GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AGGRESSIVITY AND PERCEIVED … · GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AGGRESSIVITY AND...
Transcript of GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AGGRESSIVITY AND PERCEIVED … · GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AGGRESSIVITY AND...
International Journal of Traffic and Transportation Psychology
Volume 3, ISSUE 1 / 2015 – www.ijttp.ro
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AGGRESSIVITY AND
PERCEIVED STRESS AT ROMANIAN AMATEUR
DRIVERS
POPESCU ALINA
University of Bucharest, Department of Psychology
Abstract
The objective of this paper is studying aggressive behaviour and stress while driving
in traffic. It is important for the purpose for identifying the factors which contribute to their
development and also for decreasing road accidents. As the literature shows, there is a strong
correlation between the risk of accidents and aggressiveness, stress, and ineffective driver
coping strategies. It was also found that the men have a more aggressive behaviour than
women on the road; however, women report higher levels of stress than men regarding
driving stress and are more likely to suffer of posttraumatic stress disorder after a car crash
or car accident. The objective of this study is to identify gender differences in aggressiveness
level and self-perceived stress and in coping strategies used in traffic. The research focused
on highlighting the differences between men and women regarding driving behaviour,
however, the target population was represented only by non-professional/amateur drivers,
which means that those working in this field were excluded. The sample was composed from
61 participants (22 male and 39 female), aged between 19 and 51 years, with an average age
of 28.13 years. The instruments which were used to measure the constructs are: Aggressive
Vienna Test System, to evaluate the aggressiveness manifested by the driver which measures
three dimensions (instrumental aggression, affective aggression and fury) and a
questionnaire that evaluates stress and coping strategies on the road. The results show that
there are statistically significant differences between males and females concerning
instrumental aggression, males reporting higher levels than females. The conclusion is that
men exhibit some soft aggressive behaviour, meant to achieve their personal goals but not to
harm other road users. Regarding the other constructs measured, no significant differences
were found between males and females.
Keywords: activity of driving, aggressiveness, stress, and coping.
1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Tasca (2000 apud Paleti, Eluru, & Bhat, 2010) was, probably, the first to try to
officially characterize aggressive driving behaviour. He affirms that the act of
driving is aggressive if it “is deliberate, can increase the risk of collision and is
motivated by impatience, displeasure, hostility and/or the desire to save time”.
Bushman and Anderson (2001 apud Aniței & Chraif, 2013) supplement the
29
definition by differentiating primary and secondary goals, mentioning that the desire
to do harm must be present in order to talk about aggressive driving, but only as a
secondary goal.
Maxwell, Grant and Lipkin (2005 apud Havârneanu, 2013) found a link
between aggressive driving and breaking traffic rules using a sample of drivers from
Great Britain, while Kontogiannis, Kossiavelou and Marmaras (2002 apud
Havârneanu, 2013) mention that speeding and traffic violations were predicted by a
tendency to commit aggressive offences among Greek drivers.
A major determining factor of aggressiveness behind the wheel is the desire for
revenge (Gulian et al, 1989; Matthews et al, 1991 apud Hennessy, 1999). Revenge
has been defined as provocation of evil as a response to the incorrect perception of a
message and is often a motivating factor of aggressive behaviour (Stuckless &
Goranson, 1992 apud Hennessy, 1999). Aggressiveness based on revenge is not
limited only to physical injuries; it can include emotional harm such as humiliation
and anger (Gibson & Wiesenthal, 1996 apud Hennessy, 1999).
