Thesis (M.A.)--York University, 2006. Graduate Programme in Psychology. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 57-67). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:MR19736

A principal axis factor analysis with promax rotation yielded four factors, or joint variations between the 20 items, that were inter-correlated with eigenvalues greater than 1. The ADBQ was also found to have high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .86). The four factors were used to form four subscales of aggressive driving behavior that included anger/aggression, speeding/minor infractions, overt expression, and judgment of other drivers. The four subscales were found to correlate with self-reported biographical and driver history data, as well as, gender differences across scales. Additional analyses were conducted using data from the present sample from the University of Central Florida (N = 285) and the data from the previous study from Old Dominion University (N = 230) and Michigan Technological University (N = 265) for a combined sample of 780 undergraduate students. The findings in this present study provided additional support for the consistency, predictive validity, and factor structure of the ADBQ instrument. The Aggressive Driving Behavior Questionnaire proves to be a valuable measure in predicting the likelihood of a person engaging in aggressive driving behavior. The implications for driving behavior assessment, training, and instrument development are also discussed.; Over the past decade, aggressive driving behavior has become a topic of concern among the public, media, and researchers in the psychological community. Aggressive driving is a problematic pattern of social behavior that is not only a leading cause to motor vehicle accidents, but a serious threat to public safety. One instrument that has been developed to assess aggressive driving behavior is the Aggressive Driving Behavior Questionnaire (ADBQ). The ADBQ is a 20-item paper and pencil questionnaire intended to measure a driver's likelihood for engaging in aggressive driving behavior. The ADBQ was developed using a factor-analytic approach that combined five previously developed aggressive driving behavior scales (Brill, Mouloua & Shirkey, 2007). Of the 81 items of the five combined scales, nineteen latent variables were extracted and accounted for 67.4% of the explained variance for the observed responses. The final 20th item was developed by splitting one of the latent variables. A previous study, conducted at Old Dominion University (N = 230) and Michigan Technological University (N = 265), examined the ADBQ's factor structure and internal consistency, and found relatively high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .77) and the identification of six factors using a principal axis factor analysis (Brill & Mouloua, 2011). The ADBQ was also tested in a controlled laboratory environment and found significant evidence that suggest the ADBQ is a valid predictor of aggressive driving behavior in a simulated environment (Brill, Mouloua & Shirkey 2009). The purpose of the present study was to further investigate the psychometric properties of the ADBQ. Based on a sample of 285 undergraduates (170 women and 115 men) from the University of Central Florida, the study examined the internal consistency, predictive and construct validity, and factor structure of the new questionnaire.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--York University, 1999. Graduate Programme in Psychology. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 99-120). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:NQ39272

Aggressive driving is not clearly and consistently defined in the literature, neither in terms of the specific behaviors chosen for inclusion nor the degree to which the emotional state of the driver is taken into account. Principally, the aim of this current research is to determine the extent to which aggressive driving and road rage overlap. This will be accomplished primarily by applying two well-supported dichotomies in aggression research: hostile/instrumental and impulsive/premeditated. Relevant personality traits will also be measured to help discern the aggressive driving- road rage overlap and to explore secondary areas of interest, such as sex and age differences in driver aggression.

Motor-Vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teens and young adults. Research and public interventions have primarily examined the impact of external factors related to driving; however, less work has examined internal factors. Limited research has shown a negative association between trait forgiveness of others and both driving anger and driving aggression. The current study replicates previous findings and expands to include multiple dimensions of forgiveness and adverse driving outcomes as a dependent variable. It was predicted that multiple dimensions of forgiveness would be directly and indirectly related to adverse driving outcomes through the mediators of anger rumination, stress, and dangerous driving. Undergraduate students (N=759) at a regional university completed a series of self-report questionnaires online examining driving anger, driving aggression, multiple dimensions of forgiveness, adverse driving outcomes, anger rumination, stress, and dangerous driving behaviors. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to replicate previous findings (analysis 1) and multiple serial mediations as expansion (analysis 2). In replication, trait forgiveness of others was shown to have a negative bivariate correlation with driving anger and driving aggression and to be a significant predictor of driving aggression above that of driving anger (analysis 1). Multiple serial mediation demonstrated an indirect only effect of multiple dimensions of forgiveness on adverse driving outcomes through the various mediators (analysis 2); however, varied relationships were observed. As a result, forgiveness of self and of uncontrollable situations demonstrated a significant negative effect on adverse driving outcomes through the various mediators. However, although, forgiveness of others was found to have a significant negative effect through anger rumination and dangerous driving behaviors in serial, it demonstrated a positive effect with stress as a mediator. The results support and replicate previous research and demonstrate a significant indirect only effect of multiple dimensions of forgiveness on adverse driving outcomes through the current mediators. The relationships were varied, however. Therefore, multiple dimensions of forgiveness continue to be meaningful variables related to driving anger, driving aggression, and adverse driving outcomes.

