409a-g22-report2

Report 2:
My understanding of Drivers Psychology

By Jessica Lacy

Instructions for this report can be located at:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy22/409a-g22-report2.htm

I am answering questions: 1, 3, 4, 7, 10.

The question I am answering is Question 1:

(a) Consider Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Lecture Notes, in the Section on Driving Psychology Theory and Charts at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy22/409a-g22-lecture-notes.htm#Charts Consult the article from which the Tables were taken. (b) Using your own words, describe the three behavioral domains and levels of a driver (nine cells). (c) Illustrate each domain with your own driving behavior skills and errors, or that of another driver you know well, or a driver in a particular movie. (d) Make up a "driving personality makeover" plan for yourself (or another driver you know well), relating specifically to negative thoughts you have about other road users. (e) Discuss the problems you anticipate in carrying out such a plan successfully. (f) Any other comments you wish to make.

There are four driving behavior tables contained in Dr. Leon James’ lecture notes. This can be found at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy22/409a-g22-lecture-notes.htm#Charts The first three consist of the three domains of a drivers personality. These are the affective, cognitive and sensorimotor. Affective is ones emotions and feelings. Cognitive is ones thoughts, and sensorimotor is a persons actions. The first three tables outline various driving behaviors pertain to this three domains.

Table one exemplifies three common positive emotions, thoughts and actions behind the wheel. In contrast there is a driving example of three negative affections, cognition's and sensorimotor output.

Table two expands the three domains into three specific aspects of driving. The three distinct areas are: driving responsibly, safely and proficiently. There are contrasting negative and positive examples of these affections, cognition's and sensoimotor output in terms of responsibility, safety and proficiency.

The first half of Table three is an explanation of how one must overcome negative driving habits through each aspect of the three domains. Upon completion of each level aggressive driving behaviors will been exhibited less often. There is even suggestions of how to accomplish each requirement. The second half of this table is what a driver must undergo once aggressive tendencies are overcome and supportive driving has begun. There is also a list of suggestions of how one maintains supportive driving habits.

Table four is an explanation of how to self-modify based on the AWM theory. This method requires a driver to acknowledge the mistakes (affective), witness the self during the mistake (cognitive) and modify the mistake (sensorimotor output).
Everyone exhibits positive and negative habits of driving. I’m not excluded from this generalization. My negative affective habit is driving while upset. I tend to run from upsetting situations and I often find myself behind the wheel of my car fleeing the scene. This causes me to feel distracted and feel more negatively toward other drivers. I feel as though drivers are less likely to let me into traffic, and I too am less likely to be a very friendly driver.

My positive affective driving habit is feeling friendly towards others. I allow myself to slow down and let others in. I do not feel anxious while stuck in town traffic nor do I feel angry towards other drivers who may not drive as fast as others might appreciate.

My negative cognitive habit is thinking I’m a perfect driver without mistakes. I do make mistakes, not acknowledging them will inhibit my growth as a driver. On the other hand my positive cognitive habit is enjoying the ride, I think positively about being in the car and enjoying the day. I have trained myself to relax and take it easy.

The negative sensorimotor output I commonly exhibit is speeding to make a yellow-changing-into-red light. I feel a slight adrenaline rush when I push the light, even though I know this behavior is hazardous and immature. My common positive sensorimotor output is waving at others to let them into the flow of traffic. I know exhibiting this behavior helps out in the long run, and it makes another persons driving experience that much easier.

In order to reverse my negative habits I must undergo self realization of my behaviors. I will no longer flee the scene of an upsetting situation, I will confront the situation until I’m well enough to driver. I will refuse to put my upset rage onto others. I will no longer blame drivers for my sadness. I will pull my vehicle over until I’m over feeling emotionally upset.

I will acknowledge my mistakes and negative habits and work to break the cycle. Il will stop thinking others are at fault when mistakes are made. Finally I will no longer run lights. This behavior is dangerous and rebellious. I do not want to put others at risk for my rushing behavior.

I anticipate a relatively easy transition from negative behaviors to positive habits. I have not reinforced my negative behaviors, therefore my negative driving is rare. I will struggle with not automatically driving while I’m sad or angry. If I remind myself it is easier to reflect on my current emotions while focusing on nothing else (especially a risky activity such as driving) I will break my negative affective habit.

To break my negative cognitive habits I will simply acknowledge my errors. This will not be hard, especially if I have conscientous passengers who can remind me of my errors. I will stop running lights because I realize the irrational behavior this is. I want to be safe and care for others. I want to be a supportive driver. If I continue to rebel this will not become a reality.

The question I am answering is Question 3:

(a) Discuss these two Web sites: drivers.com vs. drdriving.org by first describing their overall appearance and purpose. (b) What are their main differences? Be sure to consider at least these areas: (i) articles (ii) newsletters (iii) style (iv) probable audience (v) public relations or policy (vi) advertising (vii) size (vii) ranking (viii) Other sites that link to each. (c) Any other comments you wish to make.

In this modern age of technology there is wealth of information flooding the world wide web. It is possible to find information about any topic. There are thousands of sites that contain reputable information, and there are some that do not. It is difficult to determine which sites are reliable resources and which ones should be ignored altogether, even possibly removed from all access.

I reviewed two sites. One of which is written commercially by an unknown source. The other is written by a source I personally know and trust as a reputable resource. I compare the two sites, first I read the commercial site and I’m astounded at the contents. I feel refreshed after reviewing the second site. For a moment I was doubting the validity of the internet as a resource.

www.Drivers.com is the first site I review. This is commercial site dedicated to job listings and computer drivers. The first page pops up and I’m presented with the option of choosing automobile drivers or computer drivers. I select automobile, even though I’m not interested in a career in the driving industry. The second page I see (the website’s home page) is distractingly thrown together. I’m not quite sure where to begin. I see links to various driving topics, driving jobs, driving articles, advertisements, links, travel sites, and plenty of jobs.

