Accident Analysis and Prevention 145 (2020) 105709

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Measuring the perception of aggression in driving behavior T

a, b
Thomas Kerwin *, Brad J. Bushman
a
Driving Simulation Laboratory, The Ohio State University, United States
b
School of Communication, The Ohio State University, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The study of aggressive driving is an important step in the reduction of (often fatal) crashes due to this behavior.
Aggression However, even though various measures of aggressive driver behavior have been proposed, a more thorough
Perception examination of what the driving public perceives as aggressive driving behavior can be performed. A nationally
Driver behavior representative sample of 198 American adults saw and rated the aggressiveness of various driving behaviors in
Driving
videos. The videos were shown from a first-, second-, or third-person perspective. Some videos depicted close
Survey
following, varying in speed and distance from the car ahead. Participants also saw illegal passing videos and
collision or near collision videos. A number of variables that might influence judgments of aggressive driving
were included as controls (i.e., trait anger, aggressive and prosocial driving attitudes, driving experience).
Following other drivers closely was rated as aggressive, especially when viewed from a third-person perspective.
Illegal passes were viewed as more aggressive than speeding. Faster speeds didn’t increase aggressive ratings
much, regardless of perspective. Aggressiveness ratings were especially high for acts that could be considered
“road rage” (i.e., hitting or nearly hitting vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians). People high in trait anger have a
bias to view many driving behaviors as intentionally aggressive.

1. Introduction
Worldwide, about 1.35 million people die each year as a result of
road traffic crashes (World Health Organization, 2019). In the United
States (US), about 40,000 people die each year in motor vehicle crashes
(US Department of Transportation, 2016). According to the American
Automobile Association, 56 % of fatal crashes in the US from 2003 to
2007 were associated with driving behaviors that are often labeled
aggressive (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2009). However, de-
termining aggressive behavior from police reports is challenging, In
addition, the behaviors associated in the crashes are often, but, not
always, seen as an aggressive behavior. The question of exactly when
driving behaviors are considered aggressive by the driving public is not
one that has been thoroughly examined.
One definition of aggressive driving is “any behavior emitted by a
driver while driving, that is intended to cause physical and/or psy-
chological harm to any sentient being.” (Dula and Geller, 2003) This
definition captures the idea of intent in aggressive driving. It is also
consistent with how researchers typically define aggressive behavior:
“Aggression is any form of behavior directed toward the goal of
harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid
such treatment”. (Baron, 1977) However, a question follows from this
definition: What behaviors show the intent to harm? Certain behaviors,
like following closer than two seconds behind a vehicle, could be
considered normal driving behavior, although unsafe in the event of an
unexpected event on the road.
Dula and Ballard, in their development of the Dula Dangerous
Driving Index (Dula and Ballard, 2003), had participants rate driving
behaviors on how strongly they felt the behaviors are associated with
aggressive driving. We take a similar approach, but provide concrete
examples of driving scenarios, with videos from the perspective of the
driver in various driving situations. Showing participants the same
driving behaviors should be more objective than having them read
about and then imagine those behaviors.
It is useful to distinguish between aggressive driving and “road
rage”. The National Highway Safety and Traffic Administration
(NHTSA) defines aggressive driving as “driving actions that markedly
exceed the norms of safe driving behavior and that directly affect other
road users by placing them in unnecessary danger” whereas road rage is
defined as “an intentional assault by a driver or passenger with a motor
vehicle or a weapon that occurs on the roadway or is precipitated by an
incident on the roadway.” (Richard et al., 2018)
Although conceptual definitions of aggressive driving and road rage
are well accepted, operational definitions are not. In both naturalistic

