University of Hawaii, Spring 2008, Psychology 409a, G27

Seminar on Driving Psychology

Dr. Leon James, Instructor
The Web address of this document is:


Driving Psychology Lecture Notes
For G27

(version 11d)




1.  Driving Research Inward

2.  Driver Self-Witnessing
3.  The Driver's Threefold Self
4.  The Driver's Affective Self
5.  The Driver's Cognitive Self
6.  The Driver's Sensorimotor Self 
7.  Table 7: Skills and Errors in Three Behavioral Domains
8.  The Development of Driver Expertise
9.  Needed Research

Student Reports on Driving Psychology

Articles on Driving Psychology by Professor Leon James

1. Driving Research Inward

The field of psychology has evolved a great deal since the days at the beginning of the century when the voice of Watson championed a radical behaviorism that was to exclude the study of inner activities such as thinking and feeling (Watson, 1924). Skinner's more moderate approach included the serious attempt to give a behavioral analysis of speech, its grammatical system, and its sub-vocal verbalizations identified with the activity of thinking (Skinner, 1957). Since then, the earlier work of Russian psychologists Vygotsky (1962) and Luria (1961) on the control functions of inner speech has received widespread attention and acceptance among behaviorists, neo-behaviorists, and cognitivists. Staats (1975) has worked out functional-behavioral theories of inner activities that cover what is ordinarily called thinking and feeling.

Educators and test makers have long used the thinking out loud verbalizations of college students to study their problem solving abilities (Bloom and Broder, 1950). More recently, Meichenbaum and Goodman (1979) and Watson and Tharp (1985) have made use of silent verbalizations in the form of self-regulatory sentences that mediate and control the overt performance of students and clients in need of greater self-control of their behavior in many areas. Abelson (1981) has proposed script analysis as a method of reconstructing the cognitive activities that underlie routine behaviors such as ordering food in a restaurant. Ericsson and Simon (1984) have described their extensive attempts in protocol analysis which involves the tape recording of a subject's thinking aloud routine while engaged in problem solving activity of specific tasks (e.g., solving a chess problem).
See Arashiro's comment on her inner conversations

These research and clinical efforts represent significant advances in the scientific study of the private world of individuals. The self-witnessing technique introduced in their paper is an attempt to obtain reliable data on the ongoing events in the private world of drivers. This psychological aspect of driving has not received attention in the extensive literature of driving or auto safety.

The following news article is from:

Teen injured in road rage incident From staff reports

A 53-year-old Montara man was arrested Tuesday on charges that included inflicting injury on a child following an alleged road rage incident on Highway 1.

Garth Michael Gonsalves was also charged with battery with serious injury and mayhem following the incident that occurred inside Half Moon Bay City limits at 5:22 p.m. on Jan. 1 He was taken to the San Mateo County Jail.

According to a Half Moon Bay Police report, Gonsalves struck a 17-year-old boy in the mouth. As a result, the teen received stitches in both his upper and lower lip.

Police Capt. Michael O'Malley said the confrontation began as the two drove south on Highway 1 near the Half Moon Bay Airport. They eventually pulled off the highway near Kehoe Avenue, where the two came to blows.

The case has been forwarded to the San Mateo County district attorney. O'Malley said Gonsalves could face felony charges. He said the district attorney would consider whether the teen broke any laws.



Drivers readily discuss many aspects of their driving behavior. For example, when students in an introductory college course in social psychology were asked to write an introduction about themselves as drivers, they spontaneously mentioned various aspects about themselves such as the following: How long I've been driving; what kind of cars I can drive (gear shift or automatic); how driving affects my everyday life (its costs, dangers, frustrations, stress); what images I project as a driver (power, status, lifestyle); whether I consider myself to be a good or bad driver; whether I like myself as a driver; how I react to common driving situations; how much control I have over my driving and my emotions; how my mood changes as a result of driving episodes; how aware I am of my driving or of driving conditions; how the traffic went on a particular trip; my driving record (traffic tickets, accidents, near misses); and some others. These are thus dimensions of discrimination along which drivers spontaneously monitor themselves, or have the conviction that they monitor themselves. We may call these beliefs one's self-image as a driver.

Interviews with drivers, or written self-assessment scales filled out by drivers, are methods for gathering data on driving behavior, but they yield retrospective data in which the respondents' recollection of facts is mixed with their self-image as drivers. By contrast, self-witnessing reports yield data that are not retrospective but on-going: the driver speaks out loud into a tape recorder at the very time the emotions, thoughts, perceptions and actions arise spontaneously and concurrently with the act of driving. Later transcriptions of the tape allow us to display in concrete and visible terms the overt expressions of feelings, thoughts, and perceptions that accompanied a particular driving episode.

This method does not claim to obtain a complete and accurate record of the driver's inner reactions, but rather a sample of these. To insure the adequacy of this sample, undergraduate students were given practice in how to make self-witnessing reports in three distinct areas of inner human behavior: affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor. These three were chosen because of their theoretical and practical importance in psychology as well as in common sense. Among Western writers this threefold aspect of the human individual goes back to Aristotle, and in more modern times, it is explicitly elaborated by Swedenborg (1743) as the voluntary (my affections), the intellectual (my cognitions), and the sensory (my sensations). Previous research has shown that they cover a wide variety of an individual's overt and private life (Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 1964; Jakobovits and Nahl-Jakobovits, in press). Examples will be given to indicate the scope and method of this approach.

The following news story is from:

Road Rage Case Scheduled For Court

POSTED: 9:06 pm MST January 2, 2008 UPDATED: 7:35 am MST January 3, 2008

A 16-month-old road rage case is finally making its way to court.

On Aug. 26, 2006 James Hawley is accused of driving drunk and chasing a female driver who honked at him.

The chase reportedly went from an Albuquerque street onto I-25, with Hawley hitting the driver's car twice, according to police.


In its modern version, behaviorism is committed to a unified theory that tries to deal with external and internal aspects of the self (Staats, 1981; Mischel, 1973). For instance, the concept of personality is defined in terms of built-up repertoires of basic habits. These are actually skills and errors that can be modified through further learning. This acquisition process is going on in three distinct domains of the person: affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor (or perceptual-motor). Figure 1 depicts the inter-relationship between these three aspects of driver behavior as a nested structure. All skills at any level of expertise contain affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor features. An illustration is presented in Table 1 based on self-witnessing reports by drivers. Though the recording of the report is necessarily sequential in that the driver focuses separately on each domain, in actuality the model assumes that all three are going on simultaneously.
See Isa's comments on this.

