International Journal of
Traffic and Transportation Psychology
Volume 3, ISSUE 2 / 2015
–
www.ijttp.ro
A CORRELATIVE STUDY BETWEEN DRIVER’S
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND THE AGGRESIVE BEHAVIOR
IN TRAFFIC
FLORINA-LIZETT BARȘEVSCHI, VLAD BURTAVERDE
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences
Abstract
This study contains information regarding aggressive driving and results which aim
to demonstrate the correlations between aggressively driving personality traits and
aggressive behavior in traffic. The objectives aimed to delimitate the concept of driving
aggression, underscoring the fact that young people tend be aggressive when driving, the
prevention of negative behavior in traffic and highlighting stressors that occur when
driving. The participants are represented by a number of 30 male subjects, undergraduate
students of the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, aged between 22 and 25 years.he
instruments: AVIS test from Vienna Tests System and a BARS scale. The study highlits
statistically significant correlations between driver’s personality traits and aggressively
behavior in traffic.
Cuvinte cheie: condus agresiv, validitate, ancore comportamentale, personality traits
Keywords: driving aggression, validity, behaviorally anchored rating scales,
trăsături depersonalitate
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. DRIVING AGGRESSION
Aggressive driving is defined as an action meant to cause both physical and
mental pain of another person (Baron & Richardson, 1994; Berkowitz, 1993).
Generally an aggressive act lead to another aggressive act, and people tend to enter
into such aggressive agglomerations, and their frustration and anger by aggressive
Corresponding author: Vlad Burtăverde
Email: vlad.burtă[email protected]
acts. Aggressive drivers seek to cause physical, psychological and materialdamage
to other traffic participants. And studies show that the aggressiveness is higher,
when both tend to be aggressive (Berkowitz, 1993).
We should stress out that, however, that those behaviors that cause damage to
the other, but not intentionally, are not considered aggressive behaviors. Also on
non-aggressive behavior fall accidents and those acts of provocation that are
accepted by the person concerned. These last categorry represent masochistic
behavior and are supposed to produce more pleasure than pain. Aggression has two
main features, namely causing damage and suffering, and avoiding involvement in
such conduct by the concerned person
Geen says that the first feature suggests that aggression is the end product of a
deliberate action. But when no target is not trying to stop the aggression, neither
the originator can be named aggressor nor any act can be called aggressive (2001)
(aput Anitei & Chraif, 2013, p. 14).
Bushman and Anderson distinguish between aggression and violence,
phenomena often misunderstood by some authors. The authors arguethat violence
is a form of aggression with tragic purposes like death. All forms of violence are
aggressive, but not all aggressive behaviorsare violent (2001). They provide a great
example of two children playing and doing a drag on each other. This is an act of
aggression but not a violent one. Generally children are often involved in
aggressive but nonviolent behaviors, characterized by selfishness. They do not act
being driven by hatred, most of their behaviors being instinctual. They do not
necessarily want to do negative things, but they want everything to be as they want.
No matter what type of aggression we talk about, it is among the leading
causes in the occurrence of accidents, tragedies and disasters that happen within
our society since the beginning of mankind.
1.2. MAIN CAUSES OF DRIVING AGGRESSION
Situational and environmental factors
38
It has been proven that there are multiple reasons that make one become angry
and aggressive when driving. The haste, impatience, traffic congestion, competing
with other cars, the noise, the reckless actions of other drivers or pedestrians, heat,
all these factors are stressors and create frustration and aggression behind the
wheel, in many cases having negative consequences.
