personality traits predictors of …international journal of traffic and transportation psychology...

International Journal of Traffic and Transportation Psychology

Volume 3, ISSUE 2 / 2015 – www.ijttp.ro

PERSONALITY TRAITS PREDICTORS OF AGGRESSIVE

DRIVING BEHAVIOR. A REPLICATIVE STUDY

VLADA DOGOTER, TEODOR MIHĂILĂ

University of Bucharest, Department of Psychology

Abstract

Anger in traffic is a disturbing factor influencing driving style, Galovski, Malta and

Blanchard (2006) are those who have done various research on anger manifested in traffic.

Harnaveanu (2013) speaks of anger as that trait that predicts a state of anger, anger as a

trait being a good predictor. Relationship between personality and aggressive driving it is

known very well. The objective of this study is is to investigate the relationship between

personality and aggressive driving behavior and to investigate the gender differences in the

manifestation of driving aggression. Participants in this research are in number of 48

persons, with age between 20 and 40 age, 22 female and 26 male, from urban areas. To

measure aggressive driving was used AVIS, and to measure personality was used Big Five

Markers IPIP. The results indicated that does not exist a significant correlation between

personality and aggressive driving, and personality is not a significant predictor of

aggressive driving, and does not exist differences between male and female.

Cuvinte cheie: personalitate, agresivitate, predictor, relatie

Keywords: personality, aggression, predictor, relation

1. INTRODUCTION

It is known that personal characteristics such as experience, skills (Lim and

Dewar, 1989), sex (Briem and Hedman, 1995) and personality (Elander & French,

1993) could affect driving performance, including driving safety. Thus, it is

understood that the behavior of drivers in traffic one must be vigilant. Chraif,

Aniței, Burtăverde & Mihăilă (2015) conducted a study regarding the link between

personality, aggressive driving, and risky driving outcomes at Romanian amateur

drivers and Chraif, Aniței, Dumitru, Burtăverde & Mihăilă, (2015) were interested

to Develope an english version of the aggressive driving behavior test.

Drivers tend to violate traffic rules, as showed by Mesken, Haganzieker,

Rothengatter & Waard (2007) negative emotions can alter perceptions of the

48

drivers on traffic stimuli, but also to other drivers and their actions, thereby leading

to risky behaviors in traffic.

Several studies carried out on the drivers and their driving style of the car led

to the confirmation of certain hypotheses quite important in terms of transport

psychology. Shahar (2009) shows us the negative impact of anxiety on errors and

attention .Chraif and Anitei (2013) shows us in his book „The Psychology of

Transport” some models of aggression, also Chraif (2013) conducted a study about

the measurement of influence of noise on the attention.

Deffenbacher & Colab (2003), quoted by Deffenbacher, White and Lync

(2004) performed a study that demonstrates that drivers who experience high levels

of anger, compared to those with low levels of anger, engages in overcoming

excessive speed. Bergeron (2002 cited Berdoulat, Vavassori, and Sastre, 2013)

proposes a model for analyzing the behavior of aggressive driving.

It was underlined the relationship between unsafe driving and stress, its

importance in crash involvment Legarde and Colab(2004), Legarde and

Colab(2003) cited by Rowden, Matthews and Biggs (2011).

It is commonly recognized that human factors may contribute to involvement

in traffic accidents (Grayson and Maycock, 1988). Based on a study based on 2041

traffic accidents, Sabey and Taylor (1980) concluded that human factors have

contributed 95% of accidents. In particular, driving behavior has been identified as

the most important of these factors. Consequently, a variety of studies have been

conducted in order to identify variables that can influence risk-taking and

involvement in traffic, which means a behavior that indicates the possibility a

negative result in health for both the individual and for others.

Personality traits can be defined as dimensions of individual differences in

order to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings and behavior (McCrae and

Costa, 1990). Personality traits are considerated, compared with attitudes, more

stable and general.

Like most psychologists, we will define the human aggression as a behavior

directed toward another person, with the intention (immediately) to cause damage.

The person causing the act of aggression expects a confirmation of the success of

his actions, and the victim's motivation that will respond to the action (Baron and

Richardson, 1994; Berkowitz, 1993; Bushman and Anderson, 2001).

