karakteristike visokorizicnih vozaca

7/28/2019 karakteristike visokorizicnih vozaca

1/13

Journal of Counseling Psychology2000, Vol. 47, No. 1,5-17 Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0022-0167/00/S5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-OI67.47.1.5

Characteristics and Treatment of High-Anger D riversJerry L. Deffenbacher, Maureen E. Huff, Rebekah S. Lynch, Eugene R. O etting,and Natalie F. SalvatoreColorado State University

A client analogue of angry drivers reported more frequent and intense anger, aggressive andrisky behavior, and accidents (generally, minor accidents, close calls, etc.) than low-angerdrivers. Groups did not differ on major accidents or moving violations. High-anger driversreported more trait anger and anxiety; anger suppression; and outward, less controlled formsof anger expression. Compared with an untreated control, relaxation and cognitive-relaxationinterventions lowered driving anger; although the relaxation intervention was superior onsome measures of driving anger, cognitive-relaxation was superior on risky behavior.Interventions did not influence trait anger, anxiety, or general anger expression. Findingssupport state-trait anger theory, construct validity of the trait driving anger measure, andfeasibility of driving anger reduction.

Anger while driving, aggressive driving, and "road rage"have recently received a great deal of national attention. Forexample, a survey by the American Automobile Association(1997) suggested that the most violent, aggressive actsincreased 7% per year from 1990 to 1996. Studies (Novaco,Stokols, Campbell, & Stokols, 1979; Novaco, Stokols, &Milanesi, 1990) have shown that frustration from commut-ing impacts mood and behavior in the work environmentafter commuters come to work and in the home environmentafter the return commute. Other research focusing on howemotional and personality factors influence driving behaviorand accident risk has shown that general anger, aggressive-ness, impulsiveness, sensation seeking, and social unconven-tionality are related to increased accident risk and otheraccident-related variables, such as traffic violations andrisky driving (e.g., Arnett, Offer, & Fine, 1997; Donovan,Queisser, Salzberg, & Umlauf, 1985; Mayer & Treat, 1987;McM illen, Pang, W ells-Parker, & Anderson, 1992; Selzer &Vinokur, 1974). For example, Donovan, Umlauf, and Salz-berg (1988) identified two types of high-risk drivers. Onegroup characterized by gene ral aggressiveness, verbal hostil-ity, and impulsiveness had higher risk indexes than apsychologically well-adjusted group. However, a second

Jerry L. Deffenbacher, Rebekah S. Lynch, and Eugene R. O etting ,Department of Psychology and Tri-Ethnic Center for PreventionResearch, Colorado State University; Maureen E. Huff and NatalieF. Salvatore, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University.This study was supported, in part, by Grant R49/CCR811509-04from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and GrantsR01 DA04777 and P50 DA07074 from the National Institute onDrug Abuse.Maureen E . Huff is now at the Counseling Psychology Program,University of Oregon. Rebekah S. Lynch is now at the NursingProgram, Front Range Com munity College. Natalie F. Salvatore isnow at the Department of Humanities, San Juan College.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toJerry L. Deffenbacher, Department of Psychology and Tri-EthnicCenter for Prevention Research, Colorado State University, FortCollins, Colorado 80523-1876. Electronic mail may be sent tojld6871 @lamar.colostate.edu.

group marked by dysphoria and covert hostility tended to actout their anger through driving and had an even higheraccident risk profile than either of the other two groups.Additionally, a recent study of 17- to 18-year-olds (Arnett etaL, 1997) showed that anger was the only mood stateassociated with increased speeding and risky driving.Whereas these general traits and characteristics are relatedto accident risk, Deffenbacher, Oetting, and Lynch (1994)suggested a specific em otional factor, an individual's prope n-sity to become angry behind the w heel (trait driving anger).Trait driving anger correlated positively with the frequencyand intensity of state anger while driving, with driving-related aggression and risky behavior and with accident-related variables (Lynch, Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Yingling,1995). This literature suggests that there are individuals w ho

become very angry while driving and sometimes engage inemotionally charged aggressive and risky behavior. Suchindividuals are at risk for emotional upset and adverseconsequences, such as accidents, traffic citations, alterca-tions, and violence, which, on occasion, can result in injury,even death. Moreover, they may put others at risk. This maybe done directly through their risky and aggressive b ehavioror indirectly, such as when their behavior triggers erratic,risky, or aggressive behav ior in others.These characteristics suggest two things. First, there is agroup of individuals who incur increased emotional, psycho-logical, legal, and health risks for themselves and othersbecause of their tendency to become angry while driving.However, little is known about the characteristics of high-anger drivers. Second, social and psychological interventionsshould be considered to address elevated driving anger. Thepresent article addresses both issues. Study 1 explored emotional,behavioral, and accident-related risk characteristics of a clientanalogue of high-anger drivers, and Study 2 explored thefeasibility of two interventions for high-anger d rivers.

Study 1Study 1 had three goals. First, it provided descriptiveinformation about potentially important emotional and behav-


2/13

DEFFENBACHER, HUFF, LYNCH, OETTING, AND SALVATOREioral characteristics of high-anger drivers who see drivinganger as a personal problem and want help with it. Suchinformation may inform intervention design, Second, ittested five predictions from state-trait anger theory (Deffen-bacher, Oetting, Thwaites, et al., 1996; Spielberger, 1988)adapted to driving anger, as well as the underlying notion ofa Personality X Situation interaction. If trait driving angerreflects an underlying dimension of functioning, then, com-pared with low-anger drivers, high-anger drivers should beangered by more types of driving situations (elicitationhypothesis) and should experience more frequent and in-tense anger while driving (frequency and intensity hypoth-eses). Because anger may motivate and prompt aggression,high-anger drivers may also engage in more driving-relatedaggression (aggression hypothesis). Because elevated angerand aggressiveness may interfere with controlled informa-tion processing and disrupt driving performance, high-angerdrivers may also show elevated rates of risky behavior,accidents, and accident-related variables (interference hypoth-esis). Third, support for the above hypotheses would provideevidence of construct validity for the Driving Anger Scale(DAS; Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994). To achievethese goals, we compared high- and low-anger drivers on (a)sources of driving anger; (b) anger in response to commonlyoccurring driving situations; (c) anger, aggression, and riskydriving under normal day-to-day driving conditions; and (d)general reports of aggressive and risky driving behavior andaccidents and accident-related processes. In addition, toexplore other potentially important psychological character-istics, we compared groups on trait anger, anxiety, andgeneral forms of anger expression.