Situational and environmental factors.This type of factors were considered as
the main factors of aggressive driving. They are represented by:stressful situations
,traffic jams that produce frustration and annoyance among drivers, daily life
problems of drivers (stress, problems at work or home, financial problems, etc.),
the anonymity of certain drivers that helps them to be more uninhibited and express
their aggression to a much higher level than the others, and all the environmental
and ambience factors such as pollution, heat, agitation, noise, etc. (Hennessy &
Wiesenthal, 1997; Kenrick & MacFarlane, 1986; Lajunen, Parker, & Summala,
1999; McGarva & Steiner, 2000)
Individual factors in aggressive behavior. We know very well that everyone
is different and we perceive things differentely. Or even the same individual may
react differently in exactly the same context. All these aspects are related to our
personality and that is why drivers differ in terms of driving aggression This is why
were performed cross-sectional studies in order to determine the cause that triggers
such behavior behind the wheel. It has been shown that driving aggression does not
correlate with every day aggression. People that are aggressive in traffic are not
aggressive in a daily context, which makes us think that, for some people driving is
a stressful activity. It seems that all the studies and research that lead to the same
result, namely, young people tend to express their aggressive behavior more than
other categories of drivers. They tend to get angry more quickly compared to
drivers with experience (Wells-Parker et al., 2002). Also, they engage in aggressive
acts due to their tendency towards risk and their desire to be the center of attention
and praise or appreciated by others. Men are more aggressive driving than women
(Blanchard, Barton, & Malta, 2000; Wells-Parker et al., 2002; Wiesenthal,
Hennessy, & Gibson, 2000). A type personality is more prone to aggressive
behavior. This type of individuals are in a continue rush, seek competition, are
hostile, can not have patience and are easily irritated (Perry & Baldwin, 2000).
Aniței, Chraif, Burtaverde, & Mihailă, (2014) conducted a study regarding the
Big Five Personality Factors in the prediction of aggressive driving behavior for
39
amateur drivers, Simion, Burtaverde, Mihailă & Chraif (2014) highlited significant
differences regarding reaction time for students with driving license and students
without driving license regarding the reaction time and personality traits and
Chraif, Corbu & Burtaverde (2014) conducted a correlative study between
perceived emotion, personality traits and level of wellbeing at young amateur
drivers.
2. OBJECTIVE AND HYPOTHESES
2.1. OBJECTIVE
• Identifying possible correlations between variables aggressive behavior
expressed in traffic and traffic performance.
• Identifying possible correlations between personality traits and aggressive
behavior expressed in traffic.
2.2. HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis 1. There is a significant correlation between personality traits and
violent and performance behavioral anchors
Hypothesis2. There is a statistically significant correlation between
personality trait anger and aggressive behaviour expressed in traffic.
Hypothesis 3. Personality Traits are predictors of aggressive behavior.
Hypothesis 4. The level of pleasure derived from being violent influences
aggressive behavior in traffic.
Hypothesis 5. The desire to attract attention as a personality trait significantly
influences aggressive behavior in traffic.
3. METHOD
40
3.1. PARTICIPANTS
The research consisted of 30 male subjects, students of the Polytechnic
University of Bucharest, aged between 22 and 25 years (M=21.45; S.D.= 1.34).
They were tested in order to demonstrate that inexperienced drivers generally tend
to exhibit aggressive behavior in traffic.
3.2. INSTRUMENTS
AVIS is a battery of tests regarding aggressive driving behavior. It measures
the degree and frequency of aggressive driving behavior. The standard form
contains 130 items. The research used the version that contains only 65 items
relating to aggressive driving. The test is scored on a Likert scale of 1-8 where 1
means very rare and 8 very often.
As the name implies, the Bos behavioral observation scale involves
observation of the person concerned, in our case young drivers. Like the AVIS, the
BOS behavior test is scored on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is very rare, 5 very
often.
3.3. PROCEDURE
The group of 30 students were applied both the AVIS and the BOS behavioral
anchor. Before application the subjects were informed that the research is
exploratory and the data collected will not be used for other purposes. No personal
indormation was required..
4. RESULTS
All of the statistical results obtained in the group of 30 subjects were entered
into SPSS and interpreted according to the interpretation of each of the tests.
41
Table 1.Descriptive statistics for all study variables.
