Predictors of Aggressive Driving: Gender, Age, Mileage, and Dispositional Aggressiveness, Assignments of Psychology

Download Predictors of Aggressive Driving: Gender, Age, Mileage, and Dispositional Aggressiveness and more Assignments Psychology in PDF only on Docsity! 62 Signum Temporis Volume 4, Number 1, 2011 DOI: 10.2478/v10195-011-0045-2 VIkTOrIja PerePjOlkINa Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy, Latvia VIeSTurS reņģe University of Latvia, Latvia DrIVerS’ aGe, GeNDer, DrIVING eXPerIeNCe, aND aGGreSSIVeNeSS aS PreDICTOrS OF aGGreSSIVe DrIVING BeHaVIOur ABSTRACT Recent years have seen a growing interest in the problem of aggressive driving. In the present study two demographic variables (gender and age), two non-psychological driving-experience related variables (annual mileage and legal driving experience in years) and aggressiveness as a personality trait (including behavioural and affective components) as psychological variable of individual differences were examined as potential predictors of aggressive driving. The aim of the study was to find out the best predictors of aggressive driving behaviour. The study was based on an online survey, and 228 vehicle drivers in Latvia participated in it. The questionnaire included eight-item Aggressive Driving Scale (Bone & Mowen, 2006), short Latvian version of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Perry, 1992), and questions gaining demographic and driving experience information. Gender, age and annual mileage predicted aggressive driving: being male, young and with higher annual driving exposure were associated with higher scores on aggressive driving. Dispositional aggressiveness due to anger component was a significant predictor of aggressive diving score. Physical aggression and hostility were unrelated to aggressive driving. Altogether, the predictors explained a total of 28% of the variance in aggressive driving behaviour. Findings show that dispositional aggressiveness, especially the anger component, as well as male gender, young age and higher annual mileage has a predictive validity in relation to aggressive driving. There is a need to extend the scope of potential dispositional predictors pertinent to driving aggression. Keywords: age; aggressive driving behaviour; driving-related variables; gender; personality trait ‘aggressiveness’ InTRoduCTIon There is evidence that in industrial societies driving is the most dangerous activity for the majority of people (James & Nahl, 2000). In 2008, 316 people died as a result of traffic accidents on the roads of Latvia; 5408 people were injured (Ceļu satiksmes negadījumu statistika Latvijā, 2009). The above numbers constitute one of the highest ratios per one million inhabitants in the European Union. A traffic accident (TA) occurs as a result of interaction of the human factor, technical design of the vehicle and the road; nevertheless, the significance of the human factor accounts for approximately 90% of TAs (Evans, 1991). Risky driving including aggressive driving is one of the likely causes of a TA which is why it is important to identify the factors that would allow explaining the inclination of an journal of Pedagogy and Psychology 63 individual to deliberately drive in a risky and aggressive manner violating traffic rules (James & Nahl, 2000). The Concept of Aggressive driving Aggressive driving behaviour is commonly defined as “any behaviour intended to physically, emotionally, or psychologically harm another within the driving environment” (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001, p.661). This definition is in accord with the general definition of aggressive behaviour as “any form of behaviour directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment” (Baron & Richardson, 1994, p.7). Most of the authors claim that it is necessary to differentiate between aggressive driving behaviour or mild driver aggression (e.g., horn honking or hand gestures) and driver violence where the intent is to harm another road user (e.g., fighting or purposeful contact) or “road rage” (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001; Tasca, 2000). Hennessy & Wiesenthal (2001) set mild driver aggression and driver violence against assertive driving, i.e., driving in a risky and selfish manner, which may entail harm to other drivers, but that harm is accidental rather than purposeful. Similarly, Lawton et al. (1997), using the concept of aberrant driving behaviour, differentiate between hostile driving behaviours and violations, i.e., deliberate disregard for traffic rules. So, a more precise definition of aggressive driving would focus on deliberate and wilful driving behaviours that, while not intended to physically harm another road user, show disregard for their safety and well-being (Tasca, 2000), show little respect for the rules of the road and are associated with willingness to take risks (Lawton et al., 1997; Parker et al., 1992). These behaviours are motivated by impatience, annoyance, hostility and/or an attempt to save time. For example, according to Bone & Mowen (2006) “aggressive driving occurs when the operator of a motor vehicle drives under the influence of impaired emotions, resulting in the imposition of one’s own preferred level of risk on others” (Bone & Mowen, 2006, p.454). Some authors define aggressive driving as willingness to take risks and display of little respect for the rules of the road (Lawton et al., 1997; Parker et al., 1992). Leo Tasca (2000) offered a reviewed formal definition of aggressive driving behaviour, stating that a driving behaviour is aggressive if it is deliberate, likely to increase the risk of collision and is motivated by impatience, annoyance, hostility and/or an attempt to save time. Section 1494, Part 14, Clause 2 of the Latvian Administrative Violations Code defines aggressive driving in a similar manner, namely, aggressive driving is ‘‘...the driving of the vehicle in such a way, that a violation of the road traffic regulations is committed and a disruption is caused to the even flow of vehicles or other vehicle driver’s interests are ignored...” (LAPK, 1984, 2005). The specific behaviours, which constitute aggressive driving, would include: tailgating, weaving in and out of the traffic, improper passing (e.g., cutting in too close in front of vehicle being overtaken), passing on the road shoulder, improper lane changes (failure to signal), failure to yield the right of way to other road users, preventing other drivers form passing, running stop signs, running red lights, driving at speeds far in excess of the norm and unwillingness to extend cooperation to motorists unable to merge or change lanes due to traffic conditions (Tasca, 2000; James & Nahl, 2000). Displays of annoyance and hostility which are not intended to physically harm other road users, but likely to intimidate, irritate, anger or provoke them may accompany these behaviours and serve as indicators of the underlying motivation and thus are commonly associated with aggressive driving. These behaviours would include: flashing headlights, sustained horn-honking, glaring at another driver to show disapproval, yelling and gesturing (Tasca, 2000; Bone & Mowen, 2006). As one can see, aggressive driving comprises a 66 Signum Temporis Volume 4, Number 1, 2011 to my destination fast”. Participants were asked to indicate how often they committed each of the behaviours using a six-point scale ranging from 0 = never to 5 = very often. 3) In addition respondents were asked to indicate their sex, age, an average amount of km driven per year, and the duration of licence possession in years. Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was made using SPSS 17.0. First reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the used measures was analysed, then descriptive statistics of all variables were computed for the total sample and for male and female subsamples separately. The differences between male and female average indices were analysed by the means of independent samples t-test. To analyze correlations between the scores of aggressive driving and other variables Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho) was used. In addition partial correlations were computed to measure the degree of association between aggressive driving and all other criterion variables (dispositional aggressiveness, physical aggression, anger, hostility, annual mileage, and duration of licence possession) with the effect of gender and age removed (controlling for gender and age). All correlations were first computed for the total sample and then for male and female subsamples separately. Finally, stepwise hierarchical regression analysis was made to find out better predictors of aggressive driving. RESuLTS Scale Reliabilities, descriptive Statistics and Inter-correlations Scale reliabilities and descriptive statistics for the measures used in the study for the total sample and for male and female driver subsamples separately are presented in Table 1. All instruments had good or very good reliabilities. The means for AQ and the measure of aggressive driving both had means at the lower end of the response scale. As it was expected and in consistence with previous findings (e.g., Khoza & Potgieter, 2005; Ǻberg & Rimmö, 1998; Lawton et al., 1997; Parker et al., 1992) male-drivers on average scored significantly higher on aggressive driving scale (t (228) = 2.25, p < 0.05), as well as on dispositional aggressiveness (t (228) = 4.53, p < 0.001) and on physical aggression subscale (t (228) = 4.53, p < 0.001) (see Table 1). There were no statistically significant differences between male and female-drivers average scores on anger and hostility subscales. Table 1. Scale Reliabilities, Descriptive Statistics and t-test Statistics Variables Cronbach’s alpha M (SD) (N = 228) M M tmale- drivers (n = 137) female- drivers (n = 91) 1. Aggressive driving 0.78 9.68 (4.94) 11.03 7.64 5.37*** 2. Dispositional Aggressiveness 0.93 22.80 (14.26) 24.51 20.22 2.25* 2.1. Physical Aggression 0.86 6.68 (5.98) 8.09 4.57 4.53*** 2.2. Anger 0.89 9.64 (6.26) 9.69 9.58 0.12 2.3. Hostility 0.84 6.47 (4.60) 6.74 6.07 1.08 3. Age - 34.25 (9.18) 33.85 34.86 0.81 4. Annual Mileage - 20929.80 (2132929) 25211.79 143886.52 3.98*** 5. Duration of Licence Possession - 12.26 (8.16) 13.22 10.81 2.35* Note: * p ≤ 0.05, *** p ≤ 0.001; M – mean, SD – standard deviation, t – independent samples t-test’s score. journal of Pedagogy and Psychology 67 The inter-correlations (zero-order and partial correlations) of the measures are displayed in Table 2. Substantial positive correlations were found between dispositional aggressiveness and aggressive driving, as well as between aggressive driving and two aspects of trait aggressiveness – physical aggression and anger. Substantial positive correlation was found also between annual