The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ): The Development ...users.phhp.ufl.edu/srg007/4. The...

Violence and Victims, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2000© 2000 Springer Publishing Company

The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ):The Development of a Scale to MeasureDeviant Drivers' Attitudes

David L. WiesenthalDwight HennessyPatrick M. GibsonYork University, Ontario, Canada

The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ) was developed and administered to assessdrivers' use of vengeance when faced with common driving situations. Subjects in thedevelopment of the scale were 266 male and female university students. The scale wasthen administered to 271 university students (both male and female) and 74 male inmateswho were classified as either violent or nonviolent offenders on the basis of the amountof force used in committing the offence. A Cronbach alpha of .83 (M = 40.76, n = 310)indicated a high level of internal consistency for the DVQ. Younger drivers (18-23years old) indicated higher levels of vengeance while driving than did older drivers (24-66 years old, M = 44.35 and 37.81, respectively). Those with less driving experience(0-6 years) expressed higher levels of vengeance while driving than more experienceddrivers (6+ years, M = 42.95 and 38.81, respectively). Male drivers responded withgreater vengeance to the questionnaire items than females (M = 42.07 and 39.62, respec-tively). The level of force used in commission of crime failed to correlate with theDVQ. A factor analysis was performed with a different sample of subjects using a slightlymodified version of the DVQ to deal with the issue of whether horn honking consti-tuted an appropriate measure of aggression. When the two relevant DVQ items werechanged to read "leaning on horn" rather than mere honking, a strong, single factor ofvengeance was found to characterize the scale. Suggestions were made for the use ofDVQ in the screening of driving license applicants and in the study of problem drivers.

Driving congestion in large cities is worsening, causing stress among drivers (Hennesy &Wiesenthal, 1997) . In Toronto, statistics from the Metro Planning Department for 1993indicated that approximately 288,500 people commuted into Metro between 6:30 and 9:30a.m. on an average workday. Almost 240,000 commuters came by private automobile(Kamin, 1994). The major traffic artery in the Metropolitan Toronto area, Highway 401,has a daily average of 255,000 vehicles (Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 1992). Theincrease in traffic volume is caused by numerous factors, from the increase in the numberof trucks due to free trade, to more women driving their own cars for safety reasons (Gamester,

115

116 D. L. Wiesenthal et al

1994). In 1971, Metropolitan Toronto had a daily flow of 350,000 automobiles, which by1988 had increased to 950,000 (L. Tasca, 1991, personal communication). This rate hasnow increased to 1,400,000 automobiles daily. The flow of traffic has increased by 4% ayear for the last 10 years, while the road capacity has remained stable (Gamester, 1994).

Stress caused by difficult economic times combined with competitive driving condi-tions could cause some drivers to operate their vehicles with a disregard for the safety ofothers. Inefficient coping responses tend to increase as stress levels increase, with other dri-vers' behavior constituting the most common source of stress (Gulian, Debney, Glendon,Davies, & Matthews, 1989b). More drivers are competing for limited space, increasingstress with the accompanying inefficient coping responses further aggravating driver stress.Indeed, stress, frustration, and anger are a common aspect of the commute to and from thecity ("How to Cope," 1994). As many commuters drive more aggressively, this may causeothers to retaliate, often jeopardizing their own safety. Indeed, a threat to one's well-beingcan, in the minds of many drivers, justify an even more aggressive response.

Driving and Stress

Traffic congestion should be viewed as a series of minor everyday hassles that can provokestress during the driving situation. The experience of many minor irritants and their nov-elty and irregularity over the course of several driving excursions can gradually erode anindividual's coping resources. Some potentially dangerous effects of driver-related stressthat have been found are increased aggressive driving (Gulian et al., 1989b), poor concen-tration levels (Mathews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991), increased blood pressure (Stokols, Novaco,Stokols, & Campbell, 1978), and increased accident occurrences (Selzer & Vinokur, 1974).Aftereffects of negative mood, thoughts, or attitudes, to and from work and family envi-ronments, have been found to aggravate the severity of further driving-related stress (Gulianet al., 1989a). Congested driving situations inhibit the control the driver has over his/herenvironment (Hennessy, 1995, Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1997), which in turn can cause ele-vated stress levels. Since stress may be produced through the interaction of environmentaland personality variables, the inability to deal effectively with driving stress may lead toincreased stress-related problems at home and at work.

Aggression and Driving

It is evident that younger drivers operate their vehicles with less care than older drivers.Gulian and colleagues (1989b) found that younger drivers (up to 35 years of age) drive moreaggressively, are irritated more by other drivers, are more anxious when overtaken, have amore difficult time controlling their temper, and are more impatient in rush hour, than olderdrivers. Furthermore, the younger they are, the more likely they are to take risks (Novaco,1991). It is evident that age is an important factor in deciding to what extent traffic situa-tions are perceived stressful, and what responses will occur (Gulian et al., 1989b).

Irritation in driving situations is frequently expressed in aggressive and hostile reactionstoward other drivers, such as tail-gating, horn-blowing, and verbal responses (Deffenbacher,Getting & Lynch, 1994; Parry, 1968; Maiuro, 1998; Mathews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991;Turner, Lay ton, & Simons, 1975). Two plausible precursors of irritation and anger whiledriving are the drivers' general predisposition to hostility and aggression, as well as the 'dailyhassles' they are currently experiencing (Gulian et al., 1989b; Mathews et al., 1991).Furthermore, an aggressive individual may vent his/her frustration and anger by drivingmore aggressively, which will increase the probability of an accident (Mathews et al., 1991).

Driving Vengence Questionnaire 117

Novaco (1991) emphasized the concept of disinhibition of aggression in driving situa-tions resulting from multiple influence channels associated with physiological arousal, traf-fic context, aggressive scripts, and contagion mechanisms associated with mass media.Novaco found that aggression scores were consistently higher for males than females. Youngmales were more aggressive, more competitive, drove faster, and took more risks than anyother group. All of these behaviors are linked to accidents and driving offences. However,in a study by Hauber in 1980, it was found that younger women were more aggressive thanolder men. Also of interest in this study was the finding that more aggressive driving occurredin the afternoon than in the morning.

In one study (Michalowski, 1975) 41.5% of people convicted of vehicular homicide hada history of criminal offences. Also, most of the multiple violent offenders were multipletraffic offenders. Michalowski concluded that "violence on the road is linked to violentsubcultures as much as is routinely recognized violence" (Novaco, 1991, p. 261). Novacoalso indicated that poor control of hostile impulses as well as antisocial tendencies, is com-mon among accident repeaters.