4. The Driver's Affective Self

In the following data segment tape recorded by a student, several dimensions of affect are discernible in this person's experience during a routine driving episode:

"Oh, no, there's a police car coming up from behind. I hope he didn't see me driving fast. Besides, I'm not the only one who is driving fast. If he pulls me over to the side, he has to pull everyone else over too. I'll be so embarrassed if he pulls me over. Everyone will know that I was breaking the law."

Content analysis focuses on the "speech act" value of the components of verbalizations (Searle, 1969; Jakobovits and Gordon, 1974). For instance, "Oh, no" marks an affective stricture or a perception of doom; it indexes an emotional flooding-out. "I hope" marks a religious affection or an idealized picture of reality. "Besides, I'm not the only one" bespeaks guilt and self-justification; it raises the specter of personal catastrophe expressed in "I'll be so embarrassed... Everyone will know..." A little later this subject displays affections of condemnation or disapproval when another car cut in front: "Careless and pushy drivers always do things like that." In another episode, this person expresses anxiety and fear: "I almost sideswiped a car which had been traveling in my blind spot. As I was turning back into the middle lane I was in a state of mild anxiety. Thinking about what could've happened made me scared." Thus, expressing fear in a driving incident or showing disapproval of another driver are instances of affective driving behavior.

Two drivers in conflict on YouTube Video


5. The Driver's Cognitive Self

Data regarding this individual's cognitive driving behavior are obtained from the following entry that was recorded for the same episode:

"I should cut down on how fast I'm driving and maintain the required speed limit. I am in the middle lane and yet I am driving like an aggressive person in the left lane. I could be increasing my chance of becoming a victim on the road. If the police pulls me over and gives me a ticket it's nobody else's fault but my own. I should follow the rules. I don't want others to get a bad impression of me and think that I'm a speed demon."

Reasoning about propriety is evident in "I should maintain the proper speed limit" and "I'm driving like an aggressive person" which also indicates self-evaluation ("aggressive"). Propriety as well as morality is involved in the driver's reasonings regarding the self-attribution of error. ("It's nobody else's fault but my own"), and the entry "I don't want others to get a bad impression of me" reveals this person's image management techniques. In the following entry the driver seems to be overwhelmed with the reasoned consequences of his action:
"I am thinking to myself I could have killed the guy back there. I am so careless. He must be swearing at me and saying what an idiot I am. I could have smashed up my brother's car."
Note that this self-analysis includes imagining what the others are thinking, feeling, or saying ("He must be swearing..."). Thus, reasoning about a driving situation or attributing an error to oneself are instances of cognitive driving behavior.

UK Driving Test Part 1/3

Part 2/3:

6. The Driver's Sensorimotor Self

For this segment of the record, the driver spoke of the following in connection with the same episode:

"I'll driver at the required speed limit and get to my destination safely. I am leaning slightly forwad in my seat rather than my normal slightly reclined position. I have both hands on the steering wheel rather than my normal one [hand]. And I can feel my temperature rising."

Here the person is giving some details on motor behavior and the sensation of getting warmer. Some of this information might be available to an observer of camera ("I am leaning slightly forward in my seat"), but the meaning of this act would remain obscure without the self-witnessing report ("rather than my normal slightly reclined position") or would require complex instrumentation ("I can feel my temperature rising"). Thus, describing sensations or motor actions are instances of sensorimotor driving behavior.

Video Driving Lesson 10 Reverse Round a Left Corner



Self-witnessing reports of one's private or subjective world as a driver reveals an agitated world replete with extreme emotions and impulses triggered by little acts. Ordinary drivers can display maniacal thoughts, violent feelings, virulent speech, and physiological signs of high stress. One driver's transcript shows the following entry for the three domains in connection with a particular indecent:

"My affective behavior is scared, anxious, fearful, panic stricken, agitated, bothered, irritated, annoyed, angry, mad. I feel like yelling and hitting. My cognitive behavior is thinking, Oh, no what is he doing. What's happening. How could he do that. The guy was speeding. My sensorimotor behavior is that I hear myself saying out loud, S--t! Stupid guy! I'm breathing fast, gripping the wheel, perspiring, sitting up straight and slightly forward, my eyes are open and watching straight ahead."

This incident involved a car cutting into the lane and forcing the car immediately ahead to slam on the brakes causing a chain reaction; however, no collision occurred. The self-witnessing reports of the students reveal that each driving trip to campus (average: less than one hour) is full of incidents of this sort in which near misses occur. Hence it has become normal and usual for them to experience stress and panic under everyday driving conditions. Here is another example:

"Affectively I am angry, upset, very frustrated, revenge seeking, flustered. Cognitively I am thinking, Why can't you wait and cut after me? No one is behind me, you idiot. No, Jolyn, you shouldn't follow too closely, he might make a sudden stop. Good, let me hit him. Why am I upset? What is making me feel this way? What's wrong? Gotta calm down. Do something with my hands. Figure out what's bothering me. Sensorimotor-wise I detect heavy breathing, impulsive reckless movements. Increased pulse. Shaking. Short of breath. Hot. Flushed."
This person later added the following written annotation on the transcript: "I just got to work. Traffic was terrible and I had a hard time parking. This made me late. I was rushing around all flustered, but the bar was so empty. I felt aroused, shaken up, but I could not find the cause. After a while someone asked, "What's wrong?" I look around; it couldn't'[t be anything in the bar. The bar was empty. After thinking a while I came to realize that my driving had put me in a state of arousal."

Self-witnessing reports reveal that driving episodes can act as mood changers. Some are instantaneous and extreme, lasting but a few seconds; others affect the mood of the person for hours after the incident. The following is a summary of the types of negative reactions frequently mentioned by the witnesses:

Extreme Physiological Reactions: heart pounding, stopping breathing, muscle spasms, stomach cramps, wet hands, pallor, faintness, trembling, nausea, discoordination, inhibition, visual fixation, facial distortion, back pain, neck cramp.

Extreme Emotional Reactions: outbursts of anger, yelling, aggressive gestures, looking mean and glaring, threatening with dangerous vehicle manipulation, fantasies of violence and revenge against other drivers, panic, incapacitation, distortion, regressive rigid pattern of behavior, fear, anxiety, delusional talk against non-present drivers and objects.
See Isa's testimonial.

