1
Running head: DRIVING VENGEANCE
Age and Vengeance as Predictors of Mild Driver Aggression
Dwight A. Hennessy
Dept. of Psychology
BuffaloState College
David L. Wiesenthal
Dept. of Psychology
YorkUniversity
Note: This manuscript appears in Violence and Victims so plagiarism will be fruitless. This is used for demonstration purposes in PSY450 only.
Key Words: AGGRESSION; VENGEANCE; AGE; AUTOMOBILE
1
DRIVING VENGEANCE
Abstract
The present study examined the influence of driver age and vengeance on mild aggression among drivers with at least five years experience. Mild aggression decreased with age among low vengeance drivers and changed little across age groups among moderately vengeful drivers. However, mild driver aggression actually increased with age among highly vengeful drivers. Results are interpreted in terms of the aggressive nature of an enduring vengeful attitude.
Age and Vengeance as Predictors of Mild Driver Aggression
According to Stuckless and Goranson (1992), vengeance can be a strong motivation for aggressive and violent behavior. Vengeance has been linked to a variety of destructive behaviors, including homicide (Daly & Wilson, 1988), vandalism (Wiesenthal, 1990), workplace aggression (Douglass & Martinko, 2001), arson (Bradford & Dimock, 1986), violent crime (Gibson & Goranson, 1996), and suicide (Tanaka, 2001). McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, and Johnson (2001) have noted that revenge motivated aggression is stimulated by a variety of goals, including getting even, teaching the victim a lesson, and "saving face” to establish respect. Further, there is often a belief that vengeful aggression may ultimately deter future unfair treatment from the victim or other observers and increase personal self worth (Cota-McKinley, Woody, & Bell, 2001; Wilmot & Hocker, 2001). Such vengeful tendencies can cultivate over time as perceptions of injustice accumulate, which can lead to a vengeful disposition and an increased tendency toward destructive retaliatory behavior (Gibson & Wiesenthal, 1996; Holbrook, 1997; McCullough et al., 2001). According to McCullough et al. (2001), vengeful individuals typically ruminate longer over perceived infractions, are less forgiving, and demonstrate prolonged motivation to harm perceived transgressors.
Vengeance has been recently linked to roadway aggression and violence in both hypothetical and actual driving situations (Gibson & Wiesenthal, 1996; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001a; in press). Wiesenthal, Hennessy and Gibson (2000) have defined driving vengeance as the wish or desire to get even with another within the driving environment in response to a perceived injustice or infraction. For some drivers, this desire is fulfilled through acts of personal aggression and violence (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001a; in press). Within the driving environment, aggression arises predominantly as a consequence of perceived conflict, provocation, threat, or danger from another driver (Gibson & Wiesenthal, 1996; Gulian, Debney, Glendon, Davies, & Matthews, 1989; Hennessy, 1999; Matthews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991; McGarva & Steiner, 2000; Wiesenthal et al., 2000). Seclusion and lack of communication between drivers typically prohibits personal explanations for negative driving behaviors. As a result, those who do not see a clear environmental explanation to actions that are perceived as aversive and potentially harmful, may view those actions as purposeful and personal (Ohbuchi & Kambara, 1985; Quigley & Tedeschi, 1989), leading to reduced inhibitions against harming the transgressor (Geen & Stonner, 1973). However, revenge motivated aggression is often much more harsh and persistent than the precipitating action, possibly in an attempt to exert power and control over the perceived violator and to authoritatively bring the dispute to a conclusion (Black, 1983; Cramerus, 1990; Daly & Wilson, 1988; Elster, 1990; Kim & Smith, 1993; Lane, Hull, & Foehrenbach, 1991; Stuckless & Goranson, 1992). Despite its destructive nature, vengeful individuals typically feel warranted in harming others they believe are deserving of punishment or correction for inappropriate behavior, because it provides a sense of “justice” (Baumeister, 1997; Bies & Tripp, 2001; Daly & Wilson, 1988; Pettiway, 1987).