In a study of roadside confrontations, Novaco indicated that following a conflict aboutroad space or privilege, one driver forced another off the road, setting the stage for con-frontation. He gave the following example:

One striking illustration in this roadway aggression category is the case of Arthur Salomon,a Wall Street investment banker and the grandson of Percy Salomon, one of the foundersof Salomon Brothers. This prominent 52-year-old, seemingly model citizen, shot an unarmedcollege student on June 19,1987, in a road dispute on the Hutchinson River Parkway. Theconflict began with some friction over the right to pass on the freeway. It escalated to ver-bal exchanges on the side of the road and ended with the shooting of the young man bySalomon, as the victim was walking back to his car, saying that he had the license plate ofSalomon's Mercedes. (Novaco, 1991, p.302-303)

Another example is the case of a 54-year-old man from Woonsocket, RI, who killedanother driver with a crossbow. After the drivers cut each other off in traffic and flashedtheir headlights at each other, they pulled onto the shoulder. One man took a crossbow outof his trunk and shot a bolt into the other man's chest ("Crossbow used," 1994).

Road rage has received considerable attention in North American news media. TheAmerican Automobile Association (AAA) Foundation for Traffic Safety commissionedthree studies of aggressive driving (Mizell, Joint, & Connell 1997). The study analyzed10,037 police reports and newspaper stories concerning traffic incidents that were followedby violent behaviors. Congressional testimony indicated that aggressive behaviors wereinvolved in nearly 28,000 American highway accidents according to Dr. Ricardo Martinez,head of the U. S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Wald, 1997). In Washing-ton, there has been an increasing tendency for motorists to blame aggressive behavior foraccidents on the Capital's roadways (Reid, 1998). Concern over road rage has extended tothe Internet, where several Web sites have addressed highway aggression (seehttp://www.aloha.net/~dyc/testimony.html, http://www.state.ia.us/government/dot/road-rage.htm [do not include hyphen] and http://www.stop-roadrage.com.main.html [do includehyphen]). The problem is also of concern in Canada, where the Ontario Provincial Policereport receiving 500 telephone calls a week complaining about the aggressive practices ofother highway users (Mitchell; 1997, see also Gottleib, 1997; Taylor, 1997).

Vest, Cohen, and Tharp (1997) describe some of the perpetrators of road rage whodo not fit the expected profile of young, risk-taking males with histories of aggres-sive/antisocial behavior. They report that in Salt Lake City, a 75-year-old driver, angered

http://www.aloha.net/~dyc/testimony.html

http://www.state.ia.us/government/dot/road-rage.htm

http://www.state.ia.us/government/dot/road-rage.htm

http://www.stop-roadrage.com.main.html

118 D. L. Wiesenthal et al.

over a honked horn sounded by a 47-year-old driver for blocking traffic, followed theother driver off the road, where he hurled a bottle of prescription drugs and then "in adisplay of geriatric resolve smashed Remm's [the other driver] knees with his '92 Mercury.In tony Potomac, MD., Robin Flicker—an attorney and ex-state legislator—knockedthe glasses off a pregnant woman after she had the temerity to ask him why he bumpedher Jeep with his" (p. 24).

Novaco asserted that roadway aggression can be understood in terms of the disinhibi-tion of aggression concept, this being the weakening of restraints against doing harm. Heexplained that

Modelling influences through mass communication channels is one disinhibiting influencethat affects imitation or adoption of (aggressive) prototype behavior. However, the model-ling effects hypothetically act in conjunction with other converging facilitators, such as thephysiological arousal associated with driving, the anonymity of freeways, escape potential,cinematic scripts that have pre-programmed the mind, alcohol or drug abuse, the occur-rence of thwartings by "inconsiderate" drivers that "justify" aggression, and the carrying ofthe firearms, which under conditions of arousal and anger can activate aggressive counter-responding. Such factors act as releasers that override the otherwise incalculated prohibi-tions about aggressive behavior. (Novaco, 1991, p. 306-307)

Given that aggressive behavior is restrained by social norms and by legal penalties inthe general case, and that this is quite specifically so in driving situations, the delineationof disinhibiting influences is a plausible approach to understanding various forms of aggres-sion on roadways (Novaco, 1991, p. 307).

The concept of deindividuation while driving may be a significant factor in the driver'sbehavior. Wiesenthal and Janovjak (1992) found that tinted windows and increased trafficvolume, both of which perceivably increase the anonymity of the driver, increased the like-lihood of adverse driving behavior (i.e., failure to signal turns, greater acceleration follow-ing a change in the traffic signal).

There appears to be a clear connection between Novaco's explanation of the disinhibi-tion of aggression and vengeance. Drivers who are disinhibited are more likely to behaveaggressively, which typifies revenge.

Vengeance

Vengeance is defined as pain, injury, humiliation or annoyance inflicted on those who havebeen a source of injury or annoyance (Stein, 1973). Revenge is an act of hate, an inflictionof harm or pain. Revenge is based on reason related to the perceived evil of a past actionand is not just a blind expression of emotion. Revenge is reactive and a response to injuryor to a perceived injustice. Vengeance is always propelled by the offensive act of someother person or group and this necessary link between revenge and the past offense pro-vides vengeance with a rational and moral status (Bar-Elli & Heyd, 1986).

Elster (1990) believed that the universal phenomenon of asserting one's honor is an aspectof a deep-rooted urge to show one's superiority. Its aim is sheer self-assertion and self-esteem. Furthermore, the urge to prove oneself superior to others fuses with the sponta-neous urge to seek revenge. In a competitive world it is important to convince dangerousrivals that one can only be harmed at an unacceptable cost to the aggressor. Also, believ-able threats of retaliation must De genuine (Daly & Wilson, 1988).


Indeed, it is considered by many a disgrace to not seek revenge: Revenge is a deep, uni-versal, culture-independent emotion which is not subject to elimination by educationalmeans (Bar-Elli & Heyd, 1986). For some, there is the assumption that vengeance is aprimitive moral right of human beings (Henberg, 1990), while others see the conscious aimof vengeance as retribution, punishment, and a longed-for state of peace (Socarides, 1966).Some believe that much of the crime in modern societies, as in pre-industrial societies, canbe interpreted as a form of "self-help" in which the person is expressing a grievancethrough aggression and violence (Black, 1983).

If some aggrieved parties do not take the initiative in redressing their grievances, theybelieve that nobody else will (Daly & Wilson, 1988). Therefore, those seeking vengeanceconsider their transgression as being "justifiable," while they perceive the transgressors asdeserving of punishment (Pettiway, 1987). In fact, much violence involves ordinary citi-zens who view their conduct as a legitimate exercise of social control (Black, 1983).

