A Social-Cognitive Model of Driver Aggression: Taking

Situations and Individual Differences into Account

Chris S. Dula & E. Scott Geller &
Frances L. Chumney
Published online: 11 October 2011
#
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract Aggressive driving is a phenomenon that has taken on tremendous
significance in society. While the issue has been studied from perspectives of several
disciplines, relatively few comprehensive empirical investigations have been
conducted. This may be due, at least in part, to a scarcity of comprehensive
theoretical works in the field, from which methodical research hypotheses could be
derived. This paper reviews major extant theories of general aggression to offer a
rationale for choosing a particular framework to apply to the topic of aggressive
driving. The social-cognitive model of aggressive driving is recommended, as it
takes into account wide-ranging cognitive, situational, and dispositional factors.
Implications for future research are also considered.
Keywords Aggressive driving
.
Road rage
.
Dangerous driving
.
Traffic safety
.
Anger
management
Generally, reports of aggression in the context of driving have been imprecise, with
researchers sometimes using road rage and aggressive driving synonymously
and at other times disparately. A lack of conceptual clarity has stifled the field of
aggressive driving research, which presently consists of relatively few objective
studies. Rathbone and Huckabee (1999) said definitions of road rage in the literature
often vary or are not specified, and they emphasized that aggressive driving and road
rage are not synonymous. Dula and Geller (2004) provided a review of definitions
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334
DOI 10.1007/s12144-011-9120-3
C. S. Dula (*)
Department of Psychology, East Tennessee State University, POB 70649, Johnson City,
TN 37614-1702, USA
e-mail: dulac@etsu.edu
E. S. Geller
Department of Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
F. L. Chumney
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
used in the literature and suggested that what has in the past been considered as
road rage or aggressive driving, be re-conceptualized as dangerous driving, with
three major subcategories: 1) risky driving behaviors, 2) negative cognitions/
emotions experienced while driving, and 3) acts of aggression, where the latter are
restricted solely to behaviors intended to harm others psychologically or physically.
In the years since these publications, little consensus has been achieved in terms of
consistently defining terms and variables.
To be compatible with past research (e.g., Baron and Richardson 1994; Felson
2000; Geen and ONeal 1976), driver aggression, like general aggression, should
entail an intent to harm. While aggression in a driving context will often include
willfully risky behaviors and intense negative emotions, the latter two constructs
reflect somewhat different areas of study. In fact, risky driving is the topic of much
research, including problems of driving while impaired, speeding, red-light
running, drowsy driving, multi-tasking (e.g., cellular phone use), and misuse or
disuse of safety belts and child safety seats. Consistent with notions of other
researchers in terms of content and definitional criteria (e.g., Ellison-Potter et al.
2001; Lajunen et al. 1998; Tasca 2000), Dula and Geller (2004) posited that
aggressive driving is any behavior produced by a driver, while driving, which is
intended to cause physical and/or psychological harm to pedestrians or persons in
another vehicle.
We are not the first to propose a model of driver aggression. For example, Shinar
(1998) used the frustration-aggression hypothesis as the basis of a theoretical
approach. Reviewing five empirical investigations, Shinar (1998) proposed that
beyond dispositional factors, these studies supported the idea that cultural norms,
travel delays, and traffic congestion, all contribute to the determination of whether
aggression will be displayed while driving. However, due to inherent limitations in
the overarching theory, we opted for a different angle. The current model does not
discard, but rather augments the frustration-aggression approach by incorporating
cognitive, dispositional, and situational factors by design.
Additionally, Lonero (2000) proposed a heuristic model with taxonomical
categories. It called for cataloging aggressive driving events in terms of: a)
instrumentality of behavior (e.g., minor aggressive actions versus actual physical
assaults); b) severity of prejudicial motivation (e.g., mobility issues versus outright
rage reactions); and, c) severity of intent and consequences. However, this work was
only intended as a rough example of ways in which we may be able to build
a clearer model to aid understanding and communication (Lonero 2000,
Solutions, 3). Lonero (2000) pointed out an array of extant social science views
(e.g., frustration-aggression hypothesis, attribution theory) which might enhance
our understanding of aggressive driving while noting a need for a comprehensive
theoretical perspective to guide empirical research.
