the influence of public self-consciousness and anger on aggressive driving

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 2116–2126

The influence of public self-consciousness and angeron aggressive driving

Murray Millar *

Department of Psychology University of Nevada, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154, United States

Received 6 March 2007; received in revised form 6 June 2007; accepted 26 June 2007Available online 20 August 2007

Abstract

This study examined how anger interacted with public self-consciousness to influence aggressive driving.It was hypothesized that when people were angry, more aggressive driving behavior would occur when pub-lic self-consciousness was low than when public self-consciousness was high. To test this hypothesis the par-ticipants were required to complete measures of driving anger and public self-consciousness. Thenparticipants gave a retrospective self-report of aggressive driving behavior. Further, participants wererequired to keep a log in which they recorded aggressive driving behavior. The results supported the pre-diction. Public self-consciousness interacted with anger to influence aggression while driving.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aggressive driving; Anger; Public self-consciousness

1. Introduction

Anger while driving an automobile is a common experience. Underwood, Chapman, Wright,and Crundall (1999) reported that over the course of two weeks 85% of drivers became angry

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.037

* Tel.: +1 702 895 0179; fax: +1 702 8950635.E-mail address: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

M. Millar / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 2116–2126 2117

while driving. Similarly Neighbors, Vietor, and Knee (2002) found that drivers reported feelingangry at least every day, and Joint (1995) found that 60% of drivers reported becoming angrywhile driving. Further, anger is more common while driving than other activities (Parkinson,2001). There are a number of situational and personality variables that may account for thesehigh levels of anger. For example, the driving situation may produce frustration because driv-ing is usually a goal directed behavior that on many occasions is blocked (Novaco, Stokols, &Milanesi, 1990). That is, most drivers are attempting to arrive quickly at a destination. Roadconditions and the behavior of other motorists often prevent or block drivers from attainingthis goal. This type of blocked behavior often results in feelings of frustration that produce an-ger (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; Gnepp, 1979; Hennessy & Wiesenthal,1999; Shinar, 1998). In addition, driving is a situation where people are exposed to high levelsof provocation. Neighbors et al. (2002) found that in a 10 day period 24% of drivers reportedmaking rude gestures to other drivers. Further, the driving situation is one of the few situationsin which the behavior of another person can directly and immediately threaten physical wellbeing. This type of provocation reliably produces anger (Bettencourt & Norman, 1996). Be-yond situational variables, a number of personality and individual differences variables relateto the experience of anger while driving. Most notably Deffenbacher and his colleagues havedocumented individual differences in the tendency to become angry while driving (Deffenb-acher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000; Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Yingling,2001).

Even though anger is a common experience while driving, actual aggressive behavior while driv-ing is relatively uncommon (Parker, Lajunen, & Summala, 2002). In retrospective self-reportsonly moderate correlations between anger and aggressive actions have been found (Neighborset al., 2002). The modest relationship between anger and aggressive driving is not surprising. An-ger is not considered a sufficient condition to produce aggression in most of the influential theo-retical explanations of aggression, (e.g., the cognitive-neoassociation theory Berkowitz, 1989,1993), the general aggression model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), and the social informationprocessing model (Huesmann, 1988, 1998). In these theoretical formulations, aggression is theproduct of a complex interaction between anger and both situational and personality variables.Consequently, it seems likely that the amount of aggressive behavior while driving would largelybe dependent on an interaction between the amount of anger experienced and the conditions thatenhance the expression of aggressive behavior. That is, aggressive behaviors while driving will bethe product of interactions between anger and both situational and personality factors that facil-itate the expression of aggression.

A number of situational factors present while driving have been explored. For example, thedriving situation may create feelings of anonymity that increase the likelihood that anger will leadto aggression. Feeling anonymous may cause the driver to perceive that there is a reduced risk ofdetection and punishment from others for behaving aggressively (Lowenstein, 1997; Zimbardo,1969). Ellison, Govern, Petri, and Figler (1995) and Ellison-Potter, Bell, and Deffenbacher(2001) have found evidence that anonymity increases aggression in the driving situation. The driv-ing situation may also increase feelings of invulnerability and personal power. These feelings maymake people believe that they are immune from the consequences of aggressive behavior and con-sequently make them more likely to act aggressively when they become angry (Fineran & Bolen,2006).