The term “road rage” is defined as an extreme form of aggressive driving,
which implies a deliberate behaviour aimed at causing physical harm to other drivers
or even killing them outright (Ellison-Poter, Bell, & Deffenbacher, 2001 apud
Săucan, Micle, Popa, & Oancea, 2012). In this context, the term “aggressive
behaviour” is implied to mean: reckless driving, speeding, an unpredictable driving
style (sudden changing of lanes or direction), intimidation of other traffic (useless
honking, disrespecting minimum safe distances between vehicles, flashing
headlights, threats, swearing) and even using weapons or firearms, committing acts
of physical aggression, or using the vehicle as a weapon (Mizzel, 1997; Ross, &
Antonowicz, 2004 apud Săucan et al, 2012). Thus, aggressiveness behind the wheel
represents a traffic violation, implying risky and negligent behaviour, while “road
rage” constitutes a criminal offence that happens when a traffic incident becomes a
much worse situation, such as a physical confrontation, attacking others with a
vehicle, or weapon use. It is important to mention that the damage done by accident
is not considered aggressive driving, because of the lack of intent, regardless of the
severity or magnitude of damage. On the other hand, if the perpetrator of the act
disregards the potential risks of his actions, this is considered aggressive driving
regardless of whether it causes harm or fatalities (Green, 2001 apud Aniței & Chraif,
2013).
Aggressive driving is an ever more frequent behaviour (American Automobile
Association, 1997; Joint, 1995; Lex Motor Group, 1996 apud Jovanovic, Lipovac,
30
Stanojevic, & Stanojevic, 2011), being considered a problem in almost all countries.
In the United States of America, the Department of Transportation estimated that, in
1996, approximately two thirds of the 41.907 deaths caused by traffic accidents
could be attributed to aggressive driving (Martinez, 1997 apud Jovanovic et al,
2011). In a study from Great Britain, it was found that over 90% of participants
experienced incidents which they perceived as “road rage” in the last 12 months.
Furthermore, in this study, about 60% of drivers admitted to losing their cool behind
the wheel in the previous year, while 1% complained about being physically attacked
by other drivers (Joint, 1995 apud Jovanovic et al, 2011). Ioana, Chraif & Aniţei
(2013) conducted a study regarding the effects of cell phone conversation to
reactivity to multiple stimuli, Burtăverde, Chraif & Pandele (2013) highlighted
differences between topographic memory and form gestalt perception according to
visual processing with one eye versus two eyes, Chraif &Manea (2013) were
interested to evidence gender differences in abstract figure short term memory and
deductive reasoning and Aniței, Chraif, Burtaverde & Mihăilă (2014) conducted a
study regarding The Big Five Personality Factors in the prediction of aggressive
driving behavior.
Additionally, the results obtained from performing field studies indicate that
between 47% and 75% of drivers have witnessed mild forms of aggressiveness in
other drivers (such as verbal abuse, rude gestures or excessive honking), while
smaller numbers (7.5 to 35%) have been victims of more dangerous forms of
aggression, such as disrespecting the minimum distance between vehicles, being
forced off the road or being followed. Between 2% and 13% of subjects reported
being attacked after a traffic incident occurred (AAMI, 2003, 2004; Roberts &
Indermaur, 2005; Smart, Mann, & Studoto, 2003; Victorian Community Council
Against Violence, 1999 apud Nesbit & Conger, 2012).
Marsh and Collen (1986 apud Novaco, 1989) offer an interesting perspective
on the subject discussed considering that the car itself represents a factor of
generating aggressiveness in traffic. They described the vehicle as being a special
territory, with its own personal space that, if infringed upon, generates fury and
aggressiveness.
In order to underline the magnitude of aggression in traffic, research done by
Parker, Lajunen, and Stradling (1998 apud Iglesias, Fraguela, & Martin, 2012) noted
that 89% of 270 drivers admitted to occasionally committing aggressive violations
such as driving away other cars, which indicated hostility towards other drivers or
excessive honking in order to signal their anger.
31
Another study by Malta and his collaborators (2001) sought to compare the
physiological reactivity of aggressive and non-aggressive drivers (cardiac rhythm,
arterial tension, facial muscular activity and skin electrical resistance) while they
experienced a series of scenarios that caused fear, as well as during a standard stress
task (mental arithmetics). The results revealed that aggressive drivers show
significant increases in muscular and arterial tension during the simulation compared
to their non-aggressive counterparts.