mileage and aggressive driving score. All these correlations remain rather stable in magnitude and direction even after controlling drivers’ age and gender. As it was expected and in line with previous findings and statistical data, substantial negative correlation was found between age and aggressive driving score. Table 2. Spearman Correlations (above diagonal) and Partial Correlations (below diagonal) of the Predictors and Criterion (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (1) Aggressive Driving – .27** .34** .24** .07 -.24** -.34** .25** -.13* (2) Dispositional Aggressiveness .29** – .76** .88** .73** -.15* -.15* -.04 -.08 (3) Physical Aggression .28** .86** – .52** .33** -.24 -.36** .09 -.11 (4) Anger .31** .90** .66** – .54** -.11 .00 -.05 -.07 (5) Hostility .12 .79** .50** .60** – .04 -.04 -.11 .08 (6) Age (1 = male, 2 = female) Control Variables – .09 -.01 .82** (7) Gender – -.35** -.09 (8) Annual Mileage .21** -.03 .03 .00 -.13* Control Variables – .14* (9) Duration of Licence Possession .04 .12 .14 .08 .10 .07 – Note:* p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01; control variables for partial correlations: age and gender; N = 228. When analysing the correlations between the indicators of aggressive driving behaviour and driving experience, it has been established that there is a statistically significant positive correlation in the total sample between aggressive driving behaviour and annual mileage. Partial correlation analysis made separately in male and female subsamples (see Table 3) revealed that after controlling age statistically significant positive correlations between aggressive driving and dispositional aggressiveness, physical aggression, anger, and annual mileage were found only in the male-drivers subsample. No statistically significant correlations between predictors and criterion variable were found in the female-drivers subsample after controlling the age variable. After controlling drivers’ age no statistically significant correlations between aggressive driving and hostility, and duration of driving licence possession were found neither in male, nor female subsamples. These results are displayed in Table 3. 68 Signum Temporis Volume 4, Number 1, 2011 Table 3. Partial Correlations between Predictors and Aggressive Driving in Combined Sample and in Male- and Female-drivers Samples Separately D is po si tio na l A gg re ss iv en es s Ph ys ic al A gg re ss io n A ng er H os til ity A nn ua l M ile ag e D ur at io n of L ic en ce Po ss es si on Aggressive Driving # Combined sample (N = 228) .31** .34** .29** .13* .27** .15* Male-drivers (N = 137) .33** .31** .36** .16 .21* -.05 Female-drivers (N = 91) .17 .20 .19 -.01 .20 .19 Note: * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01; # age is a control variable The effect of the potential predictors of drivers’ aggressive driving was examined in a stepwise hierarchical regression analysis. Hostility and duration of driving licence possession were excluded from potential predictors, due to non-correlation with criterion variable. The overall score of dispositional aggressiveness was not entered in the first model due to a high internal consistency across AQ subscales. The three non-psychological variables, age, gender and annual mileage, were entered in the first step, followed by two aspects of dispositional aggressiveness, physical aggression and anger, which were entered in the second and final step. The results are displayed in Table 4. Table 4. Hierarchical Regression of Aggressive Driving on Physical Aggression, Anger, Gender, Age and Annual Mileage Step Variables Entered Beta in step 1 Beta in step 2 1 Gender (1 = male; 2 = female) -0.28*** -0.24*** Age -0.20** -0.18** Annual mileage 0.20** 0.19** 2 Physical aggression 0.12 Anger 0.21** R2 0.19 0.28 Model F 17.30*** 16.74*** Note: *p ≤ 0.05 ,** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001 All three non-psychological variables, gender, age and annual mileage, predicted aggressive driving: being male, young and with higher annual driving exposure were associated with higher scores on aggressive driving. Even though zero-order correlations between physical aggression and aggressive driving were significant (ro = .28, p < .001), only anger remained significant when two components of dispositional aggression were entered into the multiple regression model. Together these three variables explained 19% of the variance of aggressive driving score. Finally, there was a significant effect of anger on aggressive driving: the higher scores were on anger subscale, the higher aggressive driving score were obtained. Physical aggression was unrelated to aggressive diving. Altogether, the predictors explained a total of 28% of the variance in aggressive driving behaviour. journal of Pedagogy and Psychology 71 Another limitation is related to the research sample: there were only Latvian-speaking respondents included into the sample who mostly reside in Riga or its suburbs; however, one must bear in mind that approximately 40% of all inhabitants in Latvia speak Russian and approximately 20% reside in rural areas which is why Russian-speaking inhabitants and drivers from the countryside and/or towns and villages should be included in future research. Furthermore, there is a need to extend the scope of potential dispositional predictors pertinent to driving aggression (Ulleberg & Rundmo, 2003). ConCLuSIonS After summarising the obtained results, it can be concluded that aggressiveness as a personality trait – especially the anger component – as well as male gender, young age and higher annual mileage has a predictive validity in relation to aggressive driving. In future research it would be necessary to find out whether aggressiveness as a personality trait is connected with objective TA data (police data and data from insurance companies), as well as to extend the scope of potential dispositional predictors pertinent to driving aggression and TA. REfEREnCES Ǻberg, L., & Rimmö, P. A. (1998). Dimensions of aberrant driver behaviour. Ergonomics, 41, 39–56. Arnett, J. J., Offer, D., & Fine, M. A. (1997). Reckless driving in adolescence: “State” and “trait” factors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 57–63. Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression, 2nd edition. New York: Plenum Press, 399. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression Hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59–73. Bone, A. & Mowen, J. C. (2006). Identifying the traits of aggressive and distracted drivers: A hierarchical trait model approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 454–464. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. Ceļu satiksmes negadījumu statistika Latvijā. 2009. gads [Road traffic accident statistics in Latvia] (2009). Riga: CSDD, 31 lpp. (in Latvian). Elander, J., West, R, & French, D. (1993). Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: An examination method and findings. Psychological Bulleten, 113(2), 279–294. Evans, L. (1991). Traffic safety and the driver. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 404. Galovski, Tara, E., Malta, Loretta, S., Blanchard, & Edward, B. (2006). Theories of aggressive driving. In: Road rage: Assessment and treatment of the angry, aggressive driver. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, pp. 27–44. Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. (2001). Gender, driver aggression, and driver violence: An applied evaluation. Sex Roles, 44, 661–676. Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. (2002). Aggression, violence, and vengeance among male and female drivers. Transportation Quarterly, 56, 65–75. James, L. & Nahl, D. (2000). Aggressive driving is emotionally impaired driving. Aggressive Driving Issues Conference, 16. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.aggressive.drivers.com. 72 Signum Temporis Volume 4, Number 1, 2011 Khoza, V., Potgieter, J. (2005). Deviant driving behaviour: An epidemiological study. ACTA Criminologica, 18(2), 56–70. Krahè, B. (2005) Predictors of women’s aggressive driving behavior. Aggressive Behaviour, 31, 537–546. Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (2003). Can we trust self-reports of driving? Effects of impression management on driver behaviour questionnaire responses. Transportation Research, F(6), Oxford: Elsevier, 97–107. 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. Latvijas Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodekss. 1984. gada 7. decembra likums, 2005. gada 15. septembra redakcijā [The Latvian Administrative Violations Code]. Retrieved September 29, 2009, from http:// www.likumi.lv. (in Latvian). Lawton, R., Parker, D., Manstead, A., & Stradling, S. (1997). The role of affect in predicting social behaviours: The case of road traffic violations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1258–1276. Özkan, T. (2006). The regional differences between countries in traffic safety: A cross-cultural study and Turkish case, Academic Dissertation. Research Reports, 37. University: University of Helsinki, 63. Özkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2005). Why are there sex diferences in risky driving? The relationship between sex and gender-role on aggressive driving, traffic offences, and accident involvement among young Turkish drivers. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 547–558. Parker, D., Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (2002). Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 229–235. Parker, D., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Reason, J., & Baxter, J. (1992) Intentions to commit driving violations: An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 94–101. Tasca, L. (2000). A review of the literature on aggressive driving research. Aggressive Driving Issues Conference, 26. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/paperslist.html. Ulleberg, P., & Rundmo, T. (2003). Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety Science, 41, 427–43. West, R., French, D., Kemp, R. & Elander, J. (1993). Direct observation of driving, selfreports of driver behaviour and accident involvement. Ergonomics, 36. UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 557–567. Wild, G. J. S. (1994). Target risk. Dealing with the danger of death, disease and damage in everyday decisions. New York: PDE Publications, p.234. Retrieved September 9, 2009, from http://psyc.queensu.ca/. Lecturer Mg. psych. Viktorija Perepjolkina Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy Address: Sesku iela 7/2, dz. 61, Rīga, LV-1035 Phone: 26555038, fax: 67808034 E-mail: viktorija@rpiva.lv Professor Dr. psych. Viesturs Reņģe University of Latvia, Faculty of Education, Psychology and Arts Address: Madonas 25-39, Rīga, LV-1084 Phone: 67034020, fax: 67034018 E-mail: renge@lu.lv