Risk Analysis, Vol. 35, No. 9, 2015 DOI: 10.1111/risa.

12379

Trait Predictors of Aggression and Crash-Related Behaviors

Across Drivers from the United Kingdom and the
Irish Republic

Amanda N. Stephens1, and Mark J. M. Sullman2

Aggressive driving is acknowledged as a contributor to motor vehicle crashes. This study

explored a theoretical model of aggressive expression and crash-related outcomes using self-
report data collected, using an online questionnaire, from drivers in the United Kingdom
and the Republic of Ireland. The proposed model tested whether the personality traits of
boredom proneness, sensation seeking, and impulsivity, coupled with trait driving anger, pre-
dicted aggressive driving; and whether aggressive driving predicted crash-related outcomes
(loss of concentration and control, near misses, and moving violations). The structural model
was confirmed, with aggressive expressions of anger being found to mediate the relationships
driving anger and impulsivity had with the crash-related outcomes. Multigroup invariance
analysis showed that the model remained invariant across drivers from the United King-
dom and Ireland, suggesting that the contributing factors for aggressive expression and crash
involvement are similar across both countries. When self-reported crash-related conditions
were compared between drivers in the United Kingdom and Ireland, drivers in the United
Kingdom reported more aggressive driving, more minor crashes, more incidents of road rage,
and more frequent losses of concentration and vehicle control.

KEY WORDS: Aggressive driving; boredom proneness; driving anger; impulsiveness; sensation seeking

1. INTRODUCTION the Irish Republic there were 41 fatalities per mil-

A large number of traffic collisions are reported
each year in the Republic of Ireland and the United
Kingdom. In 2011, the Garda Sochana (Irelands na-
tional police service) reported a total of 27,093 mo-
tor vehicle crashes on Irish roads,(1) with 658 of these
being fatal or involving serious injury. In the United
Kingdom, over the same period, 151,474 motor vehi-
cle crashes were reported to police, with 25,023 in-
volving a casualty or serious injury.(2) To compare
data across the two countries, for the 2011 period in
1 Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne,
Australia.
2 Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedford, UK.
Address correspondence to Amanda N. Stephens, Accident Re-
search Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; tel:
+61-399051191; amanda.stephens@monash.edu.
lion people and in the United Kingdom there were
32 fatalities per million people.(3) Transport agencies
and driving researchers have reported that risky and
aggressive driving are contributors to motor vehicle
crashes.(2,46)
Aggressive driving can be a product of specific
driving circumstances, individual differences, or an
interaction between the two. For example, a driver
either adopts an aggressive driving style, as a result
of trait(7) or state(8) influences, or chooses to under-
take risky maneuvers as a result of dynamic assess-
ments of the driving situation. An example of the lat-
ter is the desire to maintain an appropriate level of
risk, as suggested by the risk homeostasis theory,(9)
or to avoid more dangerous circumstances that may
occur if the current situation does not change. A
vast amount of research has been undertaken to

