Motorcycle riders' self-reported aggression when riding compared with car driving

Aggressive driving has been shown to be related to increased crash risk for car driving. However, less is known about aggressive behaviour and motorcycle riding and whether there are differences in on-road aggression as a function of vehicle type. If such differences exist, these could relate to differences in perceptions of relative vulnerability associated with characteristics of the type of vehicle such as level of protection and performance. Specifically, the relative lack of protection offered by motorcycles may cause riders to feel more vulnerable and therefore to be less aggressive when they are riding compared to when they are driving. This study examined differences in self-reported aggression as a function of two vehicle types: passenger cars and motorcycles. Respondents (n = 247) were all motorcyclists who also drove a car. Results were that scores for the composite driving aggression scale were significantly higher than on the composite riding aggression scale. Regression analyses identified different patterns of predictors for driving aggression from those for riding aggression. Safety attitudes followed by thrill seeking tendencies were the strongest predictors for driving aggression, with more positive safety attitudes being protective while greater thrill seeking was associated with greater self-reported aggressive driving behaviour. For riding aggression, thrill seeking was the strongest predictor (positive relationship), followed by self-rated skill, such that higher self rated skill was protective against riding aggression. Participants who scored at the 85th percentile or above for the aggressive driving and aggressive riding indices had significantly higher scores on thrill seeking, greater intentions to engage in future risk taking, and lower safety attitude scores than other participants. In addition participants with the highest aggressive driving scores also had higher levels of self-reported past traffic offences than other participants. Collectively, these findings suggest that people are less likely to act aggressively when riding a motorcycle than when driving a car, and that those who are the most aggressive drivers are different from those who are the most aggressive riders. However, aggressive riders and drivers appear to present a risk to themselves and others on road. Importantly, the underlying influences for aggressive riding or driving that were identified in this study may be amenable to education and training interventions.

‘You’re a bad driver but I just made a mistake’ : attribution differences between the ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators’ of scenario-based aggressive driving incidents

Driver aggression is an increasing concern for motorists, with some research suggesting that drivers who behave aggressively perceive their actions as justified by the poor driving of others. Thus attributions may play an important role in understanding driver aggression. A convenience sample of 193 drivers (aged 17-36) randomly assigned to two separate roles (‘perpetrators’ and ‘victims’) responded to eight scenarios of driver aggression. Drivers also completed the Aggression Questionnaire and Driving Anger Scale. Consistent with the actor-observer bias, ‘victims’ (or recipients) in this study were significantly more likely than ‘perpetrators’ (or instigators) to endorse inadequacies in the instigator’s driving skills as the cause of driver aggression. Instigators were significantly more likely attribute the depicted behaviours to external but temporary causes (lapses in judgement or errors) rather than stable causes. This suggests that instigators recognised drivers as responsible for driving aggressively but downplayed this somewhat in comparison to ‘victims’/recipients. Recipients and instigators agreed that the behaviours were examples of aggressive driving but instigators appeared to focus on the degree of intentionality of the driver in making their assessments while recipients appeared to focus on the safety implications. Contrary to expectations, instigators gave mean ratings of the emotional impact of driving aggression on recipients that were higher in all cases than the mean ratings given by the recipients. Drivers appear to perceive aggressive behaviours as modifiable, with the implication that interventions could appeal to drivers’ sense of self-efficacy to suggest strategies for overcoming plausible and modifiable attributions (e.g. lapses in judgement; errors) underpinning behaviours perceived as aggressive.

Do drivers respond emotionally and behaviourally differently to an intentionally anger provoking driving situation than to an ambiguous, but potentially provocative, one? Results of a self-report survey.