The purpose of this site is unclear. I believe I’m visiting a site dedicated to providing career listings for professional drivers. The information about driving is basic and very little. The articles do provide some information about general driving, such as: autos, behavior, new drivers, law enforcement, traffic, etc. These articles do not provide much factual or interesting information. I feel like these articles are designed for entertainment purposes only.

One aspect of this site that really bothered me is the lack of credentials and references. This commercial site’s purpose is to profit from the audience. I thought it rather humorous the disclaimer states the site has been designed on a “best intentions” basis. This means there is absolutely no validity or reliability to this site or the articles that are presented.

The articles do not present any data with references to reliable sources. Percentages are stated, but they are not backed up by sources. The authors are staff of Drivers.com, they do not even use their own names. There is not a single citation or reference. Similar to the articles the newsletters are just as bogus. There are presented for entertainment. They are also written by staff members without credentials.

This site is designed to sell products, web space, and links to other commercial sites. No matter where I go there is an opportunity to buy something I do not need. Unfortunately a feeble minded individual would see this site as a hard source. They might even go so far as to order driving records, gas detection systems, sport utility safety rating manuals or computer parts. This site is not for the impulsive shopaholic. I find it humorous this 5K site charges ninety dollars a month, with a three month minimum, for links to be posted.

The links are designed for professional drivers or employers who are interested in reading various resumes online. There is links to hiring drivers, truck driving schools, trucking books, etc. This site is not a reliable source or even remotely entertaining for this student of driver’s psychology.

http://www.Dr.Driving.org is a site written by a personal acquaintance and reputable source of all kinds of driving information: Dr. Diane Nahl and her husband Dr. Leon James. My first impression of this site is the overwhelming friendliness and personal feeling this site exhibits. It is organized, user friendly, high readiblity, welcoming, simple, free and obviously local (the plumeria flowers give the authors away!).

The purpose of this site is stated outright. It is for educational purposes. The site provides data and information to educate the public about common road habits, especially aggressive driving. This site is free to use. It is personal, simple, data based, scientific, provides responsible reporting, sites credentials of both authors and references and is designed and written by a single pair of authors.

The newsletters provide a wealth of information from actual published newspapers of reputable resources. For example one newsletter is from British Broadcasting Company World Service. Authors names are stated and credits are given when due. The articles written by Dr. James and Dr. Nahl are similar. They provide information about humanities well-being and safety. The authors provide a pro social public service.

This site is designed for anyone with a drivers license, potentially receiving a license, pretty much anyone who uses the public road way system. The purpose is not to sell and profit, but to educate and help. There is one advertisement, this is selling the website’s authors educational manuel Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. This is sold through amazon.com. This book is also pro social, the point to to save society from destruction through aggressive driving.

I appreciate this site for many reasons. Another reason is how personal it is. Dr. James uploads his interviews, opinions and advice. He offers exerps from his book and a plethora of references. The listed seemingly hundreds of links mostly pertain to aggressive driving. The sites that struck me were mostly organizational sites, not commercial. The links are easy to use, they are organized by topic and provide a ton of information that is factual and remotely related to driving.

The question I am answering is Question 4:

(a) Select six student reports on driving psychology from Generation 20 , as listed in the Readings Section of the Lecture Notes. www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy22/409a-g22-lecture-notes.htm#g20-reports You must select any two students from Report 1, two different students from Report 2, and two still different students from Report 3. So there will be a total of six different students, two students for each report. (b) Summarize each of the six reports. Be sure you put a link to the report you are referring to. (c) Add a General Conclusion Section in which you discuss your reactions to what they did – (i) their ideas, (ii) their method, (iii) their explanations. (d) What did they gain from doing their reports? (e) How do their ideas influence what you yourself think about these issues? (e) Any other comments you wish to make.

Report 1A:

The first report I will be reviewing is an assignment to define ten short phrases pertaining to drivers psychology. I choose two different reports, both with their own unique and personal style. I will summarize each report, state my reactions to the students work, and discuss the impact their information provides me.

The first report I will be discussing is written by generation twenty student Jenny Arakaki.
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/arakaki/report1.htm
Jenny defines ten short phrases.

The first phrase Jenny discusses is Drivers Three Fold Self. This is a persons driving personality behind the wheel. This encompasses three individual definitions of what constitutes an individuals personality. The first is the affective aspect of the self (emotions, and attitudes) the second is the cognitive self (thinking and reasoning) and the third is the sensorimotor self (one’s perceptions, feelings and motor skills).

The second phrase is Self Witnessing Methodology. This is where a person observes a personal scenario and thinks aloud feelings and emotions pertaining to the situation. Following this one reflects on the situation, monitors their behavior, and evaluates themselves critically.

Phrase three is Road Rage. This is a drivers emotional reaction to another driver. The emotion is anger, it is overt and communicated. Road rage includes unruly conduct and unsafe driving behaviors. There are three types of road rage: verbal (yelling, gesturing, honking or insulting), quiet (rushing, complaining, resisting, or competing) and epic (cutting off, blocking, chasing, fighting or shooting).

Jennie’s fourth phrase is Aggressive Driving Legislation. This is when a National Conference of State Legislation determines laws concerning aggressive driving. Noncompliance to these state level requirements may lead to punishment. This legislation reduces illegal driving and protects the community from aggressive driving.

The fifth phrase Jenny defines is Drivers Emotional Spin Cycle. This is the positive or negative feelings toward the self and others. Jenny suggests one must customize ones behavior to remain positive, this turns thoughts into positive actions.

Newsgroups for Drivers is the six phrase. This is an online forum designed to discuss specific issues drivers are experiencing on the road. Users may provide solutions to problems, offer support or provide feedback.

Jenny defines Lifelong Drivers Education as the seventh definition. This is a young person learning habits from parents. It is parents responsibility to promote positive driving techniques and instill good driving skills. It is important for parents to teach how to handle aggression positively.