Extreme Irrational Thought Sequences: paranoid thinking that one is being followed or inspected, talking out loud to other drivers who are not within ear shot, script writing scenarios involving vengeance and cruelty against "guilty" drivers, denial of reality and defensiveness when a passenger complains of a driver's error, psychopathic interactions as when two drivers alternately tailgate each other dangerously at high speed.
These findings raise an important public issue: What is the mental health of the more than one hundred million licensed drivers in this country? Research with the self-witnessing method is needed to assess the generality of these preliminary findings with college students. We need to map out the behavior of drivers under varying social and psychological conditions so as to arrive at a comprehensive theory of driving behavior.

India Driving YouTube Video


The following news story is from:

Jan. 2, 2008, 1:01AM San Antonio road rage killing deemed self-defense

Associated Press

TOOLS Email Get section feed Print Subscribe NOW Comments (170) Recommend (1) SAN ANTOINO ó In an apparent case of road rage, a motorist shot a driver to death who threatened him with a baseball bat.

Police said that the shooting just after midnight on New Year's Day appeared to be in self-defense, so they didn't plan to charge 24-year-old Brian Correa.

"It was apparent to us that he was defending himself," said police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino, who added that the shooter had a license to carry a concealed weapon.

Correa shot the 24-year-old driver three times with a handgun, a police report said. The Bexar County medical examiner's office identified the deceased driver as Tomas Garza.

Correa and several witnesses quoted in the report said that Garza had maneuvered his Mitsubishi Lancer behind Correa's Chevrolet Camaro around 1 a.m. Tuesday and began driving aggressively, trying to hit the Camaro.

When the cars came to a stop at a traffic light, Garza got out and hit the Camaro several times with the bat, according to the police report.

Correa told Garza to stop, but Garza began toward him so Correa fired at him, according to the report.

Witnesses corroborated Correa's account with police.

"I'm still really shaken up. I don't really want to talk about it at all," Correa told a reporter with the San Antonio Express-News when contacted at his home.



Self-witnessing reports by drivers reveal that driving behavior is a complex entity occurring simultaneously within three conscious behavioral areas of the individual: affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor. Content analysis of the reports shows the driver to be involved in the effort to comply to rules (e.g., traffic signs), norms (e.g., don't follow too closely), and roles of driving behavior (e.g., I'm a bully, or I'm a polite driver). In this struggle to comply, three aspects of the driver's inner world are prominent: compliance in relation to the driver's feelings (affective compliance), compliance in relation to the driver's thoughts (cognitive compliance), and compliance in relation to the driver's sensory and motor responses, such as, sensations, perceptions, motor acts, and overt verbalizations (sensorimotor compliance). These three domains of compliance constitute the driver's threefold self. Growth, maturity, or expertise as a driver will be a function of the driver's threefold self.

The struggle for affective compliance involves the driver's motivation, character, and conscience; it is a matter of the driver's good will or bad will. Affective non-compliance to driving rules, norms, and roles engenders driving behaviors that are irresponsible, dangerous, callous, brutish, and imaginatively full of violence, bullying, and domineering attitudes or intentions. The struggle for cognitive compliance involves the driver's rationality and understanding. Cognitive non-compliance to rules, norms, and roles engenders behaviors that are irrational, unsafe, rude, petty and full of self-serving explanations and attribution errors. Sensorimotor compliance involves the driver's performance efficiency, sensory awareness, and overt verbalizations. Sensorimotor non-compliance engenders erratic and discoordinated vehicle operation that increases the potential for accidents; it also allows the driver to be rude and opportunistic.

Future research might explore the psychological mechanisms that mediate affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor compliance in driving behavior by applying to this area what social psychologists have found in other areas of behavior. For example, Kelman (1958) studied the conditions under which people's opinions and attitudes are influenced by the actions of others. To account for his data he theorized three levels of depth in the social influencing process: (1) obedience, or external compliance; (2) identification, or compliance by conformity to others; (3) internalization, or internal compliance (that is, by free choice).

Applying this model to driving behavior, we can theorize that the driver must go through three stages of internalization in order to become a fully mature and safe driver. Stage 1 may be called Driving Obedience and involves the learning of external compliance in the affective, cognitive and sensorimotor domains. Stage 2 may be called Driving Identification and involves learning to conform to appropriate norms of driving such as politeness, fairness, and rationality. Stage 3 may be called Driving Internalization and involves the learning of altruistic concerns for other highway users and taking responsibility for their safety and comfort.

We can then look upon the driver as possessing a threefold self: (1) the affective driving self, (2) the cognitive driving self, and (3) the sensorimotor driving self. The content and interaction of these three aspects of the driver's private world will determine the overt, public aspects of the driver: vehicle maneuvering, cautiousness, safety record, skill, knowledge, awareness, and so on.

This seminar on driving psychology will give you the opportunity to examine driving behavior in detail by identifying the sub-components of driving habits in the three domains of behavior: affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor.


The objective of the course is for you to acquire self-witnessing and self-modification skills in the area of your driving behavior. Students who don't drive regularly can alter the objective to focus on witnessing the driving behavior of others and training them to modify their behavior. Alternately, they can do a report on being a pedestrian or a rider.


Driving behavior is defined along three interacting domains called "the driver's threefold self." The driver's "affective self" operates the feelings and motivations we maintain behind the wheel. The "cognitive self" operates the thinking and reasoning we do behind the wheel. The driver's "sensorimotor self" operates the sensations, perceptions,  and motor acts we perform behind the wheel.


The driver's threefold self is a joint product of biology, culture, socialization, morality, and rationality. As children we acquire the driving style of our parents, other adults, and characters in the media (TV, movies, magazines, cartoons, commercials). By the time we begin to drive in our adolescence we have been exposed to years of aggressive driving behaviors in all three domains:

(a) hostile feelings (driver's affective self)

(b) biased thoughts (driver's cognitive self)

(c)  aggressive actions (driver's sensorimotor self)


Surveys show that most drivers report experiencing these negative feelings and acting upon them by driving aggressively or engaging in road rage behaviors. Take a look at some of the surveys I have conducted -- they are posted on the Web at:


When drivers reason under the influence of negative emotions, they tend to misinterpret the intentions of other drivers. Most drivers admit that they take unnecessary risks when feeling impatient or enraged, including breaking laws on a regular basis, and driving emotionally impaired. For example:

  • going too fast for conditions

  • tailgating

  • following too close

  • changing lanes without signaling

  • going through red light

  • engaging the intersection after the light turned yellow

  • racing

  • driving after drinking

  • yelling obscenities at drivers, cyclists, or pedestrians

  • darting in and out of lanes

  • being impatient and taking risks that endanger other drivers and passengers

  • feeling irrationally enraged at traffic and other drivers

  • becoming distracted by multitasking behind the wheel

  • Add your own here:_____________________


Along with Dr. Nahl, we have pioneered the method of self-witnessing the driver's threefold self. Students in prior generations have demonstrated that they can apply the self-witnessing method to themselves. This method consists of the systematic self-observation of one's emotions, thoughts, and actions while driving. Speaking your thoughts out loud greatly helps you to become aware of what you're thinking and feeling. The technique is described in our textbook (Road Rage and Aggressive Driving).