Taking up the challenge from this point, we reviewed the aggression literature,
selected what we believe to be a relevant and logical theoretical framework, namely
a social-cognitive perspective, to apply to aggression in a driving context. It is all the
more practical in that it is not inconsistent with the General Aggression Model (e.g.,
Anderson and Bushman 2002). We will discuss situational and cognitive appraisal
factors first, and then turn to individual difference factors, before combining the
perspectives to posit their collective effects on driving behavior.
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334 325 325
Cognitive and Situational Factors
Many cognitive theories of aggression build on strengths of the frustration-aggression
hypothesis and social learning theory. However, specific theories vary with regard to the
degree of emphasis placed on learning, specific behaviors, cue-response associations,
attitudes, perceptive biases, response biases, and mental scripts. Nonetheless, all tend to
agree that understanding how people perceive and interpret situations is vital to
predicting whether they will respond in an aggressive manner (Eron 1994). Further,
aggressive conduct can be to some degree understood in terms of schemas (e.g.,
Greenwald & Banaji 1995; Huesmann 1988), or pre-existing mental concepts or
categories that help us organize and interpret information we encounter at any given
moment. Schemas and scripts affect the way we perceive situations, and those
perceptions drive our behavior. While many types of situational and cognitive processing
elements are relevant to aggressive driving, we will focus on a few of the most salient.
Correspondence Bias Correspondence bias, more popularly known as the fundamental
attribution error, may be the most obviously applicable cognitive processing bias with
regard to aggressive driving. People tend to instantaneously, and apparently with little
awareness, attribute the cause of others behaviors to their presumed disposition.
However, such attributions tend to be flawed as we generally: a) have little appreciation
of intangible but powerful influences in a situation; b) harbor unrealistic expectations for
others behavior (assuming we would not behave the same way in the same
circumstances); c) overinflate categorizations of behavior; and, d) fail to correct
dispositional attributions even after we are provided with evidence that contradicts a
dispositional explanation (e.g., Fiske 1995; Gilbert and Malone 1995). Indeed,
interpersonal conflict often arises from misperceptions of others behaviors and faulty
attributions regarding those behaviors (Wilmot and Hocker 1998). We usually have
little to no objective information about the intentions of other drivers and we know
little to nothing of their character, attitudes, beliefs, or perceptions at the point in which
their behavior comes to our attention (e.g., cutting us off, running red lights). Thus, it
is likely that when exposed to anothers driving mistakes, the observing driver will
make a negative trait judgment about the perceived offender. Thus, it is of little
wonder that so many people tend to blame other drivers for perceived offenses in such
a way as to feel they are deserving of personal scorn or active punishment.
Self-Serving Biases Self-evaluation is a process whereby people are motivated to
generate and maintain a positive appraisal of their actions. For most, self-serving
biases contribute to an overall view of self that is more positive than would be
objectively warranted (Sedikides and Strube 1997). Social-cognitive theorists assert
that people actively negotiate their own identity by attending excessively to self-
confirmatory feedback, engaging in selective memory encoding and retrieval and
interpreting evidence at hand in a biased fashion (e.g., Shmotkin 2005; Swann 1987,
1990). When people react in excessively negative ways to the actions of others, such
as an overblown response to the maneuver of another driver, they may justify their
extreme reaction in a number of ways, including blaming the victim, rationalizing of
the action as appropriate, or ignoring or minimizing the impact of their reaction on
the target.
326 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334
Reciprocity When we receive anything from someone else, there is a pressure to
repay in kind. Cialdini (2001) cited many studies and examples showing reciprocity
to be one of the most powerful norms in human culture, compelling individuals to
return that which was received in some form to somebody (though not necessarily to
the same person). While typically thought of in pleasant and agreeable terms where
we all do favors for one another, reciprocity can also be damaging and destructive,
where we try to harm those who harm us (Cialdini and Trost 1998, p. 175). When
another driver makes a mistake or seems to behave aggressively, this social influence
process will generate pressure to return the perceived slight in some way.
