fhe Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ)

;olence and Victims, Vol. 15, No.2, 2000

, 2000 Springer Publishing Company

fhe Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ): fhe Development of a Scale to Measure Deviant Drivers' Attitudes David L. Wiesenthal Dwight Hennessy Patrick M. Gibson York University,

Ontario,

Canada

The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ) was developed anc administered to assess drivers' use of vengeance when faced with common driving si;::.ations. Subjects in the development of the scale were 266 male and female university s:udents. The scale was then administered to 271 university students (both male and femz.:~)and 74 male inmates who were classified as either violent or nonviolent offenders on dle basis of the amount of force used in committing

the offence. A Cronbach

alpha of .83 (M

=40.76,

n

= 310)

indicated a high level of internal consistency for the DVQ. Younger drivers (18-23 years old) indicated higher levels of vengeance while driving th21ldid older drivers (24-

66 years old, M =44.35 and 37.81, respectively). Those ~ith ~:.ssdriving experience (0-6 years) expressed higher levels of vengeance while dri.,ing:ban more experienced drivers (6+ years, M 42.95 and 38.81, respectively). Male dvers responded with

=

,

greater vengeance to the questionnaire items than females l~1 =~2..07 and 39.62, respec-

tively). The level of force used in commission of crime faileri to correlate with the DVQ.A factor analysis was performed witha differentsample of subjectsusing a slightly modified version of the DVQ to deal with the issue of wbethe:-horn honking constituted an appropriate measure of aggression. When the two rekvant DVQ items were changed to read "leaning on horn" rather than mere honking, a strong, single factor of vengeance was found to characterize the scale. Suggestions were made for the use of DVQ in the screening of driving license applicants and in the scdy of problemdrivers.

Driving congestion in large cities is worsening, causing stress among drivers (Hennesy & Wiesenthal, 1997) . In Toronto, statistics from the Metro Planning Department for 1993 indicatedthat approximately 288,500 people commuted imo Metro between 6:30 and 9:30 a.m. on an average workday. Almost 240.000 commuters came by private automobile (Kamin, 1994). The major traffic artery 10the Metropolitan T:ronto area, Highway 401, has a daily average of 255,000 vehicles (Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 1992). The increase in traffic volume is caused by numerous factors, from the increase in the number oftrucksdue to free trade, to more women drivingtheir own C3l'Sfer safetyreasons(Gamester,

115

D. L Wiesenrhal et al.

116

1994). In 1971, Metropolitan Toronto had a daily flow of 350,000 automobiles. which by 1988 had increased to 950,000 (L. Tasca, 1991, personal communication). This rate has now increased to 1,400,000 automobiles daily. The flow of traffic has increased by 4% a year for the last 10 years. while the road capacity has remained stable (Gamester, 1994). Stress caused by difficult economic times combined with competitive driving conditions could cause some drivers to operate their vehicles with a disregard for the safety of others. Inefficient coping responses tend to increase as stress levels increase, with other drivers' behavior constituting the most common source of stress (Gulian, Debney, Glendon. Davies. & Matthews, 1989b). More drivers are competing for limited space. increasing stress with the accompanying inefficient coping responses further aggravating driver stress. Indeed. stress. frustration. and anger are a common aspect of the commute to and from the city ("How to Cope." 1994). As many commuters drive more aggressively, this may cause others to retaliate. often jeopardizing their own safety. Indeed. a threat to one's well-being can. in the minds of many drivers. justify an even more aggressive response.

Driving and Stress Traffic congestion should be viewed as a series of minor everyday hassles that can provoke stress during the driving situation. The experience of many minor irritants and their novelty and irregularity over the course of several driving excursions can gradually erode an individual's coping resources. Some potentially dangerous effects of driver-related stress that have been found are increased aggressive driving (Gulian et aI., 1989b), poor concentration levels (Mathews, Dom. & Glendon, 1991),increased blood pressure (Stokols,Novaco, Stokols, & Campbell, 1978), and increased accident occurrences (Selzer & Vinokur, 1974). Aftereffects of negative mood, thoughts, or attitudes, to and from work and family environments, have been found to aggravate the severity of further driving-related stress (Gulian et aI., 1989a). Congested driving situations inhibit the control the driver has over his/her environment (Hennessy, 1995, Hennessy & WiesenthaI, 1997), which in turn can cause elevated stress levels. Since stress may be produced through the interaction of environmental and personality variables, the inability to deal effectively with driving stress may lead to increased stress-related problems at home and at work. Aggression

and Driving

It is evident that younger drivers operate their vehicles with less care than older drivers. Gulian and colleagues (1989b) found that younger drivers (up to 35 years of age) drive more aggressively, are irritated more by other drivers, are more anxious when overtaken, have a more difficult time controlling their temper, and are more impatient in rush hour, than older drivers. Furthermore, the younger they are, the more likely they are to take risks (Novaco, 1991). It is evident that age is an important factor in deciding to what extent traffic situations are perceived stressful, and what responses will occur (Gulian et aI., 1989b). Irritation in driving situations is frequently expressed in aggressive and hostile reactions toward other drivers, such as tail-gating, horn-blowing, and verbaI responses (Deffenbacher, Oetting & Lynch, 1994; Parry, 1968; Maiuro, 1998; Mathews, Dom. & Glendon. 1991; Turner, Layton. & Simons, 1975). Two plausible precursors of irritation and anger while driving are the drivers' general predisposition to hostility and aggression, as well as the 'daily hassles' they are currently experiencing (Gulian et aI., 1989b; Mathews et aI., 1991). Furthermore, an aggressive individual may vent hislher frustration and anger by drivins more aggressively, which will increase the probability of an accident (Mathews et aI., 1991)

