Chris S Dula1, E Scott Geller. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, 202 Psychology Building, Memphis, TN 38152, USA. cdula@memphis.edu
Abstract
PROBLEM: Researchers agree that a consistent definition for aggressive driving is lacking. Such definitional ambiguity in the literature impedes the accumulation of accurate and precise information, and prevents researchers from communicating clearly about findings and implications for future research directions. This dramatically slows progress in understanding the causes and maintenance factors of aggressive driving. SUMMARY: This article critiques prevailing definitions of driver aggression and generates a definition that, if used consistently, can improve the utility of future research. Pertinent driving behaviors have been variably labeled in the literature as risky, aggressive, or road rage. The authors suggest that the term "road rage" be eliminated from research because it has been used inconsistently and has little probability of being clarified and applied consistently. Instead, driving behaviors that endanger or have the potential to endanger others should be considered as lying on a behavioral spectrum of dangerous driving. Three dimensions of dangerous driving are delineated: (a). intentional acts of aggression toward others, (b). negative emotions experienced while driving, and (c). risk-taking. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The adoption of a standardized definition for aggressive driving should spark researchers to use more explicit operational definitions that are consistent with theoretical foundations. The use of consistent and unambiguous operational definitions will increase the precision of measurement in research and enhance authors' ability to communicate clearly about findings and conclusions. As this occurs over time, industry will reap benefits from more carefully conducted research. Such benefits may include the development of more valid and reliable means of selecting safe professional drivers, conducting accurate risk assessments, and creating preventative and remedial dangerous driving safety programs.
PROBLEM: Researchers agree that a consistent definition for aggressive driving is lacking. Such definitional ambiguity in the literature impedes the accumulation of accurate and precise information, and prevents researchers from communicating clearly about findings and implications for future research directions. This dramatically slows progress in understanding the causes and maintenance factors of aggressive driving. SUMMARY: This article critiques prevailing definitions of driver aggression and generates a definition that, if used consistently, can improve the utility of future research. Pertinent driving behaviors have been variably labeled in the literature as risky, aggressive, or road rage. The authors suggest that the term "road rage" be eliminated from research because it has been used inconsistently and has little probability of being clarified and applied consistently. Instead, driving behaviors that endanger or have the potential to endanger others should be considered as lying on a behavioral spectrum of dangerous driving. Three dimensions of dangerous driving are delineated: (a). intentional acts of aggression toward others, (b). negative emotions experienced while driving, and (c). risk-taking. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The adoption of a standardized definition for aggressive driving should spark researchers to use more explicit operational definitions that are consistent with theoretical foundations. The use of consistent and unambiguous operational definitions will increase the precision of measurement in research and enhance authors' ability to communicate clearly about findings and conclusions. As this occurs over time, industry will reap benefits from more carefully conducted research. Such benefits may include the development of more valid and reliable means of selecting safe professional drivers, conducting accurate risk assessments, and creating preventative and remedial dangerous driving safety programs.