Previous research has found that age is negatively related to both mild driver aggression and vengeance (Hauber, 1980; Stuckless & Goranson, 1992; Wiesenthal & Hennessy, 1999; Wiesenthal et al., 2000). One possible explanation may be that young drivers exert greater effort in defending their personal space, especially given that the vehicle is often their most valuable possession (Hauber, 1980). As a result, younger drivers may be more likely to perceive innocuous actions of other drivers as intentional infractions, thus enhancing the perceived need for defensive aggression and punishment of violators. In the absence of police, young drivers may feel that they alone are left to take action to protect themselves in the presence of threat of injustice. Considering that younger drivers, particularly males, have also been found more likely to take risks and drive in a dangerous manner (Guppy, 1993; Jonah, Thiessen, & Vincent, 1997; Stradling & Meadows, 2000; Stradling, Meadows, & Beatty, 2000), punishment of “violators” may take the form of overt aggression. In contrast, as drivers age and gain experience, they typically achieve a greater understanding of the causes of anger and a degree of behavioral control (Geen, 1990), and also develop a greater accuracy in the perception of risks involved in hazardous driving patterns (Cvetkovich & Earle, 1990; Rumar, 1990), which could lead to decreased aggressive responses (Geen, 1990).
Given the similar negative relationship of age with both vengeance and aggression, Hennessy and Wiesenthal (in press) have noted that an over sampling of younger drivers may serve to inflate reported links between vengeance and mild driver aggression. As a result, the present study was designed to examine this link across an older driving sample, with at least five years driving experience. It was predicted that mild driver aggression would decline with age, but most prominently among low vengeance drivers. High vengeful drivers would demonstrate little reduction in mild driver aggression with age.
Method
Participants
Participants (43 female and 47 males) were recruited, through posted signs and referrals, from the student and employee populations of YorkUniversity, and from the surrounding business community of Metropolitan Toronto. A minimum of five years driving experience was required with an average of 15.45 years experience (M = 15.04 years for females and M = 15.89 years for males). The age range was 21-67 years, with an average of 32.88 years (M = 32.86 years for females and M = 32.89 years for males). The average daily driving time ranged from 15 to 480 minutes per day, with an average of 98.82 minutes per day (M = 106.30 minutes for females and M = 92.12 minutes for males).
Materials
The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ) (Wiesenthal et al., 2000) was developed to evaluate a general susceptibility toward a vengeful driving attitude. Items represent common driving situations in which a participant might be irritated, or feel unjustly treated by another driver. Participants were required to select a likely response from a series of four options involving decreasing levels of severity. Response alternatives ranged from displays of extreme aggression (e.g., force the other vehicle off the road) to doing nothing. Scoring consisted of assigning a rank to each item, based on the level of severity involved in the chosen response option. The first, and most extreme, option was assigned a rank of 4, while subsequent options, which decreased in their level of severity, were assigned ranks of 3, 2, and 1 respectively. All items also included an open ended response option, to which participants could indicate an alternate response to those provided. All alternate responses were independently rated as to their severity in relation to the options provided for that item. For example, those deemed equivalent to the most extreme option for that item were given a rank of 4, while those considered equivalent to doing nothing were given a rank of 1. A vengeance score was calculated as the sum of all individual item ratings with higher scores indicating a more vengeful driving attitude. The DVQ has been found to represent a reliable measure of vengeful driving attitudes (alpha = 0.83), and to predict the likelihood of mild driver aggression and violence (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001a; Wiesenthal et al., 2000).
The Self Report Driver Aggression Questionnaire was developed to evaluate the likelihood of engaging in mild driver aggression, defined as intentionally harmful acts directed toward others in the traffic environment (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997, 1999, 2001b). The five aggressive items included horn honking out of frustration, purposeful tailgating, swearing/yelling, using hand gestures, and flashing high beams out of frustration. Responses ranged from 0 = “not at all” to 5 = “nearly all the time”, indicating how frequently they generally engage in each behavior when driving. An aggregate driver aggression score was calculated as the mean response to the five individual items. Higher scores indicated a greater likelihood of engaging in mild aggressive driving behaviors. Hennessy (2000) found that self reported driver aggression scores correlated highly with actual acts of mild aggression occurring in actual traffic conditions (r = .643).
