Un Model Socio-cognitiv de Agresiunea Soferilor

8/12/2019 Un Model Socio-cognitiv de Agresiunea Soferilor

1/12

A Social-Cognitive Model of Driver Aggression: Taking

Situations and Individual Differences into Account

Chris S. Dula &E. Scott Geller &

Frances L. Chumney

Published online: 11 October 2011

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Aggressive driving is a phenomenon that has taken on tremendous

significance in society. While the issue has been studied from perspectives of several

disciplines, relatively few comprehensive empirical investigations have been

conducted. This may be due, at least in part, to a scarcity of comprehensive

theoretical works in the field, from which methodical research hypotheses could be

derived. This paper reviews major extant theories of general aggression to offer a

rationale for choosing a particular framework to apply to the topic of aggressive

driving. The social-cognitive model of aggressive driving is recommended, as it

takes into account wide-ranging cognitive, situational, and dispositional factors.

Implications for future research are also considered.

Keywords Aggressive driving . Road rage . Dangerous driving . Traffic safety . Anger

management

Generally, reports of aggression in the context of driving have been imprecise, with

researchers sometimes using road rage and aggressive driving synonymouslyand at other times disparately. A lack of conceptual clarity has stifled the field of

aggressive driving research, which presently consists of relatively few objective

studies. Rathbone and Huckabee (1999) said definitions of road rage in the literature

often vary or are not specified, and they emphasized that aggressive driving and road

rage are not synonymous. Dula and Geller (2004) provided a review of definitions

Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334

DOI 10.1007/s12144-011-9120-3

C. S. Dula (*)

Department of Psychology, East Tennessee State University, POB 70649, Johnson City,

TN 37614-1702, USAe-mail: [email protected]
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


2/12

used in the literature and suggested that what has in the past been considered as

road rageoraggressive driving,be re-conceptualized as dangerous driving, with

three major subcategories: 1) risky driving behaviors, 2) negative cognitions/

emotions experienced while driving, and 3) acts of aggression, where the latter are

restricted solely to behaviors intended to harm others psychologically or physically.In the years since these publications, little consensus has been achieved in terms of

consistently defining terms and variables.

To be compatible with past research (e.g., Baron and Richardson 1994; Felson

2000; Geen and ONeal 1976), driver aggression, like general aggression, should

entail an intent to harm. While aggression in a driving context will often include

willfully risky behaviors and intense negative emotions, the latter two constructs

reflect somewhat different areas of study. In fact, risky driving is the topic of much

research, including problems of driving while impaired, speeding, red-light

running, drowsy driving, multi-tasking (e.g., cellular phone use), and misuse ordisuse of safety belts and child safety seats. Consistent with notions of other

researchers in terms of content and definitional criteria (e.g., Ellison-Potter et al.

2001; Lajunen et al. 1998; Tasca 2000), Dula and Geller (2004) posited that

aggressive driving is any behavior produced by a driver, while driving, which is

intended to cause physical and/or psychological harm to pedestrians or persons in

another vehicle.

We are not the first to propose a model of driver aggression. For example, Shinar

(1998) used the frustration-aggression hypothesis as the basis of a theoretical

approach. Reviewing five empirical investigations, Shinar (1998) proposed thatbeyond dispositional factors, these studies supported the idea that cultural norms,

travel delays, and traffic congestion, all contribute to the determination of whether

aggression will be displayed while driving. However, due to inherent limitations in

the overarching theory, we opted for a different angle. The current model does not

discard, but rather augments the frustration-aggression approach by incorporating

cognitive, dispositional, and situational factors by design.

Additionally, Lonero (2000) proposed a heuristic model with taxonomical

categories. It called for cataloging aggressive driving events in terms of: a)

instrumentality of behavior (e.g., minor aggressive actions versus actual physical

assaults); b) severity of prejudicial motivation (e.g., mobility issues versus outright

rage reactions); and, c) severity of intent and consequences. However, this work was

only intended as a rough example of ways in which we may be able to build

a clearer model to aid understanding and communication (Lonero 2000,

Solutions, 3). Lonero (2000) pointed out an array of extant social science views

(e.g., frustration-aggression hypothesis, attribution theory) which might enhance

our understanding of aggressive driving while noting a need for a comprehensive

theoretical perspective to guide empirical research.