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kerwin.6@osu.edu (T. Kerwin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105709
Received 13 January 2020; Received in revised form 16 July 2020; Accepted 29 July 2020
0001-4575/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Kerwin and B.J. Bushman
and driving simulation studies about aggressive driving, a critical de-
cision is how to quantify the degree of aggressiveness a driver is en-
gaging in. In the aggressive driving literature, the quantification of
aggressive driving which is commonly done in three ways: (1) asking
participants how much they engage in a list of behaviors pre-de-
termined to be aggressive (e.g., tailgating, speeding), (2) measuring
particular driving metrics (e.g., following distance between vehicles,
speed) and generating an aggressive driving score, or (3) using a scoring
guide for research assistants to rate behaviors as aggressive. However,
all of these methods presuppose that certain driving behaviors are ag-
gressive.
Matthews and Noris (Matthews and Norris, 2002) surveyed drivers
in a study designed to see if there were factors that affected whether a
driver performing a notable action in the car would be perceived as
aggressive or not. They found that trait aggressiveness increased the
likelihood of a borderline case being attributed to malign intent. The
driving scenarios given to the participants to evaluate were complex,
but were provided via text descriptions only.
A purely text-based questionnaire like the Perception of aggressive
driving scale (PAD) (Alonso et al., 2019) asks respondants to imagine
driving situations and provide an aggressiveness value. This approach is
well-suited to determine, for example, if drivers consider honking to be
more aggressive than speeding. However, there are still abiguities when
trying to determine, given a specific driving dataset, how aggressive is a
person’s driving. For example, an item in the PAD asks how aggressive
the behavior “Approaching the vehicle behind” is. If we were to mea-
sure the following distance of a driver in a simulator or from natur-
alistic driving data, how would we determine if that behavior is ag-
gressive, and how aggressive? The distance between the vehicles during
the close following is a factor in that determination, and including items
that refer to concrete examples with various following distances can
help create such a mapping.
We believe that examining what the driving public perceives as
aggressive driving is important, not only for informing future work that
asks the public about aggressive driving in general, but also for de-
termining policy. Drivers routinely exceed speed limits on highways,
but this common behavior is not considered aggressive. The aim of this
work is to better understand to what degree drivers consider various
behaviors to be aggressive. Furthermore, identifying the specific mea-
surable values associated with perceived aggressive driving behaviors
can be a useful tool in categorizing those behaviors in experimental or
observational studies of driver behavior in simulation or on-road
driving.
In this study, we present participants with video examples of various
driving behaviors and ask them to quantify the aggressiveness of the
driving. We describe the results of this survey and discuss future ap-
plications for a tool to quantify aggressive driving behavior from
driving data in a way that is informed by the views of the driving
public.
Fig. 1. Example still images from the videos presented to the participants. On the left, the car is about to narrowly miss a collision with a bicyclist. On the right, the
rear car is driving one second behind the truck.
2
Accident Analysis and Prevention 145 (2020) 105709
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Recruitment was stratified so that we obtained a nationally re-
presentative sample. Our sample size was 198 American adults, ranging
in age from 18 to 89 ( xAge = 47.35, sd = 16.49). Roughly half of the
participants (53.03 %) identified as female. Racial composition was
64.65 % White, 13.13 % Black, 14.14 % Hispanic, 5.05 % Asian, and
3.03 % other responses. All participants were required to have a valid
driver’s license and be at least 18 years old. Participants were recruited
and paid by Qualtrics Panel.
2.2. Measurement of control variables
Trait anger has been shown to influence driving behavior (Bogdan
et al., 2016; Nesbit et al., 2007) and could influence attitudes about
aggressive driving behaviors as well. For example, one study found that
people high in trait aggressiveness are especially likely to attribute
malign intent to other drivers (Matthews and Norris, 2002). Recall that
definitions of aggressive driving and road rage both include intent to
