Jerry L. Deffenbacher

DEVELOPMENT OF A DRIVING ANGER SCALE

A cluster analysis of responses from more than 1500 college students to 53 potentially angering driving-related situations yielded a 33-item driving anger scale (alpha reliability = .90) with six reliable subscales involving hostile gestures, illegal driving, police presence, slow driving, discourtesy, and traffic obstructions. Subscales all correlated positively, suggesting a general dimension of driving anger as well as anger related to specific driving-related situations. Men were more angered by police presence and slow driving whereas women were more angered by illegal behavior and traffic obstructions, but differences compensated so there were no gender differences on total score. A 14-item short form (alpha reliability = .80) was developed from scores more highly correlated (r = .95) with scores on the long form. Driving anger may have potential value for research on accident prevention and health psychology.

State-Trait Anger Theory and the Utility of the Trait Anger Scale.

Eight studies present support for state-trait anger theory. In Studies 1-3, high-anger participants reported (a) greater anger in many different provocations, in their most angering ongoing situations, and in daily life, (b) greater anger-related physiological arousal, (c) greater state anger and dysfunctional coping in response to a visualized provocation, and (d) greater use of suppression and outward negative expression of anger. Only heart rate in the visualized provocation did not support predictions. In Studies 4-5, high-anger individuals suffered more frequent and intense anger consequences. In Studies 6-8, trait anger had higher correlations with dimensions of anger than with other emotions, cognitions, and behaviors. Few gender differences were found across studies. Results were discussed in terms of state-trait theory, convergent and discriminant validity for the Trait Anger Scale, anger expression, gender, and the implications for counseling.

CHARACTERISTICS AND TREATMENT OF HIGH-ANGER DRIVERS

This paper reports on some characteristics of high-anger drivers in comparison with low-anger drivers. A client analogue of angry drivers reported more frequent and intense anger, aggressive and risky behavior, and accidents (mainly minor accidents or near-accidents) than low-anger drivers, but the groups did not differ on major accidents or moving violations. Angry drivers reported more trait anger and anxiety, anger suppression and outward, less-controlled forms of anger expression. Relaxation and cognitive-relaxation interventions lowered driving anger compared with an untreated control. The cognitive-relaxation intervention was superior on risky behavior, while the relaxation intervention was superior on other measures. Interventions did not influence trait anger, anxiety or general anger expression. State-trait anger theory, construct validity of the trait driver anger measure and the feasibility of driving anger reduction are supported by these findings.

Anger, aggression, and risky behavior: a comparison of high and low anger drivers

This research tested hypotheses from state-trait anger theory applied to anger while driving. High and low anger drivers drove equally often and as many miles, but high anger drivers reported more frequent and intense anger and more aggression and risky behavior in daily driving, greater anger in frequently occurring situations, more frequent close calls and moving violations, and greater use of hostile/aggressive and less adaptive/constructive ways of expressing anger. In low impedance simulations, groups did not differ on state anger or aggression; however, high anger drivers reported greater state anger and verbal and physical aggression in high impedance simulations. High anger drivers drove at higher speeds in low impedance simulations and had shorter times and distances to collision and were twice as likely to crash in high impedance simulations. Additionally, high anger drivers were more generally angry. Hypotheses were generally supported, and few gender differences were noted for anger and aggression.

The driving anger expression inventory: a measure of how people express their anger on the road.

Four ways people express their anger when driving were identified. Verbal Aggressive Expression (alpha=0.88) assesses verbally aggressive expression of anger (e.g., yelling or cursing at another driver); Personal Physical Aggressive Expression (alpha=0.81), the ways the person uses him/herself to express anger (e.g., trying to get out and tell off or have a physical fight with another driver); Use of the Vehicle to Express Anger (alpha=0.86), the ways the person uses his/her vehicle to express anger (e.g., flashing lights at or cutting another driver off in anger); and Adaptive/Constructive Expression (alpha=0.90), the ways the person copes positively with anger (e.g., focuses on safe driving or tries to relax). Aggressive forms can be summed into Total Aggressive Expression Index (alpha=0.90). Aggressive forms of expression correlated positively with each other (rs=0.39-0.48), but were uncorrelated or correlated negatively with adaptive/constructive expression (rs=-0.02 to -0.22). Aggressive forms of anger expression correlated positively with driving-related anger, aggression, and risky behavior; adaptive/constructive expression tended to correlate negatively with these variables. Differences in the strengths of correlations and regression analyses supported discriminant and incremental validity and suggested forms of anger expression contributed differentially to understanding driving-related behaviors. Theoretical and treatment implications were explored.