Taking up the challenge from this point, we reviewed the aggression literature,

selected what we believe to be a relevant and logical theoretical framework, namely

a social-cognitive perspective, to apply to aggression in a driving context. It is all the

Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334 325325
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/12

Cognitive and Situational Factors

Many cognitive theories of aggression build on strengths of the frustration-aggression

hypothesis and social learning theory. However, specific theories vary with regard to the

degree of emphasis placed on learning, specific behaviors, cue-response associations,attitudes, perceptive biases, response biases, and mental scripts. Nonetheless, all tend to

agree that understanding how people perceive and interpret situations is vital to

predicting whether they will respond in an aggressive manner (Eron 1994). Further,

aggressive conduct can be to some degree understood in terms of schemas (e.g.,

Greenwald & Banaji 1995; Huesmann 1988), or pre-existing mental concepts or

categories that help us organize and interpret information we encounter at any given

moment. Schemas and scripts affect the way we perceive situations, and those

perceptions drive our behavior. While many types of situational and cognitive processing

elements are relevant to aggressive driving, we will focus on a few of the most salient.

Correspondence Bias Correspondence bias, more popularly known as the fundamental

attribution error, may be the most obviously applicable cognitive processing bias with

regard to aggressive driving. People tend to instantaneously, and apparently with little

awareness, attribute the cause of others behaviors to their presumed disposition.

However, such attributions tend to be flawed as we generally: a) have little appreciation

of intangible but powerful influences in a situation; b) harbor unrealistic expectations for

others behavior (assuming we would not behave the same way in the same

circumstances); c) overinflate categorizations of behavior; and, d) fail to correctdispositional attributions even after we are provided with evidence that contradicts a

dispositional explanation (e.g., Fiske 1995; Gilbert and Malone 1995). Indeed,

interpersonal conflict often arises from misperceptions of others behaviors and faulty

attributions regarding those behaviors (Wilmot and Hocker 1998). We usually have

little to no objective information about the intentions of other drivers and we know

little to nothing of their character, attitudes, beliefs, or perceptions at the point in which

their behavior comes to our attention (e.g., cutting us off, running red lights). Thus, it

is likely that when exposed to anothers driving mistakes, the observing driver will

make a negative trait judgment about the perceived offender. Thus, it is of little

wonder that so many people tend to blame other drivers for perceived offenses in such

a way as to feel they are deserving of personal scorn or active punishment.

Self-Serving Biases Self-evaluation is a process whereby people are motivated to

generate and maintain a positive appraisal of their actions. For most, self-serving

biases contribute to an overall view of self that is more positive than would be

objectively warranted (Sedikides and Strube 1997). Social-cognitive theorists assert

that people actively negotiate their own identity by attending excessively to self-

confirmatory feedback, engaging in selective memory encoding and retrieval and

interpreting evidence at hand in a biased fashion (e.g., Shmotkin2005; Swann1987,

1990). When people react in excessively negative ways to the actions of others, such

326 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/12

Reciprocity When we receive anything from someone else, there is a pressure to

repay in kind. Cialdini (2001) cited many studies and examples showing reciprocity

to be one of the most powerful norms in human culture, compelling individuals to

return that which was received in some form to somebody (though not necessarily to

the same person). While typically thought of in pleasant and agreeable terms wherewe all do favors for one another, reciprocity can also be damaging and destructive,

where we try to harm those who harm us(Cialdini and Trost1998, p. 175). When

another driver makes a mistake or seems to behave aggressively, this social influence

process will generate pressure to return the perceived slight in some way.

Crowding and Anonymity While not clear cut, there seems to be a relationship

between perceived crowding and aggression. One well-documented phenomenon is

deindividuation, or a state of feeling one is less identifiable in a crowd and thus less

accountable for negative behavior (e.g., Aronson 1999). This is consistent withBandura (1978) who asserted that people are less likely to overtly aggress where

doing so would be likely to bring undesirable consequences upon themselves, and he

supposed conditions of anonymity would facilitate aggression. In fact, it has been

shown that aggression increases when conditions promote decreased self-awareness

such as when one feels unidentifiable, is highly aroused, and/or is in an altered state

of consciousness as under the influence of alcohol or other drugs of abuse (Baron

and Richardson 1994). When in traffic jams, drivers may experience pressures of

perceived crowding and the presence of lots of other vehicles, tinted windows, or

sunglasses, may create a heightened sense of anonymity.