The eighth definition is Scofflaw. This word pertains to a driver who purposely disregards laws, regulations and signs. This type of driver is compulsively rebellious. According to Jenny our culture promotes cynicism about laws and law enforcement.

The ninth and final definition is Left Lane Bandit. This is a driver who remains in the fast left lane despite traveling at the speed limit. This driver creates more traffic and is motivated by stubbornness and domination of others.

General conclusions:

I’m familiar with most of these phrases, either through reads or class discussions. Jenny did provide me with an outside perspective about things I have not thoughts of previously. One thing I have never considered prior to reading this report is a left lane bandits motivation. Jenny believes these drivers are provoked by the desire to dominate others. I can appreciate where this theory originates from, but I would like to believe these drivers are simply unaware of their actions. I tend to give humans the benefit of the doubt, even inconsiderate drivers who may be determining the lethargic flow of traffic. Overall I think Jenny did an excellent job of briefly explaining each definition. There was not much depth to her answers, but there was enough for me to grasp each concept.

Jenny gained an awareness of her own driving habits through understanding the technicalities of the road. She realizes her own faults and common habitual mistakes. What struck me was the realization she came to about the impact she has on others who share the road. I too have never really realized how connected we all are when we are sharing a common road’s space.

Report 1B:

This report also defines a series of driving related phrases. Cheri Arakawa-Longboy is the author to the following phrases.
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/arakawa-longboy/report1.htm

Cheri’s first phrase is Drivers Three Fold Self. This is affective, cognitive and sensorimotor aspects to the self. Affective is: affections, emotions, motives, needs, goal oriented actions, feelings, wants and desires. Cognitive is: understanding, reasoning, decision making, cognition's, thoughts an d deciphering right from wrong. Sensorimotor is: sensory input and motor output (actions).

The second definition is Self Witness Methodology. This is a person’s behavior modification. The result of this a deeper appreciation for emotional reactions and motives which can result in self control and a positive, happier and healthier overall self. One method of self witnessing is saying thoughts out loud, recording and later analyzing.

Phrase three is Road Rage. This is a habit of aggressive driving. The cause of this behavior is having too much pride. The result of this behavior is loosing patience. Cheri also defines the three types of road rage: verbal, quiet and epic.

Cheri’s fourth phrase is Aggressive Drivers Legislation. This is an attempt at reducing aggressive driving by the government implementing safety laws. There are three issues with implementing such laws. First, it is difficult to define what is aggressive. Second, laws are too vague to have a chance in cour t. Third, there is a definition gap between public and authority.

The fifth phrase is Drivers Emotional Intelligence. This is ones control over emotions, rationale, thinking and judgment. Cheri believes anger is irrational. Mastering ones anger is emotionally intelligent. One must first learn how to reappraise a situation, look for alternate explanations, self regulate mood shifts, empathize with the “other” side, persist in ones positive plan, and finally control impulsive behavior. The result of these steps is a positive outcome. One must learn to inhibit venting through relaxation techniques.

Phrase six is Drivers Emotional Spin Cycle. This consists of the world, the self and others all intermixing and working together. The cycle is changing ones perceptions from negative to positive. This training controls how one reacts to events and situations.

Cheri’s seventh phrase is Lifelong Drivers Education. Cheri advocates for the implementing of new skills, instilling values and providing a wealth of knowledge to drivers of all ages. This will help mold responsible and positive attitudes. For children parents play a major role in shaping a child’s driving habits.

The eighth phrase is Theory of Driving. This is the external and internal aspects of driving. External is the situation one drives in (road conditions, other drivers and pedestrians, etc.). The internal is ones own thoughts, perceptions, emotions, cognitions, decisions and values. Cheri do es a lovely job of putting these into an equation for the theory of driving. Disposition + situation = theory of driving.

The final definition is Authorization of Driving. This is a step a person makes after driving for a few weeks to a few months. This is when a person’s driving become automatic, there is no longer a need to consciously think about what one is or should be doing behind the wheel. Drivers gain this autom atization through observations and experiences. Cheri believes the primary caretakers bad habits become automatized through a child's observation of these habits.

General conclusions:

I enjoyed reading Cheri’s explanations for here nine phrases. She did a beautiful job of in-depthly explaining herself. She left no room for questions about vagueness or confusion. I appreciate she includes examples from her own life and experiences or from similar driving scenarios in her explanations. This method gave me something to visualize.

Cheri gained an awareness of the impact she has on her younger siblings. She is more conscious of the degree of impression she will leave with the children in her family. Because of this awareness she does not want to be an aggressive driver. I realize the importance of positive role modeling, even behind the wheel. Kids always look up to adults, they mimic any and all behaviors. It is vitally important to keep this in mind while driving.

Report 2A:

Report two from generation twenty is design a driving personality makeover of a negative behavior. I choose reports from Mark Corpuz and Naomi Fukushima. I selected these two authors for their vastly differing driving personalities, the experimental methods they implement, and their styles in the reporting.

Student Mark Corpuz has several behaviors he would like to reevaluate behind the wheel.
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/corpuz/report2.htm
His initial step to self asses through checklists provided by the book Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. The conclusion of this beginning step is affectively he has fantasies of retaliation and revenge, cognitively he has a slight tendency to tailgate and sensorimotor he has a slight tendency towards verbal road rage. Mark admits he does enjoy slowing dow n when a tailgater is present, he concludes he is usually not a rusher. The behaviors he would like to modify are: driving under the influence, retaliation of tailgaters and verbal road rage.

Marks method for modification is to keep a daily journal of his driving activities. Daily he logs observations about himself, with a focus on the three desired behavior changes. He records his feelings, attitudes, and behaviors.

Mark comes to a positive conclusion regarding this self modification. He see a reduction in negative driving behavior post experiment.

General conclusions:

Mark believes he does not have bad driving habits, from what I read I would have to agree. I did see he does have issues with drinking and driving, which he seems to be fully aware of. I think keeping a journal is good method for someone like Mark who be lieves he does not need a vast amount of improvement. Talking into a recorder might embarrass him if he were to discuss personal problems, such as drinking. Journaling a more personal route. I appreciate Mark’s suggestion that no matter how great a driv er believes them self to be, there is always room for improvement.