Crowding and Anonymity While not clear cut, there seems to be a relationship
between perceived crowding and aggression. One well-documented phenomenon is
deindividuation, or a state of feeling one is less identifiable in a crowd and thus less
accountable for negative behavior (e.g., Aronson 1999). This is consistent with
Bandura (1978) who asserted that people are less likely to overtly aggress where
doing so would be likely to bring undesirable consequences upon themselves, and he
supposed conditions of anonymity would facilitate aggression. In fact, it has been
shown that aggression increases when conditions promote decreased self-awareness
such as when one feels unidentifiable, is highly aroused, and/or is in an altered state
of consciousness as under the influence of alcohol or other drugs of abuse (Baron
and Richardson 1994). When in traffic jams, drivers may experience pressures of
perceived crowding and the presence of lots of other vehicles, tinted windows, or
sunglasses, may create a heightened sense of anonymity.
Individual Factors
True dispositional differences warrant serious consideration in any meaningful
model of driver aggression as they have reliable predictive power. It has been shown
that people with high levels of trait anger and aggression are more likely to actually
display open anger and aggressive behaviors across a variety of situations, including
driving (e.g., Archer et al. 1995; Dula and Ballard 2003; Epps and Kendall 1995;
James and Nahl 2000; OLaughlin and Schill 1994; Pfefferbaum and Wood 1994;
Rothbart et al. 1994). Many factors have been studied in the search to explain the
origin and maintenance of trait differences in anger and aggression. While a
comprehensive review of all such potential factors is beyond the scope of this work,
several major mechanisms warrant at least brief consideration.
Modeling and Media Influences It is easy to find examples of competitive behavior in
our society, and so should be no surprise that we find competitive attitudes common
amongst drivers. Likewise, opportunities to witness aggressive behavior are ubiquitous,
and such experiences likely propel some toward a propensity to express hostility. Almost
four decades ago, researchers found American television to be saturated with examples
of aggressive models expressing verbal hostility and committing acts of physical
violence (Bandura 1973). All these years later, it is virtually certain that frequent
exposure to aggressive media contributes to the development of aggressive behavior in
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334 327 327
children and adolescents (Anderson and Bushman 2001; Browne and Hamilton-
Giachritsis 2005; Huesmann and Miller 1994). Indeed, the literature supports the
premise that more aggressive children tend to watch more violent television programs
and play more violent videogames. It is likely that those who more frequently watch
aggressive driving modeled in various media, including driving videogames, over
longer periods of time, will tend to exhibit more aggressive behavior than those who
watch such images less often. Further, many children are likely regularly exposed in
person to parental aggressive driving examples.
Sex Issues It is known that males tend to display more verbal and physical
aggression than females (e.g., Dykeman et al. 1996; Gladue 1991; Harris 1994; Joint
1995; Volavka 1999). However, females may be as likely as or more likely than
males to display certain types of aggression under specific circumstances. For
instance, women are just as likely as men to display social aggression (Paquette and
Underwood 1999), and are more likely than men to initiate physical aggression
against their romantic partner (e.g., Chase et al. 1998; George 1999) though females
are more likely to be seriously injured in such interactions.
Sex also plays a role in the media effects discussed above. For example, men
were more lenient punishing theoretical criminals after playing more violent
videogames, but females had the opposite tendency (Deselms and Altman 2003).
Males also tended to seek negative content media when provoked and when
anticipating retaliatory opportunities, while females sought positive media content
under similar conditions (Knobloch-Westerwick and Alter 2006).
In line with a social-cognitive theory, Deaux and Major (1987) noted that
expectations, cognitive self-systems, and situational cues are all powerful determinants
of whether sex-related aggressive behaviors will be displayed. However, males are
more likely to demonstrate actual aggressive behaviors while driving than females,
though males and females report similar levels of negative emotions while driving (e.g.,
Willemsen et al. 2008).
Prejudice Prejudice consists of existing negative attitudes and beliefs about target
groups and their members, and when present, likely exacerbates more general cognitive
biases where all perceived negative behaviors of a target group member are more apt to
be taken as indicative of personal traits. Moreover, such attributions are likely to be
perceived as evidence validating the holding of the prejudice in the first place. As noted,
even without a particular prejudice, people tend to form immediately negative opinions
against those they encounter doing what they feel to be negative behavior. In fact, some
are predisposed to seeing almost anyone as a potential threat. In traffic, the holding of
bigoted attitudes may be more likely lead to aggressive responses to a perceived insult
by a target group driver because it is easier to dehumanize and justify negative actions
toward members of an out-group (e.g., Devine 1995; Ross and Nisbett 1991).