MethodParticipants

The client analogue consisted of 57 (23 men, 34 women)introductory psychology students who scored in the upper quartileof the college norms for the short form of the DAS (scores >53;Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994) and who also indicated apersonal problem with driving anger and a desire for counseling forthat problem. Low-anger drivers consisted of 57 (30 men, 27women) students who scored in the lower quartile (scores


3/13

DRIVING ANGERan accident. One question asked how often they used seat belts(1 = every time in car, 2 = some of the time, 3 = almost never,4 - never). Two questions asked how wrong (1 = not at all,5 = very much) it is to (a) have one or two drinks and drive and (b)get drunk and drive. Six questions asked the frequency (responseoptions ranged from "0" to "9 or more") in the past year ofdriving-related aggression that was unrelated to an accident: (a)broken or damaged part of a vehicle (e.g., kicked and dented afender), (b) injured him- or herself (e.g., slammed hand onto thewheel), (c) injured someone else in the vehicle he or she wasdriving (e.g., threw something at or hit a passenger), (d) arguedwith a passenger when he or she was driving, (e) argued withanother driver, and (f) fought physically with another driver.Other measures. Measures of trait anger, anger expression, andtrait anxiety were included to assess other emotional characteristicsthat might contribute to elevated stress and risk while driving. Traitanger was measured by the 10-item Trait Anger Scale (TAS;Spielberger, 1988), a 4-point (1 = almost never, 4 = almost al-ways) Likert-type instrument on which a respondent rates how heor she typically feels or responds with anger. Alpha reliabilitiesrange from .81 to .91, with highest reliabilities for college students(Spielberger, 1988). Two-week test-retest reliabilities range from.70 to .77 (Jacobs, Latham, & Brown, 1988), and 2-month retestreliability was .75 (Morris, Deffenbacher, Lynch, & Oe tting, 1996).The TAS correlates positively with measures of anger, aggression,hostility (Deffenbacher, 1992; Deffenbacher, Oetting, Thwaites, etal., 1996; Spielberger, 1988), and anger consequences (Deffen-bacher, Oetting, Lynch, & Morris, 1996; Morris, Deffenbacher,Lynch, & Oetting, 1996) and forms stronger correlations withanger variables than with other cognitive, emotional, behavioral,and personality measures (Deffenbacher, 1992; Deffenbacher,Oetting, Lynch, & Morris, 1996; Deffenbacher, Oetting, Thwaites,et al., 1996). Trait anxiety was assessed by the 20-item TraitAnxiety Inventory (TAJ; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970).Items are rated on the 4-point scale noted previously for the TAS.Alpha reliabilities range from .89 to .90, with test-retest reliabili-ties between .86 and .66 over intervals from 2 weeks to over 3months (Jacobs et al., 1988; Spielberger et al., 1970). The TAIcorrelates with many indexes of anxiety and is a widely validatedinstrument (Spielberger et al., 1970). Anger expression was mea-sured by 8-item Anger-In, Anger-Out, andAnger-Control scalesfrom the State-Trait Anger E xpression Inventory (AX; Spielberger,1988). Items are rated on a 4-point (1 = almost never, 4 = almostalways) scale of how often the individual expresses anger in themanner described. Anger-In assesses suppressing anger and harbor-ing grudges andcriticism. Anger-Out measures expressing angeroutwardly in negative ways (e.g., yelling at or striking out at thingsthat anger the person). Anger-Control assesses the individual'sefforts to calm down and control anger. Alpha reliabilities for thesescales range from .73 to .84 (Spielberger, 1988). Anger-In tends tobe uncorrelated with Anger-Out and Anger-Control, which areinversely related to each other; construct validity for forms of angerexpression is reflected in different patterns of correlation withmeasures of anger, personality functioning, and physiologicalvariables (Deffenbacher, 1992; Deffenbacher, Oettin g, Thw aites, etal., 1996; Spielberger, 1988).

ProcedureIn seven introductory psychology classes, 1,080 students com-pleted the short form of the DAS and indicated whether or not theyfelt that they had a problem with driving anger and whether theywanted to participate in counseling for that problem or not.High-anger drivers had to score in the upper quartile, check a boxindicating a personal problem with driving anger and a desire for

help with that problem, and indicate interest by leaving a name andphone number. Low-anger drivers had to score in the lowerquartile, check a box indicating they did not have a problem withdriving anger, and indicate interest in a study ondriving. Studentswere called, and the conditions of the study were explained. Ifinterested, they were read the informed consent form and sched-uled. Three high-anger and 2 low-anger drivers declined at thispoint because of scheduling difficulties. Low-anger drivers wererandomly drawn from the pool of low-anger drivers until theirnumbers matched the number of high-anger drivers.

On arriving at a classroom accommodating approximately 75students, participants read and signed informed consent forms andcompleted the long form of the DAS, driving scenarios, the DrivingSurvey, the TAS, the AX, and the TAI, in that order. This order wasselected to move from driving to general anger and then to traitanxiety, reflecting the stated purposes of the study and preventingresponses to general measures from influencing driving measures.They then received three driving logs with instructions to completethem on 3 days that they drove during the coming week. They weretold that they would receive credit only when the logs were turnedin. Students not turning in the logs in a week were called andreminded to do so.

ResultsUnless otherwise noted, the basic analytic format was a 2

(gender) X 2 (anger level) multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA). To approximate MANOVA assumptions fornumbers of measures and participants per cell, we per-formed MANOVAs on logical clusters of two or morevariables. Significant multivariate effects were followedwith univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs), and univari-ate effects refer to these. Newman-Keuls post hoc compari-sons were used to explore interactions and other multiple-group comparisons. Effect sizes throughout were eta-squared (TT2) values, and a qualitative evaluation of effectsizes was based on Cohen's (1988) criteria, where T)2S from.01 to .04 are small, v\2s from .05 to .13 are moderate, andn2s greater than . 13 are large.

Reactions to Different Sourcesof Driving-Related ProvocationA MANOVA of the six DAS subscales revealed signifi-

cant multivariate effects for gender and anger, Fs(6, 105) =2.35 and 20.77, ps < .05 and .001, r\2 = .118 and .543,respectively, but not the interaction, F(6, 105) = 0.72.Univariate gender effects were due to men reporting greateranger to slow and discourteous drivers (Ms 16.64 and34.43, respectively) than women (Ms = 15.25 and 32.57,respectively), Fs(l, 110) = 8.84 and 6.76, ps < .05, TT2 =.074 and .058, respectively. Anger effects (see Table 1) werefound on all DAS subscales, demonstrating that those highin driving anger report anger in response to a number ofsituations, not just one or two sources of frustration andprovocation. Anger effect sizes were all large, indicating thatanger effects were sizable as well.