You will be publishing two reports on the Web this semester as part of your contribution to the generational curriculum on driving psychology (report 2) and on information literacy (report 1).  Thousands of people who navigate the Web find these generational student reports through Web search engines when they are looking for topics on driving or information literacy. Your contribution will contribute first, to yourself for improving your driving personality and your information literacy skills; second, for future students who will be reading your reports, and third, for the public at large. Your research, observations, and conclusions will be beneficial to others who will read your reports in the ensuing years. Long after you're no longer a student, your generational reports will still be serving the public.


Smart Car Crash Worthiness YouTube Video



The self-witnessing technique is well suited for investigating the psychological mechanisms that mediate driving style. For instance, analysis of self-witnessing reports can reveal the factors that influence driving obedience or disobedience to signs and regulations. According to Kelman (1958) external compliance is mediated by externally applied reinforcement such as reward for obedience and punishment for disobedience. The self-witnessing reports of some drivers reveal a preoccupation with 'watching out for cops' and so-called "speed traps," indicating that obedience to the speed limit is conditioned to external threat (Stage 1 compliance). One can hypothesize that a deeper stage of compliance could be achieved through indentification with other highway users. This would require switching 'locus of control' of one's driving speed from external threat to a more internal source.

For example, the driver might stay within the speed limit out of empathy (or sympathy for the comfort of other highway users), equity (or fair-mindedness in exchanges with other drivers), and rationality (or objectivity in analyzing a driving incident).

Evidence of this second stage of driving compliance (Stage 2 Compliance) emerge in the self-witnessing reports as speech acts that reflect concern about the safety, rights, and comfort of other drivers (e.g., "I better not follow so close. Don't want to intimidate that driver."). The person may also express agreement with attitude items such as: other drivers have rights; we must all be fair to one another; objectivity in dealing with driving exchanges is safer and more pleasant in the long run; and so on (Stage 2 Compliance).

Even further levels of internalization are theoretically possible as shown by the work of Kohlberg (1976) on moral reasoning. Applying this approach to driving behavior, we can expect expressions of mutual concern, altruism, and religious values in connection with one's driving experiences. Some of the self-witnessing reports reveal a sense of responsibility in driving which stems from the driver's conscience and horror of injuring others, either physically or mentally (e.g., "I felt guilty for cutting in on that driver. They must have been real scared not knowing whether I was going to hit them or not" or "I keep thinking how closely I came to hit that man a while back. To think that I could be the cause of someone's death or injury is real scary to me...").

Table 7
Driver Behavior as Skills and Errors in Three Behavioral Domains
I've got to be careful here. Don't want to cut anybody off. This person looks like he's in a hurry to get in. I better let him in. (Gesticulating and smiling:)Go ahead. You go first.
I wish I coul give that guy a piece of my mind. I don't think people like that should be allowed on the road. (Yelling:) "You stupid idiot, why don't you watch where you're going!"


The following news story is from:

Road rage blamed for five-car nose-to-tail

By Leslie Ann Horgan - The Southland Times | Friday, 04 January 2008
LESLIE ANN HORGAN/South;and Times/Image ID117823

Firefighters leaving the scene of a five-car pileup on Frankton Rd yesterday.


Police say road rage caused a five-car pileup in Frankton yesterday, which left two people injured.


The incident happened about 12.15pm on Frankton Rd, near McBride St.

Sergeant Brian Cameron, of Queenstown, said a "minor road rage incident" had culminated in two vehicles stopping on the roadway, forcing the two cars behind them to hit their brakes hard.

A fifth vehicle, a Subaru Sports-wagon driven by a 17-year-old female, didn't stop and hit a Toyota mini-van taxi that had stopped ahead of her.

"The impact of the crash was sufficient enough to push the next three vehicles into each other," Mr Cameron said.

The teenager and taxi driver Doug Moore of Queenstown Taxis were both taken by ambulance to Lakes District Hospital. Mr Moore suffered a sore neck and minor concussion and was released later in the afternoon.

The female driver suffered cuts to her face and a broken arm. She was still being treated last night, Mr Cameron said.

The other three drivers and two passengers from the taxi were unhurt.

Constable Terry Wood, of Queenstown, said inquiries were ongoing but initial interviews suggested that an issue between the first two drivers had been the cause of the crash.

"The first driver said that he stopped because the second was driving very close behind him," Mr Wood said.

Ray Pike, who with his wife Valerie was a passenger in Mr Moore's taxi, said the second car had been "tailgating" the first.

"The car in front was braking and starting off again (to send a message to the tailgater)," he said.

"I heard my wife scream "hold on" ... and the poor girl behind us went into the back of us." Mr Pike said that hitting the 12-seater van was "like hitting a wall" for the young driver.

"The girl was bleeding badly from her face and asking for her mother," he said.

The Pikes were traveling from the airport to their Frankton Rd home when the incident occurred.

They had been evacuated from Nairobi due to the civil disorder in Kenya. Sergeant Cameron said that it was likely that a number of drivers would be facing charges related to the incident. It was unknown whether the drivers involved were locals or visitors.



Driving Psychology Theory and Charts


Here is a selection from the articles by Dr. James and Dr. Nahl that are posted on their Web site at The specific address of the document is given below each Chart or Selection. You will find explanations for them there.





Driver Behavior as Skills and Errors in Three Domains






I've got to be careful here. Don't want to cut anybody off.

This person looks like he's in a hurry to get in. I better let him in.

(Waving and smiling:) Go ahead.





I wish I could give that guy a piece of my mind.

I don't think people like that should be allowed on the road

(Yelling:) "You stupid idiot, why don't you watch where you're going!"


