorders.
Whilst growing up, CS9 enjoyed a relatively close relationship with his mother and father.
He describes his, recently deceased father as a chronic hypochondriac. As a teen, he says
he was involved in a number of fights. During his adulthood he also states that he was
involved in pub fights. He readily admits to having been a heavy drinker, prior to his
diagnosis with cancer. As a result of treatment for the cancer, CS9 claims he suffered
severe damage to his kidneys. Hence, he does not drink anymore. At one time, he claims
he was raped by a male, whilst he was extremely drunk.
At school he caused considerable trouble and he describes the peer group of his youth as
either dead or in jail. Despite this he completed Year 12 and went on to complete a
TAFE certificate.
CS9 currently drives a medium sized car, 610 hours per week. He most often drives on
highways or open road in medium density traffic. In the past three years, CS9 has not been
fined for speeding, drink-driving or unlicensed driving. However, he has been charged
with actual bodily harm as outlined in the above aggressive driving incident. Prior to this
period, he has incurred an unspecified number of speeding fines, been charged three times
for drink-driving and once for driving whilst disqualified. As an adolescent, he was
charged with criminal damage, assault and shoplifting.
At the time of the above incident, CS9 says that he was under considerable stress, as he was
in the middle of moving house. He also claims that his behaviour may have been due to the
457
fact that he had not taken his medication over the preceding 36 hours. In addition, he had
consumed a bottle of wine the evening beforehand. He described that he was feeling quite
seedy at the time. During the interview, CS9 was observed to have difficulty recalling
the thoughts he had whilst the incident was in play. When asked if he felt guilty or
remorseful about his behaviour he stated no, I should have killed him. Also, he stated
that he regretted being caught and that next time he will cover his number plate with a
hankie before he takes such action.
Although CS9s total AQ score, physical aggression and hostile aggression scores did not
differ significantly from the previously identified hostile aggressive driver group*, his
verbal aggression and angry aggression subscale scores did differ significantly (z=2.91,
p<.05 and z=2.06, p<.05 respectively). On both scales scored significantly higher than the
mean for the hostile group. His scores on the SPSI-R subscales were not significantly
different from the means for the hostile group: NPO (z=.14, p>.05); ICS (z=1.07, p>.05);
and RPS (z=-.216, p>.05). In general, these results suggest that CS9s trait aggression
levels are quite high, particularly for verbal and angry aggression.
CS9s total BIS-11 score did not differ significantly from the mean for the comparison
group of inmates* (z=-.11, p>.05). Comparison of his BIS-11 subscale scores with the
means for a general population* did not yield a significant difference:
motor-impulsivity (z=1.03, p>.05); non-planning impulsivity (z=.36, p>.05); and,
attentional-impulsivity (z=1.66, p>.05). These latter results were a little surprising in light
of CS9s reported diagnosis of ADHD. However, perhaps the administration of medication
has confounded these particular results.
All of CS9s CPS subscale scores did not significantly differ from the mean for the inmate
comparison group*: CA (z=-1.56, p>.05); TD (z=.98, p>.05); AT (z=1.29, p>.05); SD
(z=1.39, p>.05); and VAL (z=-.68, p>.05). CS9s total score for each of these subscales
were plotted, and the resultant profile best fit the classification of: Type 5 markedly
anti-social. See Appendix R for a brief description of type. It should be noted that CS9s
chemical abuse score (x=13) falls below the range for this subscale. However, he admits to
having been a heavy drinker, but now he has a reduced capacity to do so due to kidney
damage.
458
Case Ten CS10

CS10 and three friends were returning from late-night shopping one evening, when a
vehicle came up behind them with its lights on highbeam. She states that the vehicle was
also driving fairly close to her bumper and appeared to be following her. In response,
CS10 repeatedly braked. She states that the vehicle stopped following them, at which time
she decided to pursue them. She followed the vehicle until they were both stopped at a red
light. At this point, CS10 took a large, metal torch from her vehicle and approached the
vehicle on foot. The female driver of the other vehicle wound up her window as CS10
proceeded to verbally abuse her and ask her why she had been following them. CS10
became so frustrated and angry that she smashed the side mirror off the vehicle with her
torch. When CS10 had returned to her car, the woman got out of her vehicle and recorded
her number plate.
CS10 found out later that one of the backseat passengers in her vehicle had flicked a lit
cigarette out the window onto the womans vehicle. CS10 speculated that perhaps that is
why she was driving closely.
CS10 is 24 years of age and currently living in a defacto relationship. She is currently
employed and earns approximately $35,000 per year.
Although CS10 is not currently in counselling, she has had counselling in the past and has
been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder for which she is currently taking medication. CS10
states that she often feels very angry and depressed. During the interview, she
appeared to be rather heavily medicated, demonstrating slow speech and difficulty recalling
her thoughts and feelings concerning major life events. In addition, she reported having
difficulty removing the above incident from her thoughts. She stated that she kept going
over it in her mind and that it ruined the rest of her day.
CS10 had a difficult childhood. Her mother and father were both alcoholics and she
frequently witnessed physical violence between them. She, also, was physically abused by
her father. Although CS10 completed Year 12, she reported that she was repeatedly in
trouble at school. She also reported that some of her peers were picked up by police.
CS10 currently drives a medium sized vehicle, which she most frequently drives on
city/town road in medium density traffic. She drives approximately 1115 hours per week.
In the past three years, CS10 has been fined once for speeding and has not been involved in
any road crashes. However, prior to this period, she reports that she has been charged
twice for drink-driving and once for speeding. When asked about any non-driving related
offences, she reported that she had been previously charged with assault.
CS10 openly stated that she was a heavy drinker. However, she recently decided to abstain
from alcohol because it was causing problems with her medication. Consequently, she
459
reported that it was not at all likely that she would drive under the influence of alcohol or
drugs.
CS10s total AQ score, physical aggression score and angry aggression score were
significantly higher than the hostile aggressive driver group*: total AQ (z=2.4, p<.05);
physical aggression (z=2.42, p<.05); and (z=2.46, p<.05). Her social problem solving
subscale scores did not differ from the hostile group*: NPO (z=.134, p>.05); ICS (z=.256,
p>.05); and RPS (z=-.216, p>.05). These results indicate that CS10 has relatively high
trait aggression levels, particularly for physical aggression and angry aggression. The latter
result is consistent with her persistent self-reported feelings of anger. Thus it appears that
CS10s on-road aggression is sourced from emotional and trait related aggression.
Additionally, CS10s total BIS-11 score did not significantly differ from the mean for a
female, general psychiatric group* (z=-.06, p>.05). This result is consistent with her
reported diagnosis with a clinical disorder (i.e. bipolar disorder). Surprisingly, her scores
on the BIS-11 subscales differ significantly from a general population means*: motorimpulsivity (z=.81, p>.05); non-planning impulsivity (z=.15, p>.05); and, attentionalimpulsivity (z=1.36, p>.05).
CS10s CPS subscale scores were not significantly different from the means for a sample
of female inmates*: CA (z=.132, p>.05); TD (z=.97, p>.05); AT (z=.83, p>.05); SD (z=.51, p>.05); and VAL (z=-6.79, p>.05). Profiling of CS10s total score for each subscale
resulted in a profile that best fit the classification of: Type 5 markedly antisocial (refer
to Appendix R for a brief description of type). It is acknowledged that CS10s score on the
chemical abuse scale (x=24) is outside of the range normally present in this type (scores
ranging from 27-38). However, her lower CA score is consistent with her recent decision
to abstain from alcohol.

Sharon O'Brien Thesis PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sharon O'Brien Thesis PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Psychosocial Factors Influencing Aggressive Driving Behaviour

Sharon Rosemary OBrien

A thesis submitted as fulfilment for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Many drivers in highly motorised countries believe that aggressive driving is

Key Words .................................................................................................................... i

3.3.3.2 Causal Attribution Fundamental Attribution Error ........... 90

Chapter Four: A Qualitative Study of Young Drivers as a High-risk Group 103

4.3.5.4 Transfer of On-Road Generated Stress to the Off-road

Chapter Five: A Quantitative Study of Aggressive Driving in Queensland.. 157

Factor Analysis of Research Specific Measures .............................. 180

5.3.8.6 PHA Driver Emotional, Cognitive and Behavioural

6.3.4.3 History of Delinquency and/or Violence ........................... 265

Person-Related Characteristics of the Hostile Aggressive

Chapter Seven: Discussion.................................................................................... 305

Participant Information and Consent Package Study One ...................................... 358

Socio-Demographic questionnaire Study One ........................................................ 360

Focus Group Protocols Study One ......................................................................... 363

RACQ Sample Details ............................................................................................... 371

Study Two Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 372

Questionnaire Coverpage RACQ participants ........................................................ 381

Questionnaire Coverpage QUT participants ........................................................... 382

Analyses of Driving Behaviour Characteristics and Behavioural Intentions

Differences in Trait Characteristics of the Study Two Sample ................................. 395

Semi-structured Questionnaire Study Three ........................................................... 405

Interview Protocols Study Three ............................................................................ 421

Participant Consent Package Study Three .............................................................. 424

Range of CPS Subscale Scores by Offender Type .................................................... 428

Brief Descriptor of CPS Offender Type .................................................................... 438

Individual Participant Scores on the AQ and SPSI-R and Significance

Individual Participant Scores on the BIS-11 and CPS and Significance

Individual Participant Case Studies Study Three ................................................... 441

References made to vehicle characteristics ...................................... 113

Factor loadings of items onto likelihood of post-event influence

Hierarchical regression of socio-demographic, trait and state

Relationship of risky driving behaviours to aggressive driving

Conditions influencing driver behaviour ............................................ 28

Frustration-Aggression Model of Aggressive Driving ....................... 30

The General Aggression Model.......................................................... 94

Expanded appraisal and decision-making processes of the GAM ..... 97

Map of concepts explored in accordance with the GAM ................. 107

Participant responses to the causes of aggressive driving

Theoretical framework of psychosocial processes underpinning

Diagrammatic presentation of the three stage exploration of

Present Internal State

Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Introductory Comments ............................................................................................. 3

Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers

Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers

1.1 Introductory Comments

Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers

Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers

General aggression research has identified a number of risk factors for

Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers

Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers

1.4 Who are the Main Perpetrators?

Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers

1.5 Research Objectives and Rationale

Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers

3. Examine the contribution of person-related and contextual factors to aggressive

Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers

Psychosocial Characteristics of Aggressive Drivers