A 2 (gender) X 2 (anger) X 4 (type of situation) ANOVAon the driving scenarios (see Table 1) revealed no significanteffects for gender or the Gender X Anger interaction, Fs(l ,110) = 2.61 and 0.32, respectively, or for the triple


4/13

DEFFENBACHER. HUFF, LYNCH, OETT1NG, AND SALVATORETable 1Reactions of High- and Low-Anger Drivers

Variable

Hostile gesturesIllegal drivingPolice presenceSlow drivingDiscourtesyTraffic obstructions

Anger frequencyAnger intensityRisky behaviorAggressive behavior

Country roadOrdinary trafficRush hourYelled atNote. All/is < . 0 0 1 .a3-day average.

Low-angerme nM

7.308.939.0714.3730.4018.73

0.7319.671.780.56

7.8712.0319.7019.43

SD

2.793.113.993.615.164.27

Low-angerwomenM SD

High-angerme nM SD

Responses on the Driving Anger Scale6.67 2.66 13.35 2.829.15 2.84 11.13 3.449.04 2.96 13.61 3.4711.48 3.6 6 19.61 2.7326.22 7.07 39.70 4.8517.56 5.28 26.48 5.49

Reports of anger, aggression,0.74 0.68 0.5320.65 11.34 28.221.54 1.48 1.380.84 0.37 0.56

3.143.945.855.98

and risky behavior:2.15 1.2461.46 20.194.22 2.182.59 1.36

Reactions to driving scenarios7.40 1.53 8.57 2.9111.74 4.03 18.13 4.8518.96 6.85 27.74 3.8118.26 6.70 29.04 5.50

High-angerwomenM

11.9411.7913.1218.2427.6225.38Anger log a

2.3454.243.661.61

8.3217.6526.4125.62

SD

3.923.574.144.567.515.26

1.8120.921.971.19

3.295.606.036.65

UnivariateangerF(U 110)

90.0215.4043.3270.1373.8965.74

44.44139.7446.5270.82

Angereffect

.450.123.283.389.402.374

.288.560.297.392

interaction or the Gender X Situation interaction, Fs(3,108) = 0.29 and 0.83, respectively. Significant effects werefound for anger, F(l, 110) = 84.09, p < .001, r\2 = .433;situations, F(3,108) = 236.40, p < .001, -n2 = .868; and theAnger X Situation interaction, F(3,108) = 16.02, p < .001,V - .308. The main effect for situation was due todifferences in the anger elicited in all but two situations.Driving unimped ed on an open country road (M = 8.04)elicited less anger than did driving in ordinary traffic(M = 14.87), driving in rush hour traffic (M = 23.15), orbeing yelled at by another driver (M = 22.94). Driving inordinary traffic also elicited less anger than did driving inrush hour traffic and being yelled at by another driver. Thelatter two situations did not differ in the anger that theycaused. The interaction (see Table 1) was due primarily toanger on the open country road, where anger was low andnot significantly different for both groups, whereas high-anger drivers reported significantly more anger in all otherscenarios.

Reactions in Day-to-Day D rivingSignificant multivariate effects on the driving log dataaveraged over 3 days (see Table 1) were found for genderand anger, Fs( 4,1 07 ) = 3.14 and 34.86, ps < .05 and .001 ,T]2 = .105 and .566, respectively, but not for the interaction,F(4, 107) = 2.41 . Multivariate gender effects w ere due tomore intense anger and more aggressive behavior for men(Ms = 37.81 an d 1.44, respec tively) than for w omen(Ms = 35.26 and 1.06, respectively), -n2 = .041 and .076,respectively. Univariate anger effects were found on all thevariables (see Table 1), with high-anger drivers reporting

more frequent and intense anger and more aggressive andrisky behavior (Ms = 2.26, 57.16, 2.01, and 3.88, respec-tively) than low-anger drivers (Ms = 0.70, 15.73, 0.47, and1.64, respectively). Effect sizes for anger were consistentlylarge, and high-anger drivers became angry 3.2 times moreoften, engaged in aggressive behavior 4.3 times m ore often,and engaged in risky behavior 2.4 times m ore often than didlow-anger drivers.General Reports of Accidents and Accident-RelatedBehaviors and of Risky and Aggressive Behavior

Responses to the Driving Survey are summarized inTable 2.Frequency of driving. An ANOVA on reports of d rivingrevealed no effects for gender, anger, or the interaction, Fs (l ,110) = 0.30 ,1.26 , and 0.94, respectively. Everyone reporteddriving nearly every day (grand M = 4.81), suggestingequivalent, frequent driving in this sample.Accidents and accident-related variables. Reports oflifetime incidents of nearly being in an a ccident, being in anaccident, or being in an accident with injuries requiringmedical attention and reports of major and minor accidentsin the past year revealed a significant multivariate effect foranger, F(5, 106) = 5.71, p < .001, rf = .212, but not forgender or the interaction, Fs(5, 106) = 0.99 and 0.85,respectively. Univariate anger effects (see Table 2) werefound on lifetime prevalence of accidents and near accidentsand rates of minor accidents in the past year; high-angerdrivers reported more of all three (Ms = 1.29, 3.51, and0.67, respectively) than did low-anger drivers (Ms 0.80,2.09, and 0.16, respectively). High- (Ms = 0.17 and 0.18,


5/13

DRIVING ANGERTable 2Reports of Accidents, Accident-Related Incidents, and Risky and Aggressive Behavior on Driving Survey

VariableHow often driveLifetime near accidentLifetime accidentsLifetime accident with serious injuryMajor accident (past year)Minor accident (past year)Close call (past year)Lost concentration (past 3 m onths)Minor loss of vehicular control (past3 months)Moving violation (past year)Parking ticket (past year)Seat belt useWrong to have 1-2 drinks and driveWrong to get drunk and driveArgue with passengerArgue w ith other driverPhysical fight with other driverNonaccident damage to carNonaccident injury to selfNonaccident injury to other

Low-angermenM

4.733.070.930.030.130.071.573.071.230.400.861.333.234.871.430.630.030.830.130.03

SD0.581.741.210.180.570.371.362.801.940.861.250.551.410.351.591.270.181.290.430.18

Low-angerwomenM

4.793.110.670.150.190.221.784.301.670.370.851.044.305.001.670.190.000.220.110.04

SD0.421.450.900.360.400.581.163.411.750.571.350.190.990.002.390.480.000.640.580.19

High-angermenM

4.963.871.340.220.130.614.004.522.700.391.041.613.134.913.093.170.301.441.220.13

SD0.211.391.400.670.340.992.683.192.820.781.360.661.460.292.412.710.641.931.980.46

High-angerwomenM

4.794.151.240.120.240.743.854.563.000.470.741.384.414.973.381.180.000.710.970.29

SD0.771.651.280.410.431.162.613.172.940.791.110.740.930.173.102.110.001.121.770.80

UnivariateangerF(l, 110)1.2622.47***4.60*0.910.0810.87***33.19***2.099.26**0.100.027.97**0.000.0413.10***26.51***5.73*4.98*14.29***3.49