49

Studies done on college students showed that they give performance in terms

of aggression, especially in males. Bettencourt and Miller (1996) found sex

differences disappear when it comes to a great act of aggression.

Research in recent decades have suggested a variety of causes, increases and

decreases in violence, age tendencies in violence, and differences in violence

between societies and gender. For example, the increased accessibility of weapons

global warming, various cultural norms about violence (Nisbett and Cohen, 1996),

and widespread exposure in the media of entertainment violent (Bushman and

Anderson, 2001) all of them can contribute to high levels of violence and

aggression in modern societies, and more.

2. OBJECTIVE AND HYPOTHESES

2.1. OBJECTIVE

The objectives of the study are:

First objective of the study is to investigate the relationship between

drivers and aggressive driving behavior.

The second objective of the study is to investigate the gender

differences in the manifestation of driving aggression.

2.2. HYPOTHESES

H1. There is a statistically significant correlation between personality and

aggressive driving behavior.

H2. There is a statistically significant gender differences on emotional

stability.

H3. There is a statistically significant gender differences on extraversion.

H4. There is a statistically significant gender differences on openness to

experience.

H5. There is a statistically significant gender differences on agreeableness.

H6. There is a statistically significant gender differences on

conscientiousness.

H7. There is a statistically significant gender differences instrumental

aggression and acting out.

H8. There is a statistically significant gender differences on anger.

50

H9. There is a statistically significant gender differences on enjoyment of

violence.

H10. Emotional stability, extraversion and agreeableness are predictors for

instrumental aggression and acting out.


acting out.


enjoyment of violence.

3. METHOD

3.1. PARTICIPANTS

Participants in this research are in number of 48 persons, with age between 20

and 40 age, 22 female and 26 male, from urban areas.

3.2. INSTRUMENTS

Aggressive driving behaviour test (AVIS) from Vienna Tests System (2012)

is an instrument to measuring aggressive driving behavior and it is designed by

Herzberg. The standard form of this questionnaire contains 65 items. This

instrument contain six factors as follows: instrumental aggression (18 items), anger

(11 items), enjoyment of violence (9 items) , negativism (6 items) , acting out (11

items), social desirability (9 items). Each item has eight response options (1-very

often, 8- frequently).The Cronbach Alpha coefficient reported by author is .96.

IPIP Big Five Markers (BFM)

The five factors of personality were assessed with IPIP questionnaire which

consists of 50 items made by Goldberg (1992) Each factor contain 10 items, each

items with 5 response options (1= very inaccurate; 5= very accurate). IPIP

questionnaire has the following structure and Cronbach Alpha coefficient:

Emotional Stability (alpha= .86), Neuroticism (alpha= .87). Openness to

experience ( alpha= .84), Agreeableness (alpha = .82), Conscientiousness (alpha =

.79).

3.3. PROCEDURE

51

Questionnaires occurred in the leisure of participants, letting them complete

without time pressure. Participants has been informed on the objective of the study.

Before, they completed an informed consent form.

3.4. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Independent variables: personality (S, E, O, A, C and gender)

Dependent variable: aggression (instrumental aggression, acting out, anger

and enjoyment of violence)

4. RESULTS

Table 1 -Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic

Stability 48 20.00 42.00 29.5000 4.89463

Extroversion 48 17.00 50.00 33.9583 7.62682 Openness 48 24.00 50.00 35.8750 6.40354

Agreeability 48 26.00 50.00 37.6458 7.07254

Consciousness 48 26.00 50.00 36.1875 6.13208 Instrumental and acting out 48 18.00 117.00 52.4583 24.96206

Anger 48 9.00 65.00 34.5208 14.17668

Enjoyment 48 8.00 36.00 13.9583 6.88186 Valid N (listwise) 48

In table 1, can be observed the descriptive statistics of variables of the study:

Stability, Extroversion, Openness, Agreeability, Consciousness, Instrumental and

acting out, Anger and Enjoyment.