The assessment of anger and hostility: a critical review

While the emotion of anger has become an increasingly important part of clinical assessment, the theoretical and psychometric adequacy of the instruments used to assess anger and hostility have long been questioned. In the present review, we first provide definitions of anger and hostility in order to provide a theoretical context from which to evaluate the scope of current measures of these constructs. Second, we review the major self-report scales used to assess anger and hostility in light of these definitions and provide a detailed evaluation of psychometric evidence concerning their reliability and validity. Finally, we offer specific recommendations concerning how anger and hostility assessment instruments can be improved and expanded. In particular, we note the need for (a) an expansion of anger assessment methods beyond traditional endorsement approaches, (b) scales to assess specific domains of anger experience, (c) scales that assess unique content domains of anger experience and expressions, such as spouse-specific or driving-related anger scales, and (d) scales that assess the clinical aspects of the anger construct.

The expression of anger and its consequences

Cluster analysis, using TRYSYS key cluster variable analyses, on 59 anger expression items replicated Spielbergers Anger-In and Anger-Control dimensions and revealed seven additional forms of anger expression: Noisy Arguing, Verbal Assault, Physical Assault-People, Physical Assault-Objects, Reciprocal Communication, Time Out, and Direct Expression. Aggressive dimensions (Noisy Arguing, Verbal Assault, Physical Assault-People and -Objects) correlated positively with each other and with trait anger and negatively with non-aggressive forms of expression (Control, Reciprocal Communication, and Time Out). The latter were positively correlated with each other and negatively with trait anger. Forms of expression correlated logically with the frequency of eight types of anger consequences, and there was evidence of distinct relationships between anger expression and anger consequences; e.g. Physical Assault-People correlated most with frequency of physical altercations, and Noisy Arguing and Verbal Assault with the frequency of verbal fights. Males were more likely to utilize aggressive forms of expression and to suffer consequences involving physical and verbal fights and property damage. Results are discussed in terms of convergent and discriminant validity, and in terms of their implications for assessment, treatment, and future research.

Anger, aggression, risky behavior, and crash-related outcomes in three groups of drivers.

High anger drivers who acknowledged problems with driving anger and were interested in treatment were compared to high and low anger drivers who did not acknowledge problems with driving anger or want treatment. Although high anger drivers who acknowledged problems reported greater anger on two measures than high anger drivers who did not acknowledge problems, both high anger groups tended not to differ from one another and were more frequently and intensely angered when driving, reported more aggressive and less adaptive/constructive forms of expressing anger while driving, engaged in more aggressive and risky behavior on the road, and experienced more of some accident-related outcomes than low anger drivers. High anger groups did not differ from each other, but reported more trait anxiety and anger and more outward negative and less controlled general anger expression than the low anger group. The two groups of high anger drivers, however, require different types of interventions given their state of readiness for driving anger reduction. Results were also interpreted as supportive of the state-trait model of anger and construct validity of the Driving Anger Scale.

Driving anger: correlates and a test of state-trait theory

A survey and field study evaluated predictions from state-trait theory applied to driving anger. Trait driving anger, the propensity to become angry when driving, correlated positively with anger in frequently occurring driving situations and in day-to-day driving and with aggressive and risky behaviors while driving. Although not correlated with crash rates or moving violations, trait driving anger correlated with crash-related conditions such as loss concentration, loss of vehicular control, and close calls. Results generally supported predictions from state-trait theory and the construct validity of the Driving Anger Scale, as well as mapping correlates of the disposition to become angry while driving.

High general anger: Correlates and treatment

Abstract Two studies on high general anger are reported. In Study 1 high anger Ss reported significantly more general anger, situational anger, anger-related physiological arousal, frequency and intensity of daily anger and general anxiety than low anger S s. In response to provocation, heart rates (HRs) did not differ, but high anger S s reported more state anger and tendencies to be verbally and physically antagonistic and lowered tendency to cope constructively. A regression on general anger revealed that general anxiety, coping through verbal antagonism, and average daily level of anger entered the regression and accounted for 70% of the variance. In Study 2, high anger was treated with a relaxation coping skills intervention. Compared to controls, treated S s reported less general and situational anger, and less state anger, verbal and physical antagonism and greater constructive coping when provoked. These gains were maintained at 5-week and 1-year follow-ups. Groups did not differ on HR when provoked, daily anger ratings or trait anxiety. One-year follow-up, however, revealed significantly lower general anxiety for treated S s. Results were discussed in terms of the characteristics of high anger S s, the role of general anxiety in general anger and the usefulness of self-control relaxation approaches for anger reduction.