Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Dwight A. Hennessy
Dept. of Psychology
&
David L. Wiesenthal
Dept. of Psychology
York University
Note: This manuscript appears in Violence and Victims so plagiarism will be fruitless. This is used
Abstract
The present study examined the influence of driver age and vengeance on mild aggression among
drivers with at least five years experience. Mild aggression decreased with age among low
vengeance drivers and changed little across age groups among moderately vengeful drivers.
However, mild driver aggression actually increased with age among highly vengeful drivers.
Results are interpreted in terms of the aggressive nature of an enduring vengeful attitude.
DRIVING VENGEANCE 3
According to Stuckless and Goranson (1992), vengeance can be a strong motivation for
aggressive and violent behavior. Vengeance has been linked to a variety of destructive behaviors,
including homicide (Daly & Wilson, 1988), vandalism (Wiesenthal, 1990), workplace aggression
(Douglass & Martinko, 2001), arson (Bradford & Dimock, 1986), violent crime (Gibson &
Goranson, 1996), and suicide (Tanaka, 2001). McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, and Johnson
(2001) have noted that revenge motivated aggression is stimulated by a variety of goals, including
getting even, teaching the victim a lesson, and "saving face” to establish respect. Further, there is
often a belief that vengeful aggression may ultimately deter future unfair treatment from the victim
or other observers and increase personal self worth (Cota-McKinley, Woody, & Bell, 2001;
Wilmot & Hocker, 2001). Such vengeful tendencies can cultivate over time as perceptions of
injustice accumulate, which can lead to a vengeful disposition and an increased tendency toward
destructive retaliatory behavior (Gibson & Wiesenthal, 1996; Holbrook, 1997; McCullough et al.,
2001). According to McCullough et al. (2001), vengeful individuals typically ruminate longer over
perceived infractions, are less forgiving, and demonstrate prolonged motivation to harm perceived
transgressors.
Vengeance has been recently linked to roadway aggression and violence in both
hypothetical and actual driving situations (Gibson & Wiesenthal, 1996; Hennessy & Wiesenthal,
2001a; in press). Wiesenthal, Hennessy and Gibson (2000) have defined driving vengeance as the
wish or desire to get even with another within the driving environment in response to a perceived
injustice or infraction. For some drivers, this desire is fulfilled through acts of personal aggression
and violence (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001a; in press). Within the driving environment,
danger from another driver (Gibson & Wiesenthal, 1996; Gulian, Debney, Glendon, Davies, &
Matthews, 1989; Hennessy, 1999; Matthews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991; McGarva & Steiner, 2000;
Wiesenthal et al., 2000). Seclusion and lack of communication between drivers typically prohibits
personal explanations for negative driving behaviors. As a result, those who do not see a clear
environmental explanation to actions that are perceived as aversive and potentially harmful, may
view those actions as purposeful and personal (Ohbuchi & Kambara, 1985; Quigley & Tedeschi,
1989), leading to reduced inhibitions against harming the transgressor (Geen & Stonner, 1973).
However, revenge motivated aggression is often much more harsh and persistent than the
precipitating action, possibly in an attempt to exert power and control over the perceived violator
and to authoritatively bring the dispute to a conclusion (Black, 1983; Cramerus, 1990; Daly &
Wilson, 1988; Elster, 1990; Kim & Smith, 1993; Lane, Hull, & Foehrenbach, 1991; Stuckless &
Goranson, 1992). Despite its destructive nature, vengeful individuals typically feel warranted in
harming others they believe are deserving of punishment or correction for inappropriate behavior,
because it provides a sense of “justice” (Baumeister, 1997; Bies & Tripp, 2001; Daly & Wilson,
Previous research has found that age is negatively related to both mild driver aggression
and vengeance (Hauber, 1980; Stuckless & Goranson, 1992; Wiesenthal & Hennessy, 1999;
Wiesenthal et al., 2000). One possible explanation may be that young drivers exert greater effort
in defending their personal space, especially given that the vehicle is often their most valuable
possession (Hauber, 1980). As a result, younger drivers may be more likely to perceive innocuous
actions of other drivers as intentional infractions, thus enhancing the perceived need for defensive
aggression and punishment of violators. In the absence of police, young drivers may feel that they
alone are left to take action to protect themselves in the presence of threat of injustice.