The above comes from:



Video Driving Lesson 12 Parallel Park / Reverse Park






Table 2

Behavioral Zones of Driving


Affective Responsibility
in Driving
A3 (+ or -)

Cognitive Responsibility

in Driving
C3 (+ or -)

Sensorimotor Responsibility
in Driving
S3 (+ or -)

(7) altruism and morality

(16) egotism and deficient conscience

(8 )positive dramatizations and mental health

(17) negative dramatizations and insanity

(9) enjoyment and satisfaction
(18) stress and depression


Affective Safety
in Driving
A2 (+ or -)

Cognitive Safety
in Driving
C2 (+ or -)

Sensorimotor Safety
in Driving
S2 (+ or -)

(4) defensive driving and equity
(13) aggressiveness opportunism

(5) objective attributions
(14) biased attributions

(6) polite exchanges and calmness
(15) rude exchanges and overreaction

Affective Proficiency
in Driving
A1 (+ or -)

Cognitive Proficiency
in Driving
C1 (+ or -)

Sensorimotor Proficiency
in Driving
S1(+ or -)

(1) respect for regulations and self-control
(10) disrespect for authority and deficient self-control

(2) knowledge and awareness

(11) untrained and faulty thinking

(3) correct actions and alertness

(12) faulty actions and inattention


The above comes from:






Table 3

Two Stages of a Driving Personality Makeover Plan


Stage 1--Avoiding Being an Aggressive Driver

Affective Level
Overcoming my resistance to change


Cognitive Level
Learning to do rational analyses of traffic incidents

Sensorimotor Level
Acting out civil behavior

  • committing myself to inhibit or mitigate states of anger and retaliation
  • making it acceptable for passenger to complain or make suggestions
  • making it unacceptable for myself to ridicule or demean other drivers
  • activating higher motives within myself such as love of order and fair play, public spiritedness, charity, kindness to strangers
  •  reasoning against  my attribution errors (It's always their fault.  It's never my fault)

  • counteracting my self-serving bias in how I view incidents

  • acquiring more socialized self-regulatory sentences I can say to myself

  • waving, smiling, signaling

  • not crowding, not rushing in, not swearing

  • not aggressing against passengers

  • pretending that I'm in a good mood even when not


Stage 2--Becoming a Supportive Driver

Affective Level
Maintaining a supportive orientation towards other drivers


Cognitive Level
Analyzing driving situations objectively

Sensorimotor Level
Behaving in a cooperative style

        feeling responsible for errors and seeking opportunities to make reparations

        feeling regret at my unfriendly behaviors and impulses

        feeling good about behaving with civility or kindness

        feeling appreciation when being given advice by passenger

        being forgiving of others' mistakes and weaknesses

        acknowledging and knowing my driving errors

        planning and rehearsing the modification of those habits

        analyzing other drivers' behaviors objectively or impartially



        anticipating the needs of other drivers and being helpful to them

        verbalizing nice sentiments

        enjoying the ride and relaxing





The above comes from:



Table 4

The AWM Approach in Driver Self-Modification


        First step:  Acknowledging that I have this particular negative habit. (A)

        Second step:  Witnessing myself performing this negative habit. (W)

        Third step:  Modifying this habit. (M)


For example, having picked the item "feeling regret at my unfriendly behaviors and impulses" for today's trip to work on, constitutes step 1, because selecting it is an act of acknowledgment.  Then, the driver has to witness this behavior during the trip.  In other words, drivers need to stay alert, maintaining focus on their emotions as they drive.  As soon as we detect the presence of hostile feelings, we need to follow it up with sentiments of regret or some form of disagreement with the hostile feeling.  This will serve to weaken the negative affective habit of entertaining hostile feelings towards other drivers on the road. The normal habit acquired in our socialization, would be to give in to the initial hostile impulse, to magnify it, to rehearse it several times.  All these habitual maladaptive procedures need to be interfered with or interrupted by means of the sentiments of regret that we introject into the event.  This constitutes the modification.  When the threestep process is practiced on repeated trips, the old affective habit sequence gradually weakens and is replaced by a new positive affective habit sequence.  The cyclical process is repeated item by item.  It is apparent from this why driver self-improvement needs to go on on a lifelong basis, and why social methods of motivation, like QDC groups, are needed to help drivers to persist in it and not give up.


Car Crashes in Tunnel on YouTube Video




Basic Principles in Driving Psychology  (this is part of Table 4)

These can be stated as follows:

1.      Driving is a complex of behaviors acting together as cultural norms.


2.      Driving norms exist in three domains: affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor.


3.      Driving norms are transmitted by parents, other adults, magazines, movies, TV.


4.      The primary affective driving norms for this generation are:

  • valuing territoriality, dominance, and competition as a desirable driving style

  • condoning intolerance of diversity (in needs and competencies of other drivers)

  • supporting retribution ethics (or vigilante motives with desire to punish or amend)

  • social acceptance of impulsivity and risk taking in driving

  • condoning aggressiveness, disrespect, and the expression of hostility

These affective norms are negative and anti-social. Socio-cultural methods must be used to reduce the attractiveness of these aggressive norms and to increase the attractiveness of positive and cooperative driver roles.


5.      The primary cognitive driving norms are:

  •  inaccurate risk assessment

  • biased and self-serving explanations of driving incidents

  •  lack of emotional intelligence as a driver

  •  low or underdeveloped level of moral involvement (dissociation and egotism)

These cognitive norms are inaccurate and inadequate. Self-training and self-improvement techniques must be taught so that drivers can better manage risk and regulate their own emotional behavior.


6.      The primary sensorimotor driving norms are:

  • automatized habits (un-self-conscious or unaware of oneís style and risk)

  • errors of perception (e.g., distance, speed, initiating wrong action)

  • lapses (in oneís attention or performance due to fatigue, sleepiness, distraction, drugs, boredom, inadequate training or preparation)

These sensorimotor norms are inadequate and immature. Lifelong driver self-improvement exercises are necessary to reach more competent habits of driving.


7.      Driving norms and behavior can be changed by socio-cultural management techniques that create in the driver a desire for change, by weakening negative norms and strengthening positive norms of driving.  Since driving is a habit in three domains of behavior, driving self-improvement is possible and effective in improving this habit. Specific elements in each domain must be addressed in recognition of the fact that driving consists of thousands of individual habits or sub-skills, each of which can be identified, measured, and improved, on a long term basis.


8.      Drivers maintain strong resistance to externally imposed restrictions and regulations so that these methods alone are not sufficient to create real changes in driver behavior. Socio-cultural methods of influence need to be used, such as QDCs (Quality Driving Circles).  Driving Psychology uses socio-cultural methods that act as change agents. Group dynamic forces are powerful influencing agents that can overcome driversí resistance to change. This is achieved by group activities that focus on this resistance in an explicit way, and afterwards, are put into conscious practice through follow up self-witnessing activities behind the wheel. These informal groups are called QDCs (Quality Driving Circles) and their function is to exert a long term or permanent socio-moral influence on the driving quality of its members. This positive influence is exerted by members on each other when they adhere to a Standard QDC Curriculum, as approved by designated safety officials or agencies on a regional or national basis. The QDC Curriculum is created through the principles of driving psychology.