According to specialised literature, aggressiveness can be conceptualised in
many ways, thus permitting various classifications. In the opinion of Bustman and
Anderson (2001 apud Aniței & Chraif, 2013) there are two types of aggressiveness:
hostile and instrumental. The first is also called emotional, affective, impulsive or
reactive and is characterized by strong negative emotions. Fury is the primary cause
that instigates and determines hostile aggressive behaviours, though situational and
personality related factors also influence the process. It is most often a reaction to
the perception of a potential threat. The main objective of emotional aggressiveness
is to make a victim suffer physically and/or psychologically damage them. This
behaviour does not solve the real source of irritation, but it does make the driver
“feel better” momentarily. Actions such as these are categorised as “road rage”
(Shinar, 1998 apud Bjorklund, 2008). Aniței & Chraif (2013) presented in a
handbook the important psychological tests for drivers evaluation in order to predict
their performances in traffic. Aniței, Chraif & Sandu (2014) studies Gender
Differences in Traffic Risk using a situational test from Vienna Tests System. Chraif
& Aniţei (2012) were interested to find out if stereoscopic vision can be included in
a possible assessment centre driving schools. Regarding gender differences Chraif
(2013a) studied the gender and age differences in time reaction and decision to
multiple stimuli and Chraif (2013b) conducted a research regarding gender
differences in mental rotation at young romanian students. Also, the same autor was
interested in noise influence in attention task (Chraif, 2013c) and the effects of radio
noise in multiple reaction time tasks (Chraif, 2012).
Several researchers have concluded that, while stress is high, a tendency for
high heart rate exists (Healey et al, 2005 apud Miller & Boyle, 2013).
Previous studies have demonstrated that a close relationship between unsafe
driving and stress exists, as shown by the correlation between high stress value and
the ratio of involvement in accidents (Norris et al, 2000 apud Rowden, 2011). The
impact of stress on traffic safety is also mediated by behaviours such as cognitive
32
lapses, errors and intentional violations of traffic laws (Wickens et al, 2008 apud
Rowden 2011).
Stress is facilitated by many factors. Unresolved problems like bad weather,
insomnia or other sleep difficulties, workplace conflicts and marital issues can all
exacerbate situational problems that drivers are confronted with in traffic, therefore
raising the stress potential of related pathologies (Hennessy et al, 2000 apud
Hennessy, 2003). Fatigue at the wheel represents a major cause for serious accidents
(McCartt et al, 2000 apud Taylor & Dorn, 2006) and lead to reduced performance
efficiency in driving. McMurray (1970 apud Rowden, Matthews, & Bigss, 2011)
examined the recordings from the past 7 years of 410 drivers that had filed for
divorce. He noticed that divorced drivers had a higher rate of engagement in
accidents and traffic violations, compared to the rest of the population of drivers.
Norris et al. (2000 apud Rowden, Matthews, & Bigss, 2011) discovered that financial
difficulties raise the risk of involvement in traffic accidents. Hennessy, Wiesenthal
and Kohn (2000 apud Rowden, Matthews, & Bigss, 2011) showed that a great
exposure to problems or hassles, day to day, can predict the severity of stress when
exposed to routine traffic issues.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Objectives and hypotheses
2.1.1. Objectives
This study aims to explore and clarify some unpleasant aspects of driving,
which have become increasingly common in today's crowded traffic conditions.
Aggressiveness while driving seems to increase and lead to the diver’s loss of control
over the vehicle, with various adverse effects on traffic. This research aims to
highlight gender differences regarding aggressiveness, self-perceived stress and
ways of coping used by amateur drivers.
2.1.2. Hypotheses
1. There are statistically significant gender differences regarding self-
perceived aggression amateur drivers.
33
2. There are statistically significant gender differences regarding self-
perceived stress amateur drivers.
3. There are statistically significant gender differences in terms of coping
techniques to amateur drivers.
2.2. Method
2.2.1. Participants
The research used two independent groups of voluntary participants and the
instruments measuring the envisaged psychological constructs were published
online. There were 61 participants (22 men and 39 women) aged between 19 and 51
years old, mean age 28.1 years, age standard deviation of 8.2. The participants in the
research were not rewarded in any way. Each study subject previously obtained a
driving license and the driving ability was not included in their job description. The
participants were amateur drivers as such.