Table 2 Group Statistics and t test

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean t

Stability F 22 29.1818 4.40386 .93891 -.441

M 26 29.7692 5.34646 1.04853

Extroversion F 22 33.5000 8.31379 1.77251 -.37 M 26 34.3462 7.13830 1.39994

Openness F 22 35.3636 6.34369 1.35248 -.50

M 26 36.3077 6.54687 1.28395 Agreeability F 22 36.8182 7.18886 1.53267 -.74

M 26 38.3462 7.03672 1.38001

Consciousness F 22 34.4545 5.78773 1.23395 .07 M 26 37.6538 6.13803 1.20377

Instrumental and acting

out

F 22 46.9545 23.66729 5.04588 .16

M 26 57.1154 25.52854 5.00656 Anger F 22 34.7273 14.00402 2.98567 .92

M 26 34.3462 14.59573 2.86246

Enjoyment F 22 13.0455 6.06691 1.29347 .40

52

M 26 14.7308 7.53423 1.47758

In table 2, where t test was applied for independent samples, can be observed,

there was no statistical differences between male and female participants (p>.05).

Table 3 Model Summary

Model

R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change F Change df1 df2

Sig. F

Change

1 .177a .031 -.035 25.38999 .031 .476 3 44 .700

a. Predictors: (Constant), Agreeability, Stability, Extroversion

Table 4 -ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 921.249 3 307.083 .476 .700a

Residual 28364.668 44 644.652

Total 29285.917 47


b. Dependent Variable: Instrumental Aggressiveness and Acting out

In table 4 can be seen the Fisher test and signification (p>.05) regarding the

Dependent Variable Instrumental Aggressiveness and Acting out.

Table 5 Coefficients

Model Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 73.580 31.219 2.357 .023

Stability -.773 .793 -.152 -.974 .335

Extroversion -.185 .583 -.056 -.317 .753 Agreeability .211 .616 .060 .343 .733

a. Dependent Variable: Instrumental Aggressiveness and Acting out

In table 5 can be seen the beta coefficients and the statistically signification

for the dependent variable Instrumental Aggressiveness and Acting out.

In the tables above where we used a linear regression model is seen the fact

that personality traits (emotional stability, extraversion and agreeableness) do not

are significant predictors of instrumental aggression and acting out the fisher test

F(3.44)= .47; p>005).


Model

R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change F Change df1 df2

Sig. F

Change

1 .126a .016 -.051 14.53597 .016 .235 3 44 .871


53

In table 6 can be seen the values for R and R Square for the independent

variables Agreeability, Stability, Extroversion.

Table 7 ANOVAb


1 Regression 149.029 3 49.676 .235 .871a

Residual 9296.950 44 211.294

Total 9445.979 47


b. Dependent Variable: Anger


Dependent Variable Anger.

Table 8 Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients


1 (Constant) 41.670 17.873 2.331 .024 Stability -.236 .454 -.082 -.521 .605

Extroversion -.149 .334 -.080 -.446 .658

Agreeability .130 .353 .065 .368 .715

a. Dependent Variable: Anger



are significant predictors of anger F(3.44)= .23; p>.05).


Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square Change

F Change df1 df2 Sig. F

Change

1 .286a .082 .019 6.81654 .082 1.302 3 44 .286


In table 9 can be seen the values for R and R Square for the independent

variables Agreeability, Stability, Extroversion related to the criteria Enjoyment.

Table 10 ANOVAb


1 Regression 181.448 3 60.483 1.302 .286a Residual 2044.469 44 46.465

Total 2225.917 47

a. Predictors: (Constant), Agreeability, Stability, Extroversion b. Dependent Variable: Enjoyment


Dependent Variable Enjoyment.

Table 11 Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients


1 (Constant) 18.691 8.382 2.230 .031

54

Stability -.052 .213 -.037 -.246 .807 Extroversion -.281 .156 -.312 -1.798 .079

Agreeability .169 .165 .174 1.023 .312

a. Dependent Variable: Enjoyment



are significant predictors of enjoyment of violence (F(3.44)= 1.3; p>.05).