Hostile-attribution Bias Hostile-attribution bias is a tendency to ascribe hostile
intent to a frustrating target whose actions are otherwise ambiguous in nature (Geen
1998). Children who have aggressive behavior problems early in life are more likely
to have poorer social adjustment overall, because when aggression is frequently
engaged, fewer positive alternatives are learned. As highly aggressive schemas and
328 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334
behavioral scripts are developed, one may come to develop a hostile-attribution bias
that carries over into adulthood. Hostile-attribution bias is thought to be a product of
chronic cognitive processing deficiencies such as ineffective cue encoding and/or
misinterpretations of situations (e.g., Crick and Dodge 1994). More aggressive
individuals tend to view use of aggression as more acceptable and reasonable in
general, whether the prompting stimuli are hostile or ambiguous (e.g., Driscoll et al.
1994). Those exhibiting hostile-attribution bias are thus more likely to interpret
others ambiguous driving behaviors as hostile and are then more likely to act
aggressively in response.
Other Salient Traits The link between anger and aggression has been well
established (e.g., Archer et al. 1995; Epps and Kendall 1995; Felsten and Hill
1999; OLaughlin and Schill 1994; Pfefferbaum and Wood 1994; Rothbart et al.
1994), and trait anger is a reliable predictor of physical and verbal aggressive
behavior (e.g., Cornell et al. 1999). Thus, those with relatively high levels of trait
anger should be more likely prone to driver aggression, which was found by Dula
and Ballard (2003).
Type-A personality, defined by high levels of competitiveness and impatience,
has also been found to be related to anger, hostility, and aggression (Anderson and
Bushman 1997; Baron et al. 1999; Catipovic-Veselica 2003; Faunce et al. 2004). In
fact, several studies found a relationship between Type-A personality and increases
in crashes, breaking traffic laws, impatience while driving, risky driving behaviors,
and aggression on the road (Miles and Johnson 2003; Lowenstein 1997; Perry and
Baldwin 2000). Also, people with higher levels of trait aggression are more likely to
have an external locus of control (e.g., Dykeman, et al. 1996; Zainuddin and Taluja
1990). Further, people who are low dissipators-high ruminators have been found to
be more likely to harbor desires for vengeance against people they perceive as
having offended them or threatened their safety (e.g., Collins and Bell 1997). Thus,
those with Type-A personality traits, those who are higher in external locus of
control, and those who are low dissipators-high ruminators, should be more likely to
become aggressive in general as well as in driving contexts.
It follows that a general aggressive disposition in life would transfer to a driving
context and would be a change-resistant trait. However, this does not preclude the
potential development of aggressive reactions in drivers not typically prone to
aggression, if the situational factors are sufficiently powerful to elicit such responses.
While driving is a routine with automatic response sets for most drivers,
opportunities to encounter novel conditions are almost limitless. Events surrounding
an aggressive action are likely to be fairly unique, even with predispositions to view
others driving behavior as offensive or hostile. Moving to a cohesive model, the
factors to be explored by research become explicitly apparent.
Social-Cognitive Model of Aggressive Driving
The social-cognitive theory of aggression provides a broad and well-accepted
framework from which to study driver aggression. Both the situational and trait
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334 329 329
perspectives on aggression provide relevant empirically-supported material from
which to draw theoretically rigorous and practically testable research hypotheses.
The study of a single drivers perspective will yield half the desired understanding.
But, including the perspectives two drivers requires only that each be separately
analyzed, where the behavior of one serves as a trigger event for the other, where
trigger events occur sequentially as an interaction is played out.
