PSY 409a, September 17, 2006
State-trait Theory
By Melissa Mills
Instructions for this activity are found at:
www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy25/g25-oral1.htm
Instructor: Dr. Leon James
Deffenbacher, J.L., Deffenbacher, D.M., Lynch, R.S., & Richards, T.L. (2003). Anger, aggression and risky behavior: A comparison of high and low anger drivers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, Vol. 41(6), pp.701–718.
Deffenbacher, J.L., Filetti, L.B., Richards, T.L., Lynch, R.S., & Oetting, E.R. (2003). Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 50(2), pp.123–132.
Leon James (2006). Lecture Notes on Driving Psychology for G25. Tables jflsjf. Online at:
www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy25/409a-g25-lecture-notes.htm
Concept 1:
State trait model
A. Definition: people differ in tendency to become frequently and intensely angry.
B. Predictions:
1. High anger drivers will experience anger more frequently (frequency hypothesis)
2. High anger drivers will experience more intense anger intensity hypothesis)
3. High anger drivers will engage in more aggressive tendencies (Aggression hypothesis)
4. High Anger drivers will engage in more risky behaviors (Risky Behavior Hypothesis)
5. High anger drivers will experience more crash related outcomes. (Negative Outcome Hypothesis)
C. Experimental Procedures
1. Hand out 4 SAS forms to all the participants (which record how the subject feels at that moment in time) and have participants fill one out before the first trial and after each additional trial.
2. Participants drive on simulator 3 times (3 trials)
a. Trial 1: Familiarization Trial: (4 min.) consists of driving on open road, entering a town, slowing down and stopping at a light and exiting town.
b. Trial
2:
c. Trial 3: High Impedance Trial: (10 min) Participants do one of 2 simulations
1. Driver stuck in 3 lanes of heavy traffic going 20 miles under the speed limit.
2. Driver stuck behind a slow driver on a road with few places to pass and driver is going 15 miles below the speed limit.
3. Hand out additional questionnaires
a. Driving Scenario: Participants are given 3 scenarios (Ordinary Traffic, Rush Hour Traffic and some one yelling at you). Report anger felt.
b. DAX: participants states how often he/she experiences anger in manner described
c. Driving Survey: Participant reports how often in last 3 months they were exposed to each condition mentioned.
d. TAS: participant states their general feelings of anger.
4. Results
a. Frequency hypothesis supported: high anger drivers became angry more often (2.4 times as often).
b. Intensity hypothesis supported: high anger drivers reported greater anger (in 3 scenarios, during everyday driving and during impedance)
c. Aggression hypothesis supported: High anger drivers had a greater state of verbal and physical aggression following high impedance simulations.
d. Risky behavior hypothesis supported: On familiarization and open road simulations, high anger drivers drove faster and more erratically. They also had shorter times and distances to collisions.
e. Negative Outcome partially supported: High anger drivers drove over the speed limit more often which can lead to fines, loss of point (which can lead to loss of license), and more tickets because of moving violations. However there was no difference in minor loss of vehicular control and major and minor accidents.
Concept 2
Difference between High anger drivers who acknowledge they have a problem and High anger drivers who do not think they have an anger problem while driving. (Compared with Low anger drivers who don’t think they have an anger problem)
A. Similarities: (Results differed on small scale)
a. Both experience more state anger, verbal and physical aggression and less constructive coping than the Low anger drivers.
b. Both have more frequent and intense anger than the Low anger drivers.
c. Both are more aggressive and display more risky behaviors than the Low anger driver
d. Both display greater anger
B. Differences:
a. High anger drivers who acknowledged problem were: (compared to High and Low anger drivers who didn’t recognize a problem)
i. More verbally and physically aggressive.
ii. Displayed more aggressive behavior.
iii. Received more moving violations.
iv. Experienced more trait anger and anger out.
v. Had less anger control
b. High anger drivers who didn’t think they had a problem had a greater lapse of control
C. Interventions
a. High anger drivers who acknowledge problem:
i. Identify problem so they can benefit from intervention.
ii. Multi component intervention works
1. Triggers target anger, aggression and risky driving.
iii. Relaxation, Cognitive Relaxation, Rehearsal of Non aggressive behavior and safer driving strategies.
b. High anger drivers who don’t have problem:
i. Not ready for intervention
ii. Need to experience a natural consequence of anger, aggression and risk taking in order to seek out counseling
iii. Try to enhance awareness of problems and risks