Procedure
Due to prior concerns that previous research may have overestimated the relationship between mild driver aggression and driving vengeance (see Hennessy & Wiesenthal, in press), the present study selected participants with greater than five years driving experience. All participants completed the Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ) and Self Report Driver Aggression questionnaire in private. Due to the sensitive nature of the present driving measures, all questionnaires were completed anonymously and instructions were designed to emphasize that all responses would be held in strict confidence.
Results
Intercorrelations, means, standard deviations and alpha reliabilities for age, the Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ) and Self Report Driver Aggression questionnaire appear in Table 1.
------
Insert Table 1 About Here
------
A hierarchical entry stepwise regression was used to determine predictors of mild driver aggression. The main effect predictors included driving vengeance, driver age and gender. All main effects were entered forcibly and all interaction terms were added stepwise on the first run. Any significant interactions were then entered forcibly on the second run, along with their constituent main effects. All other significant main effects (i.e. those not part of interaction effects) were added stepwise on the second run. However, in the event that no interactions were found significant on the first run, significant main effects were entered forcibly on the second run. This strategy has been reported elsewhere (e.g. Kohn, Gurevich, Pickering, & Macdonald, 1994; Kohn & Macdonald, 1992). Table 2 contains the final model for mild driver aggression.
------
Insert Table 2 About Here
------
Mild driver aggression was predicted by the main effect of age and the interaction of age X vengeance (R2= 0.35, F(3,86) = 15.45, p=.005). While the main effect of age demonstrated a negative relationship with mild aggression, the form of its interaction with vengeance was not as expected. As can be seen in Figure 1, the likelihood of mild aggression decreased with age only among low vengeance drivers. Among moderately vengeful drivers, there was little change in mild aggression with age, however highly vengeful drivers reported an increase in mild driver aggression with age.
To generate Figure 1, the regression equation in Table 2 was applied to 27 idealized cases generated as follows: driver age at 5 year intervals in the range of 20 to 60 with a vengeance score 1 SD below the mean, at the mean, or 1 SD above the mean (representing low medium and high vengeance respectively). The 27 idealized cases thus represent 9 levels of age X 3 levels of driving vengeance.
------
Insert Figure 1 About Here
------
Discussion
Previous research has typically found that age is negatively related to both aggression and vengeance (Cota-McKinley et al., 2001; Daly & Wilson, 1988; Gibson & Wiesenthal, 1996; Harris & Knight-Bohnhoff, 1996; Hauber, 1980; Lindeman, Harakka, & KeltikangasJarvinen, 1997; Pettiway, 1987; McConatha, Leone, & Armstrong, 1997; Stuckless & Goranson, 1992), while driving vengeance has been linked to elevated driver aggression (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001a; Wiesenthal et al., 2000). Consequently it was predicted that mild driver aggression would decrease with age, but less so among those high in driving vengeance. However, the present study demonstrated that mild aggression declined only among low vengeance drivers. Moderately vengeful drivers showed little change in aggression with age, but unexpectedly, mild driver aggression actually increased with age among highly vengeful drivers.
The majority of drivers do not possess a highly vengeful attitude, and most drivers appear to moderate aggressive behavior as they gain experience (Hennessy, 2000; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001a; Wiesenthal et al., 2000). However, a small subsample of drivers do maintain dangerous driving behaviors and attitudes throughout life (Hennessy, 2000; Jonah et al., 1997; Labiale, 1988). For most, greater driving experience leads to a fuller understanding of the potential threat to the self and others as a result of extreme or dangerous actions, which typically contributes to reduced aggression tendencies and vengeful attitudes (Cvetkovich & Earle, 1990; Rumar, 1990). It is possible that those older drivers that continue to hold a highly vengeful driving attitude represent a small but extreme, or zealous, group of drivers in which vengeful aggression has become a habitual or routine problem solving strategy. Given that vengeful individuals are more prone to perceive minor infractions as unjust treatment (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992; Wiesenthal et al., 2000), older vengeful drivers may have had greater experience and accumulation of perceived irritation, frustration, and transgression compared to younger drivers, which would increase their tendency toward retaliatory aggression. These negative experiences would serve to concurrently maintain their vengeful attitude and increase the perceived legitimacy of aggression to deal with interdriver conflict.