Based on the information reviewed above, we put forward a theoretical model
of driver aggression that is restricted to the willful perpetration of acts intended
to cause some level of psychological and/or physical harm. Using a Social-
Cognitive Model of Aggressive Driving, it is possible to take into account the
relative impact of situations and traits to explain and predict the relative
probability of occurrence of aggression in a vehicular context. Figure 1 shows
factors of driver aggression with relevant event variables to be considered, such as
environmental driving conditions, person states, potential trigger events, perceived
trigger event severity (related to a physiological adrenaline response), presence of
correspondence bias, and trait predispositions toward anger and aggression. For
simplicity, categories are split into dichotomous levels of not present or present
(for correspondence bias) and high and low (perception of severity and trait anger/
aggression), although in reality, perceptions, biases, and traits are obviously
continuous rather than discrete variables. The viewpoint of the model is from that
of a driver who perceives an affront, offense, or safety threat caused by another
driver. The perceptions of the trigger event may be accurate or inaccurate, but from
a phenomenological perspective, the perception is the drivers reality and is the
basis from which s/he will respond.
Fig. 1 The Social Cognitive Model of Diver Aggression Model. Note: This diagram represents Driver As
perspective of a trigger event thought to be the fault of Driver B, in the first phase of a potential multi-
phase, reciprocally determined interaction. Salient conditions affect Driver As person state, which affects
perception of, and physiological response (i.e., adrenaline discharge) to, trigger event severity, where the
subsequent response is guided by individual predispositions and social-cognitive biases
330 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334
Model Factors and Predicted Outcomes The first factor focuses on environmental
conditions, which affects not only how a driver handles a vehicle, but also the
attention a driver pays to the road, traffic, and other drivers. The next factor
considers the state (as opposed to the traits) of a driver at the time s/he encounters
the trigger event. An obvious state of relevance is mood. It stands to reason when in
a good mood, a driver is more likely to downplay or dismiss trigger events perceived
as less severe. Conversely, a driver in a bad mood, who is angry, upset, jealous,
frustrated, or sad, may well be disposed to see almost any undesirable trigger event
as worse than might be objectively warranted. A drivers alertness and attentiveness
levels are also a critical component of person state. Effects of multi-tasking, a well-
documented problem (e.g., National Safety Council 2010), are moderated by
environmental and state variables, where the behaviors of a driver may include any
number of off-task activities with regard to driving per se.
The next factor is a perceived trigger event, which is crucial in determining
whether any aggression will result. On experiencing a trigger event that is
presumably the result of Driver Bs actions, Driver A might interpret Driver Bs
behavior variously as either deliberate or accidental, severe or inoffensive,
outrageous or understandable, or deserving of anger or forgiveness, and so on,
depending on Driver As perception of the trigger event. Of course, Driver Bs
interpretation of Driver As response to the situation will influence any ensuing
interactions. The next factor in the model considers the attribution made by Driver A
about Driver B. If correspondence bias is present, the worst is likely to be assumed
about Driver Bs intentions and/or character. Such an assumption should serve to
increase the probability that Driver Awill have an overt negative emotional reaction,
though it may or may not be openly displayed such that Driver B becomes aware of
Driver As reaction.
The next factor is Driver As trait levels of anger and aggression. A number of
individual differences influence whether one will be likely to engage in an
aggressive response to situations which are either ambiguous or more objectively
negative. As noted above, this includes elements such as a long history of aggressive
behavior, strong Type-A personality, elevated external locus of control, high levels
of trait anger, relative inability to dissipate negative emotions, a tendency toward
rumination, possession of hostile-attribution bias, prejudice towards Driver B and
his/her in-group, being male, and frequent exposure to aggressive models in media
or in person.
Finally, the model predicts the category into which an actual response made by
Driver Awould fall, following perception of the trigger event, given a particular path
followed by Driver A through the variable classes. It is this outwardly directed social
reaction that should be the sole object of explanation and prediction in the
phenomenon of aggressive driving. A social reaction is depicted categorically but on
a continuum, ranging from a peaceful dissolution where Driver A engages in no
response observable by Driver B (which could not be considered as aggressive, no
matter how upset Driver A may be, as there is no intent to harm) to a major reprisal
where Driver A might engage in overt aggression toward Driver B. Driver B,
depending on the same factors as applied to Driver A, may have a similar or
different reaction according to his/her perception of Driver As behavior in the
situation.
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334 331 331
Conclusion Aggressive driving is a phenomenon frequently addressed in mass media.
