My Report of Driving
Psychology:
Driving Psychology Topics
By Ryan Kinoshita
Instructions for this report are at:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/409a-g26-report2.htm
Dr. Leon James, Instructor
University of Hawaii
April 2007
One activity that would have been fun for us to do as an outline would be to create a Traffic Enforcement and Education card. This would not only bring out the creative side of us, but would also be useful for the police department if they ever decide to implement it. It would also bring a different element to the course, rather than just writing papers all the time. After a while, writing outlines and papers can become boring. This activity can even be used as an extra credit opportunity.
(a) Consider Table 4 in the Lecture Notes at http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/409a-g26-lecture-notes.htm. Read the section titled “The AWM Approach in Driver Self-modification” where Table 4 is located. In your own words summarize what it is about.
(b) Now try the AWM procedure on at least two trips or episodes.
(i) Describe what happened. How did you obtain the data on yourself? Be sure to discuss all three aspects of your threefold self.
(ii) What were your observations about yourself as a driver? What were for you some difficult aspects of the experiment in relation to your threefold self?
(iii) What is your conclusion? How can this approach be promoted in our society?
(a)
Consider Table 4 in the Lecture Notes at http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/409a-g26-lecture-notes.htm. Read the section titled “The AWM Approach in
Driver Self-modification” where Table 4 is located. In your own words summarize what it is about.
The AWM Approach in Driver Self-modification, created by Dr. Leon James and Dr. Diane Nahl, is a three-step program that changes an individual’s aggressive driving behaviors into supportive driving behaviors. The three steps, which I will elaborate more on, involves the individual’s acknowledgment of his or her own aggressive driving behaviors, the witnessing of those behaviors, and lastly the modification of his or her aggressive driving behaviors into supportive driving behaviors. In this case, a supportive driver is one who has a prosocial driving personality that is characterized by non-competitive driving behaviors and an objective thought process.
In the first stage of the AWM Approach in Driver Self-modification, the individual must Acknowledge all of the negative (aggressive) driving behaviors that he or she has. This must be done under each category of the three-fold self: Affective self (emotions and motivations), Cognitive self (thoughts and reasoning), and Sensorimotor self (overt behavior). Then he or she must list all of these negative driving behaviors down on a paper, along with its counter part. That is, its supportive behavior. The end result will look very similar to what can be found on Table 3 of the lecture notes. The only difference should be the content of the table. This is considered the most difficult stage when trying to change a behavior. That is because the individual must admit that he or she has a fault.
For the second stage of the AWM Approach in Driver Self-modification, the individual must choose only one of the many behaviors that he or she acknowledged, and Witness himself or herself in the act. This can be accomplished through several different techniques, but the technique a person chooses should take into consideration what category of the three-fold self the behavior falls in. For example, if the behavior falls in the affective or cognitive domain, the most appropriate technique for self-monitoring would be the self-witnessing technique. In this technique, the driver records all of the thoughts and feelings he or she has by speaking out loud into a tape. If the behavior falls in the sensorimotor domain, the most appropriate self-monitoring technique would be a check system. Basically, whenever a behavior is performed, a check is given.
The last stage of the AWM Approach in Driver Self-modification involves the Modification of the individual’s negative driving behavior into a supportive driving behavior. This stage requires the individual to follow the witnessing of his or her negative driving behavior with an appropriate consequence. If the individual witnesses himself or herself performing a negative driving behavior, they must immediately follow it with a feeling of shame. The consistent pairing of the negative driving behavior with a punishment will cause the negative driving behavior to seem like an undesirable action because it will automatically elicit a shame response. On the other hand, I also believe that if an individual were to witness himself or herself perform a supportive driving behavior, they should be rewarded. If they were to do this pairing repeatedly for a long period of time, it would cause an increase in the rate of the supportive driving behavior.
(b)
Now try the AWM procedure on at least two trips or
episodes.
(i)
Describe what happened. How did you obtain the data on yourself? Be sure to discuss all three aspects of your
threefold self.
I began my testing of the AWM procedure by listing down as many negative aggressive driving behaviors that I exhibit in each domain of my three-fold self. By doing this, I automatically completed the very first stage of the AWM procedure: I acknowledged that I have a problem. My long list of behaviors included such things as: I have a problem using profanity when someone cuts me off (sensorimotor level); I stick my middle finger at people who don’t wave thank you after I let them in (sensorimotor level); when my girlfriend makes me angry, my driving becomes aggressive (affective level); when I see a bad driver, I automatically think that it must be girl (cognitive level).