harm.
We included other control variables that might relate to judgments
of aggressive driving behavior: gender, age, and aggressive and proso-
cial driving attitudes. We also included a number of measures related to
driving frequency and quantity (i.e., how long the participants have had
a driving license, how many times per week they drove, how long per
week they drove, how many miles per week they drove). We were not
sure of the effect driving experience would have the ratings: driving
experience may lead to more acceptance of unsafe driving behavior due
to continual exposure on the road, or personal experience with dan-
gerous driving may make one more likely to attribute malice from
them.
The participants were first asked demographic questions, including
age, gender and race. Next, they were asked four questions related to
driving frequency and quantity: how long they have had a license, how
many times per week they drive, how long per week they drive and how
many miles per week they drive. The survey also included a trait anger
scale (Spielberger and Sydeman, 1994), which contained 10 items (e.g.,
“I have a fiery temper” and “When I get mad, I say nasty things”) that
are rated on a 4-point scale (1=almost never to 4=almost always).
They also completed a measure of driving attitudes (Harris et al.,
2014) with 17 items to measure prosocial driving attitudes (e.g., “Drive
with extra care around pedestrians” and “Slow down in a construction
zone”), and 12 items to measure aggressive driving attitudes (e.g.,
“Make rude gestures at other drivers when they do something I do not
like” and “Speed up when another vehicle tries to overtake me”). All
driving survey items were rated on a 6-point scale (1=never to
6=always).
T. Kerwin and B.J. Bushman
2.3. Videos
Next, the participants viewed short videos (7–14 seconds) taken
from scenarios performed in a driving simulator. A total of 32 videos
were watched and rated. The order of the videos was randomized per
participant. Participants rated the videos on aggressiveness im-
mediately after viewing. An example of the images in the videos is
shown in Fig. 1. All videos were created specifically for the current
study, in simulator software (SimCreator) that is used for real-time
driving simulator studies. All scenarios were of a four-lane undivided
roadway. There was no additional traffic depicted in the videos in order
to reduce confusion. The behaviors chosen were based on common
elements from both the PAD and the Dula Dangerous Driving Index.
The videos show close following (tailgating), speeding, illegal pas-
sing, collisions and near collisions. The close following videos are from
three visual perspectives, first-person (i.e., the car driven is performing
the aggressive action), second-person (i.e., the car driven is being ag-
gressed against), and third-person (i.e., the car driven is in the other
lane from the perpetrator and victim cars). We used different visual
perspectives because participants might view the behavior as less ag-
gressive when they are performing it than when someone else is per-
forming it. (Campbell and Sedikides, 1999;
mischkowskiFliesWallAre, 2012) The tailgating videos also vary in how
fast the vehicles are traveling: 35 miles per hour (MPH) (56 km per hour
(KPH)) or 65 MPH (105 KPH). These speeds were chosen to cover
common speeds on moderate-speed urban roads and highways. They
also vary in how close the tailgating car is from the car in front of it.
This closeness is measured in Time to Collision (TTC), which describes
the time the tailgating car would take to hit the car in front of it if the
car stopped immediately. This reflects the idea of the “two second rule,”
a common rule of thumb for safe driving.
The idea of the “two second rule” however, is variable and incon-
sistent in states across the United States. After reviewing different
state’s driving manuals, stating the driving rules, regulations and
guidelines for each state, the time varied from a suggested two second
following distance, to four or six depending on driving conditions. For
example, the Ohio Department of Public Safety states, “Some safety
experts advise drivers to allow one car length ahead for each 10 mph of
speed. Others suggest following the ‘three-second rule’” (Ohio
Department of Motor Vehicles, 2019). Alternatively, Pennsylvania’s
Driver Safety Manual states, “A four second following distance, will
allow you to steer or brake to avoid a hazard safely on the highway, if
the pavement is dry” (Pennsylvania Bureau of Driver Licensing, 2019).
The collision videos were all in first-person, with the driver either
swerving (without slowing down) to avoid a slow moving vehicle or
person in their lane, or actually colliding with that vehicle or person.