Driving Vengence Questionnaire

117

Novaco (1991) emphasized the concept of disinhibition of aggression in driving situations resulting from multiple influence channels associated with physiological arousal, traffic context, aggressive scripts, and contagion mechanisms associated with mass media. Novacofound that aggression scores were consistentlyhigher for males than females.Young males were more aggressive. more competitive, drove faster, and took more risks than any other group. All of these behaviors are linked to accidents and driving offences. However, in a study by Hauber in 1980, it was found that younger women were more aggressive than oldermen.Also of interest in this study was thefinding that more aggressive driving occurred in the afternoon than in the morning. In one study (Michalowski, 1975) 41.5% of people convicted of vehicular homicide had a history of criminal offences. Also, most of the multiple violent offenders were multiple traffic offenders. Michalowski concluded that "violence on the road is linked to violent subcultures as much as is routinely recognized violence" (Novaco, 1991, p. 261). Novaco also indicated that poor control of hostile impulses as well as antisocial tendencies, is common among accident repeaters. In a study of roadside confrontations, Novaco indicated that following a conflict about road space or privilege, one driver forced another off the road, setting the stage for confrontation. He gave the following example: One striking illustration in this roadway aggressioncategory is the case of Arthur Salomon. a Wall Street investment banker and the grandson of Percy Salomon, one of the founders of Salomon Brothers.This prominent 52-year-old,seeminglymodel citizen, shot an unarmed college student on June 19, 1987, in a road dispute on the Hutchinson River Parkway.The conflict began with some friction over the right to pass on the freeway. It escalated toverbal exchanges on the side of the road and ended with the shooting of the young man by Salomon, as the victim was walking back to his car, saying that he had the license plate of Salomon's Mercedes. (Novaco, 1991, p.302-303)

Another example is the case of a 54-year-old man from Woonsocket, RI, who killed another driver with a crossbow. After the drivers cut each other off in traffic and flashed their headlights at each other, they pulled onto the shoulder. One man took a crossbow out of his trunk and shot a bolt into the other man's chest ("Crossbow used," 1994). Road rage has received considerable attention in North American news media. The American Automobile Association (AAA) Foundation for Traffic Safety commissioned three studies of aggressive driving (Mizell, Joint, & Connell 1997). The study analyzed 10,037police reports and newspaper stories concerning traffic incidents that were followed by violent behaviors. Congressional testimony indicated that aggressive behaviors were involvedin nearly 28,000 American highway accidents according to Dr. Ricardo Martinez, head ofthe U. S. National Highway TrafficSafetyAdministration (Wald, 1997).In Washington, there has been an increasing tendency for motorists to blame aggressive behavior for accidents on the Capital's roadways (Reid, 1998). Concern over road rage has extended to the Internet, where several Web sites have addressed highway aggression (see http://www.aloha.netJ-dyc/testimony.html, http://www.stateja.us/governmentJdotJroadrage.htm [do not include hyphen] and http://www.stop-roadrage.com.main.html[do include hyphen]). The problem is also of concern in Canada, where the Ontario Provincial Police report receiving 500 telephone calls a week complaining about the aggressive practices of other highway users (Mitchell; 1997, see also Gottleib, 1997; Taylor, 1997). Vest, Cohen, and Tharp (1997) describe some of the perpetrators of road rage who do not fit the expected profile of young, risk-taking males with histories of aggressive/antisocial behavior. They report that in Salt Lake City, a 75-year-old driver, angered

18

D. L. ~Viesenthal et al.

rer a honked horn sounded by a 47-year-old driver for blocking traffic, followed the her driver off the road, where he hurled a bottle of prescription drugs and then "in a ,splay of geriatric resolve smashed Remm's [the other driver] knees with his '92 Mercury. I tony Potomac, MD., Robin Flicker-an attorney and ex-state legislator-knocked Ie glasses off a pregnant woman after she had the temerity to ask him why he bumped er Jeep with his" (p. 24). Novaco asserted that roadway aggression can be understood in terms of the disinhibion of aggression concept, this being the weakening of restraints against doing harm. He "plained that Modelling influences through mass communication channels is one disinhibiting influence that affects imitation or adoption of (aggressive) prototype behavior. However, the modelling effects hypothetically act in conjunction with other converging facilitators, such as the physiological arousal associated with driving, the anonymity of freeways, escape potential, cinematic scripts that have pre-programmed the mind, alcohol or drug abuse, the occurrence of thwartings by "inconsiderate"drivers that "justify" aggression, and the carrying of the fireanns, which under conditions of arousal and anger can activate aggressive counterresponding. Such factors act as releasers that override the otherwise incalculated prohibitions about aggressive behavior. (Novaco, 1991. p. 306-307)

Given that aggressive behavior is restrained by social norms and by legal penalties in the general case, and that this is quite specifically so in driving situations, the delineation of disinhibiting influences is a plausible approach to understanding various forms of aggression on roadways (Novaco, 1991, p. 307). The concept of deindividuation while driving may be a significant factor in the driver's behavior. Wiesenthal and Janovjak (1992) found that tinted windows and increased traffic volume, both of which perceivably increase the anonymity of the driver, increased the likelihood of adverse driving behavior (i.e., failure to signal turns, greater acceleration following a change in the traffic signal). There appears to be a clear connection between Novaco's explanation of the disinhibition of aggression and vengeance. Drivers who are disinhibited are more likely to behave aggressively, which typifies revenge.

Vengeance Vengeance is defined as pain, injury, humiliation or annoyance inflicted on those who have been a source of injury or annoyance (Stein, 1973). Revenge is an act of hate, an infliction of harm or pain. Revenge is based on reason related to the perceived evil of a past action and is not just a blind expression of emotion. Revenge is reactive and a response to injury or to a perceived injustice. Vengeance is always propelled by the offensive act of some other person or group and this necessary link between revenge and the past offense provides vengeance with a rational and moral status (Bar-Elli & Heyd, 1986). Elster (1990) believed that the universal phenomenon of asserting one's honor is an aspect of a deep-rooted urge to show one's superiority. Its aim is sheer self-assertion and selfesteem. Furthermore, the urge to prove oneself superior to others fuses with the spontaneous urge to seek revenge. In a competitive world it is important to convince dangerous rivals that one can only be harmed at an unacceptable cost to the aggressor. Also, believable threats of retaliation must Degenuine (Daly & Wilson, 1988).

'riving Vengence Quesrionnaire

119

Indeed, it is considered by many a disgrace to not seek revenge: Revenge is a deep, uniersal, culture-independent emotion which is not subject to elimination by educational leans (Bar-Elli & Heyd, 1986). For some, there is the assumption that vengeance is a lrirnitivemoral right of human beings (Henberg, 1990), while others see the conscious aim Ifvengeance as retribution. punishment. and a longed-for state of peace (Socarides, 1966). ;ome believe that much of the crime in modern societies. as in pre-industrial societies, can )e interpreted as a fonn of "self-help" in which the person is expressing a grievance hrough aggression and violence (Black. 1983). If some aggrieved parties do not take the initiative in redressing their grievances, they )elieve that nobody else will (Daly & Wilson, 1988).Therefore. those seeking vengeance :onsider their transgression as being "justifiable," while they perceive the transgressors as ieserving of punishment (Pettiway, 1987). In fact, much violence involves ordinary citizens who view their conduct as a legitimate exercise of social control (Black. 1983). Stuckless and Goranson (1992) found that: Vengeance, by its very nature. typically involves serious acts of aggression (p. 37) . . . Vengefulresponses are typically more extreme than would be indicated by the norm of reciprocity (p. 27) . . . There are indications of an imerdisciplinary consensus that revenge is a powerful motivating factor for aggressiveacts (p. 38) . . . (and) a highly vengeful person is particularly likely to exhibit anger. (p. 27) It is interesting to note that studies indicate that as age increases, attitudes toward revenge decrease (Gibson & Wiesenthal, 1996; Rubini, 1993; Stuckless & Goranson, 1992)':