Stuckless and Goranson (1992) found that:

Vengeance, by its very nature, typically involves serious acts of aggression (p. 37) . . .Vengeful responses are typically more extreme than would be indicated by the norm of rec-iprocity (p. 27) . . . There are indications of an interdisciplinary consensus that revenge isa powerful motivating factor for aggressive acts (p. 38) . . . (and) a highly vengeful personis particularly likely to exhibit anger, (p. 27)

It is interesting to note that studies indicate that as age increases, attitudes toward revengedecrease (Gibson & Wiesenthal, 1996; Rubini, 1993; Stuckless & Goranson, 1992).

Measuring Vengeance

The development of a measure assessing a driver's use of revenge when faced with com-mon driving conditions would be helpful in discovering some of the triggering incidentsfor aggressive responses. As indicated previously, vengeance is a response to a perceivedthreat to one's own safety and/or honor. Some drivers may feel threatened by being cutoff or forced to swerve while driving. Given that traffic accidents cause many fatalitiesevery year, certain driving behaviors are a very real threat to one's safety. However, avengeful response to a perceived threat may only facilitate an even more aggressive coun-terresponse or cause an accident. An aggressive response is not productive unless it elim-inates the threat. In a driving situation it may only serve to escalate that threat or causeinjury to oneself. It is clear that vengeance is highly unproductive in a driving situation.

Rationale for Present Study

There is no measure of aggressive reactions of drivers in stress-inducing situations such asbeing cut off or having someone take a parking space for which they have been waiting. Theseare common driving occurrences and a measure assessing responses to these situations couldbe valuable in combating aggressive driving behaviors. The following (Study I) is a descrip-tion of the development of a questionnaire to measure drivers' reactions in certain situations.The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ) was designed to assess driver reactions to per-ceived threats and to probe which situations would elicit the strongest reactions.

Study II represents a study in which students and inmates answered the DVQ. Evans(1991) suggested that involvement in traffic accidents is explained by factors common tothose involved in criminal activity (i.e., gender, age, impulsivity, and risk taking), so thiscomparison will test this notion.


Hypotheses

1. Younger drivers will respond more aggressively than will older, more experienceddrivers.

2. Male drivers will indicate more aggressive responses than will female drivers.3. Inmates will respond more aggressively to the items than will students.4. The more violent offenders will respond in a more aggressive manner than the less

violent offenders.

5. The inmates will display less ability to control anger and be more impulsive than thestudents.

STUDY I

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects were 266 university students. There were 178 females and 74 males, as wellas 14 subjects who did not indicate their gender on the questionnaire. The average age was23, with a range of 31, from 19 to 50 years of age. The average number of years of drivingexperience was 51/2 years with a minimum of zero and a maximum of 35. There were 14subjects who do not drive and 18 subjects who did not indicate years of driving experience.The subjects who did not drive were eliminated from the study.

Procedure

Drivers were asked which traffic situations they commonly encountered angered them themost. Thirty-seven scenarios were recorded and formed the primary questionnaire (AppendixA). University students were then asked to indicate how they would react, on a scale fromVery relaxed1 (1) to 'very angry1 (5), to each situation.

RESULTS

An ANOVA (with subject sex as the independent variable) was performed on the original37-item questionnaire. The 15 items with the highest mean score, which were not sexbiased (i.e., no significant sex differences were obtained) (Appendix B), were chosen. If sig-nificant differences were obtained for the male and female means on the t-test, the item wasdiscarded. From the remaining items, a second questionnaire (the DVQ) was developed con-sisting of 15 multiple choice questions (Appendix C) in which the respondents were askedto indicate how they would respond in that situation. The choice of response ranged from'Do nothing,' to a highly aggressive response, such as 'Force the other vehicle off the road.'Also, a space was provided for the respondent to indicate an alternative response.


STUDY II

METHOD

Subjects

The DVQ was administered to several introductory psychology classes at York Universityin Toronto, Ontario. Two hundred and seventy-one questionnaires were completed by thisuniversity sample. There were 179 females and 90 males, as well as two subjects who didnot indicate their gender on the questionnaire. The average age was 27, with a range of 40,from 18 to 58 years of age. The average number of years of driving experience was 9 yearswith a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 36. There were 7 subjects who do not drive and10 subjects who did not indicate years of driving experience, thus leaving 254 usable ques-tionnaires.

Seventy-four DVQ were given to inmates of the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI).OCI is an all male, medium security research and treatment facility located in Brampton,Ontario. The inmates of this provincial institution serve sentences of no more than 2 yearsless a day. The average age was 33, with a range of 47, from 19 to 66 years of age. Theaverage number of years of driving experience was 14 with a minimum of 0 and a maxi-mum of 45. There were 8 subjects who did not drive and 10 subjects who did not indicateyears of driving experience. All subjects, students and prisoners, who indicated that theydo not drive, or did not indicate years of driving experience, were dropped from the study.There were 56 usable questionnaires from the prison sample.

Scoring

The subjects were instructed to respond to each item by circling the response that they wouldmost likely make in that situation, or to write down an alternative response in the space pro-vided. Each item was scored from 1 to 5, with 1 being the most aggressive response and 5the least. The variables were then reversed so that a high score would indicate a high levelof aggression and a low score would indicate a low level of aggression.

Procedure

The DVQ were answered anonymously by the students of two evening introductory psy-chology classes at York University. They were asked to fill out the questionnaires as com-pletely and honestly as possible.

The DVQ were answered by the inmates during the regular intake classification test bat-tery which all new inmates are given. Testing was conducted in a classroom in groups of 5to 15 prisoners and was supervised by the prison psychometrist or an assistant. The inmateswere required to identify themselves on the questionnaire, thus permitting the researchersto collate additional measures.

The results of the DVQs completed by the inmates were compared to subscale mea-sures of impulsivity, habitual criminality, and escapism on the MMPI. Also analysed werethe MMPI validity scales: L, F, and K. Furthermore, data were collected regarding theoffences committed by the inmates, as well as the circumstances of the offence(s) (i.e.,level of force). The level of force was rated from 1 to 4, with 1 being a low level of forceused during the commission of the offence(s) and 4 being a high level of force. An exam-ple of a low level of force is touching or theft in which there was no violence or physical


aggression reported. An example of a high level of force would be a crime in which a vic-tim was physically and aggressively assaulted, or in which there was a great deal of prop-erty damage caused by the perpetrator. In short, the level of force was measured by thelevel of physical force used by the inmate while committing the offence(s). These datawere collected from intake interviews and police/court documents outlining the circum-stances of the offence(s). A short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale(Reynolds, 1982) was also administered to the inmates in order to increase the validity ofthe results by controlling for social desirability.