DRIVING VENGEANCE 5
Considering that younger drivers, particularly males, have also been found more likely to take
risks and drive in a dangerous manner (Guppy, 1993; Jonah, Thiessen, & Vincent, 1997; Stradling
& Meadows, 2000; Stradling, Meadows, & Beatty, 2000), punishment of “violators” may take the
form of overt aggression. In contrast, as drivers age and gain experience, they typically achieve a
greater understanding of the causes of anger and a degree of behavioral control (Geen, 1990), and
also develop a greater accuracy in the perception of risks involved in hazardous driving patterns
(Cvetkovich & Earle, 1990; Rumar, 1990), which could lead to decreased aggressive responses
(Geen, 1990).
Given the similar negative relationship of age with both vengeance and aggression,
Hennessy and Wiesenthal (in press) have noted that an over sampling of younger drivers may
serve to inflate reported links between vengeance and mild driver aggression. As a result, the
present study was designed to examine this link across an older driving sample, with at least five
years driving experience. It was predicted that mild driver aggression would decline with age, but
most prominently among low vengeance drivers. High vengeful drivers would demonstrate little
Method
Participants
Participants (43 female and 47 males) were recruited, through posted signs and referrals,
from the student and employee populations of York University, and from the surrounding business
community of Metropolitan Toronto. A minimum of five years driving experience was required
with an average of 15.45 years experience (M = 15.04 years for females and M = 15.89 years for
males). The age range was 21-67 years, with an average of 32.88 years (M = 32.86 years for
females and M = 32.89 years for males). The average daily driving time ranged from 15 to 480
DRIVING VENGEANCE 6
minutes per day, with an average of 98.82 minutes per day (M = 106.30 minutes for females and
Materials
The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ) (Wiesenthal et al., 2000) was developed to
evaluate a general susceptibility toward a vengeful driving attitude. Items represent common
driving situations in which a participant might be irritated, or feel unjustly treated by another
driver. Participants were required to select a likely response from a series of four options
involving decreasing levels of severity. Response alternatives ranged from displays of extreme
aggression (e.g., force the other vehicle off the road) to doing nothing. Scoring consisted of
assigning a rank to each item, based on the level of severity involved in the chosen response
option. The first, and most extreme, option was assigned a rank of 4, while subsequent options,
which decreased in their level of severity, were assigned ranks of 3, 2, and 1 respectively. All
items also included an open ended response option, to which participants could indicate an
alternate response to those provided. All alternate responses were independently rated as to their
severity in relation to the options provided for that item. For example, those deemed equivalent
to the most extreme option for that item were given a rank of 4, while those considered equivalent
to doing nothing were given a rank of 1. A vengeance score was calculated as the sum of all
individual item ratings with higher scores indicating a more vengeful driving attitude. The DVQ
has been found to represent a reliable measure of vengeful driving attitudes (alpha = 0.83), and to
predict the likelihood of mild driver aggression and violence (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001a;
The Self Report Driver Aggression Questionnaire was developed to evaluate the
likelihood of engaging in mild driver aggression, defined as intentionally harmful acts directed
DRIVING VENGEANCE 7
toward others in the traffic environment (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997, 1999, 2001b). The five
aggressive items included horn honking out of frustration, purposeful tailgating, swearing/yelling,
using hand gestures, and flashing high beams out of frustration. Responses ranged from 0 = “not
at all” to 5 = “nearly all the time”, indicating how frequently they generally engage in each
behavior when driving. An aggregate driver aggression score was calculated as the mean
response to the five individual items. Higher scores indicated a greater likelihood of engaging in
mild aggressive driving behaviors. Hennessy (2000) found that self reported driver aggression
scores correlated highly with actual acts of mild aggression occurring in actual traffic conditions
(r = .643).