2118 M. Millar / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 2116–2126

Less attention has been given to the moderating role of personality variables. This isdespite a wealth of evidence relating a variety of personality variables to aggression (e.g., impul-siveness Stanford, Greve, Boudreaux, & Mathias, 1996), locus of control, sensation seeking,and emotional stability (Dahlen & White, 2006). The purpose of this study is to explorethe moderating role of personality variables. Specifically, this study investigated how theinteraction between anger and public self-consciousness influenced aggressive behavior whiledriving.

2. Public self-consciousness

In the psychological literature, self-consciousness has been characterized as both a state and atrait. Duval and Wicklund (1972) suggest that conscious attention can be directed toward theself or toward the environment. They conceived of self-focused attention as a shifting state thatcould be manipulated by environmental circumstances. That is, a person’s attention shiftsbetween a focus on elements of the external world and a focus on the self. Alternatively, Fenig-stein, Scheier, and Buss (1975) proposed a more stable trait difference in the tendency to attendto aspects of the self. Analysis of their original work prompted them to differentiate betweenprivate and public self-consciousness. Private self-consciousness is the tendency to focus atten-tion upon the inner aspects of oneself such as thoughts, inner feelings, and physical sensations.Public self-consciousness is the tendency to focus attention on the self as a social object. Peoplehigh in public self-consciousness are concerned about what other people think about them andhow they appear to others (Cheek & Briggs, 1982). For example, people high in publicself-consciousness indicate they use clothing and makeup to affect their public image (Miller& Cox, 1982; Solomon & Schopler, 1982) and are more likely to have cosmetic surgery becauseof appearance concerns (Culos-Reed, Brawley, & Martin, 2002). Further, high public self-con-sciousness people place great importance in adhering to societal norms (Doherty & Schlenker,1991; Ybarra & Trafimow, 1998). For example, high public self-conscious people alter theiropinions to make themselves appear socially desirable (Chang, Hau, & Guo, 2001) and controlpublic displays of emotion (Oshimi, 2002).

Public self-consciousness may moderate the relationship between anger and the expressionof aggressive behavior. People high in public self-consciousness are motivated to maintain apositive public image and to adhere to societal norms prohibiting aggressive behavior. Conse-quently, people high in public self-consciousness might be less likely to act aggressively evenwhen they are experiencing anger. Alternatively, people low in public self-consciousness whoare less concerned about public presentation might be more likely to act aggressively whenangered. Consistent with this reasoning Russell (1995) found people low in public self-con-sciousness are more likely to escalate a disturbance into physical aggression. In the presentstudy, it was hypothesized that public self-consciousness and anger would interact. It wasexpected that when people were angry, less aggressive driving behavior would occur when theywere high in public self-consciousness than when they were low in public self-consciousness.Alternatively, when people were not angry low levels of aggressive behavior should occurregardless of the amount of self-consciousness.


3. Method

3.1. Participants

Ninety-seven females and 71 males who were active drivers were recruited from undergraduatesat a large university located in the southwest of the United States. Students were recruited on avoluntary basis and were offered class credit for participating. Participants ranged from 18 to47 years of age with the average age of the sample being 20 years. People between 18 and 24 yearsof age were targeted for recruitment because of their relatively high rates of involvement in trafficaccidents (Williams, 1985). Sixty percent of the participants were of European descent, 22% wereof Hispanic descent, 9% were of African descent, 8% were of Asian descent, and 1% were fromother groups.

3.2. Procedure

The subjects participated in the experimental conditions in groups of two to six people, and thesessions were conducted by both male and female experimenters. When the participants enteredthe experimental room, they were introduced to the experimental procedures and told that thepurpose of the study was to investigate general and specific reactions to a variety of driving behav-iors. Participants were reassured that all their responses would be completely confidential. Theexperimenter then seated the participant at a microcomputer that presented the experimentalmaterials to the participant. Participants were asked to indicate their age, sex, and racial back-ground. Following the demographic measures, the other measures were presented in a random-ized order.