Measuring Vengeance The development of a measure assessing a driver's use of revenge when faced with common driving conditions would be helpful in discovering some of the triggering incidents for aggressive responses. As indicated previously, vengeance is a response to a perceived threat to one's own safety andior honor. Some drivers may feel threatened by being cut off or forced to swerve while driving. Given that traffic accidents cause many fatalities every year, certain driving behaviors are a very real threat to one's safety. However, a vengeful response to a perceived threat may only facilitate an even mQreaggressive counterresponse or cause an accident. An aggressive response is not productive unless it eliminates the threat. In a driving situation it may only serve to escalate that threat or cause injury to oneself. It is clear that vengeance is highly unproductive in a driving situation.

Rationale for Present Study There is no measure of aggressive reactions of drivers in stress-inducing situations such as being cut off or having someone take a parking space for which they have been waiting. These are cornmon driving occurrences and a measure assessing responses to these situations could be valuable in combating aggressive driving behaviors. The following (Study I) is a description of the development of a questionnaire to measure drivers' reactions in certain situations. The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ) was designed to assess driver reactions to perceived threats and to probe which situations would elicit the strongest reactions. Study II represents a study in which students and inmates answered the DVQ. Evans (1991) suggested that involvement in traffic accidents is explained by factors common to

thoseinvolved in criminal activity (i.e., gender, age, impulsivity, and risk taking), so this comDarison will test this notion.

120

D. L. lViesenthal

et aL.

Hypotheses 1. Younger drivers will respond more aggressively than will older, more experienced drivers. 2. Male drivers will indicate more aggressive responses than will female drivers. 3. Inmates will respond more aggressively to the items than will students. 4. The more violent offenders will respond in a more aggressive manner than the less violent offenders. 5. The inmates will display less ability to control anger and be more impulsive than the students.

STUDY I METHOD Subjects The subjects were 266 university students. There were 178 females and 74 males, as well as 14 subjects who did not indicate their gender on the questionnaire. The average age was 23, with a range of 31, from 19 to 50 years of age. The average number of years of driving experience was 5 1/2 years with a minimum of zero and a maximum of 35. There were 14 subjects who do not drive and 18subjects who did not indicate years of driving experience. The subjects who did not drive were eliminated from the study.

Procedure Drivers were asked which traffic situations they commonly encountered angered them the most. Thirty-seven scenarios were recorded and formed the primary questionnaire(Appendix A). University students were then asked to indicate how they would react, on a scale from ,

'veryrelaxed' (1) to 'veryangry'(5), to each situation.

RESULTS An ANOVA (with subject sex as the independent variable) was performe~ on the original 37-item questionnaire. The 15 items with the highest mean score, which were not sex biased (i.e., no significant sex differences were obtained) (Appendix B), were chosen. If significant differences were obtained for the male and female means on the t-test, the item was discarded. From the remaining items, a second questionnaire (the DVQ) was developed consisting of 15 multiple choice questions (Appendix C) in which the respondents were asked to indicate how they would respond in that situation. The choice of response ranged from 'Do nothing,' to a highly aggressive response, such as 'Force the other vehicle off the road.' Also, a space wasprovidedfor the respondent to indicate an alternative response.

121


STUDY II METHOD Subjects The DVQ was administered to several introductory psychology classes at York University in Toronto, Ontario. Two hundred and seventy-one questionnaires were completed by this university sample. There were 179 females and 90 males. as well as two subjects who did not indicate their gender on the questionnaire. The average age was 27, with a range of 40. from 18 to 58 years of age. The average number of years of driving experience was 9 years with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 36. There were 7 subjects who do not drive and 10subjects who did not indicate years of driving experience, thus leaving 254 usable questionnaires. Seventy-four DVQ were given to inmates of the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCr). ocr is an all male. medium security research and treatment facility located in Brampton, Ontario. The inmates of this provincial institution serve sentences of no more than 2 years less a day. The average age was 33, with a range of 47, from 19 to 66 years of age. The average number of years of driving experience was 14 with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 45. There were 8 subjects who did not drive and 10 subjects who did not indicate years of driving experience. All subjects, students and prisoners, who indicat~d that they do not drive, or did not indicate years of driving experience, were dropped from the study. There were 56 usable questionnaires from the prison sample.

Scoring The subjects were instructed to respond to each item by circling the response that they would most likely make in that situation, or to write down an alternative response in'the space provided. Each item was scored from 1 to 5, wit.~ 1 being t.~e most aggressive response and 5 the least. The variables were then reversed so that a high score would indicate a high level of aggression and a low score would indicate a low level of aggression.

Procedure The DVQ were answered anonymously by the students of two evening introductory psychology classes at York University. They were asked to fill out the questionnaires as completely and honestly as possible. The DVQ were answered by the inmates during the regular intake classification test battery which all new inmates are given. Testing was conducted in a classroom in groups of 5 to 15prisoners and was supervised by the prison psychometrist or an assistant. The inmates were required to identify themselves on the questionnaire, thus permitting the researchers to collate additional measures. The results of the DVQs completed by the inmates were compared to subscale measures of impulsivity, habitual criminality, and escapism on the MMPI. Also analysed were the MMPI validity scales: L, F, and K. Furthermore. data were collected regarding the offences committed by the inmates, as well as the circumstances of the offence(s) (i.e., level offorce). The level of force was rated from 1 to 4, with 1 being a low level of force usedduringthe conunissionof the offence(s) and 4 beinga high levelof force.An example of a low level of force is touching or theft in which there was no violence or physical

!2

D. L. WieJenrhal et al.

;gression reported. An example of a high level of force would be a crime in which a vicn was physically and aggressively assaulted. or in which there was a great deal of propty damage caused by the perpetrator. In short. the level of force was measured by the ,vel of physical force used by the inmate while committing the offence(s). These data 'ere collected from intake interviews and police/court documents outlining the circum:ances of the offence~s).A short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale ~eynolds, 1982) was also administered to the inmates in order to increase the validity of 1e results by controlling for social desirability.