There were six videos, with each action occurring with a pedestrian, a
Fig. 2. Effects of time to collision, speed, and viewpoint on perceived driving aggressiveness. Vertical lines show 95 % confidence intervals.
Accident Analysis and Prevention 145 (2020) 105709
bicyclist, and a car. Speeding videos show the driven car or a third-
person car overtaking at 50 MPH (86 KPH) a line of cars going 35 MPH
(56 KPH). Additionally, participants rated videos of the driven vehicle
passing vehicles by crossing a double yellow line into the oncoming
lane or going off the road to the left shoulder.
The participants were asked to rate the aggressiveness of the driving
behavior on a scale of 0 (not aggressive) to 10 (highly aggressive) and a
binary scale (not aggressive or aggressive).
Survey questions and videos were refined prior to delivery to the
participants by having internal lab research assistants answer a draft
version of the survey and give comments. Video length and precise
formatting of the questions was determined in this way.
3. Results
Our target was 200 participants. During data collection, four re-
spondents provided erroneous data: one claimed to make 200 drives a
week for a total of 10 miles driven, one had a blank race field, which
should have been disallowed, one claimed to drive 70,000 miles a
week, and a fourth said they drive 2 times every week for a total of 2
miles for 2 h (and listed their age as 22). These were replaced with new
@ respondents. After the survey was ended, two more errors were found:
one respondent drove an average amount of hours in a week greater
than the total number of hours in a week, and another respondent drove
an average of 2000 miles a week in an average of 1.5 h, giving an
average speed of over 1300 MPH. These two respondents were ex-
cluded, bringing the total number of valid respondents to 198.
3.1. Personality variables
We use Cronbach’s Alpha to measure the internal consistency of the
personality trait assessments. High internal consistency gives evidence
that the questions in the assessments measure the same intended idea.
In the assessments, the Alpha was 0.93 for trait anger, 0.98 for the
prosocial driving assessment, and 0.95 for the aggressive driving as-
sessment. These Alpha values are all greater than 0.9, suggesting very
high internal consistency.
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between trait anger and
prosocial attitudes to driving was −0.3, between trait anger and ag-
gressive driving was 0.46 and between prosocial and aggressive driving
was −0.35. With adjusting for false discovery rate, all p-values for
these correlations were found to be lower than 0.05.
3.2. Influences on perceived aggressiveness
We performed exploratory data analysis to better understand the
survey results. Graphs showing the mean values and 95 % confident
3
T. Kerwin and B.J. Bushman
intervals for perceived aggressiveness of the videos depicting tailgating
can be seen in Fig. 2. Shorter time to collision values generally receive
higher aggressiveness ratings. However, a higher speed is associated
with lower aggressiveness ratings at lower TTC values. A different way
to measure tailgating is the distance between the two vehicles. Distance
and TTC are directly related (distance equals TTC multiplied by speed),
but their effect on the participants perceptions may be different.
Many of the participants thought none of the tailgating videos
showed aggression. Fig. 4 shows the distribution of responses for the
most aggressive seeming video: a half-second following distance at 65
MPH. Zero is the most common rating for all perspectives, although the
increase in mean perceived aggressiveness can be seen in the third-
person perspective histogram.
A plot of the collision responses can be found in Fig. 5. All objects
had similar means, with the actual collisions perceived aggressiveness
ratings mean being slightly above 9 and the near-collisions averaging
around 8. A plot of the speeding and passing responses can be found in
Fig. 6. Mean speeding perceived aggressiveness was slightly under 2.5,
while the illegal passes were scored much higher, around 8, with pas-
sing on the right (the shoulder) scoring lower than passing on the left
(into the oncoming lane of traffic). For the speeding videos, perspective
was not found to be significant.
We modeled the responses using a linear mixed model fit by max-
imum likelihood. Possible predictors we considered are the per-in-
dividual personality and attitude assessments, driving-related demo-
graphics, along with the per-video characteristics such as time to
collision, speed and perspective. We also include by-response random
intercepts. The R package lme4 was used to generate and compare the