Table 12 Correlations

Stability Extroversion Openness Agreeability

Stability Pearson Correlation 1 .214 .039 -.077 Sig. (2-tailed) .144 .794 .602

N 48 48 48 48

Extroversion Pearson Correlation .214 1 .632** .492** Sig. (2-tailed) .144 .000 .000

N 48 48 48 48

Openness Pearson Correlation .039 .632** 1 .724** Sig. (2-tailed) .794 .000 .000

N 48 48 48 48

Agreeability Pearson Correlation -.077 .492** .724** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .602 .000 .000

N 48 48 48 48

Consciousness Pearson Correlation .046 .402** .568** .700** Sig. (2-tailed) .754 .005 .000 .000

N 48 48 48 48

Instrumental and acting out Pearson Correlation -.168 -.059 -.075 .044 Sig. (2-tailed) .253 .688 .611 .768

N 48 48 48 48

Anger Pearson Correlation -.104 -.066 .050 .032 Sig. (2-tailed) .483 .657 .736 .831

N 48 48 48 48

Enjoyment Pearson Correlation -.117 -.234 -.107 .023 Sig. (2-tailed) .426 .109 .468 .875

N 48 48 48 48

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

In the tables 11, 12, 13 and 14 there are presented the bivariate correlations

between the variables: Stability, Extroversion, Openness, Agreeability,

Consciousness, Instrumental and acting out, Anger and Enjoyment.


Consciousness Instrumental and acting out

Stability Pearson Correlation .046 -.168

Sig. (2-tailed) .754 .253 N 48 48

Extroversion Pearson Correlation .402** -.059

Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .688

N 48 48

Openness Pearson Correlation .568** -.075

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .611 N 48 48

55

Agreeability Pearson Correlation .700** .044 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .768

N 48 48

Consciousness Pearson Correlation 1 -.080 Sig. (2-tailed) .587

N 48 48

Instrumental and acting out Pearson Correlation -.080 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .587

N 48 48

Anger Pearson Correlation .055 .629** Sig. (2-tailed) .708 .000

N 48 48

Enjoyment Pearson Correlation .100 .493** Sig. (2-tailed) .499 .000

N 48 48



Anger Enjoyment

Stability Pearson Correlation -.104 -.117

Sig. (2-tailed) .483 .426 N 48 48

Extroversion Pearson Correlation -.066 -.234

Sig. (2-tailed) .657 .109 N 48 48

Openness Pearson Correlation .050 -.107

Sig. (2-tailed) .736 .468 N 48 48

Agreeability Pearson Correlation .032 .023

Sig. (2-tailed) .831 .875 N 48 48

Consciousness Pearson Correlation .055 .100

Sig. (2-tailed) .708 .499 N 48 48

Instrumental and acting out Pearson Correlation .629** .493**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 48 48

Anger Pearson Correlation 1 .526**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 48 48

Enjoyment Pearson Correlation .526** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 48 48


In the above tables where applied Pearson correlation we see that there is no

statistically significant correlation between personality factors and aggressive

driving factors.

5. CONCLUSIONS

56

Analyzing the responses resulting from statistical calculations, I found that all

of the research hypotheses are rejected, and that the null hypothesis is confirmed. I

tried as much as possible to collect as many subjects for this study, both male and

feminine gender, among them being some drivers with great experience, but also

people who are just starting out.

By the descriptive statistical analysis I noticed that the symetry indicators

values of the distribution are within the normal limits, but when applying the

Kolmogorov Smirnov test, the enjoyment of violence variable wasn’t distributed

normaly (p<0,5). From these results I must conclude that some participants didn’t

respond truthfully at the items, sau they were not paying attention.

Both women and men have obtained similar scores, in this case we have no

significant differences between genders. Women may manifest aggression in the

same measure as men, what matters is the situation that they are put in.

REFERENCES

Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human Aggression, 2e éd.

Berdoulat, E., Vavassori, D., & Sastre, M. T. M. (2013). Driving anger, emotional and

instrumental aggressiveness, and impulsiveness in the prediction of aggressive and

transgressive driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50, 758-767.

Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. Mcgraw-Hill

Book Company.

Bettencourt, B., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of

provocation: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 119(3), 422.

Briem, V., Hedman, L.R., (1995). Behavioural eVects of mobile telephone use during

simulated driving. Ergonomics 38, 2536–2562

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on hostile versus

instrumental aggression dichotomy?. Psychological review, 108(1), 273.