RESULTS \ Cronbach alpha reliability analysis was performed to detennine the internal consistency

=

)f the DVQ items. The result was an alpha of .83 (M 40.76, n = 310), which indicates a :Ugh level of internal consistency. As seen in Table I, younger drivers, 18 to 23 years of age, indicated higher levels of aggression while driving than did older drivers. 2-+to 66 years of age (supporting Hypothesis 1). Analysis of variance indicated a significant difference in the total DVQ score, (F (1, 308) 30.38, p < .01). Those with less driving experience also indicated higher levels of aggression, (F(I, 308)= 11.56,p < .01). As predicted (Hypothesis 2), male drivers responded more

=

=

aggressively to the items than did female drivers, (F(1, 307) 3.93, p < .05). The hypothesis (3) that prisoners would score higher on the scale than students was not supported by the data. Analysis of variance indicated that while there was a significant difference in the total driving scale score, (F(l. 308) = 5.24, p < .05), it was the students who responded more aggressively. The total DVQ score was significantly negatively correlated with the subjects' age, as well as driving experience, -.40 and -.35, respectively. This indicates that as age and driving experience increase, reported aggressive responses in driving sitUations decrease. There was no significant correlation with the amount of force used during the offence and the total DVQ score (Hypothesis 4). There were significant correlational results found with the total DVQ score and data collected regarding impulsivity. habitual criminality, escapism, validit) scales L, F, and K, and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability score (see Table 2). TABLE 1. Mean TotaJ Scores on the DVQ SubjectS Age Group 18 to 23 24 to 66 Driving Experience 0 to 6 years 6+ years Gender Female Male Sample Group Students Prisoners

Mean

SD

n

44.35 37.81

10.32 10.47

140 170

~2.95 38.81

10.17 11.16

146 164

3962 ~2.07

8.78 12.90

170 139

~1,42 37.77

10.24 13.14

254 56

123

Driving Vengence Questionnaire TABLE 2. Correlation of Total DVQ Score, Force Used During the Offence, Impulsivity, Habitual Criminality, Escapism. Validity Scales L. F, and K, and Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability ~otal )VQ Score

Force .0623 (55) P = .651

Impulsivity .4639 (54) p = .000 -.0232 (56) p = .864

Habitual Criminality Escapism .2872 .3061 (54) (54) p =.035 p =.024 -.1967 -.1325 (56) (56) p =.142 p =.326 .6345 .8219 (56) (56) p =.000 p =.000 .6331 (56) p =.000

Validity Scale L -.2858 (53) p =.038 -.0635 (56) p .642 -.7227 (56) p =.000 -.3404 (56) p .010 -.6948 (56)

=

=

p

=.000

Validiry Scale F .3463 (53) p =.011 -.0627 (56) p .646 .6904 (56) p .000 .5860 (56) p =.000 .6355 (56)

= =

p

= .000 -.3655 (56)

p

=.005

Validity Scale K -.3956 (53) p =.003 -.1248 (56) p =.359 -.7799 (56) p = .000 -.3927 (56) p .003 -.6741 (56) p

Social Desirabilit .3758 (30) P = .041

.4255 (32) P = .015

.7105 (31) P = .000

=

.2600 (31) P = .158 .s 170 (31)

= .000

P

.6264 (56)

Pc='ooo' -.7094 (56) p= .000

= .003

-.6117 (32) P .000 .4773 (32) P .006 -.6074 (32) P .000

= = =

Ijote. 0 (Coefficiemi(Cases)i2-tailed sig.). ) "." is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed.

The L and K scales should correlate with each other, as they are both measuring whether the person is trying to look better than he/she really is (Anderson & Duckworth, 1995, Levitt, 1989). The DVQ is negatively correlated with the L and K scales because the higher the L and K scales are, the more defensive the person is, or the more they deny having any problems. These individuals are trying to appear in control and also present themselves as better drivers, as reflected by low scores on the DVQ. The DVQ is positively correlated with the F scale. This is explained by the fact that younger drivers score higher on the DVQ than do older drivers. Similarly, younger people tend to score higher on the F scale than do older people (Anderson & Duckworth, 1995).

DISCUSSION The data support Hypothesis 1, i.e., that younger drivers would react more aggressively in stress-inducing driving situations than older drivers. As in previous studies (Evans, 1991; Gu1ianet ai., 1989b; Novaco, 1991;Rubini, 1993), it was apparent that age is an important factor influencing the interpretationand response to certain situations. Perhapsolder drivers

124

D. L. Wi:!senrhLll et al.

have learned from experience that retaliation to a perceived threat is unproductive or counterproductive, or they may just not react as quickly as in the past. As people become older and more established in life, they may see the option of aggression as less desirable because the end result may be that they lose what they have worked hard to obtain, such as their vehicle or, more imponant, their health and/or family and freedom. Younger,less experienced drivers may need an adjustment period to become accustomed to the newly found freedom of driving and to become aware of the consequences of aggressive driving habits. Male subjects indicated more aggressive responses to the driving situations than did female subjects (Hypothesis 2). This is consistent with previous research (Daly & Wilson, 1988; Evans, 1991; Novaco, 1991) which assened that males tend to react aggressively and/or seek revenge more readily than females. This tendency was clearly displayed in their driving habits as well as criminal activity. Males are more often convicted of criminal offences as well as driving infractions than are females (Evans, 1991). This may be due to their higher propensity toward aggression in stressful situations, such as feeling threatened by other drivers or having their progress inhibited. Contrary to Hypothesis 3, the students scored higher on the DVQ than did the prisoners. This may be due to the fact that the prisoners answered the questionnaires in an evaluation context (intake testing) which will have a considerable impact on their future. They were being classified for treatment programs and to determine if they were good candidates for rehabilitation. Funhermore, they were required to identify themselves on the questionnaires and the students were not. There were modest correlations between the DVQ and measures of social desirability. This point emphasizes the necessity for a measure of social desirability in test situations in which the subjects are required to identify themselves. The reliability of the driving questionnaire as a measure of aggressive driving behavior is supponed by the high Cronbach alpha. Funhermore, the consistency of the results with that of other studies indicates a high level of construct validity. The finding that males are more aggressive than females and that younger drivers are more aggressive than older drivers lends suppon to the construct validity of the measure. In addition, the negative correlation of the total driving-scale score with age and driving experience is indicative of the questionnaire's ability to differentiate the attitudes of more and less experienced drivers. This driving questionnaire could be used to measure the attitudes of drivers who are problem drivers, characterized by a given number of demerit points or citations. An indication of their aggressivereactions could be helpful in evaluating if the offender is in need of counseling or some son of intervention to deter further driving infractions. Just making them aware of their deviant attitude toward driving and the consequences that could follow may be sufficient to make some driver's think tWicebefore reacting aggressively. The scale might also prove useful in screening applicants for driving licenses. However, some drivers displace theirhostility and aggression experiencedat home orin the workplace into their drivingbehavior.They may take out their aggression on whomever it is convenient and whoever gives them the slightest provocation. This is obviously not an easy situation to combat, as sometimes it is too late and the damage is done before the aggressor is apprehended. These drivers could no doubt benefit from learning to employ relaxation techniques. Furthermore, the drivers' situation changes from day to day. He/she may have a bad day and drive recklessly and yet have a good day the next day and obey ail the rules and be a couneous and considerate driver. This driving questionnaire could be incorporated into a comprehensive evaluation of deviant drivers. It is recommended that a measure of social desirability also be given with the questionnaire to control for the effects of social desirability. In conjunction with an evaluation of the driver's record and an in-depth interview, this measure could be useful to