mixed models. Based on graphing the data (Fig. 3), we performed a log
transformation of the distance variable for the following distance. A
likelihood ratio test comparison was used to determine that the log
transformation was a significantly better fit for the data. ( p < 0.05).
The videos fell into four groups: Following distance, passing,
speeding, and collisions. We constructed models for each of those
groups that included trait anger, the aggressive driving behavior score
and the prosocial driving score. They also included the per-video
characteristics. We then constructed models that included all the
driving-related demographic data (e.g. the number of times they drive
per week). The driving-related demographic data did not significantly
improve the model in any group except for the passing videos
( p < 0.001). The variable estimates for these models with the demo-
graphic data are shown in two figures. Fig. 7. shows the common ele-
ments between the models and Fig. 8 shows the variables that varied
inside each video group. All models included random intercepts per
respondent.
For the car following videos, the difference in aggressiveness ratings
between the videos in first-person (i.e. driver tailgating) and second-
person (i.e. driver being tailgated) perspectives was significant
Fig. 3. Effects of vehicle speed and log of distance to vehicle on percieved driving agressiveness when viewed from a third-person perspective. Vertical lines show 95
% confidence intervals.
4
Accident Analysis and Prevention 145 (2020) 105709
( p < 0.01). The differences between all other perspectives were sig-
nificant as well ( p < 0.01, except for 1 st vs. 2nd perspective at
p < 0.05), as were the differences between the 35 and 65 mile per hour
videos ( p < 0.01). However, perspective did not have a significant effect
on perceived aggressiveness for the speeding videos. For the passing
videos, passing on the left into the oncoming lane was considered to be
more aggressive than passing on the right onto the shoulder ( p < 0.01).
For the collision videos, the fact that the action was a near-miss rather
than a collision was a significant ( p < 0.01) effect, but there was no
significant effect on perceived aggressiveness due to the type of object
interacted with (i.e. person, cyclist or vehicle).
Using this model as a base, a generalized linear mixed model with a
binomial link function was fit for the binary responses. We refer to these
as “logistic models”. Like the previous mixed models, they were gen-
erated using the lme4 R package. In these models, none of the driving
demographic data had a significant effect on perceived aggressiveness.
For the car following videos, trait anger had a significant effect, and for
the collisions videos, prosocial driving attitudes had a significant effect.
The variable estimates for these models with the demographic data are
shown in two figures. Fig. 9 shows the common elements between the
models and Fig. 10 shows the variables that varied inside each video
group.
4. Discussion
Smaller distances between cars are associated with higher perceived
aggressiveness ratings by respondents. However, at a half-second time
to collision, a majority of respondents thought that first-person driving
video had the lowest possible value of aggressiveness (as shown in
Fig. 4). This provides evidence that close tailgating at a steady distance
is never considered aggressive by a large portion of the driving public.
The strongest result from the survey data is that third-person
viewing of tailgating behavior is much more likely to be perceived as
aggressive than is first or second-person viewing. There are several
potential explanations for this. A hostile perception bias, one type of
hostile attribution error, could influence the difference between first-
person and third-person values (Dill et al., 1997). The hostile perception
bias is the tendency to perceive ambiguous social interactions as being
aggressive. For example, if you see one driver tailgating another, a
hostile perception would be that they tailgater is an aggressive driver.
In the first person condition, participants placed themselves in the
standpoint of the driver, and would be less likely to believe themselves
as an aggressor than to believe a third party was an aggressor. However,
this does not explain the similar results between the first-person and
second-person videos. A possible cause of the similarity is that the size
of the image of aggressor car in the rear-view mirror is smaller than that
in the other conditions and therefore easier to dismiss. It could also be
that judgement of the distance between the driver’s car and the car
T. Kerwin and B.J. Bushman Accident Analysis and Prevention 145 (2020) 105709