Angereffect.001.170.041.008.001.090.232.019.078.001.000.068.000.000.106.194.050.043.115.031

*p


6/13

10 DEFFENBACHER, HUFF, LYNCH, OETTTNG, AND SALVATORETable 3TraitAnger, Anger Expression, and Trait Anxiety as a Function of Genderand Driving Anger

MeasureTASAXInOu tControlTAI

Low-angermenM

17.5015.8715.5026.2037.13

SD2.964.673.324.0010.38

Low-angerwomenU

16.1115.1514.4826.2637.48

SD3.823.624.114.749.66

High-angermenM

26.2617.8319.2619.0039.83

SD4.805.113.493.2311.14

High-angerwomenM

23.6517.0016.7421.2446.97

SD5.944.053.995.0010.41

UnivariateangerF(l, 110)

88.50***5.35*17.91***54.58***9.61**

Angereffect

* 1 2

,446.046.140.332.080

Note. TAS - Trait Anger Scale; AX Anger Expression Inventory; TAI = Trait AnxietyInventory.*p


7/13

DRIVING ANGER 11per year, low-anger drivers would experience 210 angerepisodes, 142 aggressive behaviors, and 492 risky behav-iors, whereas high-anger drivers would experience 678anger episodes, 604 aggressive behaviors, and 1,164 riskybehaviors that expose them , and potentially others, to greateroccurrence of more emotional upset, aggression, and risky,potentially accident-engendering behavior.

In summary, high-anger drivers reported more frequentand intense anger in more driving circumstances, engaged inmore aggressive and risky behavior, and experienced moreaccidents and accident-related conditions, thereby support-ing predictions from state-trait anger theory and providingconstruct validity for the DAS as a measure of trait drivinganger. Moreover, findings suggest high-anger drivers express-ing interest in counseling are at significant risk for frequentand intense anger arousal and for aggressive and riskydriving behavior, putting them not only at greater risk foremotional problems but also for vehicular crashes, alterca-tions, and the like.Tendencies of the high-anger drivers may be exacerbatedby their other psychological characteristics. They were m oregenerally angry and anxious and tended to suppress theiranger and to express it in more outward, less controlled waysthan did low -anger drivers. These findings suggest that theyare more likely to be angered and stressed by, and handleless well, a wide range of nondriving situations, the effectsof which may transfer to and increase the probability andintensity of anger on the road (Berkowitz, 1990; Zillman,1971). These other characteristics may contribute to viciouscircles of anger and stress, in and out of the car, each feedingon the other. Elevation of anxiety and anger suppression isalso parallel to Donovan et al.'s (1988) dysphoric-coverthostility group, which w as at the greatest accident risk. Thatis , increased trait anxiety and anger suppression suggest that

at least some of the high-anger drivers are anxious andinhibit anger expression, which may increase their odds ofdisplacing and acting out anger behind the wheel, a placewhere they are already at elevated risk of anger because oftheir high trait driving anger.A final issue is how gender is related to driving anger.Gender interacted with level of trait driving anger on onlytwo variables: High-anger men engaged in more physicaland verbal aggression with other drivers than did othergroups. There were some ge nder main effects: M en reportedmore anger in response to slow and discourteous drivers,more frequent anger and aggressive behavior on their logs,more nonaccident-related damage to the vehicles, less use ofseat belts, and more tolerance for drinking and driving.Greater aggressiveness for men is consistent with socialpsychological literatures ( e.g., Baron & Richardson, 1994;Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Harris, 1995, 1996) showing thatmen are more aggressive in nondriving situations and thatyoung male drivers are overrepresented in the most extremecases of driving-related aggression (American AutomobileAssociation, 1997). However, the tendency to highlightgender differences should be cautioned by several additionalfindings. First, there were many more nonsignificant thansignificant gender differences. Second, in general, gendereffect sizes were small to moderate (Cohen, 1988), suggest-

ing that gender effects were not as large as those found forsome other variables. Third, not all of the gender differencesreplicated. For example, whereas the finding that men weremore angered by slow driving replicated the initial study(Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994), men and womendid not differ on reactions to discourteous drivers in thatstudy. Moreover, gender differences in the Deffenbacher,Oetting, and Lynch study, such as women being moreangered by illegal driving and traffic obstructions, were notreplicated in the present study. Thus, it would appear thatmen and women have many characteristics in common andthat gender differences need to be carefully mapped acrossstudies before reasonably clear conclusions about genderand driving anger can be drawn. Findings do, however,suggest that men and women are similar enough to be treatedin mixed-gender groups, if a group intervention is chosen.

This study, like all research, has limitations that should beaddressed in future research. First, all of the data wereself-report. In many w ays, this is highly appropriate as m anyof the phenomena under study are subjective in nature andappropriately assessed by self-report (e.g., one's feelings,reaction tendencies, and the like). In fact, additional self-report measures are needed (e.g., questionnaires of angrythoughts when driving and of forms of expression of drivinganger). However, self-report should be supplemented byother methodologies. For example, reports of critical vari-ables (e.g., aggressive and risky driving) could be gatheredfrom key informants who have the opportunity to observethe individual (e.g., parents, significant others, and room-mates). Physiological monitoring would add to the under-standing of arousal when angry, and archival data (e.g.,accident reports and traffic violation histories) could extendself-report. Second is the issue of social desirability. Therelationship of the DAS and other measures with socialdesirability has not been established, and a portion of thevariance in findings might be due to this form of reportingbias. Future research could include measures of socialdesirability to assist in the clarification of this issue. Finally,results are limited primarily to 18- to 20-year-old collegestudents. This population is meaningful because auto crashesare the leading cause of death for individuals in this agerange. Nonetheless, community samples with larger ageranges are needed to see how well findings generalize and toassess the risk patterns and needs for intervention in olderpopulations.