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
9.207
acting_out
30
37.100
BARS for aggression
30
47.400
7.841
Instrumental aggression
30
72.133
14.349
Enjoyment_violence
30
30.333
8.146
anger
30
53.133
8.156
negativism
30
25.300
6.336
Valid N (listwise)
30
Table of descriptive statistics provide us information on the ean (for each
size), standard deviation (the scattering of data) and the number of cases analyzed
for the individual variables.
In Table 1 we can see the descriptive statistics for the AVIS. It presents the
subscales this way, action m = 37 (and 9), aggressiveness m = 47 (and 7),
instrumental aggression m = 72 (s = 14), t pleasure caused by violence, m = 30 (s =
8), anger m = 53 (s = 8), and negativism m = 25 (s = 6).
TABLE 2. CORRELATIONS AMONG ALL STUDY VARIABLES
acting_out Bars for aggression
Instrumental aggression
acting_out
Pearson Correlation
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
Bars for aggression
negativism
.001
.000
30
30
30
Pearson Correlation
-.591**
1
-.602**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.001
N
30
30
30
.633**
-.602**
1
.000
.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
anger
.633**
N
Instrumental aggression Pearson Correlation
Enjoyment_violence
-.591**
.000
N
30
30
30
Pearson Correlation
.659**
-.750**
.633**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
N
30
30
30
Pearson Correlation
.458*
-.654**
.719**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.011
.000
,000
N
30
30
30
Pearson Correlation
.773**
-.580**
.819**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.001
.000
42
N
30
30
30
The table includes the results of the correlation matrix of analyzed variables.
It is redundend because it shows the same correlations twice, once above the
diagonal, once below the diagonal. Correlations variables are perfectly good (r = 1)
and do not, of course, present interest. (Popa, 2008). In this case there is a positive
correlation between instrumental aggression and the desire to stand out (r = 0.63 p
<0.001), the pleasure of being violent and desire to stand out (r = 0.65 p <0.001),
and negativism and the desire to stand out (r = 0.77 p <0.001). There are also
significant negative correlation between pleasure to stand out and aggressiveness (r
= -0.59 p <0.001). The results showed that the distribution of variables aggression
and anger is normal (p <0.05). The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated.
Research hypothesis 1 says that there is a correlation between pleasure of being
violent and aggression and that there is a statistically significant correlation
between the variable pleased to be violent and variable aggression (p <0.01), and
thus confirms the research hypothesis. Research Hypothesis 2 states that anger
adversely affects drivers' behavior, causing aggressive behaviour and the results
show that there is a statistically significant correlation between anger and
aggression (p <0.01) thus confirming the second hypothesis. The third hypothesis
states that personality traits are predictors of aggressive behavior in traffic and the
correlation table shows that there are significant correlations between personality
traits and aggressive driving behavior (p <0.001) thus confirm the third hypothesis.
The fourth hypothesis says that the pleasure of being violent influences the
aggressive driving and correlation table say that there are statistically significant
differences between the correlated traits (p <0.001) thus confirms research
hypothesis. Hypothesis 5 states that wish to draw attention significantlly influences
aggressive behavior in traffic, and the correlation between the two variables shows
a significant correlation between the two (p <0.001) thus confirms research
hypothesis.
5. CONCLUSIONS
43
We started from the premise that young drivers are more impulsive and
display a higher level of aggressive driving. This was demonstrated with the
applied tests on drivers with no experience. However a comparative study between
them and other categories drivers was not made, and therefore the research
hypothesis could not be verified. The other two hypotheses were confirmed as the
relationship between them has proven to be statistically significant. In all research
conducted on aggressive driving it has been proven that one of the most important
factors in triggering aggressive behavior is anger. An act of anger can be triggered
for example when you wish to make an overtaking in traffic and the driver in front
does not let you pass. It is true that there are several contributing factors here, but it
is certain that you can get to aggression because of this.
