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.