125


determine just what is causing the deviant behavior and how it can best be remedied. As aggression is a very important factor in traffic accidents and violations, we feel that this measure is a significant contribution to the evaluation and eventual treatment of this problem. It is unclear whether responses to the DVQ represent a trait, or a situational or interactional response. Further work needs to be conducted to explore this question. The stability or consistency of responding to the DVQ over time and across diverse road conditions are other areas requiring research. Perhaps the measure should be administered in situ while the driver is experiencing traffic conditions employing the cellular telephone interviewing methodology described by Hennessy and Wiesenthal (1997).

Study 3 Despite its frequent use, concerns have been raised regarding the validity of horn honking as an indicator of driver aggression. A major criticism has been that horn honking can also represent a nonaggressive "signal" to other drivers (Novaco, 1991). Turner, Layton, and Simons (1975) conceded that the increased horn honking found in drivers frustrated by a stalled confederate vehicle, may simply have been a signal to the confederate, unable to notice the presence of a trailing motorist. Since channels of communication between drivers are limited, the horn is often used to deliver nonaggressive messages. such as a reminder that a light has changed, or that it is safe to proceed through an intersection. In addition. cultural differences have been noted regarding the appropriateness of horn-honking as a signal, the manner in which the message is delivered. and the potential messages portrayed (Marsh & Collett, 1987). Generally, observations of driver aggression provide.noevidence as to the true intent of an individual driver's horn-honking behavior. However,.evidenceof increased number and duration, and decreased latency, of horn-honking under conditions offrustration suggest "aggressive"rather than "signaling" interpretations (Anderson, 1989). Once a driver has honked, a potential "signal" has been delivered; persistent honking and shorter delays only suggest aggressive intent. A similar criticism may be made against the DVQ in that two items illustrate hornhonking situations that may represent "signaling" behavior for some respondents. Items 13 and 14 depict situations in which a light has changed and a driver has not proceeded. For some, a short horn honk could be used simply as a signal to the driver that it is appropriate to proceed. The purpose of Study 3 was to determine if modifications to response options, depicting clearly aggressive intent, could improve the representation of driver vengeance.

METHOD

Subjects

126

D. L. Wiesenthal et al.

Procedure The scoring option "Honk your horn" from items 13 and 14 was transformed to "Lean on your horn," to represent a more distinctly aggressive behavior. According to Anderson (1989), the prolonged honking is more indicative of an aggressive rather than signaling intent. For those who would intend to give a signal, the option of "Other" was available for alternative responses. Response options to all other DVQ items remained constant. Along with the modified DVQ, subjects also indicated the likelihood with which they generally engage in mild aggression while driving (horn-honking out of frustration, purposely tailgating, swearing/yelling at other drivers, flashing high beams out of frustration, using hand gestures at other drivers) (see Appendix D). Responses ranged from 0

all" to 5 = "very frequently."

= "not

at

RESULTS Scoring of the DVQ was similar to Study 2, in that responses 1 through 4 were reverse keyed, where the more aggressive responses received higher vengeance rating. Responses to the "Other" option were independently rated by three judges, from 1 to 4, based on their equivalence to the respective options 1 through 4. A total vengeance score was calculated as the sum of reverse keyed responses to the 15 DVQ items. A simple factorial ANOVA was performed with total vengeance as the DV,and sex, age, and driving experience as the lV. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, males displayed greater vengeance than females (M = 58.26, SD

= 13.22, n =70 and

M

=53.59,

SD

= 10.48, n = 122, respectively)

F(1,181)

=

8.22, P < .01. For age and driving experience, based on their distribution frequencies, four separate age and experience groups were constructed. As with Study 2, significant main effects were found for age (F(3,181)

=9.33,

P < .01) and experience

(F(3,181)

= 10.22,

P

< .01). Tukey HSD tests were performed to determine the levels at which age Ed experience represented unique driver vengeance scores. As seen in Table 3, the oldest group of participants displayed lower vengeance scores than the two youngest groups. For driving experience, the most experienced group displayed lower vengeance scores than all other groups.

Factor Structure Factor analysis of the DVQ, using the original response structure for items 13 and 14, demonstrated two distinct factors (Eigenvalue

=3.58, alpha =.75 and Eigenvalue = 1.40, alpha =

.48,respectively).However,all originalitemsdid not load onto a single "vengeance"factor (Eigenvalue

=3.58, alpha = .75). Table 4 represents

a comparison of original item load-

ings for one and two factor structures (see Table 4). Examination of the three items that constitute Factor 2 revealed scenarios in which horn-honking behavior may be interpreted as a signal, particularly items 13 and 14 in which the underlying cause is likely inattention. In contrast, using the modified response options for items 13and 14, factor analysis revealed a strong single "driver vengeance" factor structure (Eigenvalue;; 3.92, alpha::: .79) (see Table 5).

127

Driving Vengence Questionnaire TABLE 3. Tukey HSD Comparisons Between Age and Experience Groups With Mean DVQ Scores 1. Agel 1. 19 years 2. 20/21 years 3. 22-32 years 4. > 33 years

Mean DVQ Score 57.65 (9.38/48) 57.12 (12.12155) 52.50 (11.03/49) 47.00 (10.97/48)

*

Age Group 2. 3.

4.