In a similar respect, repeated use of vengeful aggression to deal with perceived injustice may simply reinforce feelings of power and control, further promoting its use. Successful use of such aggression without punishment or negative repercussion among older vengeful drivers, due to their increased experience, may elevate its position within their typical driving behavior repertoire. According to Walker and Richardson (1998), aggression among older individuals is typically more indirect, representing less personal threat. The fact that the automobile provides all drivers with a degree of anonymity, an easy means of escape from danger, and a powerful weapon (Marsh & Collett, 1987; Novaco, 1991) may help to sustain aggressive tendencies among older drivers that hold a highly vengeful attitude. Consequently, they may be more inclined to view aggression as a safe and highly functional means of protecting themselves against injustice from other drivers.
Future Directions
The present study highlights the importance of the interaction of personal, social, and experiential factors in understanding problem driving behavior. Specifically, while most drivers would appear to decrease aggressive tendencies, individual characteristics such as a vengeful attitude can maintain aggression even among older drivers. However, further research is needed to more fully understand the experiential processes, including social and personal incentives, which might lead drivers to maintain such destructive attitudes and personality characteristics. Future research should also investigate a wider range of aggressive behaviors. The present study focused on five major forms of mild aggression, but did not include more extreme actions that might be more prevalent among younger drivers, such as roadside confrontations (see Hennessy, 2000). The actions that were included in the Aggression Questionnaire involve situations in which the participants would have little contact with the victim, and consequently less personal risk of danger or harm. Further, the traffic environment offers unique contextual features, such as prolonged anonymity, ease of escape, and heightened power (Ellison, Govern, Petri, & Figler, 1995; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999; March & Collett, 1987; Novaco, 1991) that may alter aggressive responses among older vengeful drivers. Future research is needed to understand the generalizability of this effect across different situations and contexts. Finally, further understanding of the motivational component of driver aggression is needed. According to Buss and Perry (1992), aggression involves affective and cognitive characteristics, in addition to observable actions. Given that the present study did not measure intentions or motivations for driver aggression, there was no evidence that such actions were, in fact, intended to harm others. Although recent research has begun to highlight the impact of unique state and trait motivations on specific types of aggression, such as anger (Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994), hostility (Beirness, 1993), control orientation, pressure regulation, and ego defensiveness (Neighbors, Vietor, & Knee, 2002), greater understanding of such factors is still needed in order to ultimately confront chronic driver aggression.
References
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Evil. New York: Freeman.
Bierness, D. J. (1993). Do we really drive as we live? The role of personality factors in road
crashes. Alcohol, Drugs & Driving, 9, 129-143.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2001). A passion for justice: The rationality and morality of revenge.
In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (vol. 2) (pp.
197-208). MahwakNJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Black, D. (1983). Crime as social control. American Sociological Review, 48, 34-45.
Bradford, J., & Dimock, J. (1986). A comparative study of adolescents and adults who willfully
set fires. Psychiatric Review of the University of Ottawa, 11, 228-234.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.
Cota-McKinley, A. L., Woody, W. D., & Bell, P. A. (2001). Vengeance: Effects of gender, age,
and religious background. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 343-350.
Cramerus, M. (1990). Adolescent anger. Bulletin of Menninger Clinic, 54, 512-523.
Cvetkovich, G., & Earle, T. C. (1990). Decision making and risk taking of young drivers:
Conceptual distinctions and issues. Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving, 4, 9-19.
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.
Douglass, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the
prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 547-559.