9.      Driving is a semi-conscious activity since much of it depends on automatized habits acquired through culture and experience over several years. Thus, the driverís self-assessment is not objective or accurate, until trained in objective self-assessment procedures.


10.  Driving inherently involves taking risks, making errors, and losing emotional self-control. Thus, drivers need to be trained in risk taking, error recovery, and emotional control under emergency or provocation conditions.


11.  Obtaining a driverís license cannot be considered the end of driver training. Continued driver training in the form of guided lifelong self-improvement activities is essential for acquiring new skills. These new skills are needed as driving gets more complex with technology such as managing car audio devices , reading maps on screens , using computers , note taking , talking on phone or radio , keeping to a schedule , eating, etc.  The Standard QDC Curriculum (Quality Driving Circles) needs to be kept up-dated continuously and the latest additions are to be made available to all functioning QDCs in a region. These up-dates are to focus on new developments that technology brings to vehicles and roads, all of which require the acquisition of new skills by drivers.


The above comes from:



Table 5
Emotionally Intelligent Driver Personality Skills

Driver Competence Skills



Emotionally Intelligent


1. Focusing on self vs. blaming others or the situation "This traffic is impossibly slow. Whatís wrong with these jerks. Theyíre driving like idiots."
"Iím feeling very impatient today. Everything seems to tick me off."
2. Understanding how feelings and thoughts act together
"Iím angry, scared, outraged. How can they do this to me."
"I feel angry, scared, outraged when I think about what could have happened."
3. Realizing that anger is something we choose vs. thinking it is provoked
"They make me so mad when they do that." "I make myself so mad when they do that."
4. Being concerned about consequences vs. giving in to impulse "I just want to give this driver a piece of my mind. I just want him to know how I feel." "If I respond to this provocation I lose control over the situation. Itís not worth it."
5. Showing respect for others and their rights vs. thinking only of oneself
"They better stay out of my way. Iím in no mood for putting up with them. Out of my way folks."

"I wish there was no traffic but itís not up to me. These people have to get to their destination too."
6. Accepting traffic as collective team work vs. seeing it as individual competition "Driving is about getting ahead. I get a jolt out of beating a red light or finding the fastest lane. Itís me vs. everybody else."
"I try to keep pace with the traffic realizing that my movements can slow others downólike switching lanes to try to get ahead."
7. Recognizing the diversity of drivers and their needs and styles vs. blaming them for what they choose to do
"How can they be so stupid? Theyíre talking on the phone instead of paying attention to the road."
"I need to be extra careful around drivers using a hand held cellular phone since they may be distracted."
8. Practicing positive role models vs. negative "Come on, buddy, speed up or Iíll be on your tail. Go, go. Whatís wrong with you. Thereís no one ahead."
"This driver is going slower than my desires. Now I can practice the art of patience and respect for the next few minutes."
9.  Learning to inhibit the impulse to criticize by developing a sense of driving humor "I canít stand all these idiots on the road. They slow down when they should speed up. They gawk, they crawl, anything but drive."
"Iím angry, Iím mad
Therefore Iíll act calm, Iíll smile and not compete.  Already I feel better.  Be my guest, enter ahead."
10. Taking driving seriously by becoming aware of oneís mistakes and correcting them "Iím an excellent driver, assertive and competent, with a clean accident recordójust a few tickets here and there." "I monitor myself as a driver and keep a driving log of my mistakes. I think itís important to include thoughts and feelings, not just the overt acts."

The above comes from: 



Future research may investigate the conditions which foster the greater internalization of compliance in driving behavior. This may be done by having drivers give self-witnessing reports under various independently manipulated situations, such as: driving in the right lane vs. the left lane; driving to work regularly (going with the traffic) vs. by watching the speedometer and staying within posted speed limits; driving alone vs. driving with one or more friends; driving in heavy traffic vs. light traffic; driving while in a hurry after a quarrel with someone; and so on. These independently manipulated experiential contrasts will reveal how a driver's feelings, thoughts, perceptions, verbalizations, and actions (the dependent variables) are influenced by highway conditions such as traffic density, or by mental states such as feeling pressured or happy (the independent conditions). Staats (1981, p. 245) has explicitly recognized the possibility of designing experiments in which affective and cognitive states are manipulated as independent variables to study their effects on other cognitive-affective behaviors as dependent variables.
In a pilot project, students did a field project in which the intervention )or independent manipulation) was to drive within speed limits for one week. The dependent measures were self-witnessing reports in the affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor domains of their driving behavior (threefold self). Several students reported extreme paranoiac feelings and thoughts (e.g., "Everybody is giving me the stink eye for holding them up. They are going to attack me, ram me off the road") -- which did not appear in the baseline records while the student were driving regularly (by keeping up with traffic). This type of baseline-intervention design is quite flexible and productive if coupled with random assignment of subjects to predefined conditions to allow for statistical tests of significance.

Finally, the development of a driving theory based on self-witnessing reports will make it possible to construct a classification scheme or taxonomy that can help identify the components of driver behavior from the perspective of the driver's world. Such an inventory may be useful for driver assessment and driver education and can provide norms or expectations of driving skills and errors in the affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor areas of behavior. For instance, a driver's self-witnessing report may be analyzed by counting the presence of affective errors (e.g., "I was so mad I didn't care if I was going to hit him or not!"), cognitive errors (e.g., "I figured there is no speed limit in this parking lot cause I don't remember seeing any speed limit signs here..."), and sensorimotor errors (e.g., "I lowered my window and yelled at him, 'You stupid idiot.'").

A driver's error score can thus be obtained to evaluate the effect of various intervention programs for driver improvement. Or, error patterns may be correlated with demographic or psychological characteristics of drivers (e.g., men vs. women, or various age groups). These types of data may be valuable for efforts in the modeling of driver behavior, especially those involving higher control mechanisms which include motivational and trait related aspects. As Michon (1985, p.488) has argued, driver research should go cognitive (and affective) since human mobility is embedded in a psycho-social environment as well as a technological one. Feelings, thoughts, and perceptions are as much traffic and transportations issues as road conditions and traffic flow.