Report 2B:

Naomi Fukushima designed an experiment to perform on her boyfriend’s driving personality and negative habits. http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/fukushima/report2.htm
She first has her boyfriend answer a series of questions regarding his perception of his own driving habits. She then analyzes his three fold self as a driver, and finally diagnoses him as a driver.

The results to the questions is Naomi’s boyfriend has moderate road rage. He will undergo a behavior change in regards to taking pleasure in the thoughts or torture or revenge, pleasure in breaking the law, impatience and blaming. Naomi would like her bo yfriend to think positively while driving. She designs an experiment to try and extinguish his rebellious driving behavior.

Naomi uses two different methods. The first is recording her boyfriend during one of his aggressive outburst. She later plays it back to him and has him write down his reaction to hearing himself. The other method is placing a rubber band around his wri st and snapping it whenever he has an emotional outburst.

Her results show the most effective method of behavior modification is recording and playback. Negatively reinforcing her boyfriend only seemed to make him more aggressive and angry.

General conclusions:

Naomi’s boyfriend is now more aware of the impact his negative driving has on others. He admits to driving selfishly, and when he thinks positively it feels good. No doubt this makes his lovely girlfriend very pleased.

I thought Naomi did a wonderful job narrating her experiment and the steps she took. She definitely on her way to becoming a successful psychologist. I enjoyed reading the different methodology she implemented, I thought it was very creative of her to tr y her own tactic. I feel inspired to try and change some of my boyfriends negative driving habits, except I do not think I will be using the rubber band snapping technique.

Report 3A:

This assignment is to explain the importance of lifelong drivers education and to design an ideal program to implement this education. I choose two reports of similar context and design, but with different reporting styles and explanation.

Student Jeremy Kubo http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/kubo/report3.htm
believes Drivers ZED programs teach appropriate risk management for new drivers. He advocates for this program to be implemented in kindergarten until the twelfth grade. Jeremy thinks even the teachers would benefit from a course designed to integrate sa fe driving habits into the curriculum . This would be through recognizing one’s own faults and teaching others habits of safe driving.

Jeremy proposes a lifelong drivers educational program for ages zero until adulthood. The first group of zero until twelve year olds experience mostly affective aspects of the self. This means teachers should be positive role models and promote sharing, peacefulness, and self sacrifice.

The next group is ages thirteen to fourteen. This group is predominately cognitive, pre-teenagers recognize right from wrong. The method that should be implementing is self witnessing. Group three is ages fifteen to eighteen. This group is mostly senso rimotor. Adolescence is when most individuals learn to drive. Jeremy advocates for a three step drivers improvement plan. The last group is voluntary quality driving circles designed to discuss issues relating to driving and aggressive road rage.

General conclusions:

Jeremy is now more aware of other’s driving behaviors. He had never previously been aware of the uneducated people on the road, and the inability to properly operate an automobile. He is also more aware of himself and his interaction with others.

I wish Jeremy had gone through more explanation of what his steps would precisely involve. I also got the impression the ages were exclusively affective, cognitive or sensorimotor, that there was no interaction between the three. I think the best idea he presents is having a positive teaching curriculum in schools, for all ages. If students are taught how to remain calm in all stressful situations, this will translate onto the road as well.

Report 3B:

Author Sarah Phillips also designs a life long drivers education program. http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/phillips/report3.htm
Sarah believes Drivers ZED reduces the accident rate in teenagers, therefore it should be implemented one hundred percent. Her proposal supports this theory.

Sarah recognizes children learn through modeling of their primary caregiver and the media, therefore it is of utmost importance a caregiver instills proper values and monitors inappropriate media influences. Sarah breaks down the ages of driving education in to four groups.

Ages two to nine are dominated by emotions, wants and desire. It is a caregivers responsibly to teach a child how to appropriately respond to anger and upset. Teaching pro social behavior and how to share is also very important for the later driving years.

The second group is ages ten up to fifteen. This group is thinking critically about the laws that govern the road and driving. At this age it is vital to implement drivers education. The third group is ages fifteen to nineteen. This is when the act of driving becomes of importance in a persons life. Sarah believes a system of gradated licensing should be implemented, upon successful completion of one step, more freedom and privileges are inherited.

The final age group is sixty plus. There should be periodic health and safety checks for elderly drivers. For all drivers Sarah would like to see health, safety, vision, and road checks every two years.

General conclusions:

Sarah’s perception about societies driving habits have changed post report 3. She realizes the importance of safe driving and education of all people, regardless of age and ability. She would like to see herself evolve as a driver to become more supportive.

I thought Sarah’s ideas about lifelong drivers education to be thoughtful and well planned. I think governments implementing graduated licensing is the most logical and feasible plan. I do not think having everyone inspected every two is possible, there is not enough time in the average Americans schedule, and there is certainly not enough money in most people wallet or even in the governments finances.

I think the government should make it more difficult for everyone to receive a license. It should be more expensive, more difficult to pass written and road exams or one should be eighteen. This would cut down on the number of cars on the road and the risks and hazards of driving. Also this would mean the drivers that are on the road have worked hard to be there and would not risk loosing a license for a thrill seeking, fleeting moment.

The question I am answering is Question 7:

(a) Our textbook Road Rage and Aggressive Driving has exercises in several chapters. Do the following four exercises: (i) Exercise on scenario analysis on p. 129; (ii) Exercise on self-assessment on p.134; (iii) Exercise on identifying assumptions on p. 131; and (iv) Exercise on negative vs. positive driving on p. 122. (b) What were your reactions to the exercises? (c) Discuss how these exercises help you to become more aware of yourself as a driver. (d) Do some of the exercises with another driver you know. How do they help you understand some principles of driving psychology mentioned in the book? (e) Any other comments you wish to make.