Individual Factors

True dispositional differences warrant serious consideration in any meaningful

model of driver aggression as they have reliable predictive power. It has been shown

that people with high levels of trait anger and aggression are more likely to actually

display open anger and aggressive behaviors across a variety of situations, including

driving (e.g., Archer et al. 1995; Dula and Ballard 2003; Epps and Kendall 1995;

James and Nahl 2000; OLaughlin and Schill 1994; Pfefferbaum and Wood 1994;

Rothbart et al. 1994). Many factors have been studied in the search to explain the

origin and maintenance of trait differences in anger and aggression. While a

comprehensive review of all such potential factors is beyond the scope of this work,

several major mechanisms warrant at least brief consideration.

Modeling and Media Influences It is easy to find examples of competitive behavior in

our society, and so should be no surprise that we find competitive attitudes common

amongst drivers. Likewise, opportunities to witness aggressive behavior are ubiquitous,

and such experiences likely propel some toward a propensity to express hostility. Almost

Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334 327327
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/12


6/12

behavioral scripts are developed, one may come to develop a hostile-attribution bias

that carries over into adulthood. Hostile-attribution bias is thought to be a product of

chronic cognitive processing deficiencies such as ineffective cue encoding and/or

misinterpretations of situations (e.g., Crick and Dodge 1994). More aggressive

individuals tend to view use of aggression as more acceptable and reasonable ingeneral, whether the prompting stimuli are hostile or ambiguous (e.g., Driscoll et al.

1994). Those exhibiting hostile-attribution bias are thus more likely to interpret

others ambiguous driving behaviors as hostile and are then more likely to act

aggressively in response.

Other Salient Traits The link between anger and aggression has been well

established (e.g., Archer et al. 1995; Epps and Kendall 1995; Felsten and Hill

1999; OLaughlin and Schill 1994; Pfefferbaum and Wood 1994; Rothbart et al.

1994), and trait anger is a reliable predictor of physical and verbal aggressivebehavior (e.g., Cornell et al. 1999). Thus, those with relatively high levels of trait

anger should be more likely prone to driver aggression, which was found by Dula

and Ballard (2003).

Type-A personality, defined by high levels of competitiveness and impatience,

has also been found to be related to anger, hostility, and aggression (Anderson and

Bushman1997; Baron et al.1999; Catipovic-Veselica2003; Faunce et al. 2004). In

fact, several studies found a relationship between Type-A personality and increases

in crashes, breaking traffic laws, impatience while driving, risky driving behaviors,

and aggression on the road (Miles and Johnson 2003; Lowenstein1997; Perry andBaldwin2000). Also, people with higher levels of trait aggression are more likely to

have an external locus of control (e.g., Dykeman, et al. 1996; Zainuddin and Taluja

1990). Further, people who are low dissipators-high ruminators have been found to

be more likely to harbor desires for vengeance against people they perceive as

having offended them or threatened their safety (e.g., Collins and Bell 1997). Thus,

those with Type-A personality traits, those who are higher in external locus of

control, and those who are low dissipators-high ruminators, should be more likely to

become aggressive in general as well as in driving contexts.

It follows that a general aggressive disposition in life would transfer to a driving

context and would be a change-resistant trait. However, this does not preclude the

potential development of aggressive reactions in drivers not typically prone to

aggression, if the situational factors are sufficiently powerful to elicit such responses.

While driving is a routine with automatic response sets for most drivers,

opportunities to encounter novel conditions are almost limitless. Events surrounding

an aggressive action are likely to be fairly unique, even with predispositions to view

others driving behavior as offensive or hostile. Moving to a cohesive model, the

factors to be explored by research become explicitly apparent.

Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334 329329
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/12

perspectives on aggression provide relevant empirically-supported material from

which to draw theoretically rigorous and practically testable research hypotheses.

The study of a single drivers perspective will yield half the desired understanding.

But, including the perspectives two drivers requires only that each be separately

analyzed, where the behavior of one serves as a trigger event for the other, wheretrigger events occur sequentially as an interaction is played out.