Procedure
Due to prior concerns that previous research may have overestimated the relationship
between mild driver aggression and driving vengeance (see Hennessy & Wiesenthal, in press), the
present study selected participants with greater than five years driving experience. All participants
completed the Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ) and Self Report Driver Aggression
questionnaire in private. Due to the sensitive nature of the present driving measures, all
questionnaires were completed anonymously and instructions were designed to emphasize that all
Results
Intercorrelations, means, standard deviations and alpha reliabilities for age, the Driving
Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ) and Self Report Driver Aggression questionnaire appear in Table
1.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
A hierarchical entry stepwise regression was used to determine predictors of mild driver
aggression. The main effect predictors included driving vengeance, driver age and gender. All
main effects were entered forcibly and all interaction terms were added stepwise on the first run.
Any significant interactions were then entered forcibly on the second run, along with their
constituent main effects. All other significant main effects (i.e. those not part of interaction
effects) were added stepwise on the second run. However, in the event that no interactions were
found significant on the first run, significant main effects were entered forcibly on the second run.
This strategy has been reported elsewhere (e.g. Kohn, Gurevich, Pickering, & Macdonald, 1994;
Kohn & Macdonald, 1992). Table 2 contains the final model for mild driver aggression.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Mild driver aggression was predicted by the main effect of age and the interaction of age
X vengeance (R2 = 0.35, F(3,86) = 15.45, p=.005). While the main effect of age demonstrated a
negative relationship with mild aggression, the form of its interaction with vengeance was not as
expected. As can be seen in Figure 1, the likelihood of mild aggression decreased with age only
DRIVING VENGEANCE 9
among low vengeance drivers. Among moderately vengeful drivers, there was little change in
mild aggression with age, however highly vengeful drivers reported an increase in mild driver
To generate Figure 1, the regression equation in Table 2 was applied to 27 idealized cases
generated as follows: driver age at 5 year intervals in the range of 20 to 60 with a vengeance
score 1 SD below the mean, at the mean, or 1 SD above the mean (representing low medium and
high vengeance respectively). The 27 idealized cases thus represent 9 levels of age X 3 levels of
driving vengeance.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Previous research has typically found that age is negatively related to both aggression and
vengeance (Cota-McKinley et al., 2001; Daly & Wilson, 1988; Gibson & Wiesenthal, 1996; Harris
& Knight-Bohnhoff, 1996; Hauber, 1980; Lindeman, Harakka, & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 1997;
Pettiway, 1987; McConatha, Leone, & Armstrong, 1997; Stuckless & Goranson, 1992), while
driving vengeance has been linked to elevated driver aggression (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001a;
Wiesenthal et al., 2000). Consequently it was predicted that mild driver aggression would
decrease with age, but less so among those high in driving vengeance. However, the present
study demonstrated that mild aggression declined only among low vengeance drivers. Moderately
vengeful drivers showed little change in aggression with age, but unexpectedly, mild driver
The majority of drivers do not possess a highly vengeful attitude, and most drivers appear
DRIVING VENGEANCE 10
to moderate aggressive behavior as they gain experience (Hennessy, 2000; Hennessy &
Wiesenthal, 2001a; Wiesenthal et al., 2000). However, a small subsample of drivers do maintain
dangerous driving behaviors and attitudes throughout life (Hennessy, 2000; Jonah et al., 1997;
Labiale, 1988). For most, greater driving experience leads to a fuller understanding of the
potential threat to the self and others as a result of extreme or dangerous actions, which typically
contributes to reduced aggression tendencies and vengeful attitudes (Cvetkovich & Earle, 1990;
Rumar, 1990). It is possible that those older drivers that continue to hold a highly vengeful
driving attitude represent a small but extreme, or zealous, group of drivers in which vengeful
aggression has become a habitual or routine problem solving strategy. Given that vengeful
individuals are more prone to perceive minor infractions as unjust treatment (Stuckless &
Goranson, 1992; Wiesenthal et al., 2000), older vengeful drivers may have had greater experience
drivers, which would increase their tendency toward retaliatory aggression. These negative
experiences would serve to concurrently maintain their vengeful attitude and increase the
In a similar respect, repeated use of vengeful aggression to deal with perceived injustice
may simply reinforce feelings of power and control, further promoting its use. Successful use of
such aggression without punishment or negative repercussion among older vengeful drivers, due
to their increased experience, may elevate its position within their typical driving behavior
repertoire. According to Walker and Richardson (1998), aggression among older individuals is
typically more indirect, representing less personal threat. The fact that the automobile provides all
drivers with a degree of anonymity, an easy means of escape from danger, and a powerful weapon
(Marsh & Collett, 1987; Novaco, 1991) may help to sustain aggressive tendencies among older
DRIVING VENGEANCE 11
drivers that hold a highly vengeful attitude. Consequently, they may be more inclined to view
aggression as a safe and highly functional means of protecting themselves against injustice from
other drivers.