There is many methods of self analysis and negative behavior change. Drivers may apply these techniques to change oppositional driving actions and cognition's. Our class test book, Road Rage and Aggressive Driving provides checklists and exercises to evaluate personality behind the wheel and identify potentially hazardous conditions and situations. I will review four exercises in the book and analyze the final outcomes.

The first exercise I will review is on page 129. This is an exercise in identifying what is negative or positive about six statements or cognition's. I also will add my own statements and explain what is aggressive or supportive about the statement I create*.

Negative statement one: Nope you cant come in here. Were all in a hurry, not just you. You’ll just have to wait your turn
Positive statement one: We’re all in a hurry but there's room for one more. Go ahead , be my guest. Sorry I can’t let the whole line in.

Critique: Thinking one more car in traffic will have a drastic negative impact on other cars is egocentric. If there is already issues with traffic conditions one more car will not impact the flow of traffic. Recognizing everyone is feeling pressure to arrive at their designations is relationally mature. Wishing everyone could be waved in traffic is pro social and emotionally mature.

I try to let as many cars into the flow of traffic as safely and convienently as possible, without holding other drivers up too much. I have found that when I do let others in I’m waved into traffic more frequently than if I do not let others in. I have never before thought letting another driver in the flow of traffic will hold me up even more. I think to think allowing someone in traffic is making their life a litter easier, that makes me feel good.

My boyfriend is also a considerate driver. If he does neglect letting someone into traffic it is because he did not see them, not because he feels it will slow him down. He waves people in as much as safely possible.

Negative statement two: Look at that fool! Forgets to turn off the signal for miles! Where is his head, anyway?
Positive statement two: Ooooops! There’s a boohoo. You have to stay alert when you drive. Hope it won’t cause an accident.

Critique: Negatively labeling someone else is only going to make the angry driver more aggressive and prone to name calling. This problem is very insignificant in terms of everyday road and traffic behavior. This driver is not a fool, they may be forgetful. The pro social driver is more concerned with others safety. Recognizing everyone makes mistakes is emotionally mature.

I can easily overlook someone's simple and common mistakes in regard to vehicle manipulation. I understand humans are fallible and we commonly make errors. These errors are not worth ridicule, especially when I too have made the same mistake. I’m sure feeling guilty and inexperienced is enough ridicule a person deserves.

My boyfriend is only reactionary and labels others when he is in a joking mood (which is quite common). Matt usually does not name call, if he does slip up he is not serious. He never picks on people for simple mistakes, either. He does make comments about stupid, dangerous mistakes.

Negative statement three: Oh great! Just what I wanted to do, sit in traffic and crawl inch-by-inch. Come on, air head! The light is green! Move, go, go!
Positive statement three: Slow today. Well, I can fidget or I can relax. Either way I’ll get there the same time. Might as well cruise. How about some relaxing music?

Critique: Sarcasm is not the most adaptable method of coping in high stress situations. Again, name calling is immature and does not make the negative driver feel any better about the situation and other drivers. Patience is an adaptable virtue all drivers need to learn to practice, not just on the road. I appreciate the positive drivers theory about taking it easy, somethings are out of ones control. Playing relaxing music is an excellent technique to relax and take a break from heavy traffic.

I try to cruise everywhere I go, not just on the road. I think taking life easy is the best way to cope with everyday struggles and worries. I enjoy being in my car, even in traffic. It gives me a change to get away from my other commitments. I realize music does have an effect on me and my mood. High energy techno, rap, or rock elevates my energy and I become more prone to anxiety. Calm reggae, emo, or alternative is just what I need when I’m feeling the blood pressure rise.

Matt does tend to fight impatience. He does not usually blame other drivers for making him wait in traffic, he has a tendency to curse out traffic lights and innatament objects. Although sometimes he is making a joke of it, other times I can tell he is seriously upset about a light changing. That behavior is silly and inhibits emotional growth.

Negative statement four: Hurry up idiot! Stop holding up traffic like that! I’m going to honk at him.
Positive statement four: I feel like honking, but it’s not worth the trouble. Besides, honking might slow him down even more or startle him and cause a crash.

Critique: Blaming a single individual for holding up an entire line of traffic is both naive and immature. There may be some unforeseen object or car that is blocking one driver from continuing on their way. I’m sure drivers do not want to hold up traffic, everyone has a destination and wants to reach it in a short amount of time. Honking could possibly worsen the situation by startling the other driver which might cause anxiety, or worse, a crash. The emotionally mature driver recognizes this and does not provoke a more negative situation.

I only use my horn in desperate situations where it is a matter of safety, not a matter of anger and frustration. I do sometimes feel frustrated when drivers are unaware of a light change, but I remind myself they will eventually see the green light and will move their vehicle.

Matt does occasional verbally retaliate for someone waiting out a green light. I have never heard him use his horn, even when we were nearly sideswiped. I do not think Matt thinks about the other drivers reaction to honking, I believe it is matter of laziness and slow reactions.

Negative statement five: I’m going to make that light. Come on, come get out of my way! Turning yellow...I can still make it if I step on it
Positive statement five: All right, I’m not going to make this one. Slowing down gently. I can relax for a few minutes.

Critique: Speeding to make green lights is dangerous, egocentric, reckless, unlawful, careless and inconsiderate. Putting the breaks on when appropriate is safe, considerate, and lawful. The emotionally mature driver can relax over not receiving a ticket, can do other things in the car, or day dream. Hitting red lights is just a part of driving on roads.

I really do not mind having to slow down and break at lights. Although I must admit I do occasionally push a yellow. I do sometimes feel anxious when I hit every light red and I’m in a hurry, or my passenger is rushing. I try not to run lights because I’m scared of being pulled over and ticketed. I also do not want to hurt anyone else, myself or my vehicle.

The only time I ever witness Matt running lights or near red lights, is when he late for work. If that is the case he usually makes more than that mistake. He often tailgates, verbally agitates other drivers (and me) and speeds. He does not usually realize he is stopping at lights frequently unless I point out how many lights we have needed to stop at in a row.