*

Experience Group 1. 2. 3. 4. Experience2 Mean DVQ Score 1. 0-2.5 years 58.39 (11.53/39) 2. 3-4 years 57.95 (11.08/55) 3. 4.5-9 years 58.61 (12.80/42) * * 4. > 9 years 50.31 (11.34/54) Note. Brackets are (SD In). * indicates significant differences between groups. lCD

= 8.75,

*

df= 181, n = 193, p = .05.

2CD = 7.59, df= 181, n = 193,p = .05. TABLE 4. Factor Pattern and Loading for the Original Driving Vengeance Questionnaire Factor 1 2 Factors ).,' 1 Factor .60 .67 A driver passes you and immediately slows or applies brakes. .63 .64 A driver leaves vehicle and approaches in a threatening manner. .55 .56 Driver takes parking space you have been waiting for. .47 .55 Driver fails to yield right of way at an intersection. .56 .53 A slow vehicle occupies left lane on an expressway. .52 .51 Driver passes you and makes obscene gesture. .51 .51 Driver in front of you frequently applies brakes for no reason. .50 .50 Vehicle cuts you off, forcing you to apply brakes. .50 .48 While driving at night, vehicle behind has high beams on. .45 .48 Garbage thrown from anou'iervehide hits your vehicle. .40 .43 A driver persistently honks at you. .36 .38 Driver passes others in the merge lane and tries to cut in front of you. Factor 2 You want to turn but car in front, also turning, does not turn at red light. Car in front does not proceed on green signal. Vehicle delays traffic to pick up or let out passengers.

.72 .69 .65

.25 .30 .32

Aggression and Vengeance A driver aggression score was calculated as the mean likelihood response to the five aggression items. Higher scores indicated a greater likelihood of engaging in mild aggression while driving. A quadratic split was performed to represent five distinct groups, based on the mean likelihood of general driver aggression. Analysis of variance indicated a significant r~lationship between driver aggression likelihood and driver vengeance scores (FC4,188) 29.90, P < .01). A Tukey HSD test indicated that drivers with elevated vengeance scores more often

=

reponedan increasedlikelihoodof generaldriveraggression(seeTable6).

128


TABLE 5. Factor Pattern and Loading for the Modified Driving Vengeance Factor 1: Driver Vengeance A driver leaves vehicle and approaches in a threatening manner. Car in front does not proceed on green signal. You want to turn but car in front, also turning, does not turn at red light. A driver passes you and immediately slows or applies brakes. A slow vehicle occupies left lane on an expressway. Driver passes you and makes obscene gesture. Driver takes parking space you have been waiting for. Vehicle cuts you off, forcing you to apply brakes. Garbage thrown from another vehicle hits your vehicle. Driver in front of you frequently applies brakes for no reason. While driving at night, vehicle behind you has high beams on. A driver persistently honks at you. Diver fails to yield right of way at an intersection. Driver passes others in the merge lane and tries to cut in front of you. Vehicle delays traffic to pick up or let out passengers.

Questionnaire .61 .60 .57 .54 .54 .52 .52 .51 .50 .50 .47 .45 .43 .41 .40

TABLE 6. Tukey HSD Comparisons of Levels of Driver Aggression Likelihood With Mean DVQ Scores 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Mean DVQ Score Mean Likelihood Rating 1. 0.00-0.60 45.87 (9.68/41) 2. 0.65-1.10 50.88 (9.78/36) * 3. 1.20-1.50 53.89(10.41/39) * * * 4. 1.60-2.20 59.60 (7.44148) * * * * 5. 2.30-5.00 68.41 (9.13/29) Note. Brackets are (SD/n). *indicates significant differences between groups. CD = 5.55, df= 188, n = 192,p = .05.

DISCUSSION The factor analysis of the DVQ, focusing upon the items related to horn-honking should resolve the issue of whether the dependent variable of horn-honking is a valid measure of aggression or whether it is merely a signal without aggressive intent to other drivers. When the items were reworded to imply lengthy honking ("leaning on the horn"), the item clustered with the other items assessing vengeful intent. When the item was interpreted as merely honking to signal or alert other motorists, it failed to relate to the other items on the scale. The implications of this analysis suggest that researchers employing horn-honking as a dependent measure of aggression toward other drivers, need to clarify the time length of the horn noise. Perhaps research should operationalize the length of time the horn is sounded such that 1 or 2 seconds is scored as nonaggressive communication, while lengthier durations (possibly> 2-5 seconds) are scored as aggressive responding to a roadway situation. The reasonable psychometric properties of the Driving Vengeance Questionnaire should lend itselfto other research. Currently, the measure is being used to assess the effects of stress and roadway congestion leading to aggression (Hennessy, 1998).The DVQ may also be used to identifya differentclass of problem driversthat has traditionallyreceived study.Motor vehicle agencies worldwide have focused upon the drunk driver as typifying the problem driver

I


129

(see Mayhew, Beirness, Simpson. & LambIe. 1992). The current research suggests that a group of drivers, scoring high on their willingness to retaliate against other drivers, may also be another group endangering road use for others. The usefulness ofDVQ as a screening device may alert others to the vengeful driver's perception of other drivers needing to be taught a lesson for their perceived infractions. Once identified, vengeful drivers could be taught a variety of anger management techniques (see Maiuro. 1998for a discussion of the Harborview Anger Management Program at the University of Washington School of Medicine) so that their threat to other road users is diminished.

REFERENCES Anderson. C. A. (1989). Temperature and aggression: Ubiquitous effects of heat on occurrence of human violence. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 74-96. Anderson, W. P.. & Duckworth, J. C. (1995). MMPI 7 MMPI-2: Interpretation manualforcounsellors and clinicians. Accelerated Development: A member of the Taylor & Francis Group. Bar-Elli, G., & Heyd, D. (1986). Can revenge be just or otherwise justified? Theoria, 52, 68.,86. Black, D. (1983). Crime as social control. American Sociological Review, 48, 34-45. Crossbow used to end dispute. (1994, February 22). The Globe & Mail, p. Al3. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological Reports, 74, 83-91. . Elster, J. (1990). Norms ofrevenge. Ethics, 100, 862-885. Evans, L. (1991). Traffic safety and the driver: New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Gamester, G. (1994, July 4). Let's lift the hood on Metro's traffic jams. The Toronto Star, p. A8. Gibson, P. M., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1996, June). The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ): The development of a scale to measure deviant drivers' attitudes (LaMarsh Research Programme Report Series, No. 54). Toronto, Ontario: LaMarsh Centre for Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution, York University. Gottleib, S. (1997, October 25). Road rage and other driving afilictions. TorvnroGlobeandMail

p. D3.

