Avoiding road rage

Road Rage describes a range of aggressive and dangerous driving behaviours directed at other road users. The phrase involves images of uncontrolled temper and the open display of anger and frustration. A common alternative term is “aggressive driving” with road rage seen to be a manifestation of extreme aggressive driving.

Driver perceptions of the benefits of reducing their driving speed on safety, emissions, and stress and road rage

The existing literature shows driving speed significantly affects levels of safety, emissions, and stress in driving. In addition, drivers who feel tense when driving have been found to drive more slowly than others. These findings were mostly obtained from crash data analyses or field studies, and less is known regarding driver perceptions of the extent to which reducing their driving speed would improve road safety, reduce their car’s emissions, and reduce stress and road rage. This paper uses ordered probit regression models to analyse responses from 3538 Queensland drivers who completed an online RACQ survey. Drivers most strongly agreed that reducing their driving speed would improve road safety, less strongly agreed that reducing their driving speed would reduce their car’s emissions and least strongly agreed that reducing their driving speed would reduce stress and road rage. Younger drivers less strongly agreed that these benefits would occur than older drivers. Drivers of automatic cars and those who are bicycle commuters agreed more to these benefits than other drivers. Female drivers agreed more strongly than males on improving safety and reducing stress and road rage. Type of fuel used, engine size, driving experience, and distance driven per week were also found to be associated with driver perceptions, although these were not found to be significant in all of the regression models. The findings from this study may help in developing targeted training or educational measures to improve drivers’ willingness to reduce their driving speed.

Validation of the Australian Propensity for Angry Driving Scale (Aus-PADS)

The present study used a university sample to assess the test-retest reliability and validity of the Australian Propensity for Angry Driving Scale (Aus-PADS). The scale has stability over time, and convergent validity was established, as Aus-PADS scores correlated significantly with established anger and impulsivity measures. Discriminant validity was also established, as Aus-PADS scores did not correlate with Venturesomeness scores. The Aus-PADS has demonstrated criterion validity, as scores were correlated with behavioural measures, such as yelling at other drivers, gesturing at other drivers, and feeling angry but not doing anything. Aus-PADS scores reliably predicted the frequency of these behaviours over and above other study variables. No significant relationship between aggressive driving and crash involvement was observed. It was concluded that the Aus-PADS is a reliable and valid tool appropriate for use in Australian research, and that the potential relationship between aggressive driving and crash involvement warrants further investigation with a more representative (and diverse) driver sample.

The psychosocial factors influencing aggressive driving behaviour

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 Shinar’s (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 Bushman’s (2002) General Aggression Model. In contrast to Shinar’s 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 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 self-reported 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 Shinar’s (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 17–24 years of age were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young drivers (17–24 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 (D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in 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 24–55 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education or better and average–above 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 driver’s 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 ‘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 self-reported 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 Shinar’s (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, particularly the more hostile offenders. Similarly, educational efforts need to be mindful of the way that person-related factors appear to influence one’s perception of another driver’s 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.

Traços de personalidade, estados emocionais e condução : um estudo comparativo entre condutores de ambos os sexos

Tese de doutoramento, Ciências e Tecnologias da Saúde (Desenvolvimento Humano e Social), Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Medicina, 2014

Venting anger in cyberspace: self-entitlement versus self-preservation in #roadrage tweets

The increase in the popularity of social media and access to portable smart-technology means more drivers are using forums to vent their frustrations about driving. A content analysis was performed on 80,923 twitter posts relating to road rage collected over a 13-month period. The aim was to understand what sources of anger drivers report on social media. Approximately two thirds of the analysed tweets related directly to anger over another driver perceived as a perpetrator of inappropriate behaviour. Judgements of the improper speed of other drivers were the most common tweets. However, a general attitude also emerged where other drivers were seen as "idiots," "unskilled," and "should not be driving." Such a downward comparison is likely to predispose drivers to unjustly blame other drivers for frustrating situations that may be out of their control. Twitter appears to be a social media forum commonly used to vent anger by drivers. Posts ranged from text message, a photo of the offending vehicle or of the driver, or a 6-s video filmed while driving. The sample of tweeted angry comments indicated that many drivers used smart technology to express their anger. However, the motivation behind this action may vary and may be to express anger, report the incident, or to warn the public. The findings highlight the need for further research to understand the prevalence and danger of anger-provoked distraction with smart technology.

D6.6 – Summary, Analysis, Road-mapping and Production of Training materials

This deliverable summarizes, validates and explains the purpose and concept behind the RAGE knowledge and innovation management platform as a self-sustainable Ecosystem, supporting innovation processes in the Applied Gaming (AG) industry. The Ecosystem portal will be developed with particular consideration of the demand and requirements of small and medium sized game developing companies, education providers and related stakeholders like AG researchers and AG end-users. The innovation potential of the new platform underlies the following factors: a huge, mostly entire collection of community specific knowledge (e.g., content like media objects, software components and best practices), a structured approach of knowledge access, search and browse, collaboration tools as well as social network analysis tools to foster efficient knowledge creation and transformation processes into marketable technology assets. The deliverable provides an overview of the current status and the remaining work to come, preceding the final version in month 48 of the RAGE project.

Quantification of motor vehicle emission factors from on road measurements

Assessment and prediction of the impact of vehicular traffic emissions on air quality and exposure levels requires knowledge of vehicle emission factors. The aim of this study was quantification of emission factors from an on road, over twelve months measurement program conducted at two sites in Brisbane: 1) freeway type (free flowing traffic at about 100 km/h, fleet dominated by small passenger cars - Tora St); and 2) urban busy road with stop/start traffic mode, fleet comprising a significant fraction of heavy duty vehicles - Ipswich Rd. A physical model linking concentrations measured at the road for specific meteorological conditions with motor vehicle emission factors was applied for data analyses. The focus of the study was on submicrometer particles; however the measurements also included supermicrometer particles, PM2.5, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen. The results of the study are summarised in this paper. In particular, the emission factors for submicrometer particles were 6.08 x 1013 and 5.15 x 1013 particles per vehicle-1 km-1 for Tora St and Ipswich Rd respectively and for supermicrometer particles for Tora St, 1.48 x 109 particles per vehicle-1 km-1. Emission factors of diesel vehicles at both sites were about an order of magnitude higher than emissions from gasoline powered vehicles. For submicrometer particles and gasoline vehicles the emission factors were 6.08 x 1013 and 4.34 x 1013 particles per vehicle-1 km-1 for Tora St and Ipswich Rd, respectively, and for diesel vehicles were 5.35 x 1014 and 2.03 x 1014 particles per vehicle-1 km-1 for Tora St and Ipswich Rd, respectively. For supermicrometer particles at Tora St the emission factors were 2.59 x 109 and 1.53 x 1012 particles per vehicle-1 km-1, for gasoline and diesel vehicles, respectively.