2.2.2. Instruments
For this study were used two questionnaires. The first one, Aggressive Driving
Behaviour Questionnaire first Test (AVIS), which is part of the Vienna Test System
test battery, was used to measure the level of aggression shown by amateur drivers
at the wheel. This questionnaire consists of 36 items, which measure three types of
aggression, namely: Instrumental aggression, affective aggression and fury, and
responses to these items are evaluated on Likert scale of 1- 8 (1 = rarely; 8 = very
often). The tool also has a high internal consistency and reliability, with an alpha
Cronbach index of 0.90.
The other one the coping questionnaire contains 32 items, the answers to which
are measured on a Likert scale of 1-8 (1 = rarely; 8 = very often). This second
questionnaire, which is built by myself and not taken from other sources, was
designed to evaluate self-perceived stress levels and coping reactions of amateur
drivers (Popescu, 2014). It contains items like: "I pray before I hit the road by car";
"The unfavourable weather make me feel stressed and worried at the wheel"; "I often
refrain from driving and ask somebody else to do it for me"; "I try to think positively
even if traffic is busy"; and so on. The items illustrate the main techniques commonly
used to cope with traffic stress, such as: religiosity; avoidance; focusing on the
problem; planning; relaxing by listening to music or watching TV programs; alcohol
or cigarettes; social support; positivity / negativity, etc. Fidelity and internal
consistency of the questionnaire is high, with an alpha Cronbach index of 0.81.
34
2.2.3. Procedure
The data were collected on a voluntary basis, the instruments being published
on Google Docs platform, where they were available for about 2 weeks. Before the
actual completion of the questionnaires, participants were asked for an informed
consent, after they were given information on study objectives, privacy policy and
claims related to possible abuse.
2.2.4. Experimental Design
In this study, the independent variable is the gender of the participants (male /
female) and the dependent variables are aggressiveness, the level of self-perceived
stress and the drivers’ choices of coping. Non experimental design was the ex post
facto method, the sample comprising 61 participants (22 men and 39 women), aged
between 19 and 51 years.
3. RESULTS
Table 1. Distribution according to gender (frequency)
Frequency Percentage Valid Percentage Cumulative Percentage
Valid 1. 22 36.1 36.1 36.1
2. 39 63.9 63.9 100.0
Total 61 100.0 100.0
Table 1. The study’s sample, divided according to gender. (1=male, 2=female)
Figure 1. Graphical representation of Table 1’s data in pie chart form. (blue=male, green=female)
35
Table 2. Mean, Standard deviation and indicators of distribution shape for all variables within the study
N Mean Standard deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Value Value Value Value St. Error Value St. Error
Instrumental aggression 61 50.21 20.07 .721 .306 .319 .604
Fury 61 39.14 12.96 .080 .306 -.890 .604
Affective aggression 61 11.85 4.71 2.043 .306 5.168 .604 Total aggression 61 101.21 31.73 .456 .306 -.115 .604
Coping and stress 61 124.06 25.87 -.254 .306 -.089 .604
Valid N (listwise) 61
Table 2 contains the means, standard deviations and indicators of distribution
shape for all study’s variables. It is noticeable that the distribution shape indicators
are within normal values for all variables except affective aggression, which indicate
an abnormal distribution. Moreover, it is observable that the level of instrumental
aggressiveness (m=50.21; dev.=20.07) is low compared to the general mean (m=63),
the level of fury (m=39.14; dev.=12.96) is greater than the general mean (m=39), the
level of affective aggressiveness (m=11.85; dev.=4.71) low compared to the general
mean (m=23) and the coping and stress (m=124.06; dev.=25.87) level is greater than
the general mean (m=112).
The distribution shape indicators show an almost symmetrical fury curve
(p=.08), a curve leaning to the left for instrumental aggression (p=.72), affective
aggression (p=2.04) and total aggression (p=.45) while the curve for coping and
stress (p=-.254) is leaning to the right.