Aggressive driving is considered an important road-safety concern for drivers in highly motorised countries. However, understanding of the causes and maintenance factors fundamental to aggressive driving is limited. In keeping with theoretical advances from general aggression research such as the General Aggression Model (GAM), research has begun to examine the emotional and cognitive antecedents of aggressive driving in order to better understand the underlying processes motivating aggressive driving. Early findings in the driving area have suggested that greater levels of aggression are elicited in response to an intentionally aggressive on-road event. In contrast, general aggression research suggests that greater levels of aggression are elicited in response to an ambiguous event. The current study examined emotional and cognitive responses to two hypothetical driving scenarios with differing levels of aggressive intent (intentional versus ambiguous). There was also an interest in whether factors influencing responses were different for hostile aggression (that is, where the action is intended to harm the other) versus instrumental aggression (that is, where the action is motivated by an intention to remove an impediment or attain a goal). Results were that significantly stronger negative emotion and negative attributions, as well as greater levels of threat were reported in response to the scenario which was designed to appear intentional in nature. In addition, participants were more likely to endorse an aggressive behavioural response to a situation that appeared deliberately aggressive than to one where the intention was ambiguous. Analyses to determine if greater levels of negative emotions and cognitions are able to predict aggressive responses provided different patterns of results for instrumental aggression from those for hostile aggression. Specifically, for instrumental aggression, negative emotions and negative attributions were significant predictors for both the intentional and the ambiguous scenarios. In addition, perceived threat was also a significant predictor where the other driver’s intent was clearly aggressive. However, lower rather than higher, levels of perceived threat were associated with greater endorsement of an aggressive response. For hostile aggressive behavioural responses, trait aggression was the strongest predictor for both situations. Overall the results suggest that in the driving context, instrumental aggression is likely to be a much more common response than hostile aggression. Moreover, aggressive responses are more likely in situations where another driver’s behaviour is clearly intentional rather than ambiguous. The results also support the conclusion that there may be different underlying mechanisms motivating an instrumental aggressive response to those motivating a hostile one. In addition, understanding the emotions and cognitions underlying aggressive driving responses may be helpful in predicting and intervening to reduce driving aggression. The finding that drivers appear to regard tailgating as an instrumental response is of concern since this behaviour has the potential to result in crashes.

Sharing social space with strangers: Setting, signalling and policing informal rules of driving etiquette

Recent research suggests that aggressive driving may be influenced by driver perceptions of their interactions with other drivers in terms of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ behaviour. Drivers appear to take a moral standpoint on ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ driving behaviour. However, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in the context of road use is not defined solely by legislation, but includes informal rules that are sometimes termed ‘driving etiquette’. Driving etiquette has implications for road safety and public safety since breaches of both formal and informal rules may result in moral judgement of others and subsequent behaviours designed to punish the ‘offender’ or ‘teach them a lesson’. This paper outlines qualitative research that was undertaken with drivers to explore their understanding of driving etiquette and how they reacted to other drivers’ observance or violation of their understanding. The aim was to develop an explanatory framework within which the relationships between driving etiquette and aggressive driving could be understood, specifically moral judgement of other drivers and punishment of their transgression of driving etiquette. Thematic analysis of focus groups (n=10) generated three main themes: (1) courtesy and reciprocity, and the notion of two-way responsibility, with examples of how expectations of courteous behaviour vary according to the traffic interaction; (2) acknowledgement and shared social experience: ‘giving the wave’; and (3) responses to breaches of the expectations/informal rules. The themes are discussed in terms of their roles in an explanatory framework of the informal rules of etiquette and how interactions between drivers can reinforce or weaken a driver’s understanding of driver etiquette and potentially lead to driving aggression.

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.

Reducing aggression on our roads : testing a comprehensive model of aggressive driving