3.2.1. Measures of driving angerParticipants were asked to complete the Driving Anger Scale (Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch,

1994). The Driving Anger Scale (DAS) consists of fourteen situations encountered while drivingthat often lead to anger (e.g., someone is weaving in and out of traffic). The participant is asked toindicate on five-point scales with endpoints of 1 (not at all) and 5 (very much) if this happened toyou how much anger would be provoked. This scale has good inter-item correlations and goodtest-retest reliability (Deffenbacher, 2000). In addition, to the DAS, three nine-point scales withendpoints of 1 (never) and 9 (often) were included to assess the participants’ overall anger whiledriving. On the first scale, participants were asked to indicate how often they felt anger at otherdrivers, on the second scale, participants were asked how often they felt fury at other drivers, andon the third scale, they were asked how often they felt outrage at other drivers. The participants’responses to the three questions were summed to form a single measure with a Cronbach Alpha of.92.

3.2.2. Aggressive driving measureThe aggressive driving measure presented 12 aggressive behaviors that drivers can perform.

These behaviors included physical aggression (e.g., making visible obscene gestures at other driv-ers) and driving behavior (e.g., using your car to make threatening maneuvers), cf., Driving AngerExpression Inventory (Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Swaim, 2002). Participants were asked to


indicate how often they engaged in each of the behaviors on nine-point scales with endpoints of 1(never) and 9 (often). The participants’ responses to the 12 questions asked about aggressive driv-ing were summed to form a single measure with a Cronbach alpha of .88.

3.2.3. Public self-consciousnessTo measure public self-consciousness the participant was asked to complete the public self-con-

sciousness subscale of the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein et al., 1975). Many studies havedemonstrated the reliability of the public self-consciousness subscale (e.g., Fenigstein et al.,1975; Hjelle & Bernard, 1994; McFarland & Sparks, 1985; Nasby, 1989).

3.2.4. Driving logsFollowing the self-report measures, participants were offered additional class credit to keep a

record of their driving experience for the next four days. The participants were asked to fill outa record sheet immediately after each driving trip. On the record sheet, they were asked to indicateon a scale if they had become angry during the trip and to write down how they responded orbehaved during the incident. In an effort to reduce social desirability effects, participants were toldthat when they returned with their logs they would be allowed to enter anonymously their re-sponses on the logs into the computer.

4. Results

The hypothesis that angry participants would engage in less aggressive behavior when they werehigh in public self-consciousness was examined in a three-step hierarchical regression analysis (Ai-ken & West, 1991). In this analysis three regression analyses were performed in which driving an-ger (DAS), public self-consciousness, and the interaction term (driving anger · public self-consciousness) were added into the equation used to predict the aggressive driving measure. As

Table 1Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis examining the ability of the Driving Anger Scale (DAS) and public self-consciousness to predict aggressive driving

Variable b SE b b

Step 1

DAS .78 .08 .61*

Step 2

DAS .77 .08 .60*

Self-consciousness �.63 .16 �.23*

Step 3

DAS 1.19 .12 .94*

Self-consciousness 1.14 .45 .41*

DAS · self-consciousness �.05 .01 �.75*

Note. R2 = .371 for Step 1; DR2 = .05 (p < .01) for Step 2; DR2 = .06. (p < .01) for Step 3.* p < .01.


expected, the addition of the interaction term (driving anger · public self-consciousness) produceda significant increase in prediction over the main effects model (see Table 1). Further, the interac-tion term in the final model was a significant predictor, b = �.75, t = �4.21, p < .001. When thegender of the participant was added as a variable to this analysis, it was not involved in any sig-nificant effects. In addition, when the three-item index of driving anger was used as a substitute forthe DAS in this analysis it produced a similar pattern of results.

To explore the nature of the interaction between driving anger and public self-consciousness,points were plotted at one SD above and one SD below the means on each variable (seeFig. 1). A simple slopes analysis revealed with angry participants (one standard deviation abovethe mean), low public self-consciousness was more associated with aggressive driving than highpublic self-consciousness, b = .64, t = 3.00, p = .003 (see Aiken & West, 1991 for a descriptionof this procedure). Alternatively, with less angry participants the difference between high andlow public self-consciousness disappeared, p > .05.