Table 3. Results for the nonparametric Kolmogorov Smirnov test applied to all variables
Instrumental
aggression Fury
Affective
aggression
Total
aggression Coping
N 61 61 61 61 61 Normal Parameters Mean 50.2131 39.1475 11.8525 101.2131 124.0656
Std. Dev 20.07662 12.96127 4.71818 31.73963 25.87655
Most Extreme Differences
Absolute .127 .081 .242 .104 .059 Positive .127 .081 .242 .104 .042
Negative -.055 -.072 -.207 -.065 -.059
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .993 .630 1.887 .812 .464 p (bilateral) .278 .823 .002 .524 .982
As the results show that the values obtained for affective aggression do not
follow a standard Gaussian distribution (p=0.002 < 0.05) nonparametric tests will be
used to test the hypothesis.
36
Figure 2. Graphical representation of variable distribution for instrumental aggression
Figure 3. Graphical representation of variable distribution for fury.
37
Figure 4. Graphical representation of variable distribution for affective aggression.
Figure 5. Graphical representation of variable distribution for total aggression.
38
Figure 6. Graphical representation of variable distribution for coping and stress.
Table 4. Means ranks and rank sums for the study’s variables according to gender
Gen N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Instrumental aggression 1.00 22 38.18 840.00
2.00 39 26.95 1051.00
Total 61
Fury 1.00 22 32.14 707.00
2.00 39 30.36 1184.00
Total 61
Affective aggression 1.00 22 33.25 731.50
2.00 39 29.73 1159.50
Total 61
Total aggression 1.00 22 36.30 798.50
2.00 39 28.01 1092.50
Total 61
Coping and stress 1.00 22 31.82 700.00
2.00 39 30.54 1191.00
Total 61
Table 5. Results of the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test for all variables
Instrumental
aggression Fury
Affective
aggression
Total
aggression Coping and stress
Mann-Whitney U 271.000 404.000 379.500 312.500 411.000
Wilcoxon W 1051.000 1184.000 1159.500 1092.500 1191.000
Z -2.375 -.376 -.755 -1.751 -.270
P(bilateral) .018 .707 .451 .080 .787
39
A statistically significant difference between men and women regarding the
level of instrumental aggressiveness has been confirmed (U=271; Z=-2.37; p<0.05).
Therefore it can be stated that men manifest a higher degree of instrumental
aggressiveness than women. The experimental data does not confirm any other
significant differences. Thus, no statement can be made regarding fury, affective
aggressiveness, total aggressiveness or coping and stress.
3. DISCUSSION
The results of this study confirm one of the hypotheses namely that there are
statistically significant gender differences on the level of aggression manifested by
amateur drivers. Thus, this research shows that aggressive behaviour in traffic is
most commonly associated with the male gender, consolidating a well-known
relationship between masculinity and powerful tool driving tasks, as reflected by
various studies undertaken over the years to which the study refers to.
An important contribution of this research is that it offers a new perspective for
the study of aggression in traffic, delimitating two types of aggression: instrumental
aggression and affective aggression. The first type refers to driving behaviours that
are designed to help the aggressor reach his destination or exceed a source of
frustration by violating the rights of other fellow drivers (honking, passing the red
light, curvature traffic). The second type of aggression is defined as any behaviour
aimed at violent physical and psychological injury of the source of frustration.
Typical manifestations of this type of aggression include verbal abuse, physical
attacks and offensive hand gestures.
The authors consider that the findings drawn from this study are useful for
achieving road safety and accident prevention, if not otherwise, at least by
identifying those risky and aggressive behaviours that can have serious repercussions
on other road users.
The research also provides a possible basis for explaining aggressiveness at the
wheel and helps clarify the tendency of drivers to engage in rule violation and
dangerous driving.
The results are only relevant in terms of instrumental aggression, men
achieving higher scores on this variable than women. The results concerning the
level of fury in traffic are not conclusive, but toe the general line of previous studies
that have shown the presence of gender differences. Thus, men exhibit a higher level
40
of fury when inconvenienced by other road users, while women rarely get angry,
even when other traffic participants practice a disorganized and chaotic style of
driving (Deffenbacher, 1994 apud Bjorklund, 2008).