Based on the information reviewed above, we put forward a theoretical model

of driver aggression that is restricted to the willful perpetration of acts intended

to cause some level of psychological and/or physical harm. Using a Social-

Cognitive Model of Aggressive Driving, it is possible to take into account the

relative impact of situations and traits to explain and predict the relative

probability of occurrence of aggression in a vehicular context. Figure 1 shows

factors of driver aggression with relevant event variables to be considered, such as

environmental driving conditions, person states, potential trigger events, perceivedtrigger event severity (related to a physiological adrenaline response), presence of

correspondence bias, and trait predispositions toward anger and aggression. For

simplicity, categories are split into dichotomous levels of not present or present

(for correspondence bias) and high and low (perception of severity and trait anger/

aggression), although in reality, perceptions, biases, and traits are obviously

continuous rather than discrete variables. The viewpoint of the model is from that

of a driver who perceives an affront, offense, or safety threat caused by another

driver. The perceptions of the trigger event may be accurate or inaccurate, but from

a phenomenological perspective, the perception is the drivers reality and is thebasis from which s/he will respond.

330 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334
http://-/?-http://-/?-


8/12

Model Factors and Predicted Outcomes The first factor focuses on environmental

conditions, which affects not only how a driver handles a vehicle, but also the

attention a driver pays to the road, traffic, and other drivers. The next factor

considers the state (as opposed to the traits) of a driver at the time s/he encounters

the trigger event. An obvious state of relevance is mood. It stands to reason when ina good mood, a driver is more likely to downplay or dismiss trigger events perceived

as less severe. Conversely, a driver in a bad mood, who is angry, upset, jealous,

frustrated, or sad, may well be disposed to see almost any undesirable trigger event

as worse than might be objectively warranted. A drivers alertness and attentiveness

levels are also a critical component of person state. Effects of multi-tasking, a well-

documented problem (e.g., National Safety Council 2010), are moderated by

environmental and state variables, where the behaviors of a driver may include any

number of off-task activities with regard to driving per se.

The next factor is a perceived trigger event, which is crucial in determiningwhether any aggression will result. On experiencing a trigger event that is

presumably the result of Driver Bs actions, Driver A might interpret Driver Bs

behavior variously as either deliberate or accidental, severe or inoffensive,

outrageous or understandable, or deserving of anger or forgiveness, and so on,

depending on Driver As perception of the trigger event. Of course, Driver Bs

interpretation of Driver As response to the situation will influence any ensuing

interactions. The next factor in the model considers the attribution made by Driver A

about Driver B. If correspondence bias is present, the worst is likely to be assumed

about Driver Bs intentions and/or character. Such an assumption should serve toincrease the probability that Driver A will have an overt negative emotional reaction,

though it may or may not be openly displayed such that Driver B becomes aware of

Driver As reaction.

The next factor is Driver As trait levels of anger and aggression. A number of

individual differences influence whether one will be likely to engage in an

aggressive response to situations which are either ambiguous or more objectively

negative. As noted above, this includes elements such as a long history of aggressive

behavior, strong Type-A personality, elevated external locus of control, high levels

of trait anger, relative inability to dissipate negative emotions, a tendency toward

rumination, possession of hostile-attribution bias, prejudice towards Driver B and

his/her in-group, being male, and frequent exposure to aggressive models in media

or in person.

Finally, the model predicts the category into which an actual response made by

Driver A would fall, following perception of the trigger event, given a particular path

followed by Driver A through the variable classes. It is this outwardly directed social

reaction that should be the sole object of explanation and prediction in the

phenomenon of aggressive driving. A social reaction is depicted categorically but on

a continuum, ranging from a peaceful dissolution where Driver A engages in no

response observable by Driver B (which could not be considered as aggressive, no

matter how upset Driver A may be, as there is no intent to harm) to a major reprisal

Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334 331331
http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/12

Conclusion Aggressive driving is a phenomenon frequently addressed in mass media.

As a topic of empirical investigation, however, aggressive driving is often depicted

variously in the literature, sometimes with virtually synonymous treatment of terms

pertaining to risky driving, negative emotional experiences, and actual aggressive

behavior while driving. Empirical work is lacking, and that which does exist is of modestuse due to problems in definitional consistency (Dula and Geller2004). Assuming the

difficulties with definitions can be overcome, theoretical frameworks must be

developed and applied to bring further clarity to exploration of aggressive driving,

and to promote logical consistency in the research hypotheses which are generated.