4.1. Driving logs

Forty-three participants failed to return to the study with their driving logs. The DAS scoresand public self-consciousness scores of these 43 participants were not significantly different(p(s) < 1) from the remaining participants. To create an aggression index from the driving logs,two raters (blind to the participants’ initial responses) independently read the written responsesin the driving logs and rated whether the driver had behaved aggressively. The raters were in-structed that driving aggression is any behavior directed toward the goal of harming another dri-ver. This is an adaptation of Berkowitz’s (1965) standard definition of aggression. According tothis definition, aggressive driving behavior would include physical behaviors directed toward

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Low HighPublic Self-Consciousness

Driv

ing

Aggr

essi

on

Low Anger

High Anger

Fig. 1. The association of driving anger and driving aggression at low self-consciousness (one SD below the mean) andhigh self-consciousness (one SD above the mean).


other drivers. For example, leaving the vehicle to fight the other driver, visible obscene gestures,and rolling down the window and yelling at other drivers. In addition, aggressive driving behaviorwould include any use of the vehicle to harm another driver, e.g., maneuvering the vehicle to pre-vent another driver from changing a lane or passing, chasing another vehicle, and bumping an-other vehicle. This definition of aggressive driving excludes thoughts, emotion, and behaviornot directed at other drivers, e.g., gripping the steering wheel, imagining violent actions, swearingto oneself, and commenting to passengers about the other drivers. The ratings made by the raterswere highly related (r = .90) and disputes were settled by subsequent discussion between theraters.

During the four-day recording period, participants drove an average of 11.97 trips. An index ofaggressive driving was created for each participant by dividing the number of aggressive drivingbehaviors engaged in a considerable amount of aggressive driving behavior, i.e., on average par-ticipants engaged in an aggressive driving behavior on 12.23% of their trips. The aggression indexcreated from the driving logs was used to test the public self-consciousness hypothesis. The samethree-step hierarchical regression analysis used with the self-report index of aggression was em-ployed. This analysis produced a similar pattern of results as the original analysis. The interactionterm (driving anger · public self-consciousness) produced a significant increase in prediction overthe main effects model (see Table 2). Further, the interaction term in the final model was a signif-icant predictor, b = �.0003, t = �2.84, p = .005. The interaction was plotted at one SD above andbelow the mean of driving anger and public self-consciousness (see Fig. 2). A simple slopes anal-ysis indicated with angry participants low public self-consciousness was more associated withaggressive driving than high public self-consciousness, b = .013, t = 2.26, p = .02. With less angryparticipants the difference between high and low public self-consciousness disappeared, p > .05.When the gender of the participant was added as a variable to this analysis, it was not involvedin any significant effects.

Table 2Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis examining the ability of the Driving Anger Scale (DAS) and public self-consciousness to predict aggressive driving from logs

Variable B SE B b

Step 1

DAS .002 .001 .25*

Step 2

DAS .002 .001 .26*

Self-consciousness �.003 .002 �.14

Step 3

DAS .006 .001 .61*

Self-consciousness .009 .004 .45DAS · self-consciousness �.0003 .001 �.76*

Note. R2 = .06 for Step 1; DR2 = .02 (p > .05) for Step 2; DR2 = .06 (p < .01) for Step 3.* p < .05.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Low HighPublic Self-Consciousness

Driv

ing

Aggr

essi

on

Low Anger

High Anger

Fig. 2. The association of driving anger and driving aggression from the driving logs at low self-consciousness (one SDbelow the mean) and high self-consciousness (one SD above the mean).


5. Discussion

The study provided support for the hypothesized interaction. The data from both the initial ret-rospective self-report and the immediate driving logs indicated that public self-consciousnessinteracted with anger to influence driving aggression. When participants were angry, low publicself-consciousness was associated with more aggressive driving than high public self-consciousness.

Beyond supporting the hypothesis, the findings are consistent with earlier work that indicatedyoung drivers are likely to have poor driving habits (e.g., Williams, 1985). In the present study, thesample of young drivers (average age of 20) stated that they engaged in aggressive acts in 12% oftheir trips. In addition, the present study confirms the ability of the DAS to predict aggressivebehaviors while driving, i.e., in all of the main analyses the DAS was significantly related toaggressive driving behaviors. Similar results have been found by Deffenbacher and his colleagues(Deffenbacher et al., 2000, 2001, 2002).