As a topic of empirical investigation, however, aggressive driving is often depicted
variously in the literature, sometimes with virtually synonymous treatment of terms
pertaining to risky driving, negative emotional experiences, and actual aggressive
behavior while driving. Empirical work is lacking, and that which does exist is of modest
use due to problems in definitional consistency (Dula and Geller 2004). Assuming the
difficulties with definitions can be overcome, theoretical frameworks must be
developed and applied to bring further clarity to exploration of aggressive driving,
and to promote logical consistency in the research hypotheses which are generated.
The authors believe a social-cognitive perspective serves as a logical starting
point for theoretically-driven research in the field. In essence, this model predicts the
manner in which relevant environmental variables and person states, along with
cognitive processing biases and traits such as those related to anger and aggression,
combine to influence the perceptions and reactions of drivers to trigger events. The
hypothetical paths through these variable sets lead to the subsequent display or
inhibition of driver aggression. This theory was not presented with the conclusion
that it is the only approach, but rather with the hope that its presentation would serve
to stimulate an increase in systematic empirical research on aggressive driving, and
that it might serve as a basis for the design of interventions aimed at amelioration of
the problem.
While the present model should lend itself well to generating hypotheses which
can be tested, it does reflect the bias of the authors that a social-cognitive framework
provides a fairly comprehensive explanatory mechanism. It is possible other theories
could be used to generate models with equal or greater potential predictive value. We
sincerely hope other researchers will test this model and other theory-based models
in the service of advancing our understanding of this significant societal problem.
References
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (1997). External validity of trivial experiments: the case of
laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology, 1, 1941.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior,
aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic
review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353359.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 2751.
Archer, J., Kilpatrick, G., & Bramwell, R. (1995). Comparison of two aggression inventories. Aggressive
Behavior, 21, 371380.
Aronson, E. (1999). The social animal (8th ed.). Freeman and Company: Worth Publishers/W.H.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prenitice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28, 1229.
Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press.
Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace
aggression: evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the Type A behavior pattern.
Aggressive Behavior, 25, 281296.
Browne, K. D., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2005). The influence of violent media on children and
adolescents: a public-health approach. Lancet, 365, 702710.
Catipovic-Veselica, K. (2003). Bortner type a scores and basic emotions: aggression, distrustful,
depression, and gregarious. Psychological Reports, 93, 132134.
Chase, K. A., Treboux, D., OLeary, K. D., & Strassberg, Z. (1998). Specificity of dating aggression and
its justification among high-risk adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 467473.
332 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology vol. 2 (4th ed., pp. 151
192). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Collins, K., & Bell, R. (1997). Personality and aggression: the dissipation-rumination scale. Personality
and Individual Differences, 22, 751755.
Cornell, D. G., Peterson, C. S., & Richards, H. (1999). Anger as a predictor of aggression among
incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 108115.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing
mechanisms in childrens social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74101.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related
behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369389.
Deselms, J. L., & Altman, J. D. (2003). Immediate and prolonged effects of videogame violence. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 15531563.
Devine, P. G. (1995). Prejudice and out-group perception. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology
(pp. 467524). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Driscoll, J. M., Jarman, B. J., & Yankeelov, P. A. (1994). Effects of a persons history of aggression on
attributions of affect to aggressors. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 685700.
Dula, C. S., & Ballard, M. E. (2003). Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous, aggressive,
negative emotional, and risky driving. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 263282.
Dula, C. S., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Risky, aggressive, or emotional driving: addressing the need for
consistent communication in research. Journal of Safety Research.
Dykeman, C., Daehlin, W., Doyle, S., & Flamer, H. (1996). Psychological predictors of school-based
violence: implications for school counselors. School Counselor, 44, 3547.
Ellison-Potter, P., Bell, P., & Deffenbacher, J. (2001). The effects of trait driving anger, anonymity, and
aggressive stimuli on aggressive driving behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 431443.
Epps, J., & Kendall, P. C. (1995). Hostile attributional bias in adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19,
159178.
Eron, L. D. (1994). Theories of aggression: From drives to cognitions. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.),
Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 310). New York: Plenum Press.
Faunce, G. J., Mapledoram, P. K., & Soames Job, R. F. (2004). Type A behaviour pattern and attentional
bias in relation to anger/hostility, achievement, and failure. Personality and Individual Differences,
36, 19751988.