After making my long list of aggressive driving behaviors, I chose one that I wanted to work on. Particularly, the negative habit I have of attributing bad driving behaviors to females. I was now able to move on to the second stage of the AWM procedure: The witnessing of the negative driving behavior that I selected from my list. Because this behavior takes place on the cognitive level of my three-fold self, I decided to measure the rate of its frequency using the self-witnessing technique. This technique, thought up by Dr. Leon James, involves the recording of a driver’s verbal reports of his or her own thoughts and feelings while driving. By replaying the tape and counting the number of times I brought up the negative thought on each driving trip, I was able to determine if I was actually making progress.
The final step of the AWM approach required that I modify my aggressive driving behavior using a punishment system. Specifically, whenever I heard myself say something to the effect of, “That person is a bad driver, it must be a girl” I immediately followed it with a forced feeling of regret and shame. After repeatedly doing this on my first driving trip, my negative thought began to evoke a quicker response of shame -- though I still felt a little happiness after saying it. By the end of this little experiment, a few days later, my feeling of shame completely replaced the feeling of self-righteousness that I used to gain whenever I said, “That’s a bad driver… it must be a girl.”
(ii)
What were your observations about yourself as a
driver? What were for you some
difficult aspects of the experiment in relation to your threefold self?
When I first took on this problem of mine, I greatly underestimated the severity of it. But after listening to the many recordings of my driving thought process on tape, I received a rude awakening. I realized that I was exhibiting this type of thinking much more than I had originally thought, and that the reason I was unable to recognize the severity of this problem is because the second I stepped outside of my vehicle, every experience of that trip was erased from memory. Another thing that severely influenced my underestimation of this problem is the fact that it occurred on the cognitive level of my three-fold self. Therefore, it was not directly observable to passengers riding in my car, unlike sensorimotor skills, which are directly observable by everyone. Therefore, no passengers or police could pull me over and tell me that my thinking was wrong, because they weren’t even aware that I was thinking of it in the first place.
After coming to the conclusion of why I was unable to recognize the severity of this fault of mine, I started to wonder about other negative driving behaviors that I might have but that I do not recognize. So I reviewed the self-witnessing tapes that I made again and again, looking for patterns of negative driving behaviors that may exist in me but that I am not aware of. And not surprisingly, I was able to find some. For example, I never realized that along with thinking that all bad drivers are females, I often added in that they were also elderly. So whenever I had an encounter with a bad driver, I would often think, “Hurry up Grandma!”
After recognizing this, I came to the conclusion
that the reason I used to think I was a good driver is probably because I
concentrated and remembered only my good driving skills, and not my aggressive
driving behaviors. I also came to the conclusion that although
I have many faults on each level of the three-fold self, I probably have the
most on my affective and cognitive level due to the difficulty of directly
observing them. I only recognize and
fix those faults on my sensorimotor level because they are the easiest to
detect both for myself and others. It’s
quite scary to know that you have many bad driving behaviors that you probably
don’t even know about.
(iii)
What is your conclusion? How can this approach be promoted in our society?
I believe that the AWM Approach in Driver Self-modification can have a profound effect on both the individual and the society. After testing this program out in both report one and report two, and receiving positive results in both, I’ve gained a sense of reliability for the program. I am certain that the process will result in the modification of any negative driving behavior an individual wishes to change. I also believe that the continuous reviewing of self-witnessing tapes can help an individual figure out other aggressive driving behaviors or thoughts that he or she may exhibit, but not be aware of. This would be especially useful for those driver’s who are constantly receiving traffic tickets, but do not think that they are doing anything wrong.
One way the AWM Approach in Driver Self-modification can be promoted is through the driver education courses that students must go through before they receive their license. Not only should these courses teach students the rules and skills of driving, but they should also teach them how to combat aggressive driving behaviors that they are likely to perform later in their driving careers. I believe this is the best option for one major reason. Imagine two drivers: one who learns the AWM method before they start driving and another 40 years after they start driving. A person who drives for years and years without knowing how to stop his or her aggressive behaviors will, over time, accumulate a whole bunch of negative driving behaviors. Eventually, they’ll explode and be forced to learn this method. On the other hand, the person who learned this method before they started to drive will be able to deal with his or her aggressive driving behaviors as they come, and will probably never explode.
Another cheap way to get the word out is through the DMV or through classes that repeat traffic offenders must attend. The DMV could add a question about it on their permit test, or the classes could force repeat offenders to practice the AWM process on a driving stimulation machine. It could also be taught in anger management courses, because I’m sure that this model could extend to all types of anger problems, not just aggressive driving problems. Lastly, I would teach this model to all high school students in their health class.