RESULTS

A Cronbach alpha reliability analysis was performed to determine the internal consistencyof the DVQ items. The result was an alpha of .83 (M= 40.76, n = 310), which indicates ahigh level of internal consistency.

As seen in Table 1, younger drivers, 18 to 23 years of age, indicated higher levels ofaggression while driving than did older drivers, 24 to 66 years of age (supporting Hypothesis1). Analysis of variance indicated a significant difference in the total DVQ score, (F(l, 308)= 30.38, p< .01). Those with less driving experience also indicated higher levels of aggres-sion, (F(l, 308) = 11.56,/? < .01). As predicted (Hypothesis 2), male drivers responded moreaggressively to the items than did female drivers, (F(l, 307) = 3.93, p < .05). The hypoth-esis (3) that prisoners would score higher on the scale than students was not supported bythe data. Analysis of variance indicated that while there was a significant difference in thetotal driving scale score, (F(l, 308) = 5.24, p < .05), it was the students who respondedmore aggressively.

The total DVQ score was significantly negatively correlated with the subjects' age, as wellas driving experience, -.40 and -.35, respectively. This indicates that as age and driving expe-rience increase, reported aggressive responses in driving situations decrease. There was nosignificant correlation with the amount of force used during the offence and the total DVQscore (Hypothesis 4). There were significant correlational results found with the total DVQscore and data collected regarding impulsivity, habitual criminality, escapism, validityscales L, F, and K, and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability score (see Table 2).

TABLE 1. Mean Total Scores on the DVQ

Subjects Mean SD n

Age Group18 to 23 44.35 10.32 14024 to 66 37.81 10.47 170

Driving Experience0 to 6 years 42.95 10.17 1466+years 38.81 11.16 164

GenderFemale 39.62 8.78 170Male 42.07 12.90 139

Sample GroupStudents 41.42 10.24 254Prisoners 37.77 13.14 56


TABLE 2. Correlation of Total DVQ Score,Force Used During the Offence, Impulsivity, Habitual Criminality,

Escapism, Validity Scales L, F, and K, and Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability

Total HabitualDVQ Score Force Impulsivity Criminality

.0623 .4639 .2872(55) (54) (54)

p = .65l p=.000 p = .Q35-.0232 -.1967

(56) (56)p = .S64 p = .U2

.6345(56)

p = .000

Escapism

.3061(54)

p = .024-.1325

(56)p = .326

.8219(56)

p = .000.6331

(56)p = .000

ValidityScale L

-.2858(53)

p = .038-.0635

(56)p = .642

-.7227(56)

p = .000-.3404

(56)p = .010

-.6948(56)

p = .000

ValidityScale F

.3463(53)

/7 = .011

-.0627(56)

p = .646.6904

(56)p = .000

.5860(56)

p = .000.6355

(56)p = .000

-.3655(56)

/7 = .005

ValidityScale K

-.3956(53)

/? = .003-.1248

(56)p = .359

-.7799(56)

/? = .ooo-.3927

(56)p = .003

-.6741(56)

/> = .ooo.6264

(56)p = .000

-.7094(56)

p = .000

SocialDesirability

.3758(30)

p = Ml.4255

(32)p=.015

.7105(3D

p = .000.2600

(3D;? = .158

.5170(3D

p = .003-.6117

(32)/7 = .000

.4773(32)

p = .006-.6074

(32)p = .000

Note. 0 (Coefficient/(Cases)/2-tailed sig.).0 "." is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed.

The L and K scales should correlate with each other, as they are both measuring whetherthe person is trying to look better than he/she really is (Anderson & Duckworth, 1995, Levitt,1989). The DVQ is negatively correlated with the L and K scales because the higher the Land K scales are, the more defensive the person is, or the more they deny having any prob-lems. These individuals are trying to appear in control and also present themselves as bet-ter drivers, as reflected by low scores on the DVQ. The DVQ is positively correlated withthe F scale. This is explained by the fact that younger drivers score higher on the DVQ thando older drivers. Similarly, younger people tend to score higher on the F scale than do olderpeople (Anderson & Duckworth, 1995).

DISCUSSION

The data support Hypothesis 1, i.e., that younger drivers would react more aggressively instress-inducing driving situations than older drivers. As in previous studies (Evans, 1991;Gulian et al, 1989b; Novaco, 1991; Rubini, 1993), it was apparent that age is an importantfactor influencing the interpretation and response to certain situations. Perhaps older drivers


have learned from experience that retaliation to a perceived threat is unproductive or coun-terproductive, or they may just not react as quickly as in the past. As people become olderand more established in life, they may see the option of aggression as less desirablebecause the end result may be that they lose what they have worked hard to obtain, such astheir vehicle or, more important, their health and/or family and freedom. Younger, less expe-rienced drivers may need an adjustment period to become accustomed to the newly foundfreedom of driving and to become aware of the consequences of aggressive driving habits.

Male subjects indicated more aggressive responses to the driving situations than didfemale subjects (Hypothesis 2). This is consistent with previous research (Daly & Wilson,1988; Evans, 1991; Novaco, 1991) which asserted that males tend to react aggressivelyand/or seek revenge more readily than females. This tendency was clearly displayed intheir driving habits as well as criminal activity. Males are more often convicted of crimi-nal offences as well as driving infractions than are females (Evans, 1991). This may be dueto their higher propensity toward aggression in stressful situations, such as feeling threat-ened by other drivers or having their progress inhibited.

Contrary to Hypothesis 3, the students scored higher on the DVQ than did the prison-ers. This may be due to the fact that the prisoners answered the questionnaires in an eval-uation context (intake testing) which will have a considerable impact on their future. Theywere being classified for treatment programs and to determine if they were good candidatesfor rehabilitation. Furthermore, they were required to identify themselves on the question-naires and the students were not. There were modest correlations between the DVQ andmeasures of social desirability. This point emphasizes the necessity for a measure of socialdesirability in test situations in which the subjects are required to identify themselves.

The reliability of the driving questionnaire as a measure of aggressive driving behavioris supported by the high Cronbach alpha. Furthermore, the consistency of the results withthat of other studies indicates a high level of construct validity. The finding that males aremore aggressive than females and that younger drivers are more aggressive than older dri-vers lends support to the construct validity of the measure. In addition, the negative corre-lation of the total driving-scale score with age and driving experience is indicative of thequestionnaire's ability to differentiate the attitudes of more and less experienced drivers.