Although the findings are consistent with the hypothesis and past research, the current studyhas limitations. First, the study relied on self-reports of aggression that would seem susceptibleto social desirability effects, i.e., participants might under report aggressive behavior in an effortto appear more socially desirable. The relatively high level of aggression reported by the partici-pants both on the aggressive driving measure and in the driving logs would argue against thisinterpretation. However, it is possible that certain types of participants failed to report certaintypes of behavior. Future research that incorporates a more objective measure of aggression isneeded to address this possibility. Second, in the study 43 of the participants failed to completethe logs. Although, the participants that failed to return the logs were not significantly differentin driving aggression and public self-consciousness from participants that completed the logs, itis feasible that the work involved in keeping a log influenced the participants’ responses. Fortu-nately, the aggression reported in the driving logs produced the same pattern of results as theaggression reported in the 12 item aggressive driving measure taken in the first session.


The absence of gender effects in the present study may seem unexpected because many studiesexamining aggression have found that males exhibit more overt aggression than females (e.g., Bar-on & Richardson, 1994). However, research examining gender and aggression while driving hasproduced mixed results. Some research has found that while driving males were more likely to ex-press aggression outwardly than females (Lawton & Nutter, 2002). Further, Krahe and Fenske(2002) have found that males who endorse an exaggerated male stereotype report more aggressivedriving. Other research has found no gender differences in driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al.,2001). More recently, Deffenbacher, Lynch, Filetti, Dahlen, and Oetting (2003) found mixed re-sults within the context of one study with one measure of aggression indicating a gender differenceand another measure indicating no difference. It is also worth noting that more general work ongender effects and aggression has found a complex relationship between gender and aggression(Richardson & Green, 2006).

The current research highlights the complex relationship between personality, emotion, andbehavior. Not only do personality variables influence whether an emotion is experienced but otherpersonality variables may impact how the emotion is behaviorally expressed. In the present con-text, many researchers have found a relationship between a variety of personality variables andthe experience of anger, e.g., Kuppens and Tuerlinckx (2007) have explored the impact of self-es-teem on anger. The current study indicates that when people are angry public self-consciousnessinfluences whether anger leads to aggressive behavior. Overall, the relationship between person-ality and aggression is likely to involve a constellation of personality traits with some traits pre-disposing people to anger and other traits predisposing people to express anger as aggressivebehavior. At a practical level, the present study suggests that when attempting to reduce aggres-sive driving behaviors it might be useful to focus on variables that combine with anger to produceaggression. For example, a combination of interventions aimed at reducing anger and increasingpublic self-consciousness, at least while driving, may reduce the amount of aggressive drivingbehavior.

References

Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Anderson, C., & Bushman, B. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.Baron, R., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.Berkowitz, L. (1965). The concept of the aggressive drive: Some additional considerations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.).

Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration–aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106,

59–73.Berkowitz, L. (1993). Pain and aggression: Some findings and implications. Motivation & Emotion, 17, 277–293, Special

Issue: The pain system: A multilevel model for the study of motivation and emotion.Bettencourt, B., & Norman, M. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.Chang, L., Hau, K., & Guo, A. (2001). The effect of self-consciousness on the expression of gender views. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 31, 340–351.Cheek, J., & Briggs, R. (1982). Self-consciousness and aspects of identity. Journal of Research in Personality, 16,

401–408.Culos-Reed, S., Brawley, L., & Martin, K. (2002). Self-presentation concerns and health behaviors among cosmetic

surgery patients. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 560–569.


Dahlen, E., & White, R. (2006). The Big Five factors, sensation seeking, and driving anger in the prediction of unsafedriving. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 903–915.

Deffenbacher, J. (2000). The driving anger scale. In J. Maltby, C. Lewis, & Y. A. Hill (Eds.), Commissioned Reviews of

300 Psychological Tests (pp. 287–292). Lampeter, Wales, UK: Edwin Mellen Press.Deffenbacher, J., Huff, M., Lynch, R., Oetting, E., & Salvatore, N. (2000). Characteristics and treatment of high anger

drivers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 5–17.Deffenbacher, J., Lynch, R., Filetti, L., Dahlen, E., & Oetting, E. (2003). Anger, aggression, risky behavior, and crash-

related outcomes in three groups of drivers. Behavior Research and Therapy, 41, 333–349.Deffenbacher, J., Lynch, R., Oetting, E., & Swaim, R. (2002). The Driving Anger Expression Inventory: A measure of

how people express their anger on the road. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 717–737.Deffenbacher, J., Lynch, R., Oetting, E., & Yingling, D. A. (2001). Driving anger: Correlates and a test of state-trait

theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1321–1331.Deffenbacher, J., Oetting, E., & Lynch, R. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological Reports, 74,