The Question I Am Answering is
Question 03:
(a) Search the Web and the University of Hawaii Library Electronic Resources of full text journals to find out what is known about how cell phone use affects people’s driving. Summarize some of this literature. Be sure you have articles from both the Web (articles, news, statistics, etc.) and the University of Hawaii Library Electronic Journals Databases at http://zu7lq2cc9q.search.serialssolutions.com/. Give the full reference and link for each article.
(b) Use the theory in the Lecture Notes to explain what drivers need to learn about themselves in order to be able to handle the proper use of cell phones while driving. Is it better to train drivers to use cell phones properly or is it better to outlaw the use of any cell phones while driving? Discuss the solutions.
(a)
Search the Web and the University of Hawaii Library
Electronic Resources of full text journals to find out what is known about how
cell phone use affects people’s driving.
Summarize some of this literature. Be sure you have articles from both the Web (articles, news,
statistics, etc.) and the University of Hawaii Library Electronic Journals
Databases at http://zu7lq2cc9q.search.serialssolutions.com/. Give the full reference and link for each
article.
The first article I decided to review, called “Cell Phones and Driving,” can be found either through the University of Hawaii’s Library Electronic Resources system or by clicking on this link: http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/. This article, published by the Insurance Institute Information, discusses a broad array of topics, such as various studies on the effects of cell phone use while driving, state and federal actions that pertain to this topic, how the courts are dealing with people who use their cell phone while driving, and even how businesses are reacting to the information.
This article states that there are two major reasons why the use of cell phones while driving can be a deadly combination. First, you must take your eyes off of the road while you are dialing a number. And second, driver’s often become so absorbed in their conversations that their ability to concentrate on driving tasks becomes severely impaired.
This article also provides short briefings of many studies that examined the effects of cell phone use on driving. One common, though extremely obvious finding, said that the use of cell phones while driving has been on an increase. Another study claims that the use of cell phones while driving increases a driver’s chances of getting into a car accident by four times (or 1.3 times, depending on the study you are looking at). The last major topic of this section discusses the differences between using a hands-free cell phone and a hand-held cell phone while driving. What the studies have found is that using a hand’s free cell phone while driving actually decreases an individual’s driving abilities. One study even equates drunk driving to driving while using a hands-free cell phone.
The article, “Cell Phones and Driving,” also discusses legislative actions taken to prevent drivers from using hand-held cell phones while driving. States such as Connecticut, California, New Jersey, New York, etc… all ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. In some states, such as New York, repeat offenders of this crime can receive fines of up to 500 dollars.
Two other groups that are stepping into this battle are businesses and the courts. Some businesses are now prohibiting their workers from using their cell phones while driving on the clock. The courts are also battling this topic by not dismissing cases in which someone gets hurt due to a negligent driver using a cell phone. They also make sure that the victims of these accidents get something out of it.
The second article I read (found here), published by MSNBC, also discuss the negative effects that cell phone use has on driving. Much of the information presented in this article was taken from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, or the guys who wrote the article directly above. MSNBC, along with IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety), says that the use of cell phones while driving increases the likelihood of a car accident by four times. This article also states that research done by the IIHS proves that using a hands-free cell phone rather than a hand-held cell phone does not improve safety. Some additional information this article gave said that there was a 50% increase between the years of 2002-2005 in the amount of cell phone use while driving.
A third article, called “Driving while using 'hands-free' cell phone still dangerous: study” also claims that talking on a cell phone increases the likelihood of a car crash by four times. But unlike the other article, it brings up a few new points. For example, it states that a psychology professor, Dr. Strayer, at the University of Utah discovered that talking on the phone while driving cuts the brains ability to operate a vehicle and process information about traffic by 50%. Dr. Strayer figured this out by running an experiment where he implanted electrodes on the scalp of the participant and also around the eye. Then he had these participants talk on the cell phone while operating a highway-driving simulator. These electrodes measured the brain activity and eye movements that occurred when different situations arose.
The final web article that I want to discuss, written in June 2000 by Bryan Knowles, is called “Should Using A Cell Phone While Driving Be Illegal?” Bryan brings up many points that support both sides. For one, Bryan describes a study done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that says that 25% of all car accidents a year is due to motorists being distracted by non-driving related activities. Another study he mentioned, that was used to support a ban of cell phones while driving, involved 699 Canadian drivers. Basically, this study showed that “the risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone is not being used.”