S tudy 2Study 1 demonstrated that trait driving anger in a groupthat acknowledges problem s of driving anger is a risk factorfor emotional upset, risky and aggressive behavior on theroad, anger-related injury and property damage, and acci-dents and accident-related con ditions. Although some conse-quences may be relatively mild, others can be quite serious(e.g., accidents, altercations, and physical assaults), result-ing potentially in injury or even death. Thus, there is a g roupof individuals who are at risk because of their elevateddriving anger, yet little attention has been paid to thereduction of driving anger. Only one treatmen t study (Rimm ,


8/13

12 DEFFENBACHER, HUFF, LYNCH, OETTING, AND SALVATOREDeGroot, Boord, Heiman, & Dillow, 1971) was found in theliterature. Systematic desensitization reduced driving anger,but the study was seriously flawed methodologically, giventhat the only outcome measure was pre-post change inintensity ratings of items from the desensitization hierarchy.Clients were repeatedly exposed to these items and hadsignaled the absence of anger on several occasions, whichmakes this measure highly sensitive to demand characteris-tics. The present study, therefore, undertook a controlledevaluation of two treatments for the reduction of drivingangerself-managed relaxation coping skills (RCS) and astress-inoculation-like combination of cognitive and relax-ation coping skills (CRCS)and used an improved measure-ment. These interventions were chosen because of theirempirical support with other types of anger (e.g., Deffen-bacher, Demm, & Brandon, 1986; Deffenbacher, Oetting,Huff, Cornell, & Dallager, 1996; Deffenbacher & Stark,1992; Deffenbacher, Thwaites, Wallace, & Oetting, 1994;Hazaleus & Deffenbacher, 1986; Novaco, 1975) and be-cause social skills interventions were not relevant, given thephysical and psychological distance involved in driving (i.e.,few social communication skills are relevant to drivingsituations).

MethodParticipants

Participants were the 57 (23 men, 34 women) high-anger driversfrom Study 1. They scored in the upper q uartile on the short form ofthe DAS, identified themselves as having a personal problem withanger when driving and sought help for anger reduction, andvolunteered when the project was described over thephone (6%declined participation at this point). The sample represents 5% ofthe 1,080 students screened. Participants were randomly assignedto conditions, but 3 (2 from RCS and 1 from CRCS) werereassigned to the control because of unavoidable changes in classand work schedules that precluded attendance at the groups towhich they hadbeen assigned. Final ns per condition were 17 forRCS, 18 for CRCS, and 22 for control. Participants received threeof three required research credits for participation.

InstrumentsDriving anger. Driving anger (see Study 1 for description ofinstruments) was assessed by the long form of the DAS, the drivinglog, and the total of three scenarios differentiating high- fromlow-anger drivers on the driving scenarios in Study 1.Generalization measures. Measures of trait anger, generalanger expression, and trait anxiety were included to assess general-ization of treatment effects (see Study 1 for description ofinstruments).Manipulation checks. Quality of intervention implementationwas assessed by attendance, the three-item Therapist EvaluationQuestionnaire, and the three-item Treatment Evaluation and Appli-cation Questionnaire used in studies of general anger reduction(e.g., Hazaleus & Deffenbacher, 1986). Attendan ce was the numberof sessions attended. The Therapist Evaluation Questionnaire hasparticipants rate on 7-point scales (1 = highly uninterested, veryunclear, ornever, 1 highly interested, very clear, oralways) thetherapist's interest in members, clarity of communication, andexpectations of treatment effectiveness. The Treatment Evaluation

and Application Questionnaire asks participants to rate the overallhelpfulness of the program (1 = not at all, 5 extremely helpful)and the frequency (1 = not at all, 5 = all the time) with whichcoping skills were applied to driving anger and to negativeemotions not involving driving.Fidelity checks. To ascertain therapists' adherence to treatmentprotocols, sessions were audiotaped. A pair of trained raters, whowere experimentally blind to conditions, independently rated all thetapes, except for the second session. The second session wasexcluded because both conditions were nearly identical, focusingprimarily on relaxation training, making discrimination of condi-tions difficult and artificially lowering estimates of treatmentadherence. Raters received 2 hr of training, during which theyreceived written descriptions of treatments and reviewed sessionsin which interventions were used with general anger. Ratersindicated whether the tape reflected RCS or CRCS and the degreeof certainty in their rating on an 11 -point scale (0 = very uncertain,10 = very certain).Procedure

Assessment. Assessments were completed on a pretreatment,posttreatment, and 4-week follow-up basis. Screening and pretreat-ment assessment are described in Study 1. Procedures wereidentical at each assessment except that (a) informed consent formswere not completed again, (b) driving logs were not completedposttreatment but were completed during the week prior tofollow-up, and (c) therapist and treatment evaluation question-naires were completed by RCS and CRCS participants at the4-week follow-up.Interventions. Interventions consisted of eight weekly 1-hrgroup sessions (ns 7-10) conducted by two female advanceddoctoral students. Each therapist conducted one RCS and oneCRCS group. Therapists received extensive written treatmentoutlines and 2 hr ofweekly supervision with Jerry L. Deffenbacherduring which protocols were reviewed, discussed, modeled, androle-played.RCS. RCS adapted the procedures outlined by Deffenbacherand colleagues (Deffenbacher et al., 1986; Deffenbacher & Stark,1992; Hazaleu s & Deffenbacher, 1986) to driving anger. Sessions 1and 2 provided a self-managed relaxation rationale (i.e., lowerdriving anger through application of relaxation to calm down) andtraining in progressive relaxation and the following four relaxationcoping skills: (a) relaxation without tensing (relaxing by focusingon and releasing the tension in muscle areas without tensingmuscles), (b) relaxation imagery (visualizing a personal relaxingimage), (c)breathing-cued relaxation (relaxing oneach breath outfor three to five deep breaths), and (d) cue-controlled relaxation(relaxing more with each slow repetition of the word relax). InSessions 1 and 2, participants also identified situations that angeredthem while driving (e.g., being cut off in traffic, having someonesteal a parking space for which the individual has been waiting, andwaiting behind someone who does not start up when the left-handturn signal turns green). Homework consisted of self-monitoring ofdriving anger, practice of relaxation, and the detailed description ofone scene selected from those discussed. In Session 3, homeworkwas reviewed in the first 5-10 min. Then, the therapist initiatedtraining in the application of relaxation skills. When participantswere relaxed, the therapist instructed them to visualize the angerscene developed during homework and discussed earlier in thesession. After participants experienced anger arousal for 20-30 s,the therapist terminated visualization of the scene and assistedthem in relaxing with two relaxation coping skills. When all of theparticipants w ere relaxed again, theprocedure was repeated usingdifferent combinations of relaxation skills. This was repeated as


9/13

DRIVING ANGER 13time allowed, generally for five to seven repetitions. Homeworkadded coping skill application to driving anger. Sessions 4-8followed the same general pattern except that (a) two scenes wereused and were alternated, (b) anger arousing capacity of the scenesincreased over sessions, (c) scenes for Session 8 were their "w orst"sources of driving anger, (d) degree of therapist initiation ofrelaxation was decreased and shifted to client control as proficiencywas gained, (e) application of relaxation coping skills to otheranger and emotional distress was encouraged after Session 7, and(f) maintenance ofgains was discussed in the last session.

