Psy 409a, November 21st 2005

My Third Outline of Assigned Readings

By Sara Tsukimura

Peter Rothe, Editor (2002). Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems That Make Traffic Safer. (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press). pp. 21-34; James, Leon.  Dealing with Stress, Aggression and Pressure in the Vehicle.

Instructions for this activity are found at:
www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy23/409a-g23-oral.htm 
Instructor: Dr. Leon James

I. Predictability vs. Unpredictability

a) Definition: the two conflicting structural components of driving.  Predictability, like maintaining a consistent speed or making a complete stop at all stop signs allows for safe and secure driving conditions.  Unpredictability, like driving at inconsistent speeds or changing lanes without signaling creates a dangerous and stressful driving environment which can lead to collisions.

Dr. James documents “fifteen widely known aspects of driving that act as stressors” that “provoke hostility and aggressiveness on the road”.  They include: immobility, constriction, regulation, lack of control, being put in danger, territoriality, diversity, multi-tasking, denying our mistakes, cynicism, loss of objectivity, venting, unpredictability, ambiguity, and lack of emotional intelligence. 

*It is important to note that a driver’s reaction to any of these stressors can lead to predictability or unpredictability on the road.

b) Psychological/Cultural Significance:  I realized that what it boils down to is the driver’s personality and how he/she deals with the unpredictability of driving.  An article on Discovery Health.com deals with personality types and impact with response to stress.  It compares Type A personalities with Type B personalities and how each may react to stress, how people may react more or less to stress based on their experiences in the womb, and how negative reaction to stress can lead to stress-related illnesses. 

c) Opinion:  Although the concept itself is simple I never thought of predictability and unpredictability in such an in-depth way before.  When I examine the opposing ideas from the viewpoint that everyone is going to react to stressors differently while driving, it truly opens a can of worms.  It also poses the question, how can we consistently react positively and be supportive drivers when there are so many personalities out there? 

II. Aggressive Driving = cultural norm, not deviant behavior

a) Definition:  it is common for aggressive drivers to be put in the same category with dangerous people like car thieves or bank robbers.  However, based on how drivers think and feel behind the wheel, it appears to be more of a cultural norm rather than a deviant behavior. 

As children we observe and absorb hostile driving norms.  But, as was mentioned in the previous concept, there are factors such as personality, gender, education, age, demeanor, and conduct that will determine whether or not drivers will express their road rage or aggressive driving. 

b) Psychological/Cultural Significance:  in 1998 Dr. James completed a web study of 2010 respondents who had to respond to itemized lists of behaviors considered aggressive/illegal.  They also made self witnessing reports such as “I sometimes engage in this behavior”. 

Findings:   Men engage in aggressive behaviors more than women do, and the percentage differences were statistically significant for all items.  However, research has shown that it is much more common for women to engage in aggressive driving behaviors.  There appears to be an expanding permissiveness towards the expression of anger behind the wheel (James 2002). 

 c) Opinion:  I wasn’t surprised that men were found to be more aggressive than women; however I do believe that the gender gap has decreased.  It does appear to be a cultural trend of expressive road rage, and it isn’t something limited to testosterone-filled males.  I think if the survey was conducted again, males would still be considered more aggressive but maybe not by much. 

III. Why intervention hasn’t worked:  external environmental forces vs.  internal individual forces

a) Definition:  External environmental forces are things such as better roads and law enforcement which aims for greater safety and less risk.  Internal individual forces are the pressures to get to locations on time, or the feeling of needing to get ahead of other drivers which lessens safety and maintains high risk among drivers. 

b) Psychological/Cultural Significance:  Despite the increased number of external environmental forces being made, research shows that there are a consistent number of deaths and injuries in the United States each year.  And in areas where external environmental forces have been implemented, the death rate remains high despite these improvements.  Risk homeostasis phenomenon: when a road is made safer, drivers will compensate for greater safety by driving faster. 

c) Opinion:  Aggressive driving is certainly a widespread phenomenon and problem.  I believe much of the research we have examined and read has pinpointed key aspects of how it is developed and perpetuated.  We also have been exposed to many ideas and solutions to remedying aggressive driving.  However, I feel for drastic improvements to be made for the future, we must implement these ideas from childhood, starting from how we display our aggressive driving towards our children to education for our children at a young age. 

My home page: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409af2005/tsukimura/home.htm

The G23 class home page: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy23/classhome-g23.htm

Related Web Links:

http://health.discovery.com/centers/stress/articles/pnstress/pnstress.html -personality type and reaction to stress

http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/Are_Men_Better_Drivers_than_Women/artid/259 -insurance site comparing gender and insurance quotes

http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/  -Dr. Wilde study on Risk Homeostasis (book called “Target Risk”)