1730 0272-4332/15/0100-1730$22.00/1 
C 2015 Society for Risk Analysis
Trait Predictors of Aggression and Crash-Related Behaviors
identify individual characteristics that result in ag-
gressive driving and potential crash-related behav-
iors. Some of the key trait predictors include driving
anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and bore-
dom proneness.
A direct link between driving anger and hostile
aggressive driving is well established in the driving
psychology literature.(7,1015) For example, studies in
real traffic conditions have shown that, when angry,
drivers choose faster speeds.(13) Drivers also display
more aggressive horn-honking and acceleration
when subjected to anger-provoking impediments
and provocation.(16,17) Driving-simulator studies
have also shown that angry drivers display more
aggressive behaviors and take longer to respond
to potential hazards,(18) perform more dangerous
overtaking maneuvers,(19) and have faster and more
varied acceleration.(8,20)
A number of self-report studies have also
demonstrated the relationship between being an-
gry and expressing this anger in an aggressive
manner.(12,14,15,2126) Most commonly, this has been
undertaken by comparing scores on the driving anger
scale(27) with scores on the driving anger expression
inventory.(7) The driving anger scale (DAS) is a
measure of a drivers propensity to become angered
across a number of common driving situations, for
example, being impeded by slower lead drivers or
encountering detours. The driving anger expression
inventory (DAX) measures how drivers express their
anger. The DAX captures responses that are either
constructive or adaptive, such as trying to ignore the
problem, or more aggressive expression tendencies.
The aggressive responses range on a continuum and
form three subscales: verbal aggressive responses,
such as swearing; personal physical aggression, such
as gesticulating towards another driver; or using
the vehicle to express anger, for example, trying to
cut in front of a driver who has angered them. The
DAS and DAX have been found to be positively
related.(12,2124,26,28) Furthermore, both scales reliably
predict crash-related outcomes. For example, speed
violations can be predicted by higher overall scores
on the DAS,(22) as well as by higher scores on the
DAS Police Presence and Illegal Driving subscales,
higher scores on the DAX use of the vehicle to
express anger factor, and lower scores on the DAX
adaptive/constructive subscale.(26) Dahlen et al.(21)
have also shown that DAS scores predict DAX
scores, which in turn predict traffic tickets and
crashes.
1731
There is surprisingly little recent research on
driving anger, anger expression, and crash-related
behaviors from the United Kingdom and none
from the Republic of Ireland. However, the anger-
aggressive expression relationships have been ex-
amined in many other contexts with a variety of
drivers. These include male Turkish taxi drivers (N =
282);(15) university students in America (N = 290)(7)
and France (N = 314);(26) as well as drivers in Spain
(N = 622),(29) America (N = 308),(21) Sweden (N =
98),(10) New Zealand,(25) and Malaysia (N = 339).(30)
When driver anger and aggressive expression have
been examined in the United Kingdom,(31,32) these
studies have not used the DAX to measure aggres-
sive expression. Given that anger and the expression
of anger in an aggressive manner have dangerous
consequences, the lack of recent published research
on the DAS and DAX in the United Kingdom and
more so the lack of research from the Republic of
Ireland are important omissions from research in the
driving area.
Although a link between anger and anger
expression is somewhat expected, anger only ac-
counts for a part of the variance in anger expression
scores.(33, 34) The proportion that is unaccounted
for is of particular interest to researchers. A few
studies have found certain personality characteristics
influence aggressive forms of driving and, in turn,
crash-related conditions. For example, in a sample
of drivers in Serbia, agreeableness was found to
relate to driving anger and aggressive driving.(35)
Furthermore, Dahlen et al.(21) used structural equa-
tion modeling (SEM) to examine whether scores on
the DAS, combined with the Big Five personality
factors of openness, extraversion, emotional stabil-
ity, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, predicted
aggressive expressions of anger while driving (as
measured by the DAX); and then whether the
DAX predicted crash-related conditions (crashes
and moving violations). Dahlen et al.(21) found that
high driving anger scores and low scores for agree-
ableness reliably predicted aggressive expression
and aggressive expression predicted crash-related
outcomes. In a separate study, Dahlen and White(36)
examined the ability of the Big Five, the DAS, and
sensation seeking to predict aggressive expression
and unsafe driving behavior among American
college students (N = 312). Using regression anal-
ysis, they found that gender, emotional stability
(negative), driving anger, and sensation seeking
reliably predicted aggressive expression while
1732
driving, with the DAS and sensation seeking ac-
counting for the most variance in aggressive driving.
Sensation seeking has also been linked to
higher levels of aggressive expression while driv-
ing and crash-related outcomes in a number of
studies.(22,34,3739) Sensation seeking is the degree to
which individuals seek out varied, novel, or com-
plex experiences coupled with the willingness to take
risks (social, physical, legal, or financial) to achieve
these experiences(40) (p. 27). Sensation seeking can
be measured using a version of the sensation seek-
ing scale(41) ) or the Arnett sensation seeking inven-
tory (AISS).(42) A review on sensation seeking and
driving suggests that sensation seeking is positively
related to crash involvement and accounts for 10
15% of the variance in risky driving behaviors. This
includes behaviors such as speeding, violating traffic
laws, and noncompliance with posted road signs.(38)
Arguably, these behaviors defined as risky are also
aggressive in nature. Furthermore, male drivers ap-
pear to report more sensation seeking activities than
female drivers.(36)
Along with sensation seeking, impulsivity and
boredom proneness have also been considered to be
predictors of aggressive expressions of anger leading
to unsafe driving behaviors. Impulsivity, often mea-
sured with a variation of the Barratt impulsiveness
scale (BIS),(43) is the tendency to take action or re-
act to stimuli with little thought. Boredom proneness,
often measured with the boredom proneness scale
(BPS),(44) is an affective state of disinterest in ones
surroundings and inability to concentrate as well as
the desire for a challenge and a wish to change the
current situation. Dahlen et al.(34) investigated the
predictability of driving anger in conjunction with
sensation seeking, boredom proneness, and impulsiv-
ity for predicting aggression while driving and crash-
related outcomes in a sample of American university
students, using hierarchical multiple regression. They
found that driving anger and sensation seeking reli-
ably predicted the three aggressive subscales of the
DAX, with boredom proneness also contributing to
scores for use of the vehicle to express anger. There-
fore, higher levels of each of these factors predicted
higher levels of self-reported expressions of anger on
the road.
Despite the fact that impulsiveness and boredom
proneness showed little to no influence on aggres-
sive driving behaviors, as measured by the DAX, in
the previously mentioned research both were related
to self-reported crash-related behaviors.(34) Further-
more, sensation seeking was positively related to
Stephens and Sullman
boredom proneness and impulsivity scores, thus the
contribution of these in the regression model might
have been masked by the relationship they shared
with sensation seeking. Examining these relation-
ships using more powerful analyses, such as SEM,
which accounts for interactions and shared relation-
ships, may more clearly untangle the unique contri-
bution of each personality trait to aggressive driving.
It is important to build upon this research, not only
to examine these components in drivers from other
countries, and sampled from the general population,
but to confirm the extent to which sensation seeking,
boredom proneness, and impulsivity each predict the
expression of aggression and dangerous driving be-
haviors.
To further support the rationale for includ-
ing these personality variables (sensation seeking,
boredom proneness, and impulsivity) in a model con-
taining the aggressive expression of driving anger,
previous research has suggested that the extent to
which angry drivers express this anger aggressively is
reliant upon how drivers evaluate the situation.(18,45)
Each of the personality factors contributes to a spe-
cific way of evaluating and reacting to a situation. For
example, sensation seeking is likely to exacerbate
the belief that aggressive behavioral retaliations are
low in risk or at least that the risk involved is of little
consequence. Boredom proneness is likely to both
encourage anger in less stimulating situations (i.e.,
situations of progress impediment, slower drivers,
or traffic obstructions) and to lead to more risky be-
haviors as drivers try to change the current situation.
External boredom proneness has been defined as a
need for challenge, external stimulation, and a desire
to change an unstimulating situation.(44) Impulsivity
is a quickness to react to an event with less thought
behind the actions.(46) As such, impulsivity is likely
to contribute toward aggressive driving as it suggests
a tendency for more heuristic processing that may be
exacerbated when angry.
The aim of this study is therefore to use SEM
to examine the contributions that driving anger, sen-
sation seeking, boredom proneness, and impulsivity
have on the expression of anger while driving and
also on self-reported crash-related conditions. Using
the structure reported by Dahlen et al.,(21) it is pro-
posed that driving anger and the three personality
factors will predict aggressive expressions of driving
anger. Expressions of driving anger will predict
self-reported crash-related driving conditions such as
crashes and traffic tickets (see Fig. 1). A further aim
is to test for direct relationships between personality
Trait Predictors of Aggression and Crash-Related Behaviors
Fig. 1. Proposed model of driver anger, aggression, and crash-related behavior (dashed lines represent suggested direct links that form a
separate analysis).
and self-reported crash-related behavior, which
would be more indicative of a particular driving style
(see dashed lines in Fig. 1). A final aim is to test
the model invariance across data from the United
Kingdom and Ireland. This not only provides a
comparison between the two samples of drivers, but
also helps confirm the model. This will be the first
study outside of the United States to investigate the
relationship between these three personality factors
and aggressive expressions while driving and the first
study to report individual differences, driving anger,
and anger expression for drivers in the Republic of
Ireland.
2. METHOD
2.1. Participants
A total of 550 drivers voluntarily completed an
online questionnaire. One incomplete data set was
removed resulting in a final data set of 285 (52%)
1733
responses from drivers in the United Kingdom and
264 (48%) responses from drivers in the Republic
of Ireland (see Table I for descriptives). There was
a relatively even gender split, with 268 male drivers
(48%) and 281 female respondents (52%). Table I
shows that the U.K. sample of drivers were slightly
older, had been licensed for longer, and reported a
higher annual mileage than the Irish sample. The age
and gender distributions of the samples were com-
pared to licensing data obtained from the Driver and
Vehicle Licensing Agency(47) in the United Kingdom
and the Road Safety Authority(48) in Ireland. The
Irish sample was well represented in terms of age
breakdown. For example, approximately 50% of
fully licensed drivers are between 25 and 49 years of
age(48) and in our sample, a similar number of drivers
were within this age range. There was a higher
percentage of females in the current sample (60%)
compared to the percentage of female fully licensed
drivers in Ireland (45%).(48) The U.K. sample was
also representative of the population, which has 66%
1734 Stephens and Sullman

Table I. Gender, age, license history, and preferred speed across drivers in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland

United Kingdom Republic of Ireland

Variable Average (SD) Range Average (SD) Range t(283)

Males 57% (N = 162) 40% (N = 108)

Females 43% (N = 123) 60% (N = 158)
Annual mileage (miles) 10,642 (7,923) 070,000 8,444 (6,239) 6270,000 3.54***
Mean age (years) 40.82 (12.80) 1872 34.56 (12.30) 1875 5.82***
Length of license (years) 20.78 (12.80) 155 13.17 (11.20) 150 7.43***
Preferred speed on motorway (70 mph and 120 kph) 74.05 (8.95) 25100 117.05 (10.39) 80140 10.11***
Percentage difference from posted speed 6.16 (11.15) 2.46 (8.66)
Preferred speed on busy main street (30 mph/50 kph) 30.13 (6.04) 2096 45.64 (8.13) 2070 5.92***
Percentage difference from posted speed 0.50 (20.12) 8.72 (16.24)
Preferred speed in residential areas (30 mph/50 kph) 29.43 (7.45) 20100 46.30 (9.10) 2070 3.00***
Percentage difference from posted speed 1.80 (24.81) 7.40 (18.19)
Preferred speed on dual carriageways (70 mph/100 kph) 69.42 (8.47) 30120 100.73 (9.10) 60140 1.71
Percentage difference from posted speed 0.83 (12.10) 0.73 (9.10)
Preferred speed on winding rural roads (50 mph/80 kph) 48.17 (10.06) 20120 69.18 (12.45) 30100 6.41***
Percentage difference from posted speed 3.61 (20.13) 13.52 (15.56)

***p < 0.001; Bonferroni adjustments were made to account for multiple comparisons.

of licensed drivers being between 25 and 49 years.(47) a total DAS, with higher scores indicting greater
The gender breakdown of the sample (males = 57%) propensities to become angered while driving. The
was also representative of the population gender DAS short form has demonstrated good internal con-
proportions (males = 54%).(47) sistency ( = 0.80).(27)

2.2. Materials 2.2.3. Driving Survey

2.2.1. Driving Anger Expression Inventory
The 49-item DAX was used to measure how
drivers express their anger while driving.(7) The scale
presents 49 potential reactions to feeling angry while
driving and respondents were asked to report how of-
ten they react in each of these ways on a four-point
Likert scale (1 = almost never, 4 = almost always).
The DAX can be divided into four subscales rep-
resenting different types of anger expression. These
are adaptive/constructive, use of a vehicle to express
anger, personal physical aggressive expressions of
anger, and verbal expressions of anger. The DAX has
displayed good reliability, with coefficients ranging
between 0.80 and 0.90.(7)
2.2.2. Short-Form Driving Anger Scale
The 14-item driving anger scale (DAS) was used
to provide an overall measure of driving anger.(27)
The scale presents 14 different situations and asks
participants to rate how angry each situation makes
them feel on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all,
5 = very much). Item scores are combined to form
The questionnaire included six items from the
driving survey.(7) These questions asked participants
to report how many times, in the past 12 months,
they had been fined or prosecuted for a driving of-
fense (excluding parking tickets), lost concentration,
lost control of the vehicle they were driving, experi-
enced near misses, been involved in a minor crash,
and been involved in a major crash. It was decided
a priori that potentially crash-related variables (mi-
nor or major crashes and loss of concentration and
minor loss of control) would be collapsed to make
two variables: crashes and slips. Crashes represent
either minor or major crashes, whereas slips repre-
sent behaviors likely to result in a crash if not rec-
tified in time (e.g., loss of concentration and minor
loss of control). These two variables, combined with
near misses and traffic tickets, were used as indicator
variables for crash-related behaviors. Previous SEM
models(21) have also used crashes and other danger-
ous driving indices as indicator variables for a driving
performance factor.
Participants were also asked to report the speed
they would prefer to drive at on five types of roads
(motorway, open road, busy main street, winding
Trait Predictors of Aggression and Crash-Related Behaviors
country road, and a residential road). The five items
were standardized and combined to form a single
speed item, as per previous research.(15,30,49)
2.2.4. Road Rage Questionnaire
Eight questions were also included asking partic-
ipants how many times in the past 12 months they had
been the recipient of, and the instigator of, four types
of road rage situations.(50) These included shouting
or swearing at another driver, threatening to hurt an-
other driver, intentionally damaging another vehicle,
and intentionally hurting another driver. Responses
were made on a six-point scale (0 = none, 5 = 5+).
The four items were summed to produce a road rage
experienced score, and a road rage expressed score.
2.2.5. Sensation Seeking Questionnaire
Sensation seeking was measured with the Ar-
nett inventory of sensation seeking (AISS).(42) Par-
ticipants responded to 20 items describing novel and
intense stimulations that they rated in terms of how
much they describe themselves as desiring each situ-
ation. Responses were made on a four-point scale (1
= does not describe me at all, 4 = describes me very
well). The scale produces two subscales: novelty and
intensity and a total sensation-seeking score can also
be derived. High scores indicate greater sensation-
seeking tendencies. The AISS has been found to have
good internal validity ( = 0.70).(42)
2.2.6. Boredom Proneness Scale
The BPS(44) has 28 items measuring propen-
sities to experience boredom. Participants respond
on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 =
strongly agree). Boredom proneness is divided into
two subscales measuring lack of internal and exter-
nal stimulation. A composite score for total BPS is
calculated by summing item responses. High scores
indicated higher propensities for boredom. The BPS
has been found to have good internal consistency
( = 0.79).(44)
2.2.7. Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 15
The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 15 (BIS 15)(46)
contains 15 items measuring levels of impulsivity.
Participants rate short statements on a four-point
scale (1 = rarely/never, 4 = almost always). A total
impulsivity score is derived from all items and the
1735
BIS 15 can also be broken into three subscales: non-
planning, motor impulsivity, and attentional impul-
sivity. High scores indicate higher levels of impulsiv-
ity and the BIS 15 has demonstrated good internal
consistency ( = 0.79).(46)
2.3. Procedure
A link to the online questionnaire was dis-
tributed to drivers in the United Kingdom and Ire-
land via social media sites and online advertising
websites (Gumtree.co.uk; Boards.ie). Emails were
also sent around to staff and students at Cranfield
University, United Kingdom, and University College
Cork, Ireland. Drivers were informed that the study
was voluntary, responses were anonymous, and that
anyone who held a current driving license and had
driven at least once in the past six months in their
country could complete the survey. The ethics com-
mittees of Cranfield University and the School of
Applied Psychology, University College Cork, both
approved the study.
2.4. Data Handling
Before analysis, the distribution of each vari-
able was checked for normality. Skewness and kur-
tosis of the driving anger scale, sensation-seeking
scale, boredom proneness, and impulsivity scales
were all within the normal range (skewness <1;
kurtosis <1.2 in all cases). The total DAX was
slightly positively skewed in the U.K. sample. How-
ever, as this was just beyond the range of normal-
ity and the Irish sample showed normal distribu-
tion, this variable was not transformed. However,
the crash-related variables were strongly positively
skewed. This is to be expected given the infre-
quency of crashes or crash-related behaviors. Given
the absolute skewness and kurtosis of these variables,
logarithmic transformations were performed on the
crashes, slips, near misses, and traffic tickets vari-
ables. Slips and near misses were then within normal
range (skewness <2; kurtosis <7), whereas crashes
and traffic tickets remained positively skewed. Fur-
thermore, as crash data are count variables they have
an underlying Poisson distribution. Thus, subsequent
structural analysis was performed using a covariance
matrix and the robust method of likelihood, which
accounts for nonnormally distributed data.
For each latent construct in the structural model,
three composite variables were created. This method
helped reduce the number of observed variables and
1736
was more appropriate for the sample size.(51) Com-
posite variables were constructed using the item-to-
construct parceling method, so that the measurement
weighting across the set of indicators was statistically
similar.(52) For the DAS, and as per Dahlen et al.,(21)
the three composite variables contained four, five,
and five items, respectively. For the DAX, compos-
ites contained 12, 12, and 10 items. For the BPS, 10,
nine, and nine; for the impulsivity scale six, five, and
four; and for the sensation-seeking scale eight, six,
and six items were grouped in the three composites.
The structural equation analysis (SEM) was
conducted using EQS v 6.1 for Windows(53) and
the robust maximum likelihood (ML) method.
Goodness-of-fit indices were taken from the robust
ML estimates and model fit was evaluated using the
Santorra-Bentler scaled 2 (S-B 2 ), S-B 2 /df index, across the two groups, females reported more lapses
adjusted comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA). Accept-
able model fit is traditionally indicated by df index
<5, an adjusted CFI of 0.90 or greater, an RMSEA of
0.06 or less, and a confidence interval (C.I.) reporting
a 90% interval surrounding the RMSEA acceptable
level. Finally, a multigroup analysis was conducted
to test model invariance between data from drivers
in the United Kingdom and data from drivers in the
Republic of Ireland.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Demographic and Descriptive Variables
Table I shows the demographic variables as well
as preferred driving speeds, recent crash history (past
12 months), and reported incidents of road rage
from drivers in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Drivers from both the United Kingdom and Ire-
land reported preferred speeds within the range of
posted speed limits. For example, for U.K. drivers,
speeds in all but one type of scenario were below
the posted speed limit. However, drivers from the
United Kingdom reported preferences for slightly
faster speeds (M = 74 mph) on the motorway than
the posted speed limit (70 mph). Drivers from Ire-
land preferred speeds that matched the speed limit.
However, average preferred speeds on winding roads
were 10 kph below the posted speed limit of 80
kph. Given that the legal speed zones differ between
the United Kingdom and Ireland for certain driving
situations (e.g., dual carriage ways), a direct com-
parison between reported preferred speeds was not
Stephens and Sullman
performed. However, the percentage of difference
between self-reported preferred speed and the
posted speeds for each type of road were compared
between the two groups (Table I). With the excep-
tion of dual carriageways, drivers from Ireland pre-
ferred slower speeds, which were below the speed
limit, than drivers from the United Kingdom for all
types of roads.
There were very few traffic tickets or major or
minor crashes reported for the previous 12-month
period across both groups of drivers (see Table II).
Mann-Whitney U tests showed no differences be-
tween the drivers from the United Kingdom and
Republic of Ireland on any of the self-reported driv-
ing measures. No gender differences emerged within
each sample; however, when gender was collapsed
in concentration than males. On average, drivers
from both countries reported at least one near miss
over the past year. Slips such as losing concentration
or minor losses of control were more frequent, but
still relatively low across both samples. Road rage
reports were also more frequent for drivers in the
United Kingdom, compared with Ireland. On aver-
age drivers reported two experiences of road rage en-
gagement in the previous year.
3.2. Mean Scores of Personality and Driving Scales
Compared Across Gender and Country
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was conducted to compare scale means across gen-
der and country (see Table III). Gender and coun-
try were used as independent variables and each
subscale used as dependent variables. Given that age,
years licensed, and mileage differed between the two
groups of drivers, these variables were entered as
covariates. When age, license, tenure, and annual
mileage (adjusted to mph for the Irish drivers) were
accounted for, there was a statistically significant dif-
ference in mean responses based on drivers gen-
der (F(12,525) = 9.39, p < 0.0001, Wilks  = 0.82,
partial 2 = 0.19) and on the country they drove in
(F(12,525) = 6.63, p < 0.0001, Wilks  = 0.87, partial
2 = 0.13). These were medium-sized effects based
on Cohens criteria.(61) There was no reliable inter-
action between gender and country.
Univariate analyses showed significant main ef-
fects of country on nine of the 15 dependent vari-
ables (Table IV). Drivers in the United Kingdom
reported reliably stronger tendencies for overall ag-
gressive expression of driving anger, measured with
Trait Predictors of Aggression and Crash-Related Behaviors 1737

Table II. Self-Report Crash-Related Behaviors by Gender and Country

United Kingdom Republic of Ireland

Variablea Males Females Total Males Females Total Zcountry Zgender

Minor crashes 0.98 (6.98) 0.22 (0.99) 0.24 (0.84) 0.09 (0.28) 0.15 (0.46) 0.12 (0.40) 2.08 1.09
Major crashes 0.13 (1.12) 0.02 (0.15) 0.09 (0.86) 0.01 (0.10) 0.04 (0.22) 0.03 (0.18) 0.65 0.14
Near miss for crash 3.69 (30.54) 1.62 (2.85) 1.44 (2.53) 1.24 (1.27) 1.90 (5.21) 1.63 (4.12) 1.18 0.90
Summons 0.43 (2.67) 0.15 (0.51) 0.31 (2.04) 0.11 (0.35) 0.12 (0.47) 0.12 (0.42) 0.86 0.74
Lost concentration 8.01 (26.12) 9.48 (35.07) 5.91 (12.85) 3.70 (10.37) 4.80 (9.63) 4.35 (9.92) 0.12 2.56**
Lost control 1.37 (4.57) 1.13 (2.57) 1.27 (3.84) 0.67 (0.95) 0.80 (1.89) 0.75 (1.58) 0.62 0.05
Experienced road rage 2.50 (3.45) 1.76 (1.84) 2.18 (2.99) 1.38 (1.50) 1.46 (1.75) 1.42 (1.69) 3.23*** 1.23
Expressed road rage 2.57 (3.29) 2.15 (2.39) 2.39 (2.94) 1.99 (2.16) 1.61 (2.06) 1.76 (2.11) 2.75*** 1.98

**p < 0.01; Bonferroni adjustments were made to account for multiple comparisons.
a In the past 12 months.

Table III. Scale and Subscale Means and Standard Deviations Across Gender

United Kingdom Republic of Ireland

Males Females Total Males Females Total

Fcountry Fgender
Measure M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD (1, 536) (1,536)

Driving anger expression

DAX Total (34 items) .86 1.58 0.48 1.51 0.34 1.55 0.43 1.48 0.32 1.48 0.30 1.48 0.31 8.08 ** 1.34
DAX Adaptive .89 2.25 0.60 2.29 .55 2.27 0.58 2.28 0.57 2.37 0.57 2.33 0.57 2.01 1.99
DAX Personal 0.90 1.24 0.49 1.14 0.37 1.20 0.46 1.13 0.20 1.10 0.25 1.11 0.23 9.67** 4.08*
DAX Verbal 0.87 2.04 0.60 2.04 0.57 2.04 0.59 1.96 0.56 2.02 0.57 2.00 0.56 3.20 <1
DAX Use of Vehicle 0.87 1.41 0.53 1.30 0.34 1.36 0.46 1.31 0.36 1.28 0.29 1.29 0.32 6.68* 4.59*
Driving anger
DAS-short 0.83 2.75 0.71 2.63 0.59 2.69 0.66 2.85 0.63 2.97 0.65 2.92 0.64 10.84*** <1
Boredom proneness
BP Total 0.83 3.57 0.66 3.42 0.58 3.50 0.63 3.39 0.67 3.27 0.67 3.31 0.67 16.30*** 6.53**
BP External 0.85 3.73 0.79 3.44 0.73 3.60 0.77 3.45 0.81 3.24 0.81 3.32 0.81 22.03*** 14.69***
BP Internal 0.70 3.17 0.85 3.37 0.88 3.25 0.86 3.23 0.79 3.34 0.80 3.29 0.80 <1 4.06*
Sensation seeking
SS Total 0.75 2.72 0.38 2.40 0.42 2.59 0.43 2.68 0.41 2.44 0.38 2.56 0.42 3.60 76.05***
SS Novelty 0.60 2.84 0.41 2.61 0.49 2.74 0.46 2.79 0.48 2.62 0.49 2.69 0.48 2.50 25.90***
SS Intensity 0.65 2.60 0.49 2.20 .47 2.43 0.52 2.58 0.49 2.24 0.52 2.38 0.48 2.68 95.56***
Impulsivity
BIS Total 0.83 2.17 0.45 2.16 0.46 2.17 0.45 2.06 0.45 2.10 0.42 2.08 0.43 9.72*** <1
BIS Nonplanning 0.65 2.18 0.56 2.22 0.53 2.20 0.54 2.11 0.56 2.17 0.52 2.14 0.53 3.26 1.03
BIS Motor-impulsivity 0.72 2.16 0.47 2.18 0.49 2.17 0.48 2.09 0.57 2.09 0.49 2.09 0.52 7.97** <1
BIS Attentional impulsivity 0.73 2.17 0.59 2.04 0.61 2.11 0.60 1.93 0.58 2.00 0.62 1.97 0.60 10.35*** <1

DAX, driving anger expression inventory; DAS-short, driving anger scale-short form; BP, boredom proneness questionnaire; SS, Arnett
inventory of sensation seeking; BIS, Baratt impulsiveness scale; *p 0.05; **p 0.01; ***p 0.001.

total DAX scores. The means for use of the vehi-
cle and personal physical styles of anger expression
were also higher for drivers in the United Kingdom.
However, although drivers in the United Kingdom
reported more episodes of negative anger expression,
drivers in Ireland were reliably more prone to expe-
rience anger while driving. Drivers also differed on
boredom proneness, both overall and with regards
to external stimuli. There were no between-country
differences for sensation seeking, but there were for
the total impulsivity scores and for the subscales of
motor-impulsivity and attentional impulsivity. In all
cases where there was a reliable difference, drivers in
the United Kingdom reported higher levels.
When gender was examined across all drivers,
univariate analyses showed eight of the 15 dependent
variables differed by gender. Males reported higher
levels of personal physical aggressive expression
1738 Stephens and Sullman

Table IV. Intercorrelations Among Variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1. Gender
2. DAS 0.09
3. Boredom proneness 0.11 0.38***
4. Sensation seeking 0.37*** 0.12* 0.03
5. Impulsivity 0.01 0.28*** 0.21*** .21***
6. Total DAX 0.08 0.57*** 0.31*** .22*** .34***
7. Slips 0.08 0.19*** 0.09 .19** .22*** .27***
8. Near misses 0.08 0.14* 0.07 .14* .12* .20*** .43***
9. Traffic ticketsa 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.20*** 0.19*** 0.14* 0.11 0.10
10. Crashesa 0.10 0.09 0.16* 0.08 0.17** 0.13* 0.13* 0.28*** 0.10
1. Gender
2. DAS 0.09
3. Boredom proneness 0.08 0.34***
4. Sensation seeking 0.30*** 0.08 0.12*
5. Impulsivity 0.03 0.27*** 0.49*** 0.23***
6. Total DAX 0.01 0.52*** 0.28*** 0.22*** 0.26***
7. Slips 0.10 0.21*** 0.08 0.01 0.21*** 0.19**
8. Near misses 0.01 0.16* 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.35*** 0.39***
9. Traffic ticketsa 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.06
10. Crashesa 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.13* 0.10 0.02

Note: Upper panel represents drivers from the United Kingdom; lower panel represents drivers from Republic of Ireland.
*p .05; **p .01; ***p .001.
a Spearmans .

and use of the vehicle to express anger; however,
total driving anger expression remained statistically
similar between males and females. Driving anger
propensity was also stable across gender. However,
males reported higher levels of sensation seeking,
scoring higher than females on total sensation
seeking, as well as the two subscales of novelty and
intensity. Males also scored higher on total boredom
proneness and the boredom proneness subscale of
external stimuli. Interestingly, females scored higher
than males on the internal subscale of boredom
proneness, whereas impulsivity did not differ by
gender.
Only two subscales showed a reliable interaction
between gender and county and the effect sizes of
these were small. Female drivers in Ireland reported
higher levels of driving anger (F(1,536) = 5.55,
p < 0.05, partial 2 = 0.01), when compared with fe-
male drivers in the United Kingdom. Female drivers
in the United Kingdom reported more attentional
impulsivity (F(1,536) = 4.00, p < 0.05, partial 2 =
0.007) than male drivers in the United Kingdom.
3.3. Intercorrelations Among Variables
The correlations between personality scales,
crash-related conditions, and gender for drivers in
the United Kingdom and Ireland are presented in
Table IV. To simplify the analysis and because the
internal consistency of some subscales was less than
ideal (Table III), only the total values for each mea-
sure were included in the analysis. Furthermore,
because Spearman and Pearson correlation coeffi-
cients were similar for the DAX relationships, only
the latter are reported for all correlations except tick-
ets and crashes where Spearmans are presented.
The relationships that emerged were similar for
both groups of drivers (Table IV). A strong rela-
tionship was found between the driving anger scale
and the driving anger expression scores, indicating
that aggressive expressions of anger increase with
propensities to become angered. Both driving anger
and driving anger expressions were positively related
to the three personality measures for drivers in the
United Kingdom. For drivers in Ireland, the same
relationships were found between anger and anger
expression with boredom proneness and impulsivity,
but not with sensation seeking. Therefore, increased
tendencies to become bored and act on impulse
are related to higher levels of anger and aggression.
Furthermore, although anger and aggression were
related to crashes and near misses in the sample
of U.K. drivers, no reliable relationships emerged
between these variables for drivers in Ireland.
Trait Predictors of Aggression and Crash-Related Behaviors
However, this may be due to the relatively low
number of reported incidents in the Irish sample.
Crashes and traffic tickets were unrelated to any
personality or driving scale in the Irish sample.
With the exception of boredom proneness and
sensation seeking, the personality measures shared
reliable relationships in both groups of drivers.
3.4. Modeling Crash-Related Behavior
A latent variable for crash-related behavior was
constructed that included traffic tickets, slips, near
misses, and crashes. When the overall measurement
models for the U.K. data and Irish data were exam-
ined, the crashes variable was not statistically signif-
icant and was therefore removed. This is most likely
indicative of the small number of minor and ma-
jor crashes reported. When the measurement models
were reanalyzed without crashes, both showed good
fit to the observed data. For the U.K. data, the model
statistics were SB 2 (120) = 224.03, p < 0.001. CFI =
0.93; RMSEA = 0.05; 90% C.I. = 0.04:0.07, where all
factor loadings were significant and ranged from 0.25
to 0.94. For the data from the Irish drivers, the model
statistics were SB 2 (120) = 222.38; p < 0.001; CFI =
0.94; RMSEA = 0.06; 90% C.I. = 0.04:0.07; and all
factor loadings, except traffic tickets, were significant
and ranged from 0.43 to 0.93.
3.5. Structural Model
Two structural models were tested to exam-
ine the indirect and direct relationships between
anger, personality factors, and behavior. Neither
anger nor personality factors significantly predicted
crash-related behaviors (as suggested in the dashed
lines in Fig. 1). As the DAX mediated the relation-
ships between personality traits, anger, and aggres-
sion, the multigroup analysis was performed on that
model (as suggested by Dahlen et al.(21) and depicted
by the full lines in Fig. 1).
A multigroup analysis was performed to test
the invariance of the proposed structural model
across the two groups of drivers. All parameters
were constrained with the exception of traffic tick-
ets, given that this was not significant in the model
of Irish data. The full structural model is depicted
in Fig. 2. The goodness-of-fit results for the test for
multigroup invariance showed a well-fitting model,
SB 2 (264) = 474.68, p < 0.001, SB 2 /df = 1.80; CFI
= 0.93; RMSEA = 0.04; 90% C.I. = 0.03:0.04. The
factor intercorrelations are listed in Table V. The
1739
sensation-seeking factor was unrelated to driving
anger, boredom proneness, or impulsivity for drivers
in the United Kingdom. In contrast, all personality
variables were correlated in the Irish sample.
The standardized coefficients are displayed in
Fig. 2. For both models, aggressive expression
was reliably predicted by driving anger and im-
pulsivity but not boredom proneness or sensation
seeking. Driving anger accounted for 28% of the
variance of scores in aggressive driving for drivers
from the United Kingdom, with impulsivity adding
a further 4%. For drivers from Ireland, a combina-
tion of driving anger and impulsivity accounted for
almost half of the variance in aggressive anger ex-
pression. More specifically, driving anger accounted
for 43% of the variance in aggressive anger expres-
sion driving scores and impulsivity contributed a fur-
ther 3%. Overall, the entire model explained 17%
of the variance in crash-related behaviors of drivers
in the United Kingdom and 15% of the variance in
crash-related behaviors of drivers in the Republic of
Ireland.
4. DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to test a proposed
model of driver crash-related behaviors and compare
the model fit on data from drivers in the United
Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. As displayed
in Fig. 1, it was suggested that the personality traits
of boredom proneness, impulsiveness, and sensation
seeking, coupled with driving anger, would predict
aggressive driving. In turn, aggressive driving would
be a reliable contributor toward crash-related con-
ditions, including near-misses, slips of attention (loss
of control of the vehicle and loss of concentration),
and moving violations. A competing model assessing
direct relationships between anger, personality, and
crash-related behavior was also tested. However,
none of these direct relationships were significant.
Support was found for the model of driving be-
havior where crash-related outcomes were predicted
by aggressive driving behavior, which was predicted
by driving anger and impulsiveness. Furthermore,
this model remained invariant across data from
drivers in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. In
both cases, driving anger accounted for the most vari-
ance in aggressive driving. For the U.K. sample, driv-
ing anger accounted for almost one-third, whereas in
the Irish sample driving anger accounted for almost
one-half, of the variance in aggressive driving scores.
Impulsivity added a small percentage to the variance
1740 Stephens and Sullman

Fig. 2. Structural equation models for data from the United Kingdom and Ireland; *p < 0.05.

in both cases. Overall, the models accounted for
15% and 17% of the variance in self-reported crash-
related behaviors for drivers from the United King-
dom and Ireland, respectively. Therefore, higher
levels of trait driving anger tendencies, coupled
with impulsivity, were associated with more aggres-
sive forms of anger expression and crash-related
behaviors.
The current research was unable to support
previous findings that sensation seeking leads to
higher levels of aggressive anger expression and
crash-related outcomes reported by Dahlen et al.(34)
Trait Predictors of Aggression and Crash-Related Behaviors
Table V. Intercorrelations for the Latent Exogenous Factors
United Kingdom
Variables 1. 2.
1. Driving anger
2. Boredom proneness 0.40***
3. Sensation seeking 0.12 0.06
4. Impulsiveness 0.30*** 0.49***
***p < 0.001.
One explanation for this might be due to the be-
haviors being measured. For example, researchers
who have previously examined sensation seeking
and driving have often considered risky driving be-
haviors, rather than intentionally aggressive driv-
ing behavior.(38) Although these risky driving behav-
iors are similar to aggressive behaviors (e.g., exces-
sive speed, close following, dangerous overtaking),
their motivations may differ. Sensation seeking im-
plies an active strategy to increase pleasure, such
as you would expect using risk-homeostatic models
of driving behavior.(9) These models stipulate that
drivers strive to achieve a comfortable balance be-
tween perceived risk and the demands of the task. In
contrast, the method of operationalizing driving ag-
gression or aggressive expressions of anger in this
study meant that drivers were reporting hostile re-
active behaviors.
Boredom proneness was not a significant predic-
tor of aggressive anger expression or crash-related
conditions. Dahlen et al.(34) found that the dimen-
sion of external boredom proneness was positively
related to trait driving anger, use of the vehicle to ex-
press anger, and personal physical aggressive expres-
sion, and was negatively related to adaptive construc-
tive expression. In contrast, the internal dimension
of boredom proneness was unrelated to trait driv-
ing anger and only shared one relationship with the
DAX factors; a negative relationship with the adap-
tive constructive factor. The relationships between
total boredom proneness scores and these anger
and aggression factors were not reported in Dahlen
et al.(34) However, in Dahlen et al.,(33) total bore-
dom proneness was related to aggressive expression
styles and anger tendencies. The results of this study
supported these findings. Trait driving anger scores
and total aggressive expression were positively re-
lated to total boredom proneness. However, when
analyzed in a structural model that also included
scores for trait driving anger, sensation seeking, and
1741
Republic of Ireland
3. 1. 2. 3.
0.38***
0.15*** 0.19***
0.16 0.28*** 0.63*** 0.19***
impulsiveness, the contribution of boredom prone-
ness was not significant. This again is likely to be
explained by the measurement of aggression as an
expression of anger, rather than a response to an in-
ternal or externally driven lack of stimulation.
In contrast, impulsivity did build on the contri-
bution of anger to the prediction of aggressive ex-
pression and consequently crash-related behaviors.
Anger and impulsivity share similar characteristics
in that both lead to quicker, more superficial as-
sessments of situations. For example, in a simulator-
based study, Stephens and Groeger(19) found that
when angry, drivers appear to make more stereo-
typical judgments of traffic scenes. This corresponds
with findings from the broader social psychology
literature.(54) As impulsivity is the tendency to re-
act quickly to events it is plausible that impulsive
tendencies would exacerbate the influence feelings
of anger have on expressions of anger. Therefore,
drivers prone to anger may make quicker decisions
about the situation as well as the level of risk involved
and the most appropriate behavioral response. It is
interesting that impulsivity and anger predicted ag-
gressive expressions, but not general crash-related
behaviors. This suggests they are not simply indica-
tive of a dangerous style of driving behavior.
The final model reported in this study sug-
gests that aggressive expressions of anger mediate
the relationships between personality factors and
crash-related behaviors. There were no significant di-
rect relationships between trait driving anger, sen-
sation seeking, boredom proneness, and impulsivity
on crash-related behaviors (see Fig. 1, dashed lines).
This supports the suggestion by Stephens(45) that the
expression of anger while driving may be determined
by dynamic evaluations of each situation. These
may vary according to individual and situational fac-
tors. The contribution of impulsivity suggests angry
drivers who make quicker judgments of the situation
might express their anger in a more negative manner,
1742
leading to crash-related conditions. In the current
model, crash-related conditions included moving vio-
lations, slips, and near misses. Therefore, it might be
that the desire to express anger, rather than the anger
itself, leads to faster speeds, less concentration on the
driving environment, or more dangerous driving.
Although the study reported above was a repli-
cation of previous research, the novel contribution
of the results to the broader field is worth highlight-
ing. First, a model of self-reported aggressive driving
was tested using data from a community sample of
drivers. Previous research has used American univer-
sity students, and whereas this is an important cohort
to investigate, the generalizability of their results has
not been assessed.(33,34) In this study, drivers were
older and were sampled from the general commu-
nity. Correlational analysis showed a similar pattern
of results to that found in previous research, adding
further empirical support for the relationships be-
tween trait anger, personality factors, and self-report
aggressive driving.
The model for crash-related behaviors was also
confirmed using data from the United Kingdom and
Ireland. Although these are both English-speaking
countries, the Republic of Ireland identifies with a
different culture than that of the United Kingdom,
including a different licensing system. For example,
until recently (2007) Irish road regulations allowed
drivers with learner permits to drive unaccompanied.
Therefore, for most Irish drivers their initial driving
experiences would differ from U.K. drivers with re-
gard to the amount of supervision and input from
other drivers. Multigroup invariance testing was used
to not only compare the two groups of drivers, but to
validate the model by testing the invariance in a sep-
arate sample of drivers. This is an important step in
confirming proposed models. For example, the driv-
ing anger scale, developed in the United States on
American university students,(27) has been used in a
large number of studies over the past 20 years (a Sco-
pus citation search shows more than 250 citations of
the scale). However, research on drivers in Western
countries shows different structures for the 33-item
scale. Some have found support for the original six
factors(30) whereas others have reduced the number
of items and factors.(55) To the authors knowledge,
no research has tested the invariance of the structure
on separate groups of drivers despite this being an
important validation tool for scale and model testing.
The findings also build upon the limited pub-
lished research investigating trait predictors of anger
and aggressive driving in the United Kingdom, and
Stephens and Sullman
the complete absence of this information from the
Republic of Ireland. In regards to the latter, the
positive relationships between impulsivity and anger
found here supports the one correlational study that
found increased levels of impulsiveness were related
to increased driving anger (DAS-short), as well as
more self-reported speeding and reckless driving.(56)
This study, therefore, is the first to provide infor-
mation on self-reported aggression of drivers in the
Republic of Ireland, and also the first to support
the proposed relationship between impulsivity and
driving anger beyond correlational analysis.
This study also provides a gender comparison
for the factors leading to self-reported aggressive ex-
pressions of anger. No differences were found be-
tween males and females for impulsivity scores, with
the exception that females in the United Kingdom
scored higher than their male counterparts. Dahlen
et al.(33,34) reported no gender differences in their
American sample for the impulsivity scales. Sarma
et al.(56) also reported no gender differences for
impulsivity in their sample of Irish drivers; how-
ever, it should be noted that these researchers used
a different scale to measure impulsivity. Although
there is a surprising lack of comparative research ex-
amining impulsivity using a recent sample of U.K.
drivers, it can broadly be concluded that the gen-
der differences that emerged for the personality fac-
tors are similar to those obtained in other countries.
It can also be broadly concluded that gender dif-
ferences found for the anger expression scores are
unlikely to be because of differences in impulsive
tendencies.
There were no gender differences on driving
anger or overall driving anger expression. This cor-
responds with findings from Sarma et al.,(56) who
found no gender differences for the DAS-short for
drivers in Ireland. Research in the United Kingdom
has found females report more overall driving anger
than males.(55,57) However, these studies used a varia-
tion of the driving anger scale, not the 14-item DAS-
short. The findings of this study, which suggest no
gender differences on the DAS-short in a U.K. sam-
ple, align with research from the United States us-
ing the abridged scale(34) and research from New
Zealand.(28) Although there were no differences in
total aggressive expression scores in this study, males
reported more personal physical aggressive expres-
sion and were more inclined to use the vehicle to ex-
press their anger than females. These findings sup-
port previous research using the full 49-item DAX,(7)
although direct comparisons cannot be made for the
Trait Predictors of Aggression and Crash-Related Behaviors
gender differences across the DAX subscales with
other Irish or U.K. research.
The current research also compared driving
anger, driver anger expression, and self-reported
crash-related conditions between drivers from the
United Kingdom and those from the Irish Repub-
lic. Drivers in Ireland reported reliably higher lev-
els of driving anger and reliably fewer tendencies
to express this anger aggressively. However, while
driving anger expression scores remained higher for
drivers in the United Kingdom, after controlling for
the gender imbalance in the samples, the higher lev-
els of anger found in the Irish data can be attributed
to the larger number of females in this group. In-
teractions between gender and country showed that
female drivers in Ireland were more prone to driv-
ing anger when compared to female drivers in the
United Kingdom. This finding demonstrates the need
for further research to identify other factors that may
contribute to the gender difference across the two
countries.
Drivers in the United Kingdom also reported
reliably more crash-related conditions. In the pre-
vious 12-month period drivers in the United King-
dom reported engaging in more incidents of road
rage and had also experienced more road rage than
Irish drivers. Furthermore, these drivers also re-
ported more minor crashes and had more slips of at-
tention, including losing concentration while driving
and minor losses of vehicle control. This is a surpris-
ing result, given that road statistics suggest collision
rates, at least fatal collision rates, are higher in the
Republic when compared to the United Kingdom.
However, female drivers were overrepresented in the
current sample (60%), which is likely to explain the
lower levels of self-reported aggressive expression
of anger. When considered across gender, females
in both samples reported less road rage behaviors
than males. There are a larger percentage of licensed
males on Irish roads, than in the current sample.(48)
4.1. Limitations
The research is limited as the model of driver
crash-related behaviors was not able to include self-
reported crashes (either minor or major). This is
most likely because of their infrequent nature. For
example, the average numbers of major crashes over
the last 12 months for drivers in the United King-
dom and Ireland were 0.09 and 0.03, respectively.
Reliable relationships were found between crashes
and aggressive expressions of anger, sensation
1743
seeking, and impulsiveness for the U.K. group. This
group had a slightly larger number of reported
crashes. Previous studies have also found relation-
ships between driving aggression and loss of concen-
tration or loss of control.(15,25) However, crashes did
not contribute in a more formal model, most likely
due to the low frequency of these events. To over-
come this, future research could select participants
based upon recent crash history, utilize a much larger
sample, or increase the length of the reporting period
(e.g., three years).
The research also suffers from the perceived
weakness of research that relies upon self-reported
data. For example, social desirability bias, which is
especially susceptible to questions about illegal or
dangerous behaviors. However, the impact of social
desirability is not expected to be large as all par-
ticipants provided information anonymously and no
personal data such as names or addresses were col-
lected. In support of this, research has found that
the effect of social desirability bias on self-reported
risky behaviors is not necessarily substantial.(58,59)
Furthermore, Corbett(60) suggests a tendency to un-
derestimate negative behaviors in self-report ques-
tionnaires. Therefore, it is possible that aggressive
and road rage behaviors have been understated.
4.2. Summary and Practical Implications
This study is the first to test a model of driving
behavior that examines the predictability of boredom
proneness, impulsivity, sensation seeking, and driv-
ing anger on aggressive expressions of anger and sub-
sequent crash-related behaviors. The model was con-
firmed, with anger and impulsivity being significant
predictors of aggressive expression and this in turn
predicting subsequent crash-related behavior. More-
over, the invariance of this model was confirmed
across drivers from the United Kingdom and the Re-
public of Ireland. This study is the first to compare
driving anger, aggressive expressions of anger, and
crash-related behaviors across drivers in the United
Kingdom and the Irish Republic and the first to
report self-reported crash statistics and aggression
from a sample of drivers in Ireland.
The findings have practical implications for
driving research. First, the need is highlighted for
further refined research. This is especially important
to test the applicability of the model on predicting
self-reported crashes rather than behaviors that
increase the risk of crash involvement. Furthermore,
while driving anger accounted for a large proportion
1744
of aggressive expression, a larger proportion of the
variance in each model was unaccounted for. It is this
variance that is of particular interest and identifying
the other factors, either trait and/or state, may add to
the model. Further research could extend this work
by considering other personality traits and cognitive
biases such as evaluation tendencies or considering
external factors, such characteristics of the driving
environment or other road users. From an interven-
tion perspective, road safety campaigns that promote
more detailed assessments of traffic situations may
prove effective in reducing the influence of impulsiv-
ity on aggressive expressions of anger. For example,
self-regulation and mindfulness may encourage
drivers to make more detailed assessments of the
driving situation, focusing on elements incongruent
with hostile attributions. For example, one approach
may be removing elements of blame and the sense
of injustice that accompanies anger appraisals.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported above was carried out
while the first author was based at University College
Cork (UCC), Ireland. The authors thank the support
of the School of Psychology, UCC.
REFERENCES
1. Road Safety Authority. Road Collision Facts, 2011, 2013.
2. Department for Transport. Reported Road Casualties in
Great Britain: 2011 Annual Report: Department for Trans-
port, 2012.
3. European Commission. Road Safety Evolution in EU. Fatali-
ties by Population, 2012.
4. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Aggressive Driving:
Three Studies. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traf-
fic Safety, 1995.
5. Chliaoutakis JE, Demakakos P, Tzamalouka G, Bakou V,
Koumaki M, Darviri C. Aggressive behavior while driving as
predictor of self-reported car crashes. Journal of Safety Re-
search, 2002; 33(4):431443.
6. Dula CS, Ballard ME. Development and evaluation of a mea-
sure of dangerous, aggressive, negative emotional, and risky
driving. Journal of Applied Social, 2003; 33(2):263282.
7. Deffenbacher JL, Lynch RS, Oetting ER, Swaim RC. The
driving anger expression inventory: A measure of how peo-
ple express their anger on the road. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 2002; 40(6):717737.
8. Stephens AN, Groeger JA. Situational specificity of trait in-
fluences on drivers evaluations and driving behaviour. Trans-
portation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
2009; 12(1):2939.
9. Fuller R. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Acci-
dent Analysis & Prevention, 2005; 37(3):461472.
10. Bjorklund GM. Driver irritation and aggressive behaviour.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2008; 40(3):10691077.
11. Deffenbacher JL. Anger, aggression, and risky behavior on
the road: A preliminary study of urban and rural differences.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2008; 38(1):2236.
Stephens and Sullman
12. Deffenbacher JL, Lynch RS, Filetti LB, Dahlen ER, Oetting
ER. Anger, aggression, risky behavior, and crash-related out-
comes in three groups of drivers. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 2003; 41(3):333349.
13. Mesken J, Hagenzieker MP, Rothengatter T, de Waard
D. Frequency, determinants, and consequences of different
drivers emotions: An on-the-road study using self-reports,
(observed) behaviour, and physiology. Transportation Re-
search Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2007;
10(6):458475.
14. Stephens AN, Ohtsuka K. Cognitive biases in aggressive
drivers: Does illusion of control drive us off the road? Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 2014; 68:124129.
15. Sullman MJ, Stephens AN, Kuzu D. The expression of anger
amongst Turkish taxi drivers. Accident Analysis & Preven-
tion, 2013; 56:4250.
16. McGarva AR, Steiner M. Provoked driver aggression and sta-
tus: A field study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psy-
chology and Behaviour, 2000; 3(3):167179.
17. Shinar D, Compton R. Aggressive driving: An observational
study of driver, vehicle, and situational variables. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 2004; 36(3):429437.
18. Stephens AN, Trawley SL, Madigan R, Groeger JA. Drivers
display anger congruent attention to potential traffic hazards.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2013; 27(2):178189.
19. Stephens AN, Groeger JA. Anger-congruent behaviour trans-
fers across driving situations. Cognition & Emotion, 2011;
25(8):14231438.
20. Roidl E, Siebert FW, Oehl M, Hoger R. Introducing a multi-
variate model for predicting driving performance: The role of
driving anger and personal characteristics. Journal of Safety
Research, 2013; 47:4756.
21. Dahlen ER, Edwards BD, Tubre T, Zyphur MJ, Warren CR.
Taking a look behind the wheel: An investigation into the per-
sonality predictors of aggressive driving. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 2012; 45:19.
22. Delhomme P, Chaurand N, Paran F. Personality predictors of
speeding in young drivers: Anger vs. sensation seeking. Trans-
portation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
2012; 15(6):654666.
23. Iliescu D, Sarbescu P. The relationship of dangerous driving
with traffic offenses: A study on an adapted measure of dan-
gerous driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2013; 51:33
41.
24. Sarbescu P. Aggressive driving in Romania: Psychometric
properties of the driving anger expression inventory. Trans-
portation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
2012; 15(5):556564.
25. Sullman MJ. The expression of anger on the road. Safety Sci-
ence, 2015; 72:153159.
26. Villieux A, Delhomme P. Driving anger and its expressions:
Further evidence of validity and reliability for the Driv-
ing Anger Expression Inventory French adaptation. Journal
of Safety Research, 2010; 41(5):417422.
27. Deffenbacher JL, Getting ER, Lynch RS. Development of a
driving anger scale. Psychological Reports, 1994; 74(1):8391.
28. Sullman MJ, Stephens AN. A comparison of the driving anger
scale and the propensity for angry driving scale. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 2013; 58:8896.
29. Herrero-Fernandez D. Psychometric adaptation of the Driv-
ing Anger Expression Inventory in a Spanish sample: Differ-
ences by age and gender. Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2011; 14(4):324329.
30. Sullman MJ, Stephens AN, Yong M. Driving anger in
Malaysia. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2014; 71:19.
31. Ozkan
T, Lajunen T, Parker D, Sumer N, Summala H. Ag-
gressive driving among British, Dutch, Finnish and Turk-
ish drivers. International Journal of Crashworthiness, 2011;
16(3):233238.
Trait Predictors of Aggression and Crash-Related Behaviors
32. Parker D, Lajunen T, Summala H. Anger and aggression
among drivers in three European countries. Accident Anal-
ysis & Prevention, 2002; 34(2):229235.
33. Dahlen ER, Martin RC, Ragan K, Kuhlman MM. Boredom
proneness in anger and aggression: Effects of impulsiveness
and sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences,
2004; 37(8):16151627.
34. Dahlen ER, Martin RC, Ragan K, Kuhlman MM. Driving
anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and boredom prone-
ness in the prediction of unsafe driving. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 2005; 37(2):341348.
35. Jovanovic D, Lipovac K, Stanojevic P, Stanojevic D. The ef-
fects of personality traits on driving-related anger and aggres-
sive behaviour in traffic among Serbian drivers. Transporta-
tion Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2011;
14(1):4353.
36. Dahlen ER, White RP. The Big Five factors, sensation seek-
ing, and driving anger in the prediction of unsafe driving. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 2006; 41(5):903915.
37. Burns PC, Wilde GJ. Risk taking in male taxi drivers:
Relationships among personality, observational data and
driver records. Personality and Individual Differences, 1995;
18(2):267278.
38. Jonah BA. Sensation seeking and risky driving: A review and
synthesis of the literature. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
1997; 29(5):651665.
39. Schwebel DC, Severson J, Ball KK, Rizzo M. Individual dif-
ference factors in risky driving: The roles of anger/hostility,
conscientiousness, and sensation-seeking. Accident Analysis
& Prevention, 2006; 38(4):801810.
40. Zuckerman M. Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases
of Sensation Seeking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1994.
41. Zuckerman M. Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level
of Arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Publishers, 1979.
42. Arnett J. Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and
a new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 1994;
16(2):289296.
43. Barratt ES. Anxiety and impulsiveness related to psychomo-
tor efficiency. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1959; 9(3):191198.
44. Farmer R, Sundberg ND. Boredom pronenessThe develop-
ment and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality As-
sessment, 1986; 50(1):417.
45. Stephens AN, & Groeger, J. A. Driven by anger: The causes
and consequences of anger during virtual journeys. In: Sull-
man LDMJM (ed). Advances in Traffic Psychology. UK: Ash-
gate, 2012.
46. Spinella M. Normative data and a short form of the Barratt
Impulsiveness Scale. International Journal of Neuroscience,
2007; 117(3):359368.
1745
47. Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. London and the rest of
GB licence stats 1. A response to a Freedom of Information
Request (November 2009), 2014.
48. Road Safety Authority. Full and learner permits by age
and sex year (20082009). In: 13/04/2014 PcftRSAR, editor,
2014.
49. Meadows ML, Stradling SG, Lawson S. The role of social de-
viance and violations in predicting road traffic accidents in
a sample of young offenders. British Journal of Psychology,
1998; 89(3):417431.
50. Smart RG, Mann RE, Zhao J, Stoduto G. Is road rage increas-
ing? Results of a repeated survey. Journal of Safety Research,
2005; 36(2):195201.
51. Little TD, Cunningham WA, Shahar G, Widaman KF. To par-
cel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the mer-
its. Structural Equation Modeling, 2002; 9(2):151173.
52. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic
Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Hove, East Sus-
sex, UK: Routledge, 2013.
53. Bentler PM, Wu EJ. EQS 6.1 for Windows. Encino, CA: Mul-
tivariate Software, 2005.
54. Forgas JP. On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects
on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1998; 74(3):565577.
55. Lajunen T, Parker D, Stradling SG. Dimensions of driver
anger, aggressive and highway code violations and their me-
diation by safety orientation in UK drivers. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1998;
1(2):107121.
56. Sarma KM, Carey RN, Kervick AA, Bimpeh Y. Psychologi-
cal factors associated with indices of risky, reckless and cau-
tious driving in a national sample of drivers in the Republic
of Ireland. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2013; 50:1226
1235.
57. Lajunen T, Parker D. Are aggressive people aggressive
drivers? A study of the relationship between self-reported
general aggressiveness, driver anger and aggressive driving.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2001; 33(2):243255.
58. Lajunen T, Summala H. Can we trust self-reports of driving?
Effects of impression management on driver behaviour ques-
tionnaire responses. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 2003; 6(2):97107.
59. Sullman MJ, Taylor JE. Social desirability and self-reported
driving behaviours: Should we be worried? Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2010;
13(3):215221.
60. Corbett C. Explanations for understating in self-reported
speeding behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 2001; 4(2):133150.
61. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 1992;
112(1):155.