Background: Trauma resulting from traffic crashes poses a significant problem in highly motorised countries. Over a million people worldwide are killed annually and 50 million are critically injured as a result of traffic collisions. In Australia, road crashes cost an average of $17 billion annually in personal loss of income and quality of life, organisational losses in productivity and workplace quality, and health care costs. Driver aggression has been identified as a key factor contributing to crashes, and many motorists report experiencing mild forms of aggression (e.g., rude gestures, horn honking). However despite this concern, driver aggression has received relatively little attention in empirical research, and existing research has been hampered by a number of methodological and conceptual shortcomings. Specifically, there has been substantial disagreement regarding what constitutes aggressive driving and a failure to examine both the situational factors and the emotional and cognitive processes underlying driver aggression. To enhance current understanding of aggressive driving, a model of driver aggression that highlights the cognitive and emotional processes at play in aggressive driving incidents is proposed. Aims: The research aims to improve current understanding of the complex nature of driver aggression by testing and refining a model of aggressive driving that incorporates the person-related and situational factors and the cognitive and emotional appraisal processes fundamental to driver aggression. In doing so, the research will assist to provide a clear definition of what constitutes aggressive driving, assist to identify on-road incidents that trigger driver aggression, and identify the emotional and cognitive appraisal processes that underlie driver aggression. Methods: The research involves three studies. Firstly, to contextualise the model and explore the cognitive and emotional aspects of driver aggression, a diary-based study using self-reports of aggressive driving events will be conducted with a general population of drivers. This data will be supplemented by in-depth follow-up interviews with a sub-sample of participants. Secondly, to test generalisability of the model, a large sample of drivers will be asked to respond to video-based scenarios depicting driving contexts derived from incidents identified in Study 1 as inciting aggression. Finally, to further operationalise and test the model an advanced driving simulator will be used with sample of drivers. These drivers will be exposed to various driving scenarios that would be expected to trigger negative emotional responses. Results: Work on the project has commenced and progress on the first study will be reported.

Effect of mobile phone use and aggression on speed selection by young drivers : a driving simulator study

Aggressive driving has been associated with engagement in other risky driving behaviours, such as speeding; while drivers using their mobile phones have an increased crash risk, despite the tendency to reduce their speed. Research has amassed separately for mobile phone use and aggressive driving among younger drivers, however little is known about the extent to which these behaviours may function independently and in combination to influence speed selection behaviour. The main aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of driver aggression (measured by the Driving Anger Expression Inventory) and mobile phone use on speed selection by young drivers. The CARRS-Q advanced driving simulator was used to test the speed selection of drivers aged 18 to 26 years (N = 32) in a suburban (60kph zone) driving context. A 2 (level of driving anger expression: low, high) X 3 (mobile phone use condition: baseline, hands-free, hand-held) mixed factorial ANOVA was conducted with speed selection as the dependent variable. Results revealed a significant main effect for mobile phone use condition such that speed selection was lowest for the hand-held condition and highest for the baseline condition. Speed selection, however, was not significantly different across the levels of driving anger expression; nor was there a significant interaction effect between the mobile phone use and driving anger expression. As young drivers are over-represented in road crash statistics, future research should further investigate the combined impact of driver aggression and mobile phone use on speed selection.

Effect of mobile phone use and aggression on speed selection by young drivers : a driving simulator study

Aggressive driving has been associated with engagement in other risky driving behaviours, such as speeding; while drivers using their mobile phones have an increased crash risk, despite the tendency to reduce their speed. Research has amassed separately for mobile phone use and aggressive driving among younger drivers, however little is known about the extent to which these behaviours may function independently and in combination to influence speed selection behaviour. The main aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of driver aggression (measured by the Driving Anger Expression Inventory) and mobile phone use on speed selection by young drivers. The CARRS-Q advanced driving simulator was used to test the speed selection of drivers aged 18 to 26 years (N = 32) in a suburban (60kph zone) driving context. A 2 (level of driving anger expression: low, high) X 3 (mobile phone use condition: baseline, hands-free, hand-held) mixed factorial ANOVA was conducted with speed selection as the dependent variable. Results revealed a significant main effect for mobile phone use condition such that speed selection was lowest for the hand-held condition and highest for the baseline condition. Speed selection, however, was not significantly different across the levels of driving anger expression; nor was there a significant interaction effect between the mobile phone use and driving anger expression. As young drivers are over-represented in road crash statistics, future research should further investigate the combined impact of driver aggression and mobile phone use on speed selection.