Previous research has found that the content of thoughts and rumination influences driving anger and aggressive driving; however, no research to date has observed how the specific thoughts and process of rumination may directly or indirectly influence aggressive driving behaviors. The present research explores the potential roles of thought content and rumination on aggressive driving to improve our understanding of factors that influence aggressiveness in driving situations. The current study recruited 262 Southeastern University students, who completed a number of questionnaires measuring anger rumination, thought content, driving anger, and aggressive driving behaviors tendencies. Results demonstrated that trait driving anger imposed partial indirect effects on aggressive driving behaviors through specific angry thoughts. In addition, this partial indirect effect was conditional to the degree of coping thoughts. These findings may help advance the understanding of the roles content of thoughts and rumination play in aggressive driving behaviors.

Purpose: In the United States, motor-vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for individuals 18–24 years of age. Multiple factors place young drivers at an increased risk including risky and aggressive driving behaviors. Aggressive driving has been shown to account for more than half of the driving fatalities in the United States. Driving anger is predictive of aggressive driving and adverse driving outcomes. Research outside the context of driving has demonstrated associations between multiple dimensions of forgiveness and anger, aggressive behaviors, and health outcomes. A very small body of research suggests a modest relationship between forgiveness and both driving anger and aggressive driving. The current study expands on previous research to examine the impact of multiple dimensions of forgiveness on adverse driving outcomes. Methods: Undergraduate students (N = 446) completed, self-report measures of forgiveness, driving anger, driving anger expression, aggressive driving behaviors, and aversive driving outcomes. Results: Bivariate correlations indicated a significant negative relationship between each dimension of forgiveness and driving anger, driving anger expression, and aggressive driving. Forgiveness (of others and of uncontrollable situations) was found to have a significant indirect only effect on traffic violations through the mediators of driving anger and aggressive driving. Discussion: Current findings support and expand on previous research examining the association of forgiveness with adverse driving outcomes. Forgiveness of others and forgiveness of uncontrollable situations, but not forgiveness of self, were shown to indirectly impact traffic violations/warnings, but not crashes, within the past five years through reduced driving-related anger, anger expression, and/or aggression. Implications, limitations, and future research are discussed.

The aim of this study is to further establish the validity and reliability of the Dula Dangerous Driving Index (DDDI). The reliability and validity of the instrument was investigated by comparing data from a US university sample, a US community sample, and a sample of Belgian traffic offenders. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis supported the presence of a four-factor structure with items for Drunk Driving forming a separate scale apart from items for Risky Driving, Negative Cognitive/Emotional Driving and Aggressive Driving. A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis with model constraints supported the validity of the DDDI. Inter-correlations revealed that the DDDI subscales are closely interrelated and uni-dimensionality of the measure was found in all three samples. This suggests the DDDI Total score can be used as a composite measure for dangerous driving. However, the validity of the subscales was demonstrated in the Belgian sample, as specific traffic offender groups (convicted for drunk driving, aggressive driving, speeding) scored higher on corresponding scales (Drunk Driving, Aggressive Driving, and Risky Driving, respectively), indicating that it is clinically meaningful to differentiate the subscales.

Past studies found many different types of factors can influence dangerous driving behaviors. Driver inattention, such as driving under the influence or using a cell phone while driving, was found to contribute to risky driving behaviors. Rumination is a cognitive process that may also contribute to risky driving behaviors due to its influence on attention and limited executive processes. The present study explores the potential role of rumination in dangerous driving behavior endorsement. It was hypothesized that trait rumination would be significantly related to dangerous driving behaviors and that this relationship would be conditional to the sex of the participant. Six-hundred and fifty-three Southeastern university students were recruited to participate and asked to complete multiple questionnaires measuring anger rumination, thought content, driving anger, and dangerous driving behaviors. It was demonstrated that self-reported risky driving behaviors significantly predicted dangerous driving behavior endorsement on the Dula Dangerous Driving Index. Trait rumination scores were found to predict self-reported dangerous driving, aggressive driving, and risky driving behaviors as well as trait driving anger scores. However, no conditional effects based on the sex of the participant were found. It appeared males and females were equally likely to report dangerous driving behaviors, driving anger thoughts, and trait anger rumination. Findings from the current study may assist in understanding how cognitive processes influence different driving behaviors and help develop methods to re-direct attention to safe driving behaviors, and conversely away from ruminative thoughts that increase the likelihood of dangerous driving.

Two studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between age, personality factors and aggressive driving behavior. In Study 1, 1122 volunteers completed an online survey that included questionnaires on demographic data, personality factors, and driving behavior. Personality factors were measured using the Revised Competitiveness Index, the Sensation Seeking Scale, the Big Five Inventory, and the Cook Medley Hostility Scale, whereas aggressive driving behavior was measured using the Aggressive Driving Behavior Scale (ADBS). The majority of the volunteers were female (786 versus 336), while ages ranged from 18 to 87. In Study 2, 98 volunteers from Study 1 were recruited to perform driving simulations on two scenarios. These volunteers consisted of 52 females and 46 males, with ages ranging from 18 to 83. Results from both studies produced positive correlations between aggressive driving behavior and competitiveness, sensation seeking, hostility, extraversion, and neuroticism, while negative correlations were obtained between aggressive driving behavior and age, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. No significant correlation was obtained between gender and aggressive driving behavior. Most importantly, scores in the ADBS were positively correlated to a composite of scores measuring aggressive driving behavior in the simulator. This pattern of results not only validates the ADBS, but it also provides another mechanism to study aggressive driving behavior.