Gulian, E., Matthews, G., Glendon, A. 1., & Davies, D. R. (l989a). Dimensions of driver stress. Ergonomics, 32, 585-602. Gulian, E., Debney, L. M., Glendon, A. 1., Davies, D. R., & Matthews. G. (1989b). Coping with driver stress. In F. J. McGuigan, W. M. Sime, & J. M. Wallace (Eds.), Stress and Tension Control (Vol. 3, 173-186). New York: Plenum Press. Hauber, A. R. (1980). The social psychology of driving behaviour and the traffic environment: Research on aggressive behaviour in traffic. International Review of Applied Psychology, 29, 461-474. Henberg, M. (1990). Retribution: Evil for evil in ethics, law, and literature. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hennessy, D. (1998, October). The influence of driving vengeance, on aggression, violence and stress. La Marsh Centre for Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution Graduate Student Symposium, York University, Toronto, Ontario. Hennessy, D. A. (1995). The relationship between traffic congestion, driver stress, and direct versus indirect coping behaviours. Unpublished master's thesis, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada. Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1997). The relationship between traffic congestion, driver stress, and direct versus indirect coping behaviours. Ergonomics, 40 (3), 348-361.

130


How to cope with stress of commuting. (1994, July 3). The Toronto Star, p. F3. Kamin, H. (1994, July 3). Coping with commuting. The Toronto Star, p. Fl. Levitt, E. E. (1989). The clinical application of MMPI special scales. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Maiuro, R. D. (1998). Rage on the road. Recovery, 9, 2,8-9. Marsh, P., & Collett, P. (1987). The car as weapon. Et Cetera, 44. 146-151. Mathews, G., Dom, L., & Glendon, A. 1. (1991). Personality correlates of driver stress. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 12,535-549. Mayhew, D. R., Beimess, D. J., Simpson, H. M., & LambIe, R. W. (1992). Diagnostic assessment of problem drivers: State of assessment and treatment techniques. Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of Transportation. Michalowski, M. 1. (1975). Violence in the road: The crime of vehicular homicide. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12, 30-43. Mitchell, B. (1997, November 22). "Road rage" on rise in GTA [Greater Toronto Area]. Toronto Star, p. A2. Mizell, L., Joint, M., & Connell, D. (1997). Aggressive driving: Three studies (Aggressive driving, road rage, & driver aggression). Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Ontario Ministry of Transportation. (1992). Provincial highways: Traffic volumes. Traffic Program Management Office. Toronto: Ontario Government Printing Office. Novaco, R. W. (1991). Aggression on roadways. In R. Baenninger (Ed.), Targets ofviolence and aggression (pp. 253-326). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publisher. Parry, M. (1968). Aggression on the road. London: Tavistock. Pettiway, L. E. (1987). Arson for revenge: The role of environmental situation, age, sex, and race. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 169-184. Reid, A. (1998, April 27). Drivers: Aggression is top Beltway danger. Washington Post, p. AI. Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of a reliable and valid short fonn of the MarloweCrowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38. 119-125. Rubini, E. (1993). Measuring vengeance across the ages. Unpublished manuscript, York University, Toronto, Ontario. Selzer, M. L., & Vinokur, A. (1974). Life events, subjective stress and traffic accidents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131,903-906. Socarides, M. D. (1966). On vengeance: The desire to get even. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 14, 356-375. Stein, J. (Ed.). (1973). The Random House dictionary of the English language. New York: Random House. Stokols, D., Novaco, R. W., Stokols, 1., & Campbell, J. (1978). Traffic congestion, type A behavior, and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 467-480. Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 25-42. Taylor, B. (1997, August 25). Life in the slow lane. Toronto Star, p. Dl. Turner, C. W., Layton, J. F, Simons, L. S. (1975). Naturalistic studies of aggressive behavior: Aggressive stimuli, victim visibility, and horn honking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1098-1107. Vest, J., Cohen, W., & Tharp, M. (1997, June 2). Road rage. U. S. News & World Report, p. 24-25, 28-30. Wald, M. (1997, July 19).Congress studying "road rage" in U.S. Toronto Globe and Mail, p. All. Wiesenthal, D. L., & Janovjak, D. P. (1992, May). Deindividuation and automobile driving behavior. Toronto, Ontario: The LaMarsh Research Programme Report Series, No. 46, LaMarsh Centre for Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution, York University.

131


APPENDIX A The following are some commonsituations encountered by drivers. Please indicate what your reaction was to these situations when they happened to you. If you have not experienced the situation, please indicate how you wouldfeel. Please indicate your reactionto the following situations by circlingthe appropriatenumber on the scale. I 2 3 4 5 very slightly somewhat slightly very relaxed relaxed relaxed angry angry I. An automobile waiting to turn onto the other side of the road is blocking both lanes of your side of the road. 2. A driver in front of you is having an animated conversation on a cellular telephone. 3. After stopping at a STOP sign, a motorist fails to yield the right of way to you when it is your turn to proceed through the intersection. 4. A driver on an expressway is following too closely behind your vehicle. 5. While driving on an expressv,ay,a vehicle cuts in front of you, forcing you to apply the brakes. 6. A driver passes you and makes an obscene gesture at you. 7. Immediately after passing you, the driver slows down or applies his brakes. 8. While drivingat night,a driveron the oppositeside of theroadfailstodimthe highbeamheadlights. 9. While driving at night, the vehicle immediately behind you has its high beam headlights on. 10. The vehicle immediately in front of you turns on its lights to simulate braking. 11. A driver persistently honks at you. " 12. A vehicle followsyouoffan expresswayonto local streetsfor severalroads(blocks)(kilometers). 13. A driver gets out of his vehicle at a traffic signal and approaches you in a threatening manner. 14. A vehicle bypasses a queue of vehicles and remains in the merge lane until the fane ends and then tries to cut in front of your vehicle. 15. Another driver fails to allow you to cut over (fails to make room for your vehicle) when you try to change lanes to exit. 16. A slowly moving vehicleis occupying the left lane on an expressway,slowing traffic. 17. A vehicle makes a turn from an improper lane and cuts in front of your vehicle causing you to apply the brakes. 18. A vehicle not turning right has blocked the right-hand lane at a traffic signal, preventing you from turning right on the red signal. . 19. Yourvehicle,travelingin the left lane has been blockedby a driverwhofailedto signal a left turn. 20. A vehicle directly in front of yours, frequently applies the brakes although no vehicle or pedestrian is in front of it. 21. A driver is inattentiveto trafficconditionsbecauseof involvementin conversationwith a passenger. 22. A motorcycle passes your vehicle driving on the road shoulder or between the traffic lanes. 23. A driver changes lanes without looking or signaling, just as you are changing lanes. 24. Garbage thrown from another vehicle hits your vehicle. 25. Another driver takes a parking space you've been waiting for. 26. The driver in front of you slows down at a green light. 27. You see another driver zig-zagging through traffic. 28. You see a driver run a red light. 29. The car in front of you doesn't go at an advanced green signal. 30. A car is going too fast in the fog. 31. A car is going too slowin the snow, delaying traffic. . 32. You see a spot check. 33. A driver goes through a crosswalk before the pedestrian is all the way across. 34. You see a drunk driver. 35. A car doesn't stop for a school bus that is stOppedwith its lightSflashing. 36. A vehicle stops on the roadway to pick up or let out a passenger delaying traffic. 37. You want to tUrnright at a red light and the car in front of you. also making a right turn. does not proceed when the way is clear. .