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public:

Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist,56(6-7), 477.

Chraif, M. & Aniţei, M. (2013). Psihologia în transporturi [Transportation

psychology]. Bucureşti: Editura Universitară

Chraif, M. (2013). Influnece of radio noise in attention task among youngsters-a pilot

study, Romanian Journal of Psychology of Romanian Academy, [Revista de psihologie a

Academieie Române], 59 (2), 149-157

Chraif, M., Aniței, M., Burtăverde, V., și Mihăilă, T., (2015). The link between

personality, aggressive driving, and risky driving outcomes- testing a theoretical model.

Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1042500,

Chraif, M., Aniței, M., Dumitru, D., Burtăverde, V., & Mihăilă, T., (2015). Developing

Of An English Version Of The Aggressive Driving Behavior Test (Avis) Improving the

Construct Validity of Aggressive Driving. Current Psychology, DOI: 10.1007/s12144-015-

9353-7.

57

Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality disorders and the five-factor model

of personality. Journal of personality disorders, 4(4), 362-371.

Deffenbacher, J.L., White, G.S., & Lync, R.S. (2004). Evaluation of Two New Scales

Assessing Driving Anger: The Driving Anger Expression Inventory and The Driver’s

Angry Thoughts Questionnare. Journal of Psychopathology Assessment, 26(2).

Elander, J., West, R., French, D.,(1993). Behavioural correlates of individual

differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings.

Psychological Bulletin 113, 279–294

Galovski, T. E., Malta, L. S., Blanchard, E. B. (2006). Road rage:Assessment and

treatment of the angry, aggressive driver. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association

Grayson, G.B., Maycock, G., 1988. From proneness to liability. In: Rothengatter, J.A,

De Bruin, R.(Eds.), Road User Behaviour. Theory and Research. Van Gorcum, Assen, pp.

234–242.

Havârneanu, G. (2013). Psihologia transporturilor. O perspectivă psihosocială

[Transportation psychology. A psycho-social perspective]. Iaşi: Polirom

Lim, C., Dewar, R.,(1989). Driver cognitive ability and traYc accidents. University of

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Mesken, J., Hagenzieker, M., Rothengatter, T., de Waard, D. (2007). Frequency,

determinants, and consequences of different drivers’ emotions: An on-the-road study using

self-reports, (observed) behaviour, and physiology. Transportation Research Part F, 10,

458–475

Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: the psychology of violence in the

south. Westview Press.

Rowden, P., Matthews, G., Watson, B., & Biggs, H. (2011). The relative impact of

work-related stress, life stress and driving environment stress on driving

outcomes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(4), 1332-1340.

Sabey, B. E., & Taylor, H. (1980). The known risks we run: the highway (pp. 43-70).

Springer US.

Shahar, A. (2009). Self-reported driving behaviors as a function of trait

anxiety.Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(2), 241-245.

Vienna Tests System (2012) AVIS, Test Manual

58

REZUMAT

Furia în trafic este un factor perturbator care influențează stilul de condus, Galovski,

Malta și Blanchard (2006) sunt cei care au făcut diverse cercetări privind furie manifestat

în trafic. Harnaveanu (2013) vorbește despre furie ca și trăsătură care prezice o stare de

furie, furie ca o trăsătură a fi un bun predictor.Relationship între personalitate și agresivă

de conducere este cunoscut foarte bine. Obiectivul acestui studiu este este de a investiga

relatia dintre personalitate și comportament de conducere agresiv și pentru a investiga

diferențele de gen în manifestarea de agresiune de conducere. Participanții la această

cercetare sunt în număr de 48 de persoane, cu vârsta între 20 și 40 de vârstă, de sex

feminin de 22 și 26 de sex masculin, din mediul urban. Pentru a măsura de conducere

agresiv a fost folosit AVIS, și pentru a măsura personalitate a fost folosit Big Five Markere

IPIP. Rezultatele au indicat că nu există o corelație semnificativă între personalitate și de

conducere agresiv, și personalitatea nu este un predictor semnificativ de conducere

agresiv, și nu există calcul diferențele dintre bărbați și femei.

personality traits predictors of …international journal of traffic and transportation psychology...

Documents