I felt that Bryan Knowles arguments against the ban were extremely weak and unsupported by empirical evidence. One argument he made said, “…no U.S. studies have proven that cell phones cause accidents.” Well, maybe no studies in the U.S. have proven that, but studies in Canada have clearly shown that the use of cell phones while driving increases the risk of a collision, as he clearly stated earlier in his article.
(b) Use the theory in the Lecture Notes to explain what drivers need to learn about themselves in order to be able to handle the proper use of cell phones while driving. Is it better to train drivers to use cell phones properly or is it better to outlaw the use of any cell phones while driving? Discuss the solutions.
As I clearly stated in the section above, cell phone use while driving increases the likelihood of a car accident by four times. And sadly, there has been a 50% increase within a three-year period in the amount of people who partake in this deadly activity. To curb this problem, the government has decided that the best action to take would be to completely ban the use of cell phones while driving. In theory, if everyone were to abide by this law, of course there would be a dramatic decrease in the automobile death rate due to cell phones. But in reality, the likelihood that people would follow this law is slim to none. Dr. James elaborates more on this topic in his article “Distracted Drivers: Theories and Facts (2002).”
A better solution to this problem, thought up by Dr. Leon James, involves the education of multi-tasking skills. What Dr. James proposes is that the education of multi-tasking skills is the key to curbing the death rate due to the use of cell phones while driving. We should, in essence, be teaching drivers how to do other activities while operating a vehicle. The reason he believes in education, rather than the full out ban proposed by the government, is because a full out ban is not realistic. There is no possible way that the government could make a dent in the amount of people that use their cell phones while driving. Dr. James said, “… it’s true that multi-tasking becomes the occasion for drivers to make more mistakes, when they fail to train themselves properly.”
Later in the article, Dr. James discusses an actual four-step plan for carrying out the education of multi-tasking while driving. In the first step, the individual must acknowledge that unless he or she trains himself or herself, they are imposing dangers on many other people. Second, they must practice using the equipment in a parked car and while talking to a passenger. Third, the driver must practice using the unnecessary equipment on the road, but only when there are very few cars around them and also when traveling at lower speeds. Finally, the driver should ask a passenger to monitor their driving and inform him or her of any other errors that he or she may be making while multi-tasking.
The Question I Am Answering
is Question 04:
(a) Contrast our two textbooks: Road Rage and Aggressive Driving (James and Nahl), and Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems That Make Traffic Safer (Peter Rothe, Editor).
(i) Name some ways they are similar, and some ways they are different.
(ii) Would either text be suitable for high school students?
(iii) Would the books be suitable for driver education?
(iv) How do they compare to some of your other textbooks?
(b) Discuss in what way these ideas can help solve society’s driving problems. Be specific: describe the main problems (use some statistics) and how some specific ideas in these two books can help solve those problems.
(a)
Contrast our two textbooks: Road Rage and Aggressive
Driving (James and Nahl), and Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems That Make
Traffic Safer (Peter Rothe, Editor).
(i)
Name some ways they are similar, and some ways they are
different.
For this class, the students were required to read two books. The first one, written by Dr. Leon James and Dr. Diane Nahl, is called “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving.” The second required book, “Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems That Make Traffic Safer” was edited by J. Peter Rothe. On the surface, both books seem exactly identical, but when you read through them, you begin to notice that the amount of differences surely outnumber the amount of similarities.
A few major similarities can be found between the two books, but within these similarities are huge differences. First, the main goal of both books was to help improve the safety of our roads. But the way both books tried to accomplish this was very different. “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving” tried to improve the safety of our roads by focusing more on what individuals can do personally and also how they can improve themselves. This book took on an individualistic approach. On the other hand, “Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems That Make Traffic Safer” takes on a more system’s view. What I mean by this is that it seemed to focus more on how various systems (i.e. government, legislature, industries, police, MADD) need to step in and help improve traffic safety. This book barely talked about ways that individuals could fix their own bad driving behaviors.
Another similar topic raised in both books is the issue of multi-tasking while driving. Again, although both books discussed it, they proposed different solutions to the problem. In Dr. Leon James and Dr. Diane Nahl’s book, multi-tasking while driving is just a skill that needs to be learned. For example, rather than completely banning the use of cell phones while driving, we should really be teaching drivers how to talk on their cell phone while they are operating a vehicle. On the other hand, in J. Peter Rothe’s book, although it does recognize that driving while using a cell phone increases the likelihood of a crash, they recommend that people should use their cell phones sparingly while operating a vehicle. Rothe’s book says that drivers should “avoid unnecessary calls, keep the conversations brief and suspend dialogue during particularly hazardous circumstances.”