The authors believe a social-cognitive perspective serves as a logical starting

point for theoretically-driven research in the field. In essence, this model predicts the

manner in which relevant environmental variables and person states, along with

cognitive processing biases and traits such as those related to anger and aggression,

combine to influence the perceptions and reactions of drivers to trigger events. Thehypothetical paths through these variable sets lead to the subsequent display or

inhibition of driver aggression. This theory was not presented with the conclusion

that it is the only approach, but rather with the hope that its presentation would serve

to stimulate an increase in systematic empirical research on aggressive driving, and

that it might serve as a basis for the design of interventions aimed at amelioration of

the problem.

While the present model should lend itself well to generating hypotheses which

can be tested, it does reflect the bias of the authors that a social-cognitive framework

provides a fairly comprehensive explanatory mechanism. It is possible other theoriescould be used to generate models with equal or greater potential predictive value. We

sincerely hope other researchers will test this model and other theory-based models

in the service of advancing our understanding of this significant societal problem.

References

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (1997). External validity of trivial experiments: the case of

laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology, 1, 1941.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior,

aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic

review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353359.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression.Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 2751.

Archer, J., Kilpatrick, G., & Bramwell, R. (1995). Comparison of two aggression inventories. Aggressive

Behavior, 21, 371380.

Aronson, E. (1999). The social animal (8th ed.). Freeman and Company: Worth Publishers/W.H.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prenitice-Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28, 1229.

Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press.

Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace

aggression: evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the Type A behavior pattern.Aggressive Behavior, 25, 281296.

Browne, K. D., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2005). The influence of violent media on children and

332 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334
http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/12

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T.

Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology vol. 2 (4th ed., pp. 151

192). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Collins, K., & Bell, R. (1997). Personality and aggression: the dissipation-rumination scale. Personality

and Individual Differences, 22, 751755.Cornell, D. G., Peterson, C. S., & Richards, H. (1999). Anger as a predictor of aggression among

incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 108115.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing

mechanisms in childrens social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74101.

Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related

behavior.Psychological Review, 94, 369389.

Deselms, J. L., & Altman, J. D. (2003). Immediate and prolonged effects of videogame violence.Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 15531563.

Devine, P. G. (1995). Prejudice and out-group perception. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology

(pp. 467524). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Driscoll, J. M., Jarman, B. J., & Yankeelov, P. A. (1994). Effects of a person s history of aggression on

attributions of affect to aggressors. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 685700.

Dula, C. S., & Ballard, M. E. (2003). Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous, aggressive,

negative emotional, and risky driving. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 263282.

Dula, C. S., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Risky, aggressive, or emotional driving: addressing the need for

consistent communication in research. Journal of Safety Research.

Dykeman, C., Daehlin, W., Doyle, S., & Flamer, H. (1996). Psychological predictors of school-based

violence: implications for school counselors. School Counselor, 44, 3547.

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, 431443.

Epps, J., & Kendall, P. C. (1995). Hostile attributional bias in adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19,

159178.

Eron, L. D. (1994). Theories of aggression: From drives to cognitions. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.),Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives(pp. 310). New York: Plenum Press.

Faunce, G. J., Mapledoram, P. K., & Soames Job, R. F. (2004). Type A behaviour pattern and attentional

bias in relation to anger/hostility, achievement, and failure. Personality and Individual Differences,

36, 19751988.

Felson, R. B. (2000). A social psychological approach to interpersonal aggression. In V. B. Van Hasselt &

M. Hersen (Eds.),Aggression and violence: An introductory text(pp. 922). Boston: Allyn & Bacon,

Inc.

Felsten, G., & Hill, V. (1999). Aggression questionnaire hostility scale predicts anger in response to

mistreatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 8797.

Fiske, S. T. (1995). Social cognition. In A. Tesser (Ed.),Advanced social psychology(pp. 149193). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Geen, R. G. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),

The handbook of social psychology, vol. 2 (4th ed., pp. 317356). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Geen, R. G., & ONeal, E. C. (Eds.). (1976).Perspectives on aggression. New York: Academic Press, Inc.

George, M. J. (1999). A victimization survey of female-perpetrated assaults in the United Kingdom.

Aggressive Behavior, 25, 6779.

Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 2138.

Gladue, B. A. (1991). Aggressive behavioral characteristics, hormones, and sexual orientation in men and

women. Aggressive Behavior, 17, 313326.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and

stereotypes.Psychological Review, 102, 427.