Felson, R. B. (2000). A social psychological approach to interpersonal aggression. In V. B. Van Hasselt &
M. Hersen (Eds.), Aggression and violence: An introductory text (pp. 922). Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
Inc.
Felsten, G., & Hill, V. (1999). Aggression questionnaire hostility scale predicts anger in response to
mistreatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 8797.
Fiske, S. T. (1995). Social cognition. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 149193). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Geen, R. G. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology, vol. 2 (4th ed., pp. 317356). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Geen, R. G., & ONeal, E. C. (Eds.). (1976). Perspectives on aggression. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
George, M. J. (1999). A victimization survey of female-perpetrated assaults in the United Kingdom.
Aggressive Behavior, 25, 6779.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 2138.
Gladue, B. A. (1991). Aggressive behavioral characteristics, hormones, and sexual orientation in men and
women. Aggressive Behavior, 17, 313326.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 427.
Harris, M. B. (1994). Gender of a subject and target as mediators of aggression. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 24, 453471.
Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 14, 1324.
Huesmann, L. R., & Miller, L. S. (1994). Long-term effects of repeated exposure to media violence in
childhood. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 153186). New
York: Plenum Press.
James, L., & Nahl, D. (2000). Road rage and aggressive driving: Steering clear of highway warfare.
Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334 333 333
Joint, M. (1995). Road rage. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Retrieved May 23, 2003, from http://
www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtext
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Alter, S. (2006). Mood adjustment to social situations through mass media
use: how men ruminate and women dissipate angry moods. Human Communication Research, 32,
5873.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Stradling, S. (1998). 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, 1, 107121.
Lonero, L. P. (2000). A preliminary heuristic model of aggressive behaviour in drivers. Aggressive Driving
Issues Conference. Retrieved November 21, 2000, from http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/
lonero/lonero-paper.html.
Lowenstein, L. F. (1997). Research into causes and manifestations of aggression in car driving. Police
Journal, 70, 263270.
Miles, D. E., & Johnson, G. L. (2003). Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal
predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6, 147161.
National Safety Council. (2010). Understanding the distracted brain: Why driving while using hands-free
cell phones is risky behavior. White Paper. Retrieved May 30, 2011, from http://www.nsc.org/
safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Pages/CognitiveDistraction.aspx.
OLaughlin, S., &Schill, T. (1994). The relationship between self-monitored aggression and the MMPI-2F, 4, 9
composite and anger content scale scores. Psychological Reports, 74, 733734.
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents experiences of
peer victimization: social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 242266.
Perry, A. R., & Baldwin, D. A. (2000). Further evidence of associations of Type A personality scores and
driving-related attitudes and behaviors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 147154.
Pfefferbaum, B., & Wood, P. B. (1994). Self-report study of impulsive and delinquent behavior in college
students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 15, 295302.
Rathbone, D. B., & Huckabee, J. C. (1999). Controlling road rage: A literature review and pilot study.
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Retrieved July 17, 2003, from http://www.aaafoundation.org/
resources/index.cfm?button=roadrage.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament and social behavior in childhood.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 2139.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: to thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure,
to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 29, 209269.
Shinar, D. (1998). Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1, 137160.
Shmotkin, D. (2005). Happiness in the face of adversity: reformulating the dynamic and modular bases of
subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 9, 291325.
Swann, W. B. (1987). Identity negotiation: where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 10381051.
Swann, W. B. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and self-
verification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:
Foundations of social behavior, vol. 2 (pp. 408448). New York: Guilford Press.
Tasca, L. (2000). A review of the literature on aggressive driving research. Aggressive Driving Issues
Conference. Retrieved November 21, 2000, from http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/tasca/
tasca-paper.html.
Volavka, J. (1999). The neurobiology of violence: an update. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical
Neurosciences, 11, 307314.
Willemsen, J., Dula, C. S., Declercq, F., & Verhaeghe, P. (2008). The dula dangerous driving index: An
investigation of reliability and validity across cultures. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40(2), 798806.
Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (1998). Interpersonal conflict (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Zainuddin, R., & Taluja, H. (1990). Aggression and locus of control among undergraduate students.
Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 6, 211215.
334 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334
Copyright of Current Psychology is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.