The last difference I could think of, though a very important one, is how much of the book was devoted to explaining how we learn our driving behaviors. Particularly, how children learn aggressive driving behaviors. This is a very important topic to me because I believe that educating children of safe driving skills is the best way to decrease the amount of aggressive driving we will have in the future. In “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving” a whole chapter was devoted to this topic. In “Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems That Make Traffic Safer” only a page was devoted to this topic.
(ii)
Would either text be suitable for high school students?
I would like to believe that our high school students are smart enough to read and understand both books. But the book I feel more suited to their age group is “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving.” I feel this way for a variety of reasons. First, the book has many activities, such as a checklist for your road rage tendencies. Second, the topics in this book are quite simple. The hardest one I could find is “Congressional Hearings.” The last reason why this book is more fitting to their age group is because it focuses more on what the individual can do to help make the roads safer. This is important is because at their age, they don’t have the kind of power that can make a massive change in society.
The book “Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems That Make Traffic Safer” is more suited to college level students or higher because the concepts it talks about is a little tougher to understand. Also, as I stated before, this book places an emphasis on how large system’s can help improve traffic safety, or how an individual can fight a system and force them to improve traffic safety. I believe that high school students do not have the power to influence these types of changes, and therefore I believe that it would be more effective for them to learn how to fix their own driving first.
(iii)
Would the books be suitable for driver education?
I think both books should be taught in driver education courses. But just like I said in response to the previous question, I believe “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving” would be a better choice. Again, that’s because it focuses more on the individual and not the system. And every driver should know how to change him or herself before they try to change other people. But it wouldn’t hurt to make them read both books.
(b)
Discuss in what way these ideas can help solve
society’s driving problems. Be
specific: describe the main problems (use some statistics) and how some
specific ideas in these two books can help solve those problems.
Today, according to “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving,” more than 40,000 people die each year, and 6 million people suffer injuries each year from car accidents. And most of this is due to road rage and aggressive driving. According to statistics, 64% of people think that the overall behavior of drivers is going for the worst. Even more shocking, 62% of people say that they have been aggressively tailgated within the last year, 59% said they had lights flashed at them in annoyance, 48% of people received rude gestures, and 21% have been intentionally blocked from making a maneuver while driving. It is clear that both road rage and aggressive driving have become major problems in today’s society. Therefore, we must find ways to stop it. And this is the intent of both “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving” and “Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems That Make Traffic Safer.”
One technique for getting rid of aggressive driving behaviors is called the AWM Approach in Driver Self-modification. This technique, thought up by Dr. Leon James and Dr. Diane Nahl, changes driver’s aggressive driving behaviors into supportive driving behaviors through a three-step process. In the first step, the individual acknowledges the problem he or she wishes to fix. In the second step, the driver witnesses him or herself in the act of performing the aggressive driving behavior. And finally, the driver modifies this behavior through a punishment system.
Another technique to help rid of aggressive driving behaviors is something called Mission Possible at Work. Basically, this is a joint effort between bosses, workers, and families. It is also a cheap and effective way to get the word out to the whole community. What happens is that every month, bosses hold little seminars where their workers gather around and discuss driving issues that they wish to talk about, or that they may have experienced. And at the end of these meetings, the bosses give very short presentations to the workers. It is believed that over time, workers who go to these meeting will begin to talk about driving topics to their families while at the dinner table, or to other co-workers while waiting for the elevator. I guess you could say that these meetings basically raise the workers awareness of driving issues.
Another topic commonly raised in both books is the need for life long driver education. This is important for two reasons. First, we must teach children while they are young that aggressive driving behaviors are dangerous, and that maybe the way their parents are driving is incorrect and unsafe. This will hopefully prevent children from modeling their parents’ aggressive driving behaviors when they grow up. Another reason why life long education is a good idea is that it provides a constant reminder to people that they must drive supportively. The longer we are not reminded to drive supportively, the more likely we are to revert back to our old aggressive driving habits. Life long education also keeps drivers up to date with the latest findings.
The Question I Am Answering
is Question 05:
(a) Search Google News section http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q= for “road rage.”
(i) Describe what you see. Make a numbered list of the methods or instruments drivers have used to assault each other. Include the links to the stories you analyzed so readers can see the whole story when they want to.
(ii) Is this something you and your friends knew about? Discuss the argument some people make that road rage is an expression of media hype and there is no real increase in such events.
(b)
(i) Using driving psychology theory from our two textbooks, explain what’s going on with drivers everywhere.
(ii) Connect what you found in the news with the problems and solution you discuss in Question 1.
(a) Search
Google News section http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q=
for “road rage.”