Negative statement six: No way are you taking that parking place. What are you serious? I’ve been waiting here! It’s mine. Hey bonehead, stop that!
Positive statement six: Now that’s not fair. I’ve been waiting here. Oh well, it’s not worth a fight. Don’t be rude to the rude. Besides, it’s possible she didn’t see me. I’ll get one soon. There’s always someone leaving.

Critique: It is obviously aggravating to have a parking spot stolen from a waiting driver, but it is not worth such aggression. It is emotionally mature to review all aspects of the situation before negatively retaliating about the situation. There are plenty parking spots available elsewhere. The walk may be a bit farther, but that would be a good time to chill out and get some exercise.

I have never had a spot taken from me before, but I can image myself getting pretty angry over the situation. I imagine I would try to remind myself it is not a tremendously big deal, but not without feeling anxiety over the situation.

I have also never been witness to this situation with my boyfriend. I imagine he would react in a similar way I would, except he would be louder and even more angry than I would be.

*Negative statement seven: I hate stupid tailgaters! I’m going to slow down even more just to make them go even slower!
*Positive statement seven: I will pull over to let them pass me. I do not want to hold anyone up.

Critique: The best method to cope with negative driving behavior is to ignore the perpetrator, or pull over and let them safely pass on the left. Retaliation behavior is dangerous and egocentric, it is possible a tailgater will get even closer when provoked and possibly damage the vehicle.

I do have the tendency to slow down in retaliation, or I lightly touch my breaks. I usually pursue the latter behavior in an attempt to let the other driver know they are tailgating me. More often than not the other driver is unaware of their behavior’s impact.

Matt does not seem aware of other drivers on the road, even tailgaters. This is not the most advantageous behavior to exhibit. This is good when he being tailgated by other drivers.

The following exercise I will review can be found on page 134. This is identifying my best and worst traits as a driver, six according to myself and three according to my boyfriend and best friend (they had trouble thinking of three more).

My best six driving traits, according to me!!
1) careful, cautious, considerate 2) do not speed 3) always wear safety belt 4) do not let passengers determine my driving style 5) law abiding 6) relaxed

My worst six driving traits, according to me!!
1) drive after drinking more than one 2) run yellow lights 3) pack too many passengers into my vehicle 4) zippy 5) slow to react 6) distracted

My best three driving traits, according to my passengers!!
1) friendly 2) defensive 3) obey speed limits

My worst three driving traits, according to my passengers!!
1) drive after drinking 2) not aggressive enough 3) defensive

I believe my best and worst driving traits are more accurate than Christine and Matt’s perceptions of my best and worst. It is important to have an awareness of others perceptions of my driving, although I do not think they are completely true. I think driving defensively is a positive attribute, not negative. I do not take risks and I think that is because I have raised to be a safe driver, not a risk taker.

I do tend to run yellows. I sometimes get an adrenaline rush when I run lights, but the after effect is more detrimental than the initial rush. I fear being pulled over and ticketed, or I fear being held accountable for hurting someone, myself or my vehicle. I do not want to hurt anyone. I realize my drinking my potentially hurt someone or something. It is just not worth running that risk.

I enjoyed the feedback from my friends. I think having them think critically about my driving will help to think about their own driving habits. I also liked having to think critically about myself. I think putting these opinions about myself down on paper will help me to change my negative habits, and maintain my positive.

The third exercise I will be discussing can be located on page 131. This task is to discuss specific incorrect and negative assumptions. The false statements are from a letter written by an angry and confused driver. I will analyze each incorrect statement and add a few personal suggestions of what this driver could have done differently to improve his situation.

The first incorrect action is the driver parking his vehicle in a unmarked stall, pulled off to the side of parking lot. He is upset over a law enforcement official pulling up behind him and blowing his horn instead of getting out of his vehicle and personally explaining why he needs to move his car. The driver could have calmly moved his vehicle and considered the horn blowing to be a warning. It could have been worse, the driver could have been ticketed for not parking his vehicle correctly.

Incorrect assumption number two is provoking the officer by noncompliance, retaliation and volatile language. These rebellious actions are only going to encourage further action on the officers part. My suggestion again would be: remain calm and compliant. Do what authority asks (within reason) and situations will not escalate into something more negative. The third wrong move is driving drunk. Even though this driver only moved his car a few yards, his person remaining in the vehicle is cause enough for a driving under the influence ticket.

Noncompliance with a safety official will escalate into worse situations. If this driver had simply moved in vehicle when it was requested of him (as rude as it may have seemed) this situation would not have resulted in arrest and fining. Law enforcement officials are simply doing their jobs, they do not have personal interest in the situation or feel emotional about having to do their duty. It makes an officers job much more difficult when there is a rebellion.

The final exercise I will be reviewing can be located on page 122-123. This assignment is to identify positive (pro social) and negative (antisocial) statements and contrast the differences between the two. The is a focus that will be kept in mind as the forefront to the contrasting statements.

Focus: Self or others
Negative statement: This traffic is slow! What’s wrong with these fools? They’re driving like nut cases!
Positive statement: I’m feeling very impatient today. Everything seems to tick me off.

Critique and comparison: The emotionally immature driver is fixating on others. This driver is blaming specific people for the social problem of traffic. The best solution would be to relax and arrive alive and calm. The emotionally mature driver is putting the blame of impatience on them self. They realize they are not functioning one hundred percent patiently in heavy traffic, this awareness may invoke a desire to change negative cognition's into positive ones.

Focus: Interaction of thoughts/feelings
Negative statement: I’m angry, scared, outraged! How can they do this to me?
Positive statement: I feel angry, scared and outraged when I think of what could have happened.

Critique and comparison: The emotionally immature driver is labeling them self and not giving them self room to change. This driver is putting the blame for this feeling on others, not on them self. A better solution for feeling upset on the road is thinking of the possible reactions of others to this anger. The emotionally mature feels upset with the situation, not with others. There is more concern with possible outcomes of negative situations and emotions.