CRCS. CRCS followed an adaptation of CRCS procedures(Deffenbacher, Oetting, Huff, et al., 1996; Deffenbacher & Stark,1992; Deffenbacher, Thwaites, et al., 1994) to driving anger.Sessions 1 and 2 paralleled RC S, except that a CRCS rationale (i.e.,reduction of driving anger through application of relaxation andchanged ways of looking and thinking about provocation) wasprovided. The first half ofSession 3 focused heavily on the generalnotion of cognitive restructuring and introduced the specificcognitive error of catastrophization (i.e., labeling situations inexaggerated, more negative ways than they really are). Clientsdiscussed this in light of the scene for Session 3 and developed alist of decatastrophizing thoughts for that situation. In the secondhalf of the session, the therapist initiated relaxation and coping skillrehearsal parallel to the procedures in Session 3 for RCS. The oneexception was that after clients were relaxed, but before the nextvisualization of the scene, the therapist instructed clients torehearse three to five specific decatastrophizing thoughts identifiedearlier in the session. Homework paralleled that for RCS, exceptthat clients were to pay attention to identifying and recording theiranger-engendering thoughts during self-monitoring, to developadditional counterresponses for catastrophization, and to beginapplying both cognitive and relaxation coping skills. Proceduresfor Sessions 4-8 of CRCS followed this general pattern ofintroducing a new distorted cognition each session, developinghealthier cognitive counters for the two scenes for the day, andrehearsing them along with relaxation in the second half of thesessions. Scene presentation and fading of therapist control fol-lowed the procedures ofRCS, except that cognitive responses werealso incorporated at each step. The cognitive distortion for Session4 was overgeneralization (i.e., exaggerating and drawing unwar-ranted conclusions from a single incident, often involving overin-clusive Labels for time, such as always andnever, and for people,such as incompetents and idiots). Session 5 involved demandingand absolutistic thinking (i.e., framing events in rigid, moralistic,and often arbitrary comm andments of how things should, ought, orhave to be and demanding that people and events be just a certainway). Session 6 involved an integration of the cognitions from theprior three sessions plus the addition of inflammatory labeling (i.e.,labeling people in nonsensical or obscene ways, such as "jerk,""slime ball," and "ass"). Session 7 addressed misattributions,including personalization (i.e., attributing the cause of events tounfounded or unlikely sources, such as things being done onpurpose to the individual or to harm the individual in some way).Homew ork involved the development ofmore personal counters tothe cognitive distortion for that session, detailing scenes for thenext session, and the external application of both cognitive andrelaxation coping skills.

No treatment control. Control participants were not given anyexpectancy of treatment. They agreed as part of informed consentthat their odds of not receiving counseling were randomly one inthree. No campus services were withheld or denied to participantsin the control group. They completed questionnaires at the threeassessment times for which they received research credit.

ResultsPreliminary Analyses

Fidelity and manipulation checks. Raters correctly iden-tified the treatment condition on all the tapes (KS = 1.00 forboth treatments) and were also highly certain about theirratings (for RCS, M = 9.21, SD = 0.55; for CRCS,M = 9.14, SD = 0.75), which did not differ significantly,F ( l , 26) = 0.23, The high accuracy and certainty of ratingssuggested a high level of adherence to treatment protocols. AMANOVA comparing RCS and CRCS on therapist andtreatment evaluations and attendance revealed no significantmultivariate treatment effects, F("J, 27) = 0.87, suggestingno differences between RCS and CRCS in the participant'sevaluations of therapists and therapy or in attendance. RSC(Ms = 6.51, 6.56, and 6.38, respectively) and CRCS(Ms = 6.66, 6.47, and 6.37, respectively) members per-ceived therapists as highly interested in the group, ascommunicating clearly, and as conveying positive beliefs inthe effectiveness of respective treatments. They also felt theprogram was between moderately and very helpful(Ms = 3.38 and 3.58, respectively) and attended regularly(Ms = 7.03 and 7.13, respectively). Moreover, they reportedusing their new coping skills in driving situations somewhatmore than half the time (Ms = 3.26 and 3.36, respectively)and to other issues about half of the time (Ms = 3.00 and2.98, respectively). In all, fidelity and manipulation checkssuggested that therapists adhered to treatment protocols andimplemented them in a credible, high-quality manner.

Possible pretreatment differences between groups. Pre-treatment means and standard deviations are presented inTables 4 and 5. One-way (treatments) ANOVAs on thedriving scenario total score and DAS total scores revealedno significant pretreatment differences, Fs(2,54) = 0.27 and0.32, respectively. Because DAS subscale scores are ana-lyzed later, they were analyzed by a one-way (treatments)MANOVA that revealed no multivariate treatment effectprior to treatment, F(12, 98) = 0.66. Parallel MANOVAsrevealed no significant multivariate pretreatment differenceson the driving log, F(8, 102) = 0.46, or anger expression,F(6, 104) = 0.66. The MANOVA on trait anger and anxietyyielded a significant multivariate treatment effect, F(4,106) = 2.55, p < .05, TI2 = .088, which univariate analysesshowed was due to differences on trait anxiety only, F(2,54) = 4.27, p < .05, r\2 = .137. This difference was due tothe RCS group reporting more pretreatment anxiety thaneither the CRCS or control group, which did not differ fromone another. In summary, there was only one pretreatmentdifference among groups, suggesting few meaningful differ-ences between conditions prior to intervention.

Analysis of Treatment EffectsTreatment effects were analyzed by analyses of covari-

ance (ANCOVAs) in which pretreatment scores on a vari-able were covaried on posttreatment and follow-up scores.Measures assessed at three points in time were subjected to 3(treatment) X 2 (trials) analyses, whereas measures assessedonly at pretreatment and follow-up were analyzed by a


10/13

14 DEFFENBACHER, HUFF, LYNCH, OETTING, AND SALVATORETable 4Unadjusted Pretreatment and Adjusted Posttreatment and F ollow-Up Mea ns and Standard D eviations for Self-ReportMeasures of Driving Anger and Aggressive and Risky Behavior

Measure andassessmentDriving scenarios total

PrePostFUDA STotalPrePostFUHostile gesturesPrePostFUIllegal drivingPrePostFUPolice presencePrePostFUSlow drivingPrePostFUDiscourteous drivingPrePostFUTraffic obstructionsPrePostFU

Driving log m easuresAnger frequencyPreFUAnger intensityPreFUAggressive behaviorPreFURisky behaviorPreFU

RC SM

73.5361.3460.14

123.5988.3596.5912.479.329.4412.598.728.9013.359.338.3919.2913.9714.6738.7729.8830.8527.1217.0919.43

2.531.3460.2446.11

2.391.234.493.18

SD

13.0311.3311.91

22.4718.5218.663.363.703.683.712.833.294.033.944.214.013.213.787.676.396.105.093.854.53