(i) Describe what you see. Make a numbered list of the methods or instruments drivers have used to assault each other. Include the links to the stories you analyzed so readers can see the whole story when they want to.
1. This article talks about a fight that happened in Australia between two carloads of people. In the end, one person died due to a hit to their chest by a crowbar. This article can be found here.
2. Two cars collided on the roads of Durban. While the ambulance was trying to provide assistance, the mother and daughter of one car started to attack the male passenger in the other car with their fists. This article can be found here.
3. A 45-year-old man was arrested after using a bat to smash the window of a 26-year-old man’s car. This occurred after a smaller incident involving road rage. This article can be found here.
4. A 23-year-old man stalked and tailgated a retired police officer after being cut off. After they both pulled into a parking lot, the 23-year-old man pulled out a tire iron. The retired police officer left and called the cops. The 23-year-old man was arrested. This story can be found here.
5. The driver of a truck and the driver of a car stuck the middle finger to each other in a parking lot. When the car left the parking lot, the truck followed them. Later, the truck ran the other car off the road and into a tree. One passenger of the car is paralyzed from the waste down, and the other two passengers are complaining of chest pains. The man in the pick-up truck is being charged with aggravated assault with a motor vehicle. This article can be found here.
6. Two men got into a fight. One man was stabbed in the back with a knife, while the other was punched in the face. Neither was arrested because they didn’t want prosecution. This article can be found here.
7. Two males got into a dispute on the road. They began to swerve and hit each other. One male got out of his car, and then the other male pulled out a gun and started to shoot. No one was killed and both men were arrested. This article can be found here.
This exercise was surely an eye opener for me. I have never realized how bad road rage can get, and how many different forms it can come in. I now completely believe that road rage is a serious problem that must be fixed soon, before it gets any more out of hand. I see too many innocent and young people dying and getting hurt for no good reason.
(ii)
Is this something you and your friends knew about? Discuss the argument some people make that
road rage is an expression of media hype and there is no real increase in such
events.
Before enrolling in this class, the most I knew about the concept of road rage was its definition. I also knew that I suffered from a little bit of road rage. But after taking this class, I now know that I made a large understatement. Because my awareness for this issue has grown, so have many of my supportive driving behaviors. I know many of my friends do not know anything about this issue because they laugh and joke around when we talk about road rage behaviors.
According to this article called “Road rage: media hype or serious road safety issue?” it says that road rage is media hype. They believe that we are encapsulating too much within that title. The article says that the term “road rage” should only be used for intentional acts of violence and assault. The author believes in the absolute abandonment of the word, but says that if we do decide to keep the term, “it should refer [only] to criminal actions of assault and be dealt with like any other assault whether it occurs in a home, a school, a workplace or in a pub.”
I do not agree with the article above. People just want everything to be considered a criminal action so that it will be easier for them to understand. Rather than trying to figure out what about driving makes people act violently, they can just call them crazy and throw them in jail. As for me, I think there is something special about the roadways. I’ve seen the nicest people turn into monsters when driving, and monsters turn into the nicest people when driving. Rather than just giving them anger management courses, I believe it would be more effective if we gave people with road rage a specialized anger management class geared towards driving.
(b)
(i)
Using driving psychology theory from our two textbooks,
explain what’s going on with drivers everywhere.
People begin to learn aggressive driving behaviors when they are very young. As kids, we watch and model how our parents behave on the road, believing that everything they do is the right thing to do. After years and years of watching their behavior, no doubt we will be inclined to act in the same exact way that they did. This is why we must have simple driving education courses in elementary schools, say once every couple of years. This way, we can teach kids early in life that the way their parents may be driving is incorrect and unsafe, and that when they grow up, they need to exhibit supportive driving behaviors.
Another reason why the behaviors of drivers have been getting more aggressive is due to the media. Lately, there has been an increase in the amount of movies and video games involving fast and violent car chases. Such games include “Grand Theft Auto” and also “Burnout 3.” In the latter game, you must purposely drive dangerously in order to get a boost. The more dangerous you drive, the more boost’s you will earn. As you can see, this type of training will surely condition kids to think that they will be rewarded for reckless driving.
Aggressive driving behaviors are also greatly influenced by the severe traffic congestion we have on the roadways. This occurs for a variety of reasons. First, people feel a time pressure because it has become so difficult to predict the necessary travel time accurately. Another reason is that the longer we stay in traffic, the more we feel like we are trapped and have no way out. This will surely cause us to become agitated. Also, I believe that the longer we stay on the road, the more chances we will have of bumping heads with another driver.