Future Directions
The present study highlights the importance of the interaction of personal, social, and
experiential factors in understanding problem driving behavior. Specifically, while most drivers
attitude can maintain aggression even among older drivers. However, further research is needed
to more fully understand the experiential processes, including social and personal incentives,
which might lead drivers to maintain such destructive attitudes and personality characteristics.
Future research should also investigate a wider range of aggressive behaviors. The present study
focused on five major forms of mild aggression, but did not include more extreme actions that
might be more prevalent among younger drivers, such as roadside confrontations (see Hennessy,
2000). The actions that were included in the Aggression Questionnaire involve situations in which
the participants would have little contact with the victim, and consequently less personal risk of
danger or harm. Further, the traffic environment offers unique contextual features, such as
prolonged anonymity, ease of escape, and heightened power (Ellison, Govern, Petri, & Figler,
1995; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999; March & Collett, 1987; Novaco, 1991) that may alter
aggressive responses among older vengeful drivers. Future research is needed to understand the
generalizability of this effect across different situations and contexts. Finally, further
and Perry (1992), aggression involves affective and cognitive characteristics, in addition to
observable actions. Given that the present study did not measure intentions or motivations for
DRIVING VENGEANCE 12
driver aggression, there was no evidence that such actions were, in fact, intended to harm others.
Although recent research has begun to highlight the impact of unique state and trait motivations
on specific types of aggression, such as anger (Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994), hostility
(Beirness, 1993), control orientation, pressure regulation, and ego defensiveness (Neighbors,
Vietor, & Knee, 2002), greater understanding of such factors is still needed in order to ultimately
References
Bierness, D. J. (1993). Do we really drive as we live? The role of personality factors in road
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2001). A passion for justice: The rationality and morality of revenge.
In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (vol. 2) (pp.
Black, D. (1983). Crime as social control. American Sociological Review, 48, 34-45.
Bradford, J., & Dimock, J. (1986). A comparative study of adolescents and adults who willfully
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and
Cota-McKinley, A. L., Woody, W. D., & Bell, P. A. (2001). Vengeance: Effects of gender, age,
Cvetkovich, G., & Earle, T. C. (1990). Decision making and risk taking of young drivers:
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a driving anger
Douglass, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the
Ellison, P. A., Govern, J. M., Petri, H. J., & Figler, M. H. (1995). Anonymity and aggressive
DRIVING VENGEANCE 14
driving behavior: A field study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 265-272.
Geen, R. G., & Stonner, D. (1973). Context effects in observed violence. Journal of Personality
Gibson, P. M., & Goranson, R. (1996). Vengeful attitudes and the use of force in criminal
Gibson, P. M., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1996). The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire: The
Programe Report Series, 54, LaMarsh Research Programme on Violence and Conflict
Gulian, E., Debney, L. M., Glendon, A. I., Davies, D. R., & Matthews, G. (1989). Coping with
driver stress. In F. McGuigan, W. E. Sime, & J. M. Wallace (Eds.), Stress and tension
bias, age, and reported behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 25, 375-382.