D. L. Wiesenrhal et al.

132 APPENDIX B Analysis of Variance - Questions 1 to 37 by sex n Question 01 02 03* 04 05* 06* 07* 08 09* 10 11* 12 13* 14* 15 16* 17 18 19 20* 21 22 23 24*

male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female male female

74 176 74 178 74 177 73 175 74 175 71 177 74 178 72 176 73 175 73 176 73 177 73 175 73 175 74 177 73 176 74 175 74 176 74 175 74 174 73 177 74 177 74 176 74 174 74 173

Mean 3.85 3.79 2.99 3.15 4.01 3.88 3.96 4.21 4.67 4.64 4.04 4.16 4.43 4.36 3.77 3.75 4.15 4.07 3.14 3.18 4.09 4.23 3.10 3.71 4.25 4.35 4.26 4.25 4.00 423 4.08 4.08 4.42 .U2 337 3.65 3.92 3.75 4.12 4.13 3.70 3.94 2.89 3.32 403 .U8 53 443

F Probability .57 .33 .23 .04 .53 .44 .44 .61 .48 .79 .27 .00 .35 .91 .01 .99 .34 .05 .14 .59 .05 .00 .00 .40

133

Driving Vengence Questionnaire Question 25* male female 26 male female 27 male female 28 male female 29* male female 30 male female 31 male female 32 male female 33 male female 34 male female 35 male female 36* male female 37* male female

n

Mean

73 170 74 170 74 170 72 174 72 172 73 174 72 170 70 171 72 175 72 172 72 172 72 173 68 167

4.58 4.58 3.70 3.77 3.16 3.59 3.11 3.39 4.01 4.15 3.06 3.45 3.10 2.74 2.57 2.33 2.99 3.26 4.39 4.84 4.04 4.32 3.81 3.84 4.02 3.92

Note. (*) indicates questions whict were used in the final questionnaire.

F Probability .95 .64 .00 .09 .27 .01 .01 .12 .09 .00 .03 .75 .45

D.L. WleSenrnaL

eL U£.

~NDIXC Sex:-

Yearsof drivingexperience:-

Howing are some common situations encountered by drivers. Please indicate the response that auld most likely make in that situation. lfter stopping at a STOP sign, a motorist fails to yield the right of way to you when it is your urn to proceed through the intersection. You would: I) Pullout quickly to block their way. ,) Give the driver an obscene gesture (eg., the finger). :) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_. While driving on an expressway a vehicle cuts in front of you. forcing you to apply the brakes. You would: a) Cut in front of their vehicle forcing them to apply the brakes. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_. A driver passes you and makes an obscene gestUre at you. You would: a) Force the other vehicle off the road. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_. ,. Immediately after passing you, the driver slows down or applies his brakes. You would: a) Pull in front of their vehicle and slow down. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_. 5. While driving at night, the vehicle immediately behind you has its high beam headlights on. ' would: a) Let the vehicle pass and turn on your high beams. b) Apply your brakes. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_. 6. A driver persistently honks at you. You would: a) Force the other vehicle off the road. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_" 7. A driver gets out of his vehicle at a traffic signal and approaches you in a threatening maJ You would: a) Get out of your vehicle and confront him/her. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Drive away.


135

8. A vehicle bypasses a queue of vehicles and remains in the merge lane until the lane ends. and then tries to cut in front of your vehicle. You would: a) Block the vehicle so that it can't get in. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_. 9. A slowly moving vehicle is occupying the left lane on an expressway. slowing traffic.You would a) Tailgate the vehicle until it moves. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_. 10. The driver in a vehicle directly in front of yours frequently applies the brakes. although no vehicle or pedestrians is in front of it. You would: a) Pass the vehicle and apply your brakes. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_. 11. Garbage thrown from another vehicle hits your vehicle. You would: a) Throw garbage at the offending vehicle. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing e) Other:_. 12. Another driver takes a parking space that you have been waiting for.You would: a) Get out of your vehicle and tell the driver to move his vehicle. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_. 13. The car in front of you doesn't proceed on an advanced green signal.You would: a) Bump into the other car. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_. 14. You want to turn right at a red light and the car In front of you, also making a right turn, does not proceed when the way is clear. You would: a) Bump into the other car. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_. 15. A vehicle stops on the roadway to pIck up. or let out, a passenger causing a traffic delay. You would: a) Stop and tell the driver off. b) Give the driver an obscene gesture. c) Honk your horn. d) Do nothing. e) Other:_.

D. L. Wiesenrhal et al.

136

APPENDIX D General Aggressive Driving Behaviors The following represent behaviors that some people engage in while driving. For each item. please indicate. from 0 to 5. how likely you would be to perform such behaviors when you drive in general. 0 'not at all'

=

I ='hardly ever' 2 'occasionally' 3 'quite often' 4 'frequently' 5 ='nearly all the time'

= = =

_I. _2. _3. _4. _5.

Honk your horn at another driver out of frustration. Swear or yell at another driver. Flash your high beams at another driver out of frustration. Purposely tailgate another driver. Use hand gestures at another driver out of frustration.

Acknowledgments. The authors wish to thank Dr. Doug Quirk of the Ontario Correctional Institute as well as the staff and inmates for their participation in the research. Noreen Stuckless provided information and helpful suggestions concerning the concept of vengeance. Offprints. Requests for offprints should be directed to Professor DavidL.Wiesenthal. LaMarsh Centre for Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution. 217E York Lanes. York University. 4700 Keele Street. Toronto. Ontario. M3J IP3. Canada.