Table 6





  • fatalities (500,000  per decade)
  • injuries (25 million per decade)
  • dollars (250 billion per year)
  • long-term loss of health
  • increased stress levels in daily life (hassles and concerns)
  • fear and threat on streets and highways
  • weakening of our moral IQ   (condoning cynicism and aggressiveness)
  • lowering of our emotional IQ (reptilian driving)
  • promotion of learned negativity in public places leading to automotive vigilantism and widely deployed electronic surveillance systems
  • lowered productivity when arriving at work mad and exhausted
  • learned cynicism (aggressive driving norms and disrespect for regulations) leading to  alienation and disunion among highway citizens
  • greater air pollution caused by the emotional use of the gas pedal ( getting less gas per mileage)
  • breeding the next generation of aggressive drivers, continuing the cultural cycle (our children in the car imbibing our cynicism and aggressiveness

The above comes from:


Exercise: Scenario Analysis to Develop Critical Thinking

"Dear DrDriving,

I'm a 16 year old boy and I was driving in tandem with a friend who is unfamiliar with driving in that area and on the freeway. It was almost midnight and we were driving to our homes. I had a friend from work who invited us to a party but we couldn't find his place so we drove back. I lost the address and all we did was drive around then started to go home. We did not have anything to drink and nobody had taken any drugs.

We got onto the freeway and while we were driving, a black SUV pulled up really fast and close behind my friend's car-who was in the center lane. I was in the left lane and wanted to stay close to my friend so he would not get lost. The SUV swerved around my friend's car to the slow lane and went past really fast. He started to swerve around all the other cars ahead of us and we thought he was gone.

A little bit later he was held up in the traffic and my friend and I were both in the left lane and passed him. My friend and I had to change to another freeway that had only two lanes for a while. The SUV took the same exit and my friend and I thought it was funny that he was behind us and we slowed down in both of the lanes (stupid plan). He pulled up behind me and then behind my friend and began pointing a gun. We got really scared and did everything we could to get away. He followed us really fast but never tried to pass us. This went on for miles. We were all swerving through traffic. I think I was driving about 90 miles an hour. Sometimes we thought he was gone and then we would see that he was just kind of hiding behind other cars. We got close to our exit and I started to flash my lights and honk at my friend so that he knew to take the exit. When we took the exit we saw the SUV follow us then pull over on the off-ramp.

When we got onto the road we were met by lots of police cars. We ended up with tickets for reckless driving and we are going to plead not guilty. We think that this driver did something illegal and could have caused an accident. We know that we were stupid and added to the problem but we think that he's an adult and he was the one who was making it into a battle. What do you think? Do you have any suggestions how to handle this? Thanks."

The Chart below identifies the specific chain of steps that together make up this road rage incident. There are 13 bad driving behaviors these two teenagers performed in sequence, as evidenced by their own description of the events (middle column). Your comments should answer two questions: (a) how does each step contribute to their trouble (focus on the bold words in column 2), and (b) how could they have backed out of it at each step by doing something else. Have your friends or family members also complete the exercise, then get together to compare and discuss everybody's solutions. Doing this exercise will strengthen your emotional intelligence as a driver by making you more aware of how your behavior influences other people's behavior on highways.

 Table 7

Scenario Analysis of Teen Drivers' Unrecognized Road Rage Behavior

Emotionally challenged behavior

Segment from the letter

State how each step contributes to trouble.

Suggest smarter behavior.

1. Playing games on the highway.

"I'm a 16 year old boy and I was driving in tandem with a friend."



2. Driving after curfew

"It was almost midnight"



3. Losing the address and going anyway

"I lost the address and all we did was drive around then started to go home"



4. Driving abreast occupying center lane and fast (left) lane

"I was in the left lane and wanted to stay close to my friend--who was in the center lane"



5. Blocking the way so the SUV had to pass in the right (slow) lane

"SUV pulled up really fast and close behind my friend's car-who was in the center lane"



6. Discounting the seriousness of the incident

"we thought he was gone"



7. Not realizing they were doing something provocative

"My friend and I were both in the left lane and passed him"



8. Not realizing that the incident has now escalated into a potential duel

"The SUV took the same exit and my friend and I thought it was funny that he was behind us"



9. Finally realizing this is trouble but still acting like they're in a duel, escalating the fight instead of backing down

"we slowed down in both of the lanes (stupid plan). He pulled upÖand began pointing a gun."



10. Engaging in reckless driving--weaving through traffic at high speeds getting away from a chase

"We got really scared and did everything we could to get away. He followed us really fast but never tried to pass us. This went on for miles. We were all swerving through traffic. I think I was driving about 90 miles an hour"



11. Engaging in further provocative behavior by ignoring its potential effect on the pursuer

"I started to flash my lights and honk at my friend so that he knew to take the exit"



12. Trying to diffuse their own responsibility in the sequence of events, as a sort of denial

"We think that this driver did something illegal and could have caused an accident"



13. Hiding behind inadmissible excuses, avoiding to admit what they did wrong, and refusing to think objectively about it

"We know that we were stupid and added to the problem but we think that he's an adult and he was the one who was making it into a battle"




The above is from our textbook:  Road Rage and Aggressive Driving (Chapter 9) by Leon James and Diane Nahl:


Road Rage Videos on YouTube

BMW road rage ||  critical mass road rage ||  grandma responds to road rage || crazy driver impatiently plows over crowd  ||  Ladies in parking lot with a bit of road rage ||  Trunk Monkey road rage commercial ||  female road rage  ||  bad drivers episode 1 ||  police chase crazy road rage ||  Simpson's road rage  || truck rollover pileup road rage ||  cyclist assault road rage  ||  road rage In Singapore  ||  more.....





Student Reports on Driving Psychology



G27 Student Reports on Driving Psychology




























G26 Student Reports on Driving Psychology



















G25 Student Reports on Driving Psychology


















G24 Student Reports on Driving Psychology













G23 Student Reports on Driving Psychology







G22 Student Reports on Driving Psychology






G21 Student Reports on Driving Psychology



G20 Student Reports on Driving Psychology

















Student Reports on Driving Psychology -- Earlier Generations

Drivers Behaving Badly on TV, Movies, Cartoons, Music Videos, Car Commercials:  DBB Ratings from the Generational Curriculum (1997)

Gender Differences in Driving Norms

Student Reports on Driving Personality Makeovers


Student Reports on Being a Driving Buddy


Articles on Driving Psychology by Leon James

  1. Traffic Psychology at the University of Hawaii (2003)

  2. Driving Psychology Principles: Part 1

  3. Driving Psychology Principles: Part 2

  4. Dealing With Stress and Pressure in the Vehicle: Taxonomy of Driving Behavior: Affective, Cognitive, Sensorimotor by Leon James and Diane Nahl (2002)