1.740.9322.7928.73

1.231.362.071.77

CRCSM

70.3964.6663.96

118.61106.74104.3412.7210.5710.0311.2210.9411.4613.3712.0811.6318.3916.4516.5638.7233.6831.6024.2822.8523.62

2.111.1357.5645.95

1.851.633.522.26

SD

10.1014.3616.86

12.4817.1022.163.433.734.083.351.933.092.743.393.703.403.694.845.005.316.685.324.566.52

1.480.4822.1730.09

1.411.371.951.51

ControlM

71.5970.5870.44

119.46123.83121.3512.3613.1712.6710.9612.2012.9913.3213.5413.1418.7319.1819.0938.0039.3138.1826.0926.4225.89

2.181.8654.4652.98

1.831.603.713.54 -

SD

14.1410.849.85

22.0415.4816.093.962.332.923.433.343.124.613.753.644.413.393.377.114.517.504.884.635.00

1.611.2018.4325.77

1.380.832.131.56

Univariatetreatment F*

4.15*

18.91**

9.34**

14.00**

10.87**

11.94**

16.31**

18.69**

4.08*

0.48

0.72

4.79*

Treatmente f f e c t TT|2

.135

.416

.280

.369

.312

.332

.405

.438

.140

.019

.028

.161Note. RCS = Relaxation Coping Skills; CRCS = Cognitive-Relaxation Coping Skills; DAS = Driving Anger Scale; Pre = pretreatment;Post = posttreatment; FU = 4-week follow-up.*df = 2, 52 for DAS total and Driving Scenarios total; df =2,4% for all of the DAS subscales; and df=2,50 for driving log measures.*p < . 001 .

one-way (treatments) approach. Multivariate analyses ofcovariance (MANCOVAs) were followed by univariateANCOVAs, and significant between-groups differenceswere explored through Newman-Keuls tests.Targeted driving anger reduction. A Treatment X TrialsANCOVA on the driving scenario total score (see Table 4)revealed a significant effect for treatment, F(2, 53) = 4.15,p < . 0 5 , - n 2 = .135, but not for trials, F (l , 54) == 1.24, or the

interaction, F(2, 54) = 0.25. At posttreatment and follow-upassessments, the RCS group reported significantly less angerthan did the control group (p$ < .05), whereas the CRCSgroup was not significantly different from either group ateither point in time.A Treatment X Trials ANCOVA on the DAS total score(see Table 4) yielded a significant effect for treatment, F(2 t53) = 18.91, p < .001 , -n2 = .416, but not for trials, F(l,


11/13

DRIVING ANGER 15Table 5Unadjusted Pretreatment and Adjusted Posttreatment and Follow-Up Means and Standard Deviationsfor Nontargeted Measures

Measure andassessmentTrait Anger Scale

PrePostFUAnger expressionIn PrePostFUOu tPrePostFUControlPr ePostFUTrait Anxiety InventoryPr ePostFU

RCSM

1A M21.3820.7817.7717.1617.5617.4117.1916.7421.5321.9423.5450.1242.4542.32

SD

5.564.635.584.884.505.254.804.154.393.944.795.16

10.5411.3310.31

CRCSM

25.9423.6221.9818.0017.1318.0818.2216.1916.3819.0621.6724.4243.0644.0040.58

SD

6.347.387.294.914.135.773.622.983.663.374.204.25

10.8410.458.86

ControlM

23.8623.3023.5616.4615.9016.9517.6417.7517.7120.4620.1121.5340.2743.9242.80

SD

5.054.305.653.804.004.553.673.433.875.474.244.37

10.429.089.25

Univariatetreatment F a

1.27

0.88

1.84

3.45

0.19Note. RCS = Relaxation Coping Skills; CRCS = Cognitive-Relaxation Coping Skills; Pre = pretreatment; Post = posttreatment; FU4-week follow-up.adf 2, 52 for the Trait Anger Scale and the Trait Anxiety Inventory; df = 2,5 1 for the Anger expression measures.

54) = 0.38, or for the interaction, F(2, 54) = 2.99. At theposttreatment assessment, the CRCS group reported lessdriving anger than did the control group (p < .01), but theRCS group reported significantly less driving anger on theDAS than either the CRCS or control group (ps < .01).However, by the follow-up, the CRCS and RCS groups werenot significantly different from each other on the DAS totalscore but reported significantly low er driving anger than didthe control group (ps < .01).

To explore how treatment m ay have affected differentsources of driving anger, we subjected the DAS subscales(see Table 4) to a Treatment X Trials MAN COV A. M ultivar-iate effects were found for treatment, F(12, 86) = 4.33, p


12/13

16 DEFFENBACHER, HUFF, LYNCH, OETTING, AND SALVATOREtreatments led to meaningful reductions of driving anger aswell.Nontargeted effects. A Treatment X Trials MANCOVArevealed no multivariate treatment, F(4, 102) = 0.76; trials,F(2, 53) = 2.32; or interaction, F(4,106) = 1.12, effects ontrait emotion mea sures (see Table 5) . No significant multivar-iate treatment, F(6, 98) = 1.62, or interaction, F(6, 104) =0.53, effects were found for anger expression measures (seeTable 5). The multivariate trials effect for anger expressionwas significant, F(3, 52) = 7.03, p < .00 1, -n2 = .288,because of a posttreatment-to-follow-up increase on A ng er-Control, F(l, 54) = 16.65, p < .001, -n2 = .236.

DiscussionUsing 1-month follow-up as the best estimate of lastingtreatment effects, both interventions lowered reported driv-ing anger. However, effects somewhat favored the RCScondition, as it led to greater driving anger reduction onthree DAS subscales (i.e., Illegal Driving, Police Presence,

and Traffic Obstructions) than did the CRCS condition and,compared with the control condition, led to significantreductions of all sources of driving anger on the DA S and inthe driving scenarios. However, somewhat reverse effectswere found on the driving log. Although no differencesbetween groups were found for intensity of anger reactionsor aggressive behavior, effects favored the CRC S con dition,especially in its significant reduction of risky behaviorcompared with the RCS and control conditions. Althoughthe findings of differential treatment effects are at odds withmany studies of general anger reduction (e.g., Deffenbacher,Oetting, Huff, et al., 1996; Deffenbacher & Stark, 1992;Deffenbacher, Thwaites, et al., 1994; Hazaleus & Deffen-bacher, 1986), in which interventions generally show equiva-lent results, the present study suggests potential differentialtreatment effects. Until these effects are replicated, it ispremature to speculate on their basis. However, they dosuggest that as research moves to the reduction of moresituation- or context-specific anger problems, such as driv-ing anger, differential treatment effects may be found andshould be explored carefully. If consistent patterns ofdifferential results are found across studies, then theoreticalmodels accounting for them can be more clearly postulatedand recommendations for intervention can be made.A disappointing finding was the absence of generalizationeffects. Although participants reported applying new skillsto issues other than driving anger approximately half thetime, and application of skills to other sources of anger andemotional distress was encouraged in the latter stages ofboth interventions, there was no evidence of generalizationof effects to general anger, anger expression, or trait anxiety.These findings suggest greater attention should be paid togeneralization, especially because h igh-anger drivers showedelevations on these measures (see Study 1). This m ight beachieved by greater discussion of skill generalization, spe-cific rehearsal for generalization (e.g., visualization ofscenes involving other sources of anger or other emotions),and more specific homework for generalization in the late