In-vehicle avatars to elicit social response and change driving behaviour

Social and psychological theories have provided a plethora of evidence showing that the physical difficulty to express appropriate social interactions between drivers expresses itself in aggression, selfish driving and anti-social behaviour. Therefore there is a need to improve interactions between drivers and allow clearer collective decision making between them. Personal characteristics and the driving situations play strong roles in driver’s aggression. Our approach is centered around the driving situation as opposed to focusing on personality characteristics. It examines aggression and manipulates contextual variables such as driver’s eye contact exchanges. This paper presents a new unobtrusive in-vehicle system that aims at communicating drivers’ intentions, elicit social responses and increasing mutual awareness. It uses eye gaze as a social cue to affect collective decision making with the view to contribute to safe driving. The authors used a driving simulator to design a case control experiment in which eye gaze movements are conveyed with an avatar. Participants were asked to drive through different types of intersections. An avatar representing the head of the other driver was displayed and driver behaviour was analysed. Significant eye gaze pattern difference where observed when an avatar was displayed. Drivers cautiously refer to the avatar when information is required on the intention of others (e.g. when they do not have the right of way). The majority of participants reported the perception of “being looked at”. The number of glances and time spent gazing at the avatar did not indicate an unsafe distraction by standards of in-vehicle device ergonomic design. Avatars were visually consulted primarily in less demanding driving situations, which underlines their non-distractive nature.

Towards a comprehensive model of driver aggression : a review of the literature and directions for the future

Driver aggression is a road safety issue of growing concern throughout most highly motorised countries, yet to date there is no comprehensive model that deals with this issue in the road safety area. This paper sets out to examine the current state of research and theory on aggressive driving with a view to incorporating useful developments in the area of human aggression from mainstream psychological research. As a first step, evidence regarding the prevalence and incidence of driver aggression, including the impact of the phenomenon on crash rates is reviewed. Inconsistencies in the definition and operationalisation of driver aggression that have hampered research in the area are noted. Existing models of driver aggression are then identified and the need to distinguish and address the role of intentionality as well as the purpose of perpetrating behaviours within both these and research efforts is highlighted. Drawing on recent findings from psychological research into general aggression, it is argued that progress in understanding driver aggression requires models that acknowledge not only the person-related and situational factors, but the cognitive and emotional appraisal processes involved in driver aggression. An effective model is expected to allow the explanation of not only the likelihood and severity of driver aggression behaviours, but also the escalation of incidents within the context of the road environment.

“Teaching them a lesson?” : a qualitative exploration of underlying motivations for driver aggression

Aggressive driving is increasingly a concern for drivers in highly motorised countries. However, the role of driver intent in this behaviour is problematic and there is little research on driver cognitions in relation to aggressive driving incidents. In addition, while drivers who admit to behaving aggressively on the road also frequently report being recipients of similar behaviours, little is known about the relationship between perpetration and victimisation or about how road incidents escalate into the more serious events that feature in capture media attention. The current study used qualitative interviews to explore driver cognitions and underlying motivations for aggressive behaviours on the road. A total of 30 drivers aged 18-49 years were interviewed about their experiences with aggressive driving. A key theme identified in responses was driver aggression as an attempt to manage or modify the behaviour of other road users. Two subthemes were identified and appeared related to separate motivations for aggressive responses: ‘teaching them a lesson’ referred to situations where respondents intended to convey criticism or disapproval, usually of unintended behaviours by the other driver, and thus encourage self-correction; and ‘justified retaliation’ which referred to situations where respondents perceived deliberate intent on the part of the other driver and responded aggressively in return. Mildly aggressive driver behaviour appears to be common. Moreover such behaviour has a sufficiently negative impact on other drivers that it may be worth addressing because of its potential for triggering retaliation in kind or escalation of aggression, thus compromising safety.

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.

Coping with aggressive driving : driver accounts of how they manage themselves and others to reduce conflict on the road