REFERENCES
Aniței, M. & Chraif, M. (2013). Psihologia în Transporturi. București: Editura
Universitară.
Aniței, M., Chraif, M., Sandu, M.C., (2014). Gender Differences in Traffic Risk assuming
and short term memory related to traffic situations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
127, 907-912.
Chraif, M., Aniţei, M. (2012). Evaluation based on stereoscopic vision test within driving
schools assessment centre in Zhang, M. (editor), In International Proceedings of Economics,
Development and research, Humanity, History and Society – ICHHS,34, 58-64.
Chraif, M. (2013a). Gender and age differences in time reaction and decision to multiple
stimuli and abstract figure comparison on a romanian sample, Revista de Psihologie a
Academiei Române,59(1), 29-36 .
Chraif, M. (2013b). Gender Differences in Mental Rotation at Young Romanian Students
at Psychology-a Pilot Study, In Vasile, C., Anitei, M. Chraif, M. , (Eds.) Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 692-696.
Chraif, M. (2013c). Influnece of radio noise in attention task among youngsters-a pilot
study, Revista de psihologie a Academiei Române, 59 (2), 149-157.
Chraif, M. (2012) The effects of radio noise in multiple time reaction tasks for young
students Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33,1057-1062.
Ioana, E. C., Chraif, M., Aniţei, M. (2013). The effects of cell phone conversation to
reactivity to multiple stimuli, International Journal of Traffic and Transportation Psychology,
1 (1), pp 50-61
Burtăverde, V., Chraif, M. & Pandele D. (2013). Differences between topographic
memory and form gestalt perception according to visual processing with one eye versus two
eyes in young students, International Journal of Traffic and Transportation Psychology,Vol.
1, Issue 2, pp.58-68.
Chraif, M. Manea, G. (2013). Gender diferences in abstract figure short term memory and
deductive reasoning-a pilot study, International Journal of Traffic and Transportation
Psychology, Vol 1 issue 2, pp. 46-57.
Aniței, M., Chraif, M., Burtaverde, V., Mihăilă, 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), 7-22.
Bjorklund, G.M. (2008). Driver irritation and aggressive behavior. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 40, 1069-1077.
Havârneanu, G. (2013). Psihologia Transporturilor. Iași: Polirom.
Hennessy, D.A. (1999). The influence of driving vengeance on aggression and violence.
Proceedings of the Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference XI; Nova Scotia:
Halifax.
41
Hennessy, D.A. (2003). From driver stress to workplace aggression. Paper Presented at
the 111th Annual American Psychological Association Convention.
Iglesias, G.B., Fraguela, G.A.J., & Martin, L.A.M. (2012). Driving anger and traffic
violations: Gender differences. Transportation Research Part F, 15, 404-412.
Jovanovic, D., Lipovac, K., Stanojevic, P., & Stanojevic, D. (2011). The effects of
personality traits on driving-related anger and aggressive behavior in traffic among Serbian
drivers. Transportation Research Part F, 14, 43-53.
Miller, E.E. & Boyle, L.N. (2013). Variations in road conditions on driver stress: Insights
from on-road study. Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual
Meeting, doi: 10.1177/1541931213571416.
Nesbit, S.M., & Conger, J.C. (2012). Predicting aggressive driving behavior from anger
and negative cognitions. Transportation Research Part F, 15, 710–718.
Novaco, R.W. (1989). Aggression on roadways. The University of California.
Transportation Centre.
Paleti, R., Eluru, N., & Bhat, C.R. (2010). Examining the influence of aggressive driving
behavior on driver injury severity in traffic crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42,
1839-1854.
Rowden, P., Matthews, G., & Biggs, H. (2011). The relative impact of work-related
stress, life stress and driving environment stress on driving outcomes. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 43, 1332-1340.
Săucan, D.Ș., Micle, M.I., Popa, C., & Oancea, G. (2012). Violence and Aggressiveness
in traffic. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 343- 347.
Taylor, A.H. & Dorn, L. (2006). Stress, fatigue, health, and risk of road traffic accidents
among professional drivers: The contribution of physical inactivity. Annual Review of Public
Health, 27(2), doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102117.