This driving questionnaire could be used to measure the attitudes of drivers who are prob-lem drivers, characterized by a given number of demerit points or citations. An indication oftheir aggressive reactions could be helpful in evaluating if the offender is in need of counsel-ing or some sort of intervention to deter further driving infractions. Just making them awareof their deviant attitude toward driving and the consequences that could follow may be suffi-cient to make some driver's think twice before reacting aggressively. The scale might alsoprove useful in screening applicants for driving licenses. However, some drivers displacetheir hostility and aggression experienced at home or in the workplace into their driving behav-ior. They may take out their aggression on whomever it is convenient and whoever gives themthe slightest provocation. This is obviously not an easy situation to combat, as sometimes itis too late and the damage is done before the aggressor is apprehended. These drivers couldno doubt benefit from learning to employ relaxation techniques. Furthermore, the drivers' sit-uation changes from day to day. He/she may have a bad day and drive recklessly and yet havea good day the next day and obey all the rules and be a courteous and considerate driver.

This driving questionnaire could be incorporated into a comprehensive evaluation ofdeviant drivers. It is recommended that a measure of social desirability also be given withthe questionnaire to control for the effects of social desirability. In conjunction with anevaluation of the driver's record and an in-depth interview, this measure could be useful to


determine just what is causing the deviant behavior and how it can best be remedied. Asaggression is a very important factor in traffic accidents and violations, we feel that thismeasure is a significant contribution to the evaluation and eventual treatment of thisproblem. It is unclear whether responses to the DVQ represent a trait, or a situational orinteractional response. Further work needs to be conducted to explore this question. Thestability or consistency of responding to the DVQ over time and across diverse roadconditions are other areas requiring research. Perhaps the measure should be adminis-tered in situ while the driver is experiencing traffic conditions employing the cellulartelephone interviewing methodology described by Hennessy and Wiesenthal (1997).

Study 3

Despite its frequent use, concerns have been raised regarding the validity of horn honkingas an indicator of driver aggression. A major criticism has been that horn honking can alsorepresent a nonaggressive "signal" to other drivers (Novaco, 1991). Turner, Lay ton, andSimons (1975) conceded that the increased horn honking found in drivers frustrated by astalled confederate vehicle, may simply have been a signal to the confederate, unable tonotice the presence of a trailing motorist. Since channels of communication between dri-vers are limited, the horn is often used to deliver nonaggressive messages, such as a reminderthat a light has changed, or that it is safe to proceed through an intersection. In addition,cultural differences have been noted regarding the appropriateness of horn-honking as asignal, the manner in which the message is delivered, and the potential messages portrayed(Marsh & Collett, 1987). Generally, observations of driver aggression provide no evidenceas to the true intent of an individual driver's horn-honking behavior. However, evidence ofincreased number and duration, and decreased latency, of horn-honking under conditionsof frustration suggest "aggressive" rather than "signaling" interpretations (Anderson, 1989).Once a driver has honked, a potential "signal" has been delivered; persistent honking andshorter delays only suggest aggressive intent.

A similar criticism may be made against the DVQ in that two items illustrate horn-honking situations that may represent "signaling" behavior for some respondents. Items13 and 14 depict situations in which a light has changed and a driver has not proceeded.For some, a short horn honk could be used simply as a signal to the driver that it isappropriate to proceed. The purpose of Study 3 was to determine if modifications toresponse options, depicting clearly aggressive intent, could improve the representa-tion of driver vengeance.

METHOD

Subjects

A novel sample of 193 was gathered from York University and the Metropolitan Torontobusiness community. There were a total of 123 female and 70 male participants. The aver-age age was 26.22 years, ranging from 19 to 67 years. The average driving experience was8.77 years, with a range of 2 to 48 years.


Procedure

The scoring option "Honk your horn" from items 13 and 14 was transformed to "Lean onyour horn," to represent a more distinctly aggressive behavior. According to Anderson(1989), the prolonged honking is more indicative of an aggressive rather than signalingintent. For those who would intend to give a signal, the option of "Other" was available foralternative responses. Response options to all other DVQ items remained constant.

Along with the modified DVQ, subjects also indicated the likelihood with which theygenerally engage in mild aggression while driving (horn-honking out of frustration, pur-posely tailgating, swearing/yelling at other drivers, flashing high beams out of frustration,using hand gestures at other drivers) (see Appendix D). Responses ranged from 0 = "not atall" to 5 = "very frequently."

RESULTS

Scoring of the DVQ was similar to Study 2, in that responses 1 through 4 were reversekeyed, where the more aggressive responses received higher vengeance rating. Responsesto the "Other" option were independently rated by three judges, from 1 to 4, based on theirequivalence to the respective options 1 through 4. A total vengeance score was calculatedas the sum of reverse keyed responses to the 15 DVQ items. A simple factorial ANOVAwas performed with total vengeance as the DV, and sex, age, and driving experience as theIV. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, males displayed greater vengeance than females (M =58.26, SD = 13.22, n = 70 and M = 53.59, SD = 10.48, n = 122, respectively) F(l,181) =8.22, p < .01. For age and driving experience, based on their distribution frequencies, fourseparate age and experience groups were constructed. As with Study 2, significant maineffects were found for age (F(3,181) = 9.33, p < .01) and experience (F(3,181) = 10.22, p< .01). Tukey HSD tests were performed to determine the levels at which age and experi-ence represented unique driver vengeance scores. As seen in Table 3, the oldest group ofparticipants displayed lower vengeance scores than the two youngest groups. For drivingexperience, the most experienced group displayed lower vengeance scores than all othergroups.

Factor Structure

Factor analysis of the DVQ, using the original response structure for items 13 and 14, demon-strated two distinct factors (Eigenvalue = 3.58, alpha = .75 and Eigenvalue = 1.40, alpha =.48, respectively). However, all original items did not load onto a single "vengeance" fac-tor (Eigenvalue = 3.58, alpha = .75). Table 4 represents a comparison of original item load-ings for one and two factor structures (see Table 4).

Examination of the three items that constitute Factor 2 revealed scenarios in whichhorn-honking behavior may be interpreted as a signal, particularly items 13 and 14 inwhich the underlying cause is likely inattention. In contrast, using the modified responseoptions for items 13 and 14, factor analysis revealed a strong single "driver vengeance" fac-tor structure (Eigenvalue = 3.92, alpha = .79) (see Table 5).