The results of the applied tests confirmed and reinforced the fact that
aggression is very frequent. The influence of friends, popularity, inner state,
personality, time, provisions, all are predictors of aggressive behavior in traffic.
Numerous studies conducted on the Romanian population have shown that
aggressive driving is a real problem for drivers. In a recent study on 1119 active
drivers 78.80% reported using flashes and horns, 48.80% reported using threats and
obscene signs, 43.50% reported verbal aggression. Of the tested few were those
who tried to obey the basic traffic rules, such as speed limit in the city. Most exibit
aggressive driving , which would only lead to oncoming traffic exibiting at the
same habits, .
A limitation of this research is the small group of people. Studies have shown
that boys which are car enthusiasts have a more aggressive behavior in traffic.
Another limitation is the fact that the group of individuals is taken only in urban
areas and the results can not be extrapolated to this area. Also the sample is
conducted only on persons of Romanian nationality which can not be extended to
other populations due to lifestyle, thinking, mentality, etc.
44
REFERENCES
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), 353-359.
Aniței, M., Chraif, M., Burtaverde, M., & Mihaila, T., (2014). The Big Five Personality
Factors in the prediction of aggressive driving behavior among romanian youngsters.
International Journal of Traffic and Transportation Psychology, 2(1), 7-20.
Anitei, M., & Chraif, M. (2013). Psihologia transprturilor. Bucuresti: Editura
Universitara.
Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human Aggression, 2e éd.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. Mcgraw-Hill
Book Company.
Blanchard, E. B., Barton, K. A., & Malta, L. (2000). Psychometric properties of a
measure of aggressive driving: The Larson Driver's Stress Profile.Psychological
Reports, 87(3), 881-892.
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.
Kenrick, D. T., & MacFarlane, S. W. (1986). Ambient temperature and horn honking a
field study of the heat/aggression relationship. Environment and behavior, 18(2), 179-191.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Summala, H. (1999). Does traffic congestion increase driver
aggression?. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2(4),
225-236.
McGarva, A. R., & Steiner, M. (2000). Provoked driver aggression and status: A field
study. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour,3(3), 167-179.
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(1), 147-154.
Popa, M. (2008). Statistica pentru psihologie. Teorie si aplicatii SPSS. Iasi: Polirom
Simion, M., Burtaverde, V., Mihaila, T., & Chraif, M., (2014). Significant Differences
regarding reaction time for students with driving license and students without driving
license. The relationship between reaction time and extraversion. International Journal of
Traffic and Transportation Psychology, 2(1), 44-52.
Wells-Parker, E., Ceminsky, J., Hallberg, V., Snow, R. W., Dunaway, G., Guiling, S., ...
& Anderson, B. (2002). An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and
crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 34(3), 271-278.
Wiesenthal, D. L., Hennessy, D., & Gibson, P. M. (2000). The Driving Vengeance
Questionnaire (DVQ): The development of a scale to measure deviant drivers'
attitudes. Violence and Victims, 15(2), 115-136.
Vienna Tests System (2012) AVIS, Test Manual
45
REZUMAT
Acest studiu conține informații cu privire la conducere agresiv și rezultatele care au
ca scop să demonstreze corelațiilor dintre agresiv de conducere trăsături de personalitate
și comportament agresiv în trafic. Obiectivele urmărite a delimita conceptul de agresiune
de conducere, subliniind faptul că tinerii au tendința de fi agresiv atunci când de
conducere, prevenirea comportamentului negativ în trafic și evidențierea factorii de stres
care apar atunci când de conducere. Participanții sunt reprezentate printr-un număr de 30
de subiecți de sex masculin, studentii de la Universitatea Politehnica din Bucuresti, cu
vârste cuprinse între 22 și 25 de instrumente years.he: test de AVIS din Viena testelor de
sistem și de baruri scară. Studiul highlits corelații semnificative statistic între trăsăturile de
personalitate de conducere și comportamentul agresiv în traffic.
46