Fig. 4. Histogram comparing perceived aggressiveness responses for the three perspectives at 0.5 s following time at 65 MPH.

Fig. 5. Mean perceived aggressiveness values of collisions and near-collisions. Bars show 95 % confidence intervals.

Fig. 6. Mean perceived aggressiveness values of speeding and off-road passing. Bars show 95 % confidence intervals.

behind it is difficult from the rear-view mirror image.
In general, the values of perceived aggression from the tailgating
videos was lower than anticipated. Even at a very unsafe following
distance (0.5 s TTC at 65 MPH), 70 out of 198 (35 %) respondents
considered the behavior to be a 0 on a 0–10 scale – as non-aggressive as
possible – when viewing the behavior in first person perspective. There
could be several reasons for this. A possible explanation is that close
driving is considered by many to be a normal driving behavior. It also
could be that the steady-state nature of our video caused many people
to be assume a non-malign source of the close driving. A hostile attri-
bution error could play a role here as well, but even in the third-person
perspective, 35 out of 198 (18 %) participants gave the behavior a 0
score.
Collisions were considered highly aggressive. In the logistic model,
hitting or nearly hitting a pedestrian, was slightly less likely to be
considered aggressive than hitting a vehicle. This is a confusing result,
and perhaps there is an interaction effect that contributes to this fact.
No significant effects on type of object was seen in the linear model.
The fact that an illegal pass on the shoulder is found to be less ag-
gressive than one into the oncoming lane matches our intuition. Passing
on the oncoming lane when it is disallowed by a double yellow line is
both illegal and puts the people in the oncoming lane in grave danger.
The threat of collision with another vehicle is lower in passing on the
shoulder. The transgression in going on the other side of the road may
have a much greater weight in attributing aggression intent than en-
tering into an area that could be considered a unused part of the road.
Simple speeding was not considered very aggressive and did not
exhibit the change in perceived aggressiveness based on first-person
versus third-person as did the tailgating videos. This could be because
distances are perceived differently in the two perspectives but relative
speeds are not.
In general, the amount of time, number of trips, or distance a person

5
T. Kerwin and B.J. Bushman Accident Analysis and Prevention 145 (2020) 105709

Fig. 7. Effects of predictors common to all linear models. This includes driving-related demographic data and the personality assessments. Effect values on the
original 0-10 scale are shown for all video groups. Horizontal lines show 95 % confidence intervals.

Fig. 8. Effects of per-video variables in all linear models. Effect values on the original 0-10 scale are shown for all video groups. Horizontal lines show 95 %
confidence intervals.

Fig. 9. Effects of predictors common to all logistic models. This includes driving-related demographic data and the personality assessments. Odds ratios are shown for
all video groups. Horizontal lines show 95 % confidence intervals.

drives is not strongly related to their impressions of how aggressive the
driving scenarios were. For the illegal passing scenario, if a person had
more years driving and drove longer distances, they scored the video
actions as more aggressive. For the car following scenario, if a person
drove for more time per week, they scored the video actions as more
aggressive. These effects disappeared entirely in the logistic models.
There was no strong overall effect from driving experience or general
vehicle trip behavior on driver’s rating of aggressiveness.
For the personality assessments, trait anger was associated with
higher perceived aggressiveness in the car following and illegal passing
scenarios. The higher perceived aggressiveness effect remained for the
car following scenarios even in the logistic models. High prosocial
driving attitudes were associated with lower perceived aggressiveness
for the speeding scenarios but higher for the collision scenarios. High
aggressive driving attitudes were associated with higher perceived ag-
gressiveness in the speeding and car following scenarios.
5. Conclusion
Higher trait anger and aggressive driving attitude both lead to
people rating tailgating behavior as more highly aggressive. Using the
logarithm of the distance between cars is a good estimate of perceived
aggressiveness. The same distance between cars at a high speeds is
perceived as slightly more aggressive, whereas people tend to rate
tailgating between two other drivers on the road as much more ag-
gressive than the person tailgating themselves or even someone