  5. Loosening the Grip of Anger Behind the Wheel (1999)

  6. Aggressive Driving is Emotionally Impaired Driving (2000)

  7. Driving Distracted: Theory and Facts (2002)

  8. Musings of a Traffic Psychologist in Traffic (1985)

  9. Driver Personality Test and Results (1998)



  1. Drivers Behaving Badly on TV, Movies, Cartoons, Music Videos, Car Commercials:  DBB Ratings from the Generational Curriculum (1997)
                (a) (movies only)
                (b) (cartoons only)
                (c) (commercials only)

  2. Gender Differences in Driving
        (a) You're Driving me Nuts!
        (b) Gender differences in driving
        (c) True or false?
  3. Student Reports on Driving Personality Makeovers
        (a) Is it for me?
        (b)  Should I let them cut in? and Tailgating
        (c) Traffic Psychology and Speed Limit Debate

  4. Psychological Aspects of Traffic Flow: Suggestions for Continuing Driver Education  

  5. Stress Factors Experienced by Female Commercial Drivers in the Transportation Industry

  6. What works in changing road user behavior?

  7. Hawaii's courteous driving jamming traffic?

  8. The Effect of Age, Gender, and Type of Car Driven Across the States
  9. A Review of Global Road Accident Fatalities
  10. The Phenomenon of Road Rage: Complexities, Discrepancies and Opportunities for CR Analysis
  11. The influence of car type on drivers' risk taking
  12. Motivating for safety and health
  13. The theory of risk homeostasis
  14. The Social Psychology of Driving
  15. An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless Communications in Vehicles
  16. Traffic psychology at the University of Hawaii
  17. Stress Factors Experienced by Female Commercial Drivers in the Transportation Industry, Tracey M. Bernard, Linda H. Bouck, Wendy S. Young.  American Society of Safety Engineers (retrieved February 2005):
  18. Getting a Grip on Roadway Anger  By Jeanie Lerche Davis. WebMD Medical News
  19. Aggressive driving is emotionally impaired driving  by Dr. Leon James & Dr. Diane Nahl--University of Hawaii
  20. Driver Education Newsletter. Review of several topics.
  21. See for articles on driving psychology by Dr. Leon James.
  22. This means you need to find your own article or material to present. Check for materials on the Web and in the electronic resources directory of the UH library online. Once you have your article, email it to Dr. James for approval.
  23. Additional Sources For Research on Aggressive Drivers from APA review article on road rage:

    (a) Deffenbacher, J.L., Deffenbacher, D.M., Lynch, R.S., & Richards, T.L. (2003). Anger, aggression and risky behavior: A comparison of high and low anger drivers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, Vol. 41(6), pp.701Ė718.

    (b) Deffenbacher, J.L., Filetti, L.B., Richards, T.L., Lynch, R.S., & Oetting, E.R. (2003). Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 50(2), pp.123Ė132.

    (c) Galovski, T.E.; Blanchard, E.B. (2002). The effectiveness of a brief psychological intervention on court-referred and self-referred aggressive drivers. Behaviour Research & Therapy, Vol. 40(12), p.1385, 18p.

    (d) Galovski, T.E.; Blanchard, E.B.; Malta, L.S.; Freidenberg, B.M. (2003). The psychophysiology of aggressive drivers: comparison to non-aggressive drivers and pre- to post-treatment change following a cognitive-behavioral treatment. Behaviour Research & Therapy, Vol. 41(9), p.1055.

    (e) Galovski, T. E. & Blanchard, E. B. (2004). Road rage: A domain for psychological intervention? Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 105-127.

    (f) Galovski, T. E. & Blanchard, E. B. (in press). Psychological treatments of angry and aggressive drivers. In D. A. Hennessy and D. L. Wiesenthal (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Traffic Research and Road User Safety. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

    (g) Galovski, T. E., Malta, L. S., & Blanchard, E. B. (in press). Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry, Aggressive Driver. Washington, DC: APA Books.

    (h) Lajunen, T. & Parker, D. (2001). Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A study of the relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness, driver anger and aggressive driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 33, pp. 243-255.

    (i) Novaco, R.W. (1991). Aggression on roadways. In R. Baenninger (Ed.), Targets of violence and aggression. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publications.

    Additional References

    Abelson, R.P. Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 1981, 36, 715-729.

    Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification
    of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain
    . New York: David McKay; 1956.

    Bloom, B.S. and Broder, L.J. The Problem Solving Processes of College
    Students: An Exploratory Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1950.

    Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; 1984.

    Jakobovits, L.A. and Gordon, Barbara. The Context of Foreign Language Teaching. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers; 1974.
    Pp. 135-248.

    Jakobovits, L.A. and Nahl-Jakobovits, Diane. Learning the library: Taxonomy of skills and errors. College and Research Libraries, May 1987, 48 (3), 203-214.

    Kelman, H.C. Compliance, identification and internalization: Three processes of opinon change. Journal of Conlict Resolution, 1958, 2, 51-60.

    Kohlberg, L. Moral stages and moralization. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral Development and Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1976.

    Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., and Masia, B.B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay; 1964.

    Luria, A. The Role of Speech in the Regulation of Normal and Abnormal
    . New York: Liveright; 1961.

    McKnight, A.J. and Adams, B.B. Driver education task analysis. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization, 1970-1 (Volumes I, II, III) (Cited in Michon, 1985)

    Meichenbaum, D. and Goodman, S. Clincal use of private speech and critical questions about its study in natural settings. In G. Zivin (Ed.), The Development of Self-Regulation Through Private Speech. New York: Wiley; 1979.

    Michon, J.A. A critical view of driver behavior models: What do we know, what should we do? In L. Evans and R.C. Schwing (Eds.). Human
    Behavior and Traffic Safety. New York: Plenum Press; 1985. Pp. 485-520.

    Quenault, S.W. Driver behavior, safe and unsafe drivers. Transportation and Road Research Laboratory,

    Crowthorne, U.K.: Report Nr. LR 70; 1967. (Cited in Michon, 1985)

    Searle, J.R. Speech Acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1969.

    Skinner, B.F. Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1957.

    Staats, A. Social Behaviorism. Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press; 1975.

    Swedenborg, E. Rational Psychology. Philadelphia, Pa.: Swedenborg Scientific Assocation; 1950 (originally written in 1742).

    Vygotsky, L.S. Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; 1962.

    Watson, D.L. and Tharp, R.G. Self Directed Behavior: Self-Modification
    for Personal Adjustment. Monterey, Ca.: Brooks/Cole; 1985.

    Watson, J.B. Behaviorism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1924.

Back to Leon James Home:

Back to G27 Class Home Page: