Dimensions of neuroticism : relationships with gender and personality traits

Reports results of 2 studies into sex-related neuroticism. Measures included sex-free and sex-related neuroticism scales (L. Francis, see record 1994-00056-001), the Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Lie scales of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), and the Beck Depression Inventory. In Study 1 with 69 male and 75 female undergraduates, no support for the validity of sex-free and sex-related measures of neuroticism was found. Although scores on both neuroticism measures were significantly related to depression scores, sex-free neuroticism was also associated with extraversion, psychoticism, and social desirability but only among males. Women tended to have significantly higher neuroticism scores than did men. In Study 2 involving 56 male and 129 female undergraduates, no significant differences in total scale scores were observed between the sexes when a natural language measure of neuroticism was used.

Getting mad may not mean getting even: The influence of drivers' ethical ideologies on driving anger and related behaviour

The current study explored the influence of moral values (measured by ethical ideology) on self-reported driving anger and aggressive driving responses. A convenience sample of drivers aged 17-73 years (n = 280) in Queensland, Australia, completed a self-report survey. Measures included sensation seeking, trait aggression, driving anger, endorsement of aggressive driving responses and ethical ideology (Ethical Position Questionnaire, EPQ). Scores on the two underlying dimensions of the EPQ idealism (highI/lowI) and relativism (highR/lowR) were used to categorise drivers into four ideological groups: Situationists (highI/highR); Absolutists (highI/lowR); Subjectivists (lowI/highR); and Exceptionists (lowI/lowR). Mean aggressive driving scores suggested that exceptionists were significantly more likely to endorse aggressive responses. After accounting for demographic variables, sensation seeking and driving anger, ethical ideological category added significantly, though modestly to the prediction of aggressive driving responses. Patterns in results suggest that those drivers in ideological groups characterised by greater concern to avoid affecting others negatively (i.e. highI, Situationists, Absolutists) may be less likely to endorse aggressive driving responses, even when angry. In contrast, Subjectivists (lowI, HighR), reported the lowest levels of driving anger yet were significantly more likely to endorse aggressive responses. This provides further insight into why high levels of driving anger may not always translate into more aggressive driving.