6
T. Kerwin and B.J. Bushman
Fig. 10. Effects of per-video variables for the logistic models. Odds ratios are shown for all video groups. Horizontal lines show 95 % confidence intervals.
tailgating them. People’s amount of driving experience, in general, did
not have much effect on the perceived aggressiveness of driving beha-
viors.
Although this work does not construct a metric of how aggressive a
driver’s behavior is, it provides valuable information towards that goal.
The perceived aggressiveness ratings gathered through this study pro-
vide concrete values that can be used to give a measurement of ag-
gressive driving behavior as observed in naturalistic or simulation
driving studies. By basing those estimates on descriptive data such as
those gathered through this study, rather than prescriptive rules from
governments or safety agencies, the strength of validity evidence for the
use of those measurements is increased.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Thomas Kerwin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - ori-
ginal draft, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Visualization, Data curation. Brad J. Bushman: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Resources, Writing - review & editing.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105709.
References
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2009. Aggressive Driving: 2009 Research Update.
Alonso, Francisco, Esteban, Cristina, Montoro, Luis, Serge, Andrea, 2019.
Conceptualization of aggressive driving behaviors through a perception of aggressive
driving scale (PAD). Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 60 (January),
415–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.10.032.
Baron, Robert A., 1977. Human Aggression. Springer US, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-1-4615-7195-7.
Bogdan, Smaranda Raluca, Măirean, Cornelia, Havârneanu, Corneliu-Eugen, 2016. A
Accident Analysis and Prevention 145 (2020) 105709
meta-analysis of the association between anger and aggressive driving. Transp. Res.
Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 42 (October), 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.
2016.05.009.
Campbell, W. Keith, Sedikides, Constantine, 1999. Self-threat magnifies the self-serving
Bias: a meta-analytic integration. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 3 (1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.
1037/1089-2680.3.1.23.
Dill, Karen E., Anderson, Craig A., Anderson, Kathryn B., Deuser, William E., 1997. Effects
of aggressive personality on social expectations and social perceptions. J. Res. Pers.
31 (2), 272–292. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2183.
Dula, Chris S., Ballard, Mary E., 2003. Development and evaluation of a measure of
dangerous, aggressive, negative emotional, and risky driving1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
33 (2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01896.x.
Dula, Chris S., Geller, E. Scott, 2003. Risky, aggressive, or emotional driving: addressing
the need for consistent communication in research. J. Saf. Res. 34 (5), 559–566.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2003.03.004.
Harris, Paul B., Houston, John M., Vazquez, Jose A., Smither, Janan A., Harms, Amanda,
Dahlke, Jeffrey A., Sachau, Daniel A., 2014. The prosocial and aggressive driving
inventory (PADI): a self-report measure of safe and unsafe driving behaviors. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 72 (November), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.05.023.
Matthews, B.Alex, Norris, Fran H., 2002. When is believing "Seeing"? Hostile attribution
Bias as a function of self-reported Aggression1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32 (1), 1–31.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01418.x.
Mischkowski, Dominik, Kross, Ethan, Bushman, Brad J., 2012. Flies on the wall are less
aggressive: self-distancing ‘in the heat of the moment’ reduces aggressive thoughts,
angry feelings and aggressive behavior. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 (5), 1187–1191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.012.
Nesbit, SundéM., Conger, Judith C., Conger, Anthony J., 2007. A quantitative review of
the relationship between anger and aggressive driving. Aggress. Violent Behav. 12
(2), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.09.003.
Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles, 2019. Digest of Ohio Motor Vehicle Laws.
Pennsylvania Bureau of Driver Licensing, 2019. Pennsylvania’s Driving Manual.
Richard, Christian M., Magee, Kelly, Bacon-Abdelmoteleb, Paige, Brown, James L., 2018.
“Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State
Highway Safety Offices, Ninth Edition.” DOT HS 812 478. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
Spielberger, Charles D., Sydeman, Sumner J., 1994. State-trait anxiety inventory and
state-trait anger expression inventory. The Use of Psychological Testing for
Treatment Planning and Outcome Assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc,
Hillsdale, NJ, US, pp. 292–321.
US Department of Transportation, 2016. “2016 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview.”
DOT HS 812 456.
World Health Organization, 2019. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018. S.l. WORLD
HEALTH ORGANIZATION.