stages of therapy. Such efforts may require an increase in thelength or number of sessions.Another clinical suggestion deals with the way in whichthe cognitive portion of CRCS was approached. In thepresent study, a methodology from the treatment of generalanger was adapted, namely the introduction of a differenttype of cognitive distortion every session. That cognitivedistortion w as the primary focus of discussion and rehearsalfor the situations involved in that session. Given the morespecific context of driving anger, cognitive elements mightbe approached in a different manner. Clients could focus onthe specific sources of driving anger (e.g., anger in responseto rude gestures) for the session and generate lists of lessangry, more adaptive cognitions for those situations. Thiscould be done without regard to the specific type ofcognitive distortion or biased information processing in-volved. More adaptive cognitions could then be rehearsedfor that session's provoc ations. Across sessions, participantswould strengthen a variety of cognitive strategies withwhich to handle anger while driving, and over time , generalcognitive themes could be abstracted and summarized forclients. Such an approach to the cognitive portion of CRCSmight prove easier and more effective and should beevaluated in future research.

In summary, this study suggests that trait driving anger, asignificant risk factor for dysfunctional emotional andbehavioral reactions on the road, can be reduced by short-term, cost-effective groups focusing on RCS or a combina-tion of cognitive and relaxation skills.References

American Automobile Association. (1997). Aggressive driving:Three studies. Washington, DC : American Automobile Associa-tion Foundation for Traffic Safety.Arnett, J. J., Offer, D., & Fine, M. A. (1997). Reckless driving inadolescence: "State" and "trait" factors. Accident Analysis andPrevention, 29, 57-63.Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nded.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Plenum.Berkowitz, L. (1990). On information and regulation of anger andaggression: A cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. AmericanPsychologist, 45, 494-503.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioralsciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Deffenbacher, J. L. (1992). Trait anger: Theory, findings, andimplications. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.),Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 177-201).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Deffenbacher, J. L., Dem m, P. M., & Brandon, A. D. (1986). Highgeneral anger: Correlates and treatment. Behaviour Researchan d Therapy, 24 , 4 8 1 ^ 8 9 .Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Huff, M. E., Cornell, G. R., &Dallager, C. J. (1996). Evaluation of two cognitive-behavioralapproaches to general anger reduction. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 20, 551-573.Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994).Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological Reports,74 ,83-91 .Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Lynch, R. S., & Morris, C. D.(1996). The expression of anger and its consequences. Behav-iour Research and Therapy, 34 , 575-590.


13/13

DRIVING ANGER 17Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting , E. R., Thw aites, G. A., Lynch, R. S.,Baker, D. A., Stark, R. S., Thacker, S., & Eiswerth-Cox, L.(1996). State-trait anger theory and the utility of the Trait AngerScale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43 , 131-148.Deffenbacher, J. L., & Stark, R. S. (1992). Relaxation andcognitive-relaxation treatments of general anger. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 39 , 158-167.Deffenbacher, J. L., Thw aites, G. A., Wallace, T. L., & Oe tting,

E. R. (1994). Social skills and cognitive-relaxation approachesto general anger reduction. Journal of Counseling Psychology,41, 386-396.Donovan, D. M., Queisser, H. R., Salzberg, P. M., & Umlauf, R. L.(1985). Intoxicated and bad drivers: Subgroups w ithin the samepopulation of high-risk drivers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,46 , 375-382.Donovan, D. M , Umlauf, R. L., & Salzberg, P. M. (1988).Derivation of personality subtypes among high-risk drivers.Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving, 4, 233-244.Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressivebehavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicalliterature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309-330.Harris, M. B. (1995). Ethnicity, gender, and evaluations of aggres-sion. Aggressive Behavior, 21 , 343-357.Harris, M. B . (1996). Aggressive experiences and aggressiveness:Relationship to ethnicity, gender, and age. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 10, 843-870.Hazaleus, S. L., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1986). Relaxation andcognitive treatments of anger. Journal of Consulting and Clini-ca l Psychology, 54 , 222-226.Jacobs, G. A., Latham, L. E., & Brown, M. S. (1988). Test-retestreliability of the State-Trait Personality Inventory and the AngerExpression Scale. Anxiety Research, 1, 363-365.Lynch, R. S., Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Tingling , D. A.(1995, August). Driving anger as a hea lth risk factor. Paperpresented at the 103rd Annual Convention of the AmericanPsychological Association, New York, NY.Mayer, R. E., & Treat, J. R. (1987). Psychological, social, and

cognitive characteristics of high-risk drivers: A pilot study.Accident Analysis and Prevention, 9, 1-8.McMillen, D . L., Pang, M. G., Wells-Parker, E., & Anderson, B. J.(1992). Alcohol, personality traits, and high-risk driving: Acomparison of young, drinking driver groups. Addictive Behav-iors, 77,525-532.Morris, C. D., Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., & Oetting, E. R.(1996, August). Anger expression and its consequences. Paperpresented at the 104th Annual Convention of the AmericanPsychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Novaco, R. W. (1975). Anger control. Lexington, MA: Heath.Novaco, R. W., Stokols, D., Campbell, J., & Stokols, J. (1979).Transportation, stress, and community psychology. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 7, 361-380.Novaco, R. W , Stokols, D., & Milanesi, L. (1990). Objective andsubjective dimensions of travel impedance as determinants ofcommuting stress. American Journal of Community Psychology,18,231-251.Rimm, D. C , D eGroot, J. C, Boord, P., Heiman, J., & Dillow, P. V.(1971). Systematic desensitization of an anger response. Behav-iour Research and Therapy, 9, 273-280.Selzer, M. L., & Vinokur, A. (1974). Life events, subjective stress,and traffic accidents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131,903-906.Spielberger, C D . (1988). State-Trait Anger Exp ression Inventory.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R., & Lushene, R. (1970). Manual forth e StateTrait Anxiety Inventory (Self Evaluation Question-naire). Palo Alto, CA: C onsulting P sychologists Press,Zillman, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication-mediatedaggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, 7, 419-434.

Received January 5, 1999Revision received February 24,1 999Accepted March 10,199 9

karakteristike visokorizicnih vozaca

Documents