Focus: Anger is choice or impulsive behavior
Negative statement: They make me so mad when they do that
Positive statement: I make myself mad when they do that

Critique and comparison: An emotionally immature driver will put the emotionally blame on everyone but them self. No one is provoking intentional anger, situations are being negatively interpreted and the result is anger. Having an understanding that situations being interpreted incorrectly may lead to anger is emotionally adaptable. This emotionally mature driver realizes emotions come from within. Learning to inhibit negative cognition's is a step to becoming a safer driver and more adaptable individual.

Focus: Consequences or impulse
Negative statement: I just want to give this driver a piece of my mind. I just want him to know how I feel.
Positive statement: If I respond to this provocation, I lose my control over the situation. It's not worth it.

Critique and comparison: The emotionally immature do not see the bigger picture of situations, and the possibility of escalating a negative scenario into something more dangerous. Retaliations is a great way to relinquish power, the emotionally mature does not loose themselves in upsetting situations. Realizing loosing ones power is the worst possible conclusion to altercations is beneficial to both drivers.

Focus: Respect for others or egocentric thinking
Negative statement: They’d better stay out of my way--I’m in no mood for putting up with them...!
Positive statement: I wish there was no traffic, but it’s not up to me. These people have to get to their destinations too.

Critique and comparison: The emotionally immature puts bad moods on everyone else. They do not realize their bad mood is causing them to hurry and rush. Thinking there is no one else on the road is an incorrect assumption that can cause anxiety. Repeating the unwritten laws of society which is appreciating a community of others is emotionally mature. Understanding everyone is in a hurry to arrive at their destinations is emotionally mature and adaptable thinking.

Focus: Accept traffic as teamwork or competition
Negative statement: Driving is about getting ahead. I get a jolt out of beating a red light or finding fastest lane. It’s me verses everyone else.
Positive statement: I try to keep pace without the traffic, realizing that my movements can slow others down--like switching lanes to get ahead.

Critique and comparison: Being in the car is not the most adaptable time to thrill seek. This behavior is dangerous and illegal. Putting others at risk for a rebellious adrenaline rush is egocentric and immature. Realizing the road is place where interaction is vital is mature. It is necessary to care for one another on the road, or else chaos is liable (I have been to Los Angles and personally know teamwork and cooperation on the road is obsolete).

Focus: Diversity of needs and styles or blaming others
Negative statement: How can she be so stupid? She’s talking on the phone instead of paying attention to the road!
Positive statement: I need to be extra careful around drivers using their cell phones, they may be distracted.

Critique and comparison: This emotionally challenged driver is labeling without cause or reason. This driver assumes the other driver is women, and they label them as “stupid” for talking on the phone. I’m sure this emotionally immature driver has taken part in this common behavior. An emotionally mature driver realizes there is a vast diversity of skills and awareness behind the wheel. Realizing it is ones own responsibility to be cautious around others is the most adaptable way of thinking.

Focus: Positive role models or negative
Negative statement: Come on buddy, speed up or I’ll be on your tail. Go! What’s wrong with you? There’s no one ahead.
Positive statement: This driver is going slower than I’d like. Now I can practice the art of patience and respect for the next few minutes.

Critique and comparison: The negative driver retaliates when situations are not most advantageous. This may cause the other driver anxiety and may crash. The positive driver realizes there is no need to feel negative about other drivers, simply taking it easy and making the most out of the situation. This will cause other drivers to witness positive behavior and reinforce healthy driving habits.

Focus: Inhibit impulses by humor or impulses
Negative statement: I can’t stand all these bozos on the road! They slow down when they should speed up! They gawk, crawl--anything but drive.
Positive statement: I’m angry. I’m mad. Therefore I’ll act calm. I’ll smile and not compete. Already I feel better. Be my guest, enter ahead.

Critique and comparison: Again, the negative driver will label others incorrectly and intolerably. Assuming others are not driving because of involving themselves in other activities is emotionally immature. Refusing to allow negative emotions by smiling, remaining calm and making room for others is emotionally mature. The best relaxation technique is laughter, this is applicable to driving behaviors.

Focus: Awareness of mistakes and correcting them or uncritical of self
Negative statement: I’m an excellent driver: assertive and competent, with a clean driving record and hardly any tickets.
Positive statement: I monitor myself as a driver and keep a driving log of my mistakes. I think it’s important to include thoughts and feelings.

Critique and comparison: Thinking one is perfect is a dangerous assumption, not only on the road. Everyone makes mistakes, even professional drivers. There is always something to learn about driving, no one is ever going to stop making common errors. The emotionally mature realizes driving is an ongoing learning process. Mistakes will be made. The most adaptable method for learning is to analyze the mistake, try to understand how and why it happened and work to on not making the same mistake over again.

The question I am answering is Question 10:

(a) Explain the "supportive driving" orientation in relation to the driver's threefold self (b) Describe any resistance you experience regarding this orientation, including (i) the idea that how you drive is a moral issue of human rights (ii) the idea of lifelong driver education and the idea of mandatory participation in QDC support groups (c) Describe the reactions of friends when you tell them about driving personality makeovers (d) Anything else you have to say.

To be a supportive driver means of variety of personality traits and behaviors. In general, the concept of “supportive” is emotionally mature and positive thinking. “Emotionally mature” also utilizes a variety of definitions. In the next few pages I will explain the concept of existing as a supportive driver in terms of one’s traits and behaviors.

There are three parts of a person’s being. These separate entities are distinct, yet they interact to create a whole person. The first part is affective. This is persons emotions and feelings. The second aspect is cognitive. This is a persons thoughts. The third part is sensorimotor. This part is the bodily actions a person undergoes. These three apply to all aspects of psychology and behaviors, I will relate them to driving psychology.

Affective is how one feels emotionally. This means if the perception of a driving station is negative, one will feel angry, upset or anxious. On the other hand, if a driver is positive, and perceptions are accurate, one will feel happy, calm and peaceful. These feelings take part in sustaining a supportive driving mentality. It is important to understand one’s emotions are independent of others influences. This means it is up to ourselves to determine our moods and train ourselves how to feel happy and calm in upsetting situations.

Cognitive psychology is related to the affective parts of being. We think cognitively therefore we feel affectively. How we perceptive and think about situations determines our final moods. On the road drivers often think positively and supportive. These attributes are contagious and provide the roads with safer, less risky drivers. This is why it is vitally important to train ourselves to think positively.

The sensorimotor aspect to one’s physical and emotional being is determined by cognition's and affections. A person thinks about a situation, feels something emotionally, and reacts psychically. Behind the wheel there are many physical acts occurring. For example, in thinking negatively one feels angry and may feel compelled to make obscene gestures. In supportive driving thinking positively makes one feel calm, one is more likely to wave others into traffic. The physical act of driving (shifting gears, steering, turning indicator lights, hand gestures, facial expression etc.) are all a part of the sensorimotory in a person.

I have not experienced much resistance in the area of supportive driving. I try to be the friendliness and most helpful driver possible. I wave others into traffic as much a safely and conveniently possible, without inconveniencing other drivers. I also try to maintain positive thinking in all traffic situations. I look for the good in situations that may feel highly stressed, such as “town” traffic. I also remain calm for the sake of my sanity, and my passengers. I do not let my negative emotions, such as anxiety, determine my output of energy.

I have trained myself to reverse my negative thinking into positive thoughts. If someone cuts me off or makes a seriously dangerous mistake I try to immediately put it out of my mind. I have adopted an adaptable phrase when a fellow driver accidentally makes me feel threatened. This is: “whoa buddy”. I say this out loud with as little upset energy as possible. This reminds me I do not personally know this person and getting angry will get me now where. I also feel calm when I hear myself say something peacefully. I remind myself the mistake is over and I’m doing just fine, life goes on.

How I drive is a moral issue of human rights because I feel I have earned my place on the road. I have been driving for six years and I try to maintain a safe and positive attitude behind the wheel. I believe road interactions can truly make a persons day. I would feel guilty if I negatively impacted a person by ruining their drive on their commute to work. I support others, not just on the road, but I think it is vitally important to support others I do not know. I never know who the person is and the stories they may have to tell.

To maintain supportive driving it is vitally important to maintain drivers education throughout our lives. We are never completely educated in the field of driver. There are too many road conditions, traffic situations, and driving personalities to ever be one hundred percent competent on the road. This means we should have mandatory classes and health checks for licensed drivers of all ages. Drivers support groups are an important outlet for drivers. These groups can help maintain positive thinking about driving. They are an excellent method to learn about the self and personality behind the wheel through others support and advice.

I have told my boyfriend, Matt about my driving personality makeover. I have always persisted I do not need to undergo this change, I advocate for Matt to change. I attempt to change his verbal outbursts when someone makes a mistake and he is angry. I think the best method for changing his negative affections is to change his cognition's about other drivers. I remind it is not worth getting upset over someone else. He is slowly learning how to inhibit his negative cognitions, and I believe the result of positive affections is an excellent reward he enjoys.

I think there are many aspects to driving that can translate into ones everyday life apart from the drive. I can remember several instances where I felt at risk, this feeling was not easily shaken. I felt negative during a good portion of my day. I now realize feeling upset is not worth it. Life is too short. We should enjoy the ride and look forward to arriving alive and happy.

My report on the current generation:

The first report I will analyze is Jadine Makinano’s first oral presentation on February 14, 2005. http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409as2005/makinano/1st_oral.htm Jadine summarizes the characteristics of road raging driver. These traits explained in her outline. The first is a automobile vigilante, rushing maniac, aggressive competitor and scofflaw. Jadine shares with class she herself was a road rager in her younger driving years. She tells the class she personally regrets her poor decisions but now she strives to be more like Jesus, who would calmly face not the roads, not aggressively.

I completely agree with Jadine, although I have never been a road rager. I have seen negative behaviors in others, until they under went a personal transformation. Many hostile behaviors can only been dealt with faith.

The second report I will review is Kyle Takeshimas second oral presentation on April 25. http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409as2005/takeshima/myoral2.htm
Kyle reports on the use of cell phones on the road, both the risks and the benefits and a bit of history. He reiterates there is no facts to support risky driving and the use of a cell phone.
He does tell the call drivers are distracted while driving and talking. He shared his fears of riding his motorcycle and the “SUV driving soccer mom chatting away”.

I have not previously discussed by feelings about driving and the use of cell phones. I do believe they have their place on the road. I use the car as a personal office at times. I find privacy in the car and it is a wonderful time to catch up with friends and family. I do acknowledge their is a calculated risk with this behavior, so I attempt to limit my calls to traffic free roads and in places of familiarity.

The final presentation I will review is from Brandi McWade’s first oral presentation on January 31, 2005. http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409as2005/mcwade/myoral1.htm
Brandi discusses gender differences in driving, driving impaired and self control behind the wheel. Brandi does not completely agree with stereotyping genders specific driving habits. She does seem to support the fact that women tend to express ourselves more emotionally.

I have not really discussed gender differences. I do see a reactionary difference between my boyfriend and I. He gets more angry and has more outburst on a weekly basis then I would every have in a lifetime. There is many factors besides gender behind this observation.

Advice to future generations:

There is many useful aspects to Drivers Psychology. I think the most important advice I can give relating report 2 is SAVE YOUR WORK!! I lost my file due to a power surge and I had to start all over again. I was completely devastated, and busy. In terms of the class material and structure I will advise remember driving situations. Much of the class is talking story and deconstructing the situation step by step. I have discovered the ultimate conclusion to this classes policy is CHILL. This is familiar concept for locals. I appreciate the overall message of the class and its relational to everyday life.

My home page:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409as2005/lacy/

Class Home Page:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409as2005/