83–91.Doherty, K., & Schlenker, B. (1991). Self-consciousness and strategic self-presentation. Journal of Personality, 59, 1–18.Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, O., & Sears, R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. (1972). A theory of objective self awareness. Oxford England: Academic Press.Ellison, P., Govern, J., Petri, H., & Figler, M. (1995). Anonymity and aggressive driving behavior: A field study. Journal

of Social Behavior & Personality, 10, 265–272.Ellison-Potter, P., Bell, P., & Deffenbacher, J. (2001). The effects of trait driving anger, anonymity, and aggressive

stimuli on aggressive driving behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 431–443.Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M., & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–527.Fineran, S., & Bolen, R. (2006). Risk factors for peer sexual harassment in schools. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

21, 1169–1190.Gnepp, E. (1979). A theory of frustration–aggression. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 16, 1–10.Hennessy, D., & Wiesenthal, D. (1999). Traffic congestion, driver stress, and driver aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25,

409–423.Hjelle, L., & Bernard, M. (1994). Private self-consciousness and the retest reliability of self-reports. Journal of Research

in Personality, 28, 52–67.Huesmann, L. (1988). An information-processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14,

13–24.Huesmann, L. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and

maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In R. Geen & E. Donnerstien (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories,

research, and implications for social policy (pp. 73–109). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press, Inc..Joint, M. (1995). Road rage. London: Automobile Association.Krahe, B., & Fenske, I. (2002). Predicting aggressive driving behavior: The role of macho personality, age, and power of

car. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 21–29.Kuppens, P., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2007). Personality traits predicting anger in self-, ambiguous-, and other caused

unpleasant situations. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1105–1115.Lawton, R., & Nutter, A. (2002). A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving

situations. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 407–423.Lowenstein, L. (1997). Research into causes and manifestations of aggression in car driving. Police Journal, 70,

263–270.McFarland, S. G., & Sparks, C. M. (1985). Age, education, and the internal consistency personality scales. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1692–1702.Miller, L., & Cox, C. (1982). For appearances’ sake: Public self-consciousness and makeup use. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 8, 748–751.Nasby, W. (1989). Private self-consciousness, self-awareness, and the reliability of self-reports. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 56, 950–957.


Neighbors, C., Vietor, Nathaniel A., & Knee, C. (2002). A motivational model of driving anger and aggression.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 324–335.

Novaco, R., Stokols, D., & Milanesi, L. (1990). Objective and subjective dimensions of travel impedance asdeterminants of commuting stress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 231–257.

Oshimi, T. (2002). The effect of public self-consciousness on forced laughter. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 73,251–257.

Parker, D., Lajunen, T., & Summala, S. (2002). Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries.Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 229–235.

Parkinson, B. (2001). Anger on and off the road. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 507–526.Richardson, D. R., & Green, L. R. (2006). Direct and indirect aggression: Relationships as social context. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2492–2508.Russell, G. (1995). Personalities in the crowd: Those who would escalate a sports riot. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 91–100.Shinar, D. (1998). Aggressive driving: The contribution of the drivers and situation. Transportation Research Part F, 1,

137–160.Solomon, R., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8,

508–514.Stanford, M., Greve, K., Boudreaux, J., & Mathias, C. (1996). Impulsiveness and risk-taking behavior: Comparison of

high-school and college students using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Personality & Individual Differences, 21,1073–1107.

Underwood, G., Chapman, P., Wright, S., & Crundall, D. (1999). Anger while driving. Transportation Research Part F,

2, 55–68.Williams, A. (1985). Nighttime driving and fatal crash involvement of teenagers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 17,

1–5.Ybarra, O., & Trafimow, D. (1998). How priming the private self or collective self affects the relative weights of

attitudes and subjective norms. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 362–370.Zimbardo, P. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos.

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 237–307.

the influence of public self-consciousness and anger on aggressive driving

Documents