Dealing with the aggression of other drivers on the road is an important skill given that driving is a common activity for adults in highly motorised countries. Even though incidents of extreme aggression on the road (such as assault) are reportedly rare, milder forms, some of them dangerous (such as tailgating or deliberately following too closely) are apparently common, and may be increasing. At the very least, this is likely to render the driving environment more stressful, and at worst elevates the risk of crashing by increasing both the level of risky driving behaviours and the likelihood of responses that escalate the situation. Thus the need for drivers to manage incidents of conflict is likely to become increasingly important. However, little research examines how drivers manage their own or others’ aggressive driving behaviour. Recently greater attention has been paid to driver cognitions, especially the attributions that drivers make about other drivers, that then might influence their own driving responses, particularly aggressive or risky ones. The study reported below was the first in a larger exploration of aggressive driving that focussed on driver cognitions, emotions and underlying motivations for aggressive behaviours on the road. Qualitative, in-depth interviews of drivers (n = 30, aged 18-49 years) were subjected to thematic analysis to investigate driver experiences with aggressive driving. Two main themes were identified from these accounts: driver management of self; and driver attempts to influence or manage other drivers. This paper describes the subthemes falling under the management of self main theme. These subthemes were labelled ‘being magnanimous’, ‘chilling out’, ‘slowing down’, and ‘apology/acknowledgment’. ‘Being magnanimous’ referred to situations where the respondent perceived him/herself to be a recipient of another’s aggressive driving and made a deliberate choice not to respond. However, a characteristic of this sub-theme was that this choice was underpinned by the adoption of morally superior stance, or sense of magnanimity. ‘Chilling out’ was a more general response to both the milder aggressive behaviours of other drivers and the general frustrations of driving. ‘Slowing down’ referred to reducing one’s speed in response to the perceived aggressive driving, often tailgating, of another. This subtheme appeared to consist of two separate underlying motivations. One of these was a genuine concern for one’s own safety while the other was more aimed at “getting back” at the other driver. ‘Apology’ referred to how drivers modified their more negative reactions and responses when another driver made gestures that acknowledged their having made a mistake, indicated an apology, or acknowledged the recipient driver. These sub-themes are discussed in relation to their implications for understanding aggressive driving and intervening to reduce it.

Advanced in-vehicle applications to mitigate driver aggression

Aggressive behavior at the steering wheel has been indicated as a contributing factor in a majority of crashes and anger has been compared to alcohol impairment in terms of probability to cause a crash. It has been shown that being in a state of anger or excitement while driving can decrease the drivers’ performances. . This paper reports the evaluation of 6 novel design alternatives of In-Vehicle Information Systems (IVIS) aimed at mitigating driver aggression. Each application presented was designed to tackle the following contributing factors to driver aggression: competitiveness, anonymity, territoriality, stress as well as social and emotional isolation. The 6 applications were simulated using computer vision algorithm to automatically overlay the real traffic conditions with ‘Head-Up Display’ visualizations. Two applications emerged over the others from participant’s evaluation: shared music combined the known calming effect of music with the sense of sympathy and intimacy caused by hearing other drivers’ music. The Shared Snapshot application provided an immediate gratification and was evaluated as a potential prevention of roadside quarrels. The paper presents Theoretical foundation, participant’s evaluations, implications and limitations of the study.

Can’t we all just get along? A qualitative investigation of the cognitive processes motivating driver aggression.

Although driver aggression has been identified as contributing to crashes, current understanding of the fundamental causes of the behaviour is poor. Two key reasons for this are evident. Firstly, existing research has been largely atheoretical, with no unifying conceptual framework guiding investigation. Secondly, emphasis on observable behaviours has resulted in limited knowledge of the underlying thought processes that motivate behaviour. Since driving is fundamentally a social situation, requiring drivers to interpret on-road events, insight regarding these perception and appraisal processes is paramount in advancing understanding of the underlying causes. Thus, the current study aimed to explore the cognitive appraisal processes involved in driver aggression, using a conceptual model founded on the General Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The present results reflect the first of several studies testing this model. Participants completed 3 structured driving diaries to explore perceptions and cognitions. Thematic analysis of diaries identified several cognitive themes. The first, ‘driving etiquette’ concerned an implied code of awareness and consideration for other motorists, breaches of which were strongly associated with reports of anger and frustration. Such breaches were considered intentional; attributed to dispositional traits of another driver, and precipitated the second theme, ‘justified retaliation’. This theme showed that drivers view their aggressive behaviour as warranted, to convey criticism towards another motorist’s etiquette violation. However, the third theme, ‘superiority’ suggested that those refraining from an aggressive response were motivated by a desire to perceive themselves as ‘better’ than the offending motorists. Collectively, the themes indicate deep-seated and complex thought patterns underlying driver aggression, and suggest the behaviour will be challenging to modify. Implications of these themes in relation to the proposed model will be discussed, and continued research will explore these cognitive processes further, to examine their interaction with person-related factors.