The final cause that I can think of for the increase in aggressive driving behaviors is due to the fact that most of the population is unaware of how severe the issue really is. This can only be made apparent through education and awareness programs. Without these programs, people will continue to drive the way they are driving, and fail to admit that they are part of the problem. In addition to this, we must teach people to be more emotionally intelligent. In other words, we must teach them to be able to recognize their own emotions and to control them.
(ii)
Connect what you found in the news with the problems
and solution you discuss in Question 1.
Each and every driving behavior can be modified through the AWM method, including the extremely violent driving behaviors that I have recognized earlier. For example, if the two males who stuck their middle finger to each other just knew of the AWM Approach to Driver Self-modification, maybe they would have been able to condition themselves not to do that. Then, neither of the two cars would have butted heads and no one would have gotten hurt. This all could have been prevented. The AWM method has the ability to save thousands and thousands of lives, but the only problem is how to educate the world about it.
The Question I Am Answering
is Question 06:
(a) Select some student reports at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/499s2003/newsgroups
(i) Describe what they did – their ideas, their method, and their explanations.
(ii) What did they gain from doing their reports? How do their ideas influence what you yourself think about these issues?
(b) Now go to Google Groups search at http://groups.google.com/grphp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wg&q= Type in “Leon James” (use the quotes).
(i) See if you can corroborate the conclusions of the student reports which were done several years ago. What were people’s reactions to driving psychology issues I raised?
(ii) Why did they respond this way? What is your conclusion?
(iii) Is this still going on the same way in the electronic discussions? Check some 2007 entries in the discussion on “women drivers”.
(a) Select
some student reports at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/499s2003/newsgroups
(i)
Describe what they did – their ideas, their method, and
their explanations.
I reviewed four different student web pages (71, 17, 20, 25), and basically, all four had the same task. For one, they had to read an article in the newsgroup section, and then write a reaction to the topic. They did this for ten different topics. The topics ranged from people being proud that they tailgate others – to -- are traffic cams violating our privacy. It’s hard to generalize the student’s responses because they varied so much. For example, one student says that they don’t mind sharing the road with bicycle riders, whereas another student says that they hate sharing the road with bicycle riders. The following four paragraphs outline one interesting reaction from each student.
An idea I liked from 71 is his or her reaction to sharing the roads with bicycle riders. This person recognizes that for the safety of everyone on the road, everybody must obey the rules. Not just the car drivers, nor just the bicyclist. He or she said that it is not a driver’s sole responsibility to look out for bicyclist, but it is their responsibility to obey the rules. This person goes on saying that if bicyclists are to share the road with car drivers, they must also learn the rules of the road and obey it.
17 presented a very interesting reaction to the article explaining how to get tailgaters off of you. What the article says is that the best way to get a tailgater off of you is to turn your blinker on and pretend like you’re getting into the next lane. The tailgater is supposed to slow down because he or she will think that you’re going to be changing lanes. The student responded by saying that this method wouldn’t work because the tailgater would just speed up when you turn your blinker on. I can see where both writers are going with this, but I don’t have a say in who’s right and who’s wrong. I think it all depends on the type of driver that is tailgating you.
I disagree with 20’s reaction to the cause of road rage. I also disagree with the article that he or she wrote their reaction to. First, poor driving is not even a cause of road rage. Road rage is the cause of poor driving. But I do agree with what he or she said about road rage being the result of multiple causes, and therefore there is no way to pin point the exact cause of it.
25 wrote on a topic that was quite interesting. Basically, the article argued that there should be two emergency numbers. One number for big emergencies, like 911, and another number for smaller emergencies, like 811. In some ways, I believe this is unnecessary. First, you would have to teach people what the difference is between a big emergency and small emergency. Second, they already have police dispatchers who probably determine which calls take priority and where to send the police. For example, if there was a school shooting, the police dispatcher would probably tell all cars to drop whatever they’re doing and get to that scene.
The students also had to include two reports in their website. The topics varied anywhere from “DWI Activism in Cyberspace” to “Psychology of Computer Viruses.” For the first topic, the students had to outline the NCADD (National Commission Against Drunk Driving) website. Then, they had to compare their website to their classmates websites. For the second topic, the students are supposed to do research on computer viruses, and then explain their understanding of it. All their work is based off of information on the web, whereas our reports are based off of two books and the web.
(ii)
What did they gain from doing their reports? How do their ideas influence what you
yourself think about these issues?