TABLE 3. Tukey BSD Comparisons Between Age andExperience Grouos With Mean DVO Scores

Note. Brackets are (SD /n).* indicates significant differences between groups.1CD = 8.75, df= 181, n = 193, p = .05.2CD = 7.59, df= 181, n = 193, p = .05.

TABLE 4. Factor Pattern and Loading for the Original Driving Vengeance Questionnaire

Factor 1

A driver passes you and immediately slows or applies brakes.A driver leaves vehicle and approaches in a threatening manner.Driver takes parking space you have been waiting for.Driver fails to yield right of way at an intersection.A slow vehicle occupies left lane on an expressway.Driver passes you and makes obscene gesture.Driver in front of you frequently applies brakes for no reason.Vehicle cuts you off, forcing you to apply brakes.While driving at night, vehicle behind has high beams on.Garbage thrown from another vehicle hits your vehicle.A driver persistently honks at you.Driver passes others in the merge lane and tries to cut in front of you.

2 Factors

.67

.64

.55

.55

.53

.52

.51

.50

.48

.45

.40

.36

1 Factor

.60

.63

.56

.47

.56

.51

.51

.50

.50

.48

.43

.38

Factor 2

You want to turn but car in front, also turning, does not turn at red light.Car in front does not proceed on green signal.Vehicle delays traffic to pick up or let out passengers.

.72

.69

.65

.25

.30

.32

Aggression and Vengeance

A driver aggression score was calculated as the mean likelihood response to the five aggres-sion items. Higher scores indicated a greater likelihood of engaging in mild aggression whiledriving. A quadratic split was performed to represent five distinct groups, based on the meanlikelihood of general driver aggression. Analysis of variance indicated a significant rela-tionship between driver aggression likelihood and driver vengeance scores (F(4,188) = 29.90,p < .01). A Tukey HSD test indicated that drivers with elevated vengeance scores more oftenreported an increased likelihood of general driver aggression (see Table 6).

Age1 Mean DVQ Score1. 19 years 57.65 (9.38/48)2. 20/21 years 57.12 (12.12/55)3. 22-32 years 52.50 (11.03/49)4. > 33 years 47.00 (10.97/48)

Experience2 Mean DVQ Score1. 0-2.5 years 58.39 (11.53/39)2. 3-4 years 57.95 (11.08/55)3. 4.5-9 years 58.61 (12.80/42)4. > 9 years 50.31 (11.34/54)

Age Group1. 2. 3. 4.

Experience Group1. 2. 3. 4.


TABLE 5. Factor Pattern and Loading for the Modified Driving Vengeance Questionnaire

Factor 1: Driver VengeanceA driver leaves vehicle and approaches in a threatening manner. .61Car in front does not proceed on green signal. .60You want to turn but car in front, also turning, does not turn at red light. .57A driver passes you and immediately slows or applies brakes. .54A slow vehicle occupies left lane on an expressway. .54Driver passes you and makes obscene gesture. .52Driver takes parking space you have been waiting for. .52Vehicle cuts you off, forcing you to apply brakes. .51Garbage thrown from another vehicle hits your vehicle. .50Driver in front of you frequently applies brakes for no reason. .50While driving at night, vehicle behind you has high beams on. .47A driver persistently honks at you. .45Diver fails to yield right of way at an intersection. .43Driver passes others in the merge lane and tries to cut in front of you. .41Vehicle delays traffic to pick up or let out passengers. .40

TABLE 6. Tukey HSD Comparisons of Levels ofDriver Aggression Likelihood With Mean DVQ Scores

Note. Brackets are (SD/n).indicates significant differences between groups.CD = 5.55, df= 188, n = 192, p = .05.

DISCUSSION

The factor analysis of the DVQ, focusing upon the items related to horn-honking shouldresolve the issue of whether the dependent variable of horn-honking is a valid measure ofaggression or whether it is merely a signal without aggressive intent to other drivers. Whenthe items were reworded to imply lengthy honking ("leaning on the horn"), the item clus-tered with the other items assessing vengeful intent. When the item was interpreted as merelyhonking to signal or alert other motorists, it failed to relate to the other items on the scale.The implications of this analysis suggest that researchers employing horn-honking as adependent measure of aggression toward other drivers, need to clarify the time length ofthe horn noise. Perhaps research should operationalize the length of time the horn is soundedsuch that 1 or 2 seconds is scored as nonaggressive communication, while lengthier dura-tions (possibly > 2-5 seconds) are scored as aggressive responding to a roadway situation.

The reasonable psychometric properties of the Driving Vengeance Questionnaire shouldlend itself to other research. Currently, the measure is being used to assess the effects of stressand roadway congestion leading to aggression (Hennessy, 1998). The DVQ may also be usedto identify a different class of problem drivers that has traditionally received study. Motor vehi-cle agencies worldwide have focused upon the drunk driver as typifying the problem driver

Mean Likelihood Rating Mean DVQ Score1. 0.00-0.60 45.87 (9.68/41)2. 0.65-1.10 50.88 (9.78/36)3. 1.20-1.50 53.89(10.41/39)4. 1.60-2.20 59.60 (7.44/48)5. 2.30-5.00 68.41 (9.13/29)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.


(see Mayhew, Beirness, Simpson, & Lamble, 1992). The current research suggests that agroup of drivers, scoring high on their willingness to retaliate against other drivers, mayalso be another group endangering road use for others. The usefulness of DVQ as a screen-ing device may alert others to the vengeful driver's perception of other drivers needing tobe taught a lesson for their perceived infractions. Once identified, vengeful drivers couldbe taught a variety of anger management techniques (see Maiuro, 1998 for a discussion ofthe Harborview Anger Management Program at the University of Washington School ofMedicine) so that their threat to other road users is diminished.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A. (1989). Temperature and aggression: Ubiquitous effects of heat on occur-rence of human violence. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 74-96.

Anderson, W. P., & Duckworth, J. C. (1995). MMP17MMPI-2: Interpretation manual for coun-sellors and clinicians. Accelerated Development: A member of the Taylor & Francis Group.

Bar-Elli, G., & Heyd, D. (1986). Can revenge be just or otherwise justified? Theoria, 52, 68-86.Black, D. (1983). Crime as social control. American Sociological Review, 48, 34-45.Crossbow used to end dispute. (1994, February 22). The Globe & Mail, p. A13.Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Deffenbacher, J.

L., Getting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale.Psychological Reports, 74, 83-91.