Harris, M. B. (1994). Gender of a subject and target as mediators of aggression. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 24, 453471.Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive

Behavior, 14, 1324.

Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334 333333


11/12

Joint, M. (1995). Road rage. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Retrieved May 23, 2003, from http://

www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtext

Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Alter, S. (2006). Mood adjustment to social situations through mass media

use: how men ruminate and women dissipate angry moods. Human Communication Research, 32,

5873.

Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Stradling, S. (1998). Dimensions of driver anger, aggressive, and highway codeviolations and their mediation by safety orientation in UK drivers. Transportation Research Part F:

Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1, 107121.

Lonero, L. P. (2000). A preliminary heuristic model of aggressive behaviour in drivers.Aggressive Driving

Issues Conference. Retrieved November 21, 2000, from http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/

lonero/lonero-paper.html.

Lowenstein, L. F. (1997). Research into causes and manifestations of aggression in car driving. Police

Journal, 70, 263270.

Miles, D. E., & Johnson, G. L. (2003). Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal

predictors?Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6, 147161.

National Safety Council. (2010).Understanding the distracted brain: Why driving while using hands-free

cell phones is risky behavior. White Paper. Retrieved May 30, 2011, from http://www.nsc.org/

safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Pages/CognitiveDistraction.aspx.OLaughlin, S., & Schill, T. (1994). The relationship between self-monitored aggression and the MMPI-2F, 4, 9

composite and anger content scale scores. Psychological Reports, 74, 733734.

Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents experiences of

peer victimization: social and physical aggression.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 242266.

Perry, A. R., & Baldwin, D. A. (2000). Further evidence of associations of Type A personality scores and

driving-related attitudes and behaviors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 147154.

Pfefferbaum, B., & Wood, P. B. (1994). Self-report study of impulsive and delinquent behavior in college

students.Journal of Adolescent Health, 15, 295302.

Rathbone, D. B., & Huckabee, J. C. (1999). Controlling road rage: A literature review and pilot study.

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Retrieved July 17, 2003, from http://www.aaafoundation.org/

resources/index.cfm?button=roadrage.Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament and social behavior in childhood.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 2139.

Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: to thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure,

to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 29, 209269.

Shinar, D. (1998). Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. Transportation

Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1, 137160.

Shmotkin, D. (2005). Happiness in the face of adversity: reformulating the dynamic and modular bases of

subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 9, 291325.

Swann, W. B. (1987). Identity negotiation: where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 53, 10381051.Swann, W. B. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and self-

verification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:

Foundations of social behavior, vol. 2 (pp. 408448). New York: Guilford Press.

Tasca, L. (2000). A review of the literature on aggressive driving research. Aggressive Driving Issues

Conference. Retrieved November 21, 2000, from http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/tasca/

tasca-paper.html.

Volavka, J. (1999). The neurobiology of violence: an update.The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical

Neurosciences, 11, 307314.

Willemsen, J., Dula, C. S., Declercq, F., & Verhaeghe, P. (2008). The dula dangerous driving index: An

investigation of reliability and validity across cultures.Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40(2), 798806.

Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (1998). Interpersonal conflict(5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Zainuddin, R., & Taluja, H. (1990). Aggression and locus of control among undergraduate students.

Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 6, 211215.

334 Curr Psychol (2011) 30:324334
http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtexthttp://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtexthttp://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/lonero/lonero-paper.htmlhttp://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/lonero/lonero-paper.htmlhttp://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Pages/CognitiveDistraction.aspxhttp://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Pages/CognitiveDistraction.aspxhttp://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=roadragehttp://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=roadragehttp://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/tasca/tasca-paper.htmlhttp://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/tasca/tasca-paper.htmlhttp://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/tasca/tasca-paper.htmlhttp://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/tasca/tasca-paper.htmlhttp://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=roadragehttp://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=roadragehttp://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Pages/CognitiveDistraction.aspxhttp://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Pages/CognitiveDistraction.aspxhttp://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/lonero/lonero-paper.htmlhttp://www.aggressive.drivers.com/papers/lonero/lonero-paper.htmlhttp://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtexthttp://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtext


12/12

Copyright of Current Psychology is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Un Model Socio-cognitiv de Agresiunea Soferilor

Documents

Transcript of Un Model Socio-cognitiv de Agresiunea Soferilor