The students I evaluated gained something very important when writing their reports and their reactions to the articles. They gained a much greater awareness of the driving problems we face in today’s society. Each time they read an article in their news group, they learned of a new driving problem out there and also other people’s reactions to it. I believe this is an important step because if you aren’t aware of any problems, you will never know what to fix.
I wasn’t influenced too much by their ideas. I either agreed with what they said, or didn’t. I like the idea of the news groups and how everybody can say their piece (peace?), but one paragraph is not enough to convince me to change my opinion. But I do believe that these news groups would have more of an influence and also be more effective on people who haven’t taken a driving psychology class yet.
(b)
Now go to Google Groups search at http://groups.google.com/grphp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wg&q=
Type in “Leon James” (use the quotes).
(i)
See if you can corroborate the conclusions of the student
reports which were done several years ago.
What were people’s reactions to driving psychology issues I raised?
Many of the people who participated in the news groups had a hard time accepting most of the concepts presented by Dr. Leon James. Some arguments seemed to go on for pages and pages. But every once in a while, someone would quote Dr. James work when trying to make an argument of his or her own. The main concepts that I feel people had a difficult time accepting were:
1. The idea of slaying your dragon (Argument found here)
2. The objectivity of the information (Argument found here)
3. Commercials displaying bad driving behaviors (Argument found here)
(ii)
Why did they respond this way? What is your conclusion?
Well, in the first place, I wouldn’t trust the opinions of everyone on the Internet. We can obviously see that there are some uneducated individuals trying to make an argument with nothing to back it up. I can even recall an individual thanking the person who made the Internet because he or she can now annoy more people in the world.
Another reason why I believe so many people were having such a difficult time accepting Dr. James ideas is because they didn’t know or understand the fundamentals of driving psychology, such as the three-fold self. It is almost impossible to move on to anything more complex if you do not already know the very basics.
(iii)
Is this still going on the same way in the electronic
discussions? Check some 2007 entries in
the discussion on “women drivers”.
I was unable to find an entry on “women drivers” that was written within the year of 2007, but I found an article that I believe depicts the transition from the resistance of driving psychology concepts to the acceptance of them. This article discusses how women have become more aggressive while driving. The author believes that one reason for this may be due to the media portraying females as having a tougher personality. A similar idea was presented by Dr. James in an earlier article, but did not receive any positive feedback. When presented again, about two years later, it went uncontested.
The author also believes that traffic induced stress may be causing women to act more aggressively on the road. This idea was also discussed in Dr. James book “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving” which was published in 2000. But it took another five years for it to be recognized and accepted by the larger population. This concept also went uncontested.
As you can see, when Dr. James first presented his concepts to the world, they were not ready for it. So the population tried to bury it in the ground, not even willing to take it into consideration. But as time went by, the world began to see the need for a solution that will help end all our violent driving behaviors. So today, many of his theories are back by popular demand.
Advice to Future Generations
I am just so happy that I am finally done writing this paper. I found the second paper to be much less stressful to write, but that’s probably because I tried not to repeat all the mistakes I made when I wrote the first one. For example, I started writing this report earlier, and distributed the work evenly over the length of time. I also wrote as much as I could on each topic before moving on to the next one. This way, I could guarantee that I would reach the required number of pages, and not have to go back and add more information.
Although writing this report was a lot less stressful than when I wrote my first report, there are things that I could have done to make it even easier. For example, I wish that I checked the due date for the report, rather than just assuming that it was due on the last class. Before I looked at the due date, I assumed that the paper was due on April 30th. So I didn’t work on it at all over the spring break. But the first day I came back, I found out that it was actually due on April 23rd. Although the time difference wasn’t too big, I still became really disturbed because I like to plan out everything that I do.
Another thing that could have made my life easier, but that I didn’t do, is finish up my outlines over spring break. Because I didn’t do any outlines over the spring break, I cannot rest after I finish this report. I have to hurry up and finish some outlines. I know that spring break is a time to party, but just taking an hour out of each day to write an outline will make the rest of your semester a lot easier.
My last suggestion is to find a student from a previous generation that you think did excellent work. Now you shouldn’t copy their ideas, but if you happen to get lost or confused, I don’t see why you cannot read their writing and get a better understanding of what’s going on.
To be honest, at first, I had a hard time accepting some of Dr. James ideas. But as the course progressed, everything started to make more sense. The driving psychology concepts that are discussed in this course will help you gain a better understanding of the reasons why people drive the way they do, and in turn, will help you become a safer driver. By enrolling in this course, you are allowing yourself a chance to experience years and years of peaceful driving.
Class Home Page: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/classhome-g26.htm
My Home Page: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409as2007/kinoshita/kinoshita-home.htm