Elster, J. (1990). Norms of revenge. Ethics, 100, 862-885.Evans, L. (1991). Traffic safety and the driver. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Gamester, G. (1994, July 4). Let's lift the hood on Metro's traffic jams. The Toronto Star, p. A8.Gibson, P. M., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1996, June). The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire

(DVQ): The development of a scale to measure deviant drivers' attitudes (LaMarshResearch Programme Report Series, No. 54). Toronto, Ontario: LaMarsh Centre forResearch on Violence and Conflict Resolution, York University.

Gotdeib, S. (1997, October 25). Road rage and other driving afflictions. Toronto Globe and Mail, p. D3.Gulian, E., Matthews, G., Glendon, A. I., & Davies, D. R. (1989a). Dimensions of driver

stress. Ergonomics, 32, 585-602.Gulian, E., Debney, L. M., Glendon, A. I., Davies, D. R., & Matthews, G. (1989b). Coping

with driver stress. In F. J. McGuigan, W. M. Sime, & J. M. Wallace (Eds.), Stress andTension Control (Vol. 3, 173-186). New York: Plenum Press.

Hauber, A. R. (1980). The social psychology of driving behaviour and the traffic environ-ment: Research on aggressive behaviour in traffic. International Review of AppliedPsychology, 29, 461-474.

Henberg, M. (1990). Retribution: Evil for evil in ethics, law, and literature. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.

Hennessy, D. (1998, October). The influence of driving vengeance, on aggression, violenceand stress. La Marsh Centre for Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution GraduateStudent Symposium, York University, Toronto, Ontario.

Hennessy, D. A. (1995). The relationship between traffic congestion, driver stress, and directversus indirect coping behaviours. Unpublished master's thesis, York University, NorthYork, Ontario, Canada.

Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1997). The relationship between traffic congestion,driver stress, and direct versus indirect coping behaviours. Ergonomics, 40 (3), 348-361.


How to cope with stress of commuting. (1994, July 3). The Toronto Star, p. F3.Kamin, H. (1994, July 3). Coping with commuting. The Toronto Star, p. Fl.Levitt, E. E. (1989). The clinical application of MMPIspecial scales. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Maiuro, R. D. (1998). Rage on the road. Recovery, 9, 2, 8-9.Marsh, P., & Collett, P. (1987). The car as weapon. Et Cetera, 44, 146-151.Mathews, G., Dorn, L., & Glendon, A. I. (1991). Personality correlates of driver stress.

Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 535-549.Mayhew, D. R., Beirness, D. J., Simpson, H. M, & Lamble, R. W. (1992). Diagnostic assess-

ment of problem drivers: State of assessment and treatment techniques. Toronto, Ontario:Ministry of Transportation.

Michalowski, M. I. (1975). Violence in the road: The crime of vehicular homicide. Journalof Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12, 30-43.

Mitchell, B. (1997, November 22). "Road rage" on rise in GTA [Greater Toronto Area].Toronto Star, p. A2.

Mizell, L., Joint, M., & Connell, D. (1997). Aggressive driving: Three studies (Aggressive dri-ving, road rage, & driver aggression). Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Ontario Ministry of Transportation. (1992). Provincial highways: Traffic volumes. TrafficProgram Management Office. Toronto: Ontario Government Printing Office.

Novaco, R. W. (1991). Aggression on roadways. In R. Baenninger (Ed.), Targets of vio-lence and aggression (pp. 253-326). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publisher.

Parry, M. (1968). Aggression on the road. London: Tavistock.Pettiway, L. E. (1987). Arson for revenge: The role of environmental situation, age, sex,

and race. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 169-184.Reid, A. (1998, April 27). Drivers: Aggression is top Beltway danger. Washington Post, p. Al.Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of a reliable and valid short form of the Marlowe-

Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125.Rubini, E. (1993). Measuring vengeance across the ages. Unpublished manuscript, York

University, Toronto, Ontario.Selzer, M. L., & Vinokur, A. (1974). Life events, subjective stress and traffic accidents.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 903-906.Socarides, M. D. (1966). On vengeance: The desire to get even. Journal of the American

Psychoanalytic Association, 14, 356-375.Stein, J. (Ed.). (1973). The Random House dictionary of the English language. New York:

Random House.Stokols, D., Novaco, R. W., Stokols, J., & Campbell, J. (1978). Traffic congestion, type A

behavior, and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 467-480.Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: Development of a measure of

attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 25-42.Taylor, B. (1997, August 25). Life in the slow lane. Toronto Star, p. Dl.Turner, C. W., Layton, J. F, Simons, L. S. (1975). Naturalistic studies of aggressive behav-

ior: Aggressive stimuli, victim visibility, and horn honking. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 31, 7098-1107.

Vest, J., Cohen, W., & Tharp, M. (1997, June 2). Road rage. U. S. News & World Report,p. 24-25, 28-30.

Wald,M. (1997, July 19). Congress studying "road rage" in U.S. Toronto Globe and Mail, p.All.Wiesenthal, D. L., & Janovjak, D. P. (1992, May). Deindividuation and automobile driving

behavior. Toronto, Ontario: The LaMarsh Research Programme Report Series, No. 46,LaMarsh Centre for Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution, York University.


APPENDIX A

The following are some common situations encountered by drivers. Please indicate what your reac-tion was to these situations when they happened to you. If you have not experienced the situation,please indicate how you would feel.Please indicate your reaction to the following situations by circling the appropriate number on the scale.

1 2 3 4 5very slightly somewhat slightly very

relaxed relaxed relaxed angry angry1. An automobile waiting to turn onto the other side of the road is blocking both lanes of your

side of the road.2. A driver in front of you is having an animated conversation on a cellular telephone.3. After stopping at a STOP sign, a motorist fails to yield the right of way to you when it is your

turn to proceed through the intersection.4. A driver on an expressway is following too closely behind your vehicle.5. While driving on an express^, ay, a vehicle cuts in front of you, forcing you to apply the brakes.6. A driver passes you and makes an obscene gesture at you.7. Immediately after passing you, the driver slows down or applies his brakes.8. While driving at night, a driver on the opposite side of the road fails to dim the high beam headlights.9. While driving at night, the vehicle immediately behind you has its high beam headlights on.