Hauber, A. R. (1980). The social psychology of driving behavior and the traffic environment:
29, 461-474.
Hennessy, D. A. (2000). The interaction of person and situation within the driving environment:
Daily hassles, traffic congestion, driver stress, aggression, vengeance and past
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1997). The relationship between traffic congestion, driver
stress, and direct versus indirect coping behaviors. Ergonomics, 40, 348-361.
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1999). Traffic congestion, driver stress, and driver
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2001b). Gender, driver aggression, and driver violence:
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (in press). The relationship between driver aggression,
81, 623-626.
Jonah, B. A., Thiessen, R., & Vincent, A. (1997). Sensation seeking, risky driving and
conference X; June 8-11 (pp. 1-10). Ryerson Polytechnic University: Toronto, Canada.
Kim, S. H., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Revenge and conflict escalation. Negotiation Journal, 9,
37-43.
DRIVING VENGEANCE 16
Kohn, P. M., Gurevich, M., Pickering, D. I., & Macdonald, J. E. (1994). Alexithymia, reactivity,
and the adverse impact of hassles based stress. Personality and Individual Differences,
16, 805-812.
Kohn, P. M., & Macdonald, J. E. (1992). Hassles, anxiety, and negative well-being. Anxiety,
Road user behaviour: Theory and research (pp. 255-259). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Lane, R. C., Hull J. W., & Foehrenbach, L. M. (1991). The addiction to negativity.
Lindeman, M., Harakka, T., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (1997). Age and gender differences in
Marsh, P., & Collett, P. (1987). The car as a weapon. Et Cetera, 44, 146-151.
Matthews, G., Dorn, L., & Glendon, A. I. (1991). Personality correlates of driver stress.
McConatha, J. T., Leone, F. M., & Armstrong, J. M. (1997). Emotional control in adulthood.
McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness:
Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the big five. Personality and
McGarva, A. R., & Steiner, M. (2000). Provoked driver aggression and status: A field study.
Neighbors, C., Vietor, N., & Knee, R. (2002). A motivational model of driving anger and
Ohbuchi, K., & Kambara, T. (1985). Attacker’s intent and awareness of outcome, impression
Pettiway, L. E. (1987). Arson for revenge: The role of environmental situation, age, sex, and
Quigley, B., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1989). Does self defense apply to women? Effects of sex and
4, 109-118.
Rumar, K. (1990). The basic driver error: Late detection. Ergonomics, 33, 1281-1290.
Stradling, S. G., & Meadows, M. L. (2000). Highway code and aggressive violations in UK
Stradling, S., Meadows, M., & Beatty, S. (2000). Characteristics of speeding, violating and
Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The Vengeance Scale: Development of a measure of
Tanaka, T. (2001). The identity formation of the victim of “shunning”. School Psychology
Walker, S., & Richardson, D. R. (1998). Aggression strategies among older adults: Delivered
Wiesenthal, D. L., & Hennessy, D. A. (1999). Driver stress, aggression, and vengeance: What is
road rage? Proceedings of the Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference XI.
Wiesenthal, D. L., Hennessy, D. A., & Gibson, P. (2000). The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire
(DVQ): The development of a scale to measure deviant drivers' attitudes. Violence and
Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw Hill.
DRIVING VENGEANCE 19
Table 1
Intercorrelations, Means, Standard Deviations and Alpha Reliabilities for Self Report Driver
1 2 3
1. Aggression — — —
2. Vengeance .551* —
—
3. Age -.167 -.387*
—
Table 2
Predictor b t
Age X Vengeance .0019 2.41 *
Intercept 1.251
R2 = 0.350, F(3,86) = 15.45, p=.005
Vengeance