10. The vehicle immediately in front of you turns on its lights to simulate braking.11. A driver persistently honks at you.12. A vehicle follows you off an expressway onto local streets for several roads (blocks) (kilometers).13. A driver gets out of his vehicle at a traffic signal and approaches you in a threatening manner.14. A vehicle bypasses a queue of vehicles and remains in the merge lane until the lane ends and

then tries to cut in front of your vehicle.15. Another driver fails to allow you to cut over (fails to make room for your vehicle) when you

try to change lanes to exit.16. A slowly moving vehicle is occupying the left lane on an expressway, slowing traffic.17. A vehicle makes a rum from an improper lane and cuts in front of your vehicle causing you to

apply the brakes.18. A vehicle not turning right has blocked the right-hand lane at a traffic signal, preventing you

from turning right on the red signal.19. Your vehicle, traveling in the left lane has been blocked by a driver who failed to signal a left turn.20. A vehicle directly in front of yours, frequently applies the brakes although no vehicle or

pedestrian is in front of it.21. A driver is inattentive to traffic conditions because of involvement in conversation with a passenger.22. A motorcycle passes your vehicle driving on the road shoulder or between the traffic lanes.23. A driver changes lanes without looking or signaling, just as you are changing lanes.24. Garbage thrown from another vehicle hits your vehicle.25. Another driver takes a parking space you've been waiting for.26. The driver in front of you slows down at a green light.27. You see another driver zig-zagging through traffic.28. You see a driver run a red light.29. The car in front of you doesn't go at an advanced green signal.30. A car is going too fast in the fog.31. A car is going too slow in the snow, delaying traffic.32. You see a spot check.33. A driver goes through a crosswalk before the pedestrian is all the way across.34. You see a drunk driver.35. A car doesn't stop for a school bus that is stopped with its lights flashing.36. A vehicle stops on the roadway to pick up or let out a passenger delaying traffic.37. You want to turn right at a red light and the car in front of you, also making a right turn, does

not proceed when the way is clear.

752

APPENDIX B

Analysis of Variance - Questions 1 to 37 by sex

Question

01

02

03*

04

05*

06*

07*

08

09*

10

11*

12

13*

14*

15

16*

17

18

19

20*

21

22

23

24*

malefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemale

n

7417674

17874

17773

17574

17571

17774

17872

17673

17573

17673

17773

17573

17574

17773

17674

17574

17674

17574

17473

17774

17774

17674

17474

173

Mean

3.853.792.993.154.013.883.964.214.674.644.044.164.434.363.773.754.154.073.143.184.094.233.103.714.254.354.264.254.004.234.084.084.424.323.373.653.923.754.124.133.703.942.893.324.034.384.534.43

D. L. Wiesenthal et al

F Probability

.57

.33

.23

.04

.53

.44

.44

.61

.48

.79

.27

.00

.35

.91

.01

.99

.34

.05

.14

.59

.05

.00

.00

.40


Question Mean F Probability

25*

26

27

28

29*

30

31

32

33

34

35

36*

37*

malefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemalemalefemale

7317074

17074

17072

17472

17273

17472

17070

17172

17572

17272

17272

17368

167

4.584.583.703.773.163.593.113.394.014.153.063.453.102.742.572.332.993.264.394.844.044.323.813.844.023.92

.95

.64

.00

.09

.27

.01

.01

.12

.09

.00

.03

.75

.45

Note. (*) indicates questions which were used in the final questionnaire


APPENDIX C

Age: Sex: Years of driving experience:The following are some common situations encountered by drivers. Please indicate the response thatyou would most likely make in that situation.

1. After stopping at a STOP sign, a motorist fails to yield the right of way to you when it is yourturn to proceed through the intersection. You would:a) Pull out quickly to block their way.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture (eg., the finger).c) Honk your horn.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

2. While driving on an expressway a vehicle cuts in front of you, forcing you to apply the brakes.You would:a) Cut in front of their vehicle forcing them to apply the brakes.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your hom.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

3. A driver passes you and makes an obscene gesture at you. You would:a) Force the other vehicle off the road.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your horn.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

4. Immediately after passing you, the driver slows down or applies his brakes. You would:a) Pull in front of their vehicle and slow down.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your horn.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

5. While driving at night, the vehicle immediately behind you has its high beam headlights on. Youwould:a) Let the vehicle pass and turn on your high beams.b) Apply your brakes.c) Honk your horn.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

6. A driver persistently honks at you. You would:a) Force the other vehicle off the road.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your horn.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

7. A driver gets out of his vehicle at a traffic signal and approaches you in a threatening manner.You would:a) Get out of your vehicle and confront him/her.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your horn.d) Drive away.e) Other: .


8. A vehicle bypasses a queue of vehicles and remains in the merge lane until the lane ends, andthen tries to cut in front of your vehicle. You would:a) Block the vehicle so that it can't get in.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your horn.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

9. A slowly moving vehicle is occupying the left lane on an expressway, slowing traffic. You woulda) Tailgate the vehicle until it moves.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your hom.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

10. The driver in a vehicle directly in front of yours frequently applies the brakes, although novehicle or pedestrians is in front of it. You would:a) Pass the vehicle and apply your brakes.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your horn.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

11. Garbage thrown from another vehicle hits your vehicle. You would:a) Throw garbage at the offending vehicle.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your hom.d) Do nothinge) Other: .

12. Another driver takes a parking space that you have been waiting for. You would:a) Get out of your vehicle and tell the driver to move his vehicle.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your hom.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

13. The car in front of you doesn't proceed on an advanced green signal. You would:a) Bump into the other car.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your horn.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

14. You want to turn right at a red light and the car in front of you, also making a right turn, doesnot proceed when the way is clear. You would:a) Bump into the other car.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your horn.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .

15. A vehicle stops on the roadway to pick up, or let out, a passenger causing a traffic delay. Youwould:a) Stop and tell the driver off.b) Give the driver an obscene gesture.c) Honk your horn.d) Do nothing.e) Other: .


APPENDIX D

General Aggressive Driving Behaviors

The following represent behaviors that some people engage in while driving. For each item,please indicate, from 0 to 5, how likely you would be to perform such behaviors when you drivein general.0 = 'not at all1

1 = 'hardly ever'2 = 'occasionally'3 = 'quite often'4 = 'frequently'5 = 'nearly all the time'

1. Honk your horn at another driver out of frustration.2. Swear or yell at another driver.3. Flash your high beams at another driver out of frustration.4. Purposely tailgate another driver.5. Use hand gestures at another driver out of frustration.

Acknowledgments. The authors wish to thank Dr. Doug Quirk of the Ontario Correctional Instituteas well as the staff and inmates for their participation in the research. Noreen Stuckless provided infor-mation and helpful suggestions concerning the concept of vengeance.

Offprints. Requests for offprints should be directed to Professor David L. Wiesenthal, LaMarsh Centrefor Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution, 217E York Lanes, York University, 4700 KeeleStreet, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ): The Development ...users.phhp.ufl.edu/srg007/4. The...

Documents

Transcript of The Driving Vengeance Questionnaire (DVQ): The Development ...users.phhp.ufl.edu/srg007/4. The...