Journal of Counseling Psychology 2000, Vol. 47, No.

1,5-17

Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-0167/00/S5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-OI67.47.1.5

Characteristics and Treatment of High-Anger Drivers

Jerry L. Deffenbacher, Maureen E. Huff, Rebekah S. Lynch, Eugene R. Oetting, and Natalie F. Salvatore
Colorado State University
A client analogue of angry drivers reported more frequent and intense anger, aggressive and risky behavior, and accidents (generally, minor accidents, close calls, etc.) than low-anger drivers. Groups did not differ on major accidents or moving violations. High-anger drivers reported more trait anger and anxiety; anger suppression; and outward, less controlled forms of anger expression. Compared with an untreated control, relaxation and cognitive-relaxation interventions lowered driving anger; although the relaxation intervention was superior on some measures of driving anger, cognitive-relaxation was superior on risky behavior. Interventions did not influence trait anger, anxiety, or general anger expression. Findings support state-trait anger theory, construct validity of the trait driving anger measure, and feasibility of driving anger reduction.

Anger while driving, aggressive driving, and "road rage" have recently received a great deal of national attention. For example, a survey by the American Automobile Association (1997) suggested that the most violent, aggressive acts increased 7% per year from 1990 to 1996. Studies (Novaco, Stokols, Campbell, & Stokols, 1979; Novaco, Stokols, & Milanesi, 1990) have shown that frustration from commuting impacts mood and behavior in the work environment after commuters come to work and in the home environment after the return commute. Other research focusing on how emotional and personality factors influence driving behavior and accident risk has shown that general anger, aggressiveness, impulsiveness, sensation seeking, and social unconventionality are related to increased accident risk and other accident-related variables, such as traffic violations and risky driving (e.g., Arnett, Offer, & Fine, 1997; Donovan, Queisser, Salzberg, & Umlauf, 1985; Mayer & Treat, 1987; McMillen, Pang, Wells-Parker, & Anderson, 1992; Selzer & Vinokur, 1974). For example, Donovan, Umlauf, and Salzberg (1988) identified two types of high-risk drivers. One group characterized by general aggressiveness, verbal hostility, and impulsiveness had higher risk indexes than a psychologically well-adjusted group. However, a second

Jerry L. Deffenbacher, Rebekah S. Lynch, and Eugene R. Oetting, Department of Psychology and Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research, Colorado State University; Maureen E. Huff and Natalie F. Salvatore, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University. This study was supported, in part, by Grant R49/CCR811509-04 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Grants R01 DA04777 and P50 DA07074 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Maureen E. Huff is now at the Counseling Psychology Program, University of Oregon. Rebekah S. Lynch is now at the Nursing Program, Front Range Community College. Natalie F. Salvatore is now at the Department of Humanities, San Juan College. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jerry L. Deffenbacher, Department of Psychology and Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1876. Electronic mail may be sent to jld6871 @lamar.colostate.edu.

group marked by dysphoria and covert hostility tended to act out their anger through driving and had an even higher accident risk profile than either of the other two groups. Additionally, a recent study of 17- to 18-year-olds (Arnett et aL, 1997) showed that anger was the only mood state associated with increased speeding and risky driving. Whereas these general traits and characteristics are related to accident risk, Deffenbacher, Oetting, and Lynch (1994) suggested a specific emotional factor, an individual's propensity to become angry behind the wheel (trait driving anger). Trait driving anger correlated positively with the frequency and intensity of state anger while driving, with drivingrelated aggression and risky behavior and with accidentrelated variables (Lynch, Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Yingling, 1995). This literature suggests that there are individuals who become very angry while driving and sometimes engage in emotionally charged aggressive and risky behavior. Such individuals are at risk for emotional upset and adverse consequences, such as accidents, traffic citations, altercations, and violence, which, on occasion, can result in injury, even death. Moreover, they may put others at risk. This may be done directly through their risky and aggressive behavior or indirectly, such as when their behavior triggers erratic, risky, or aggressive behavior in others. These characteristics suggest two things. First, there is a group of individuals who incur increased emotional, psychological, legal, and health risks for themselves and others because of their tendency to become angry while driving. However, little is known about the characteristics of highanger drivers. Second, social and psychological interventions should be considered to address elevated driving anger. The present article addresses both issues. Study 1 explored emotional, behavioral, and accident-related risk characteristics of a client analogue of high-anger drivers, and Study 2 explored the feasibility of two interventions for high-anger drivers. Study 1 Study 1 had three goals. First, it provided descriptive information about potentially important emotional and behav-

DEFFENBACHER, HUFF, LYNCH, OETTING, AND SALVATORE

ioral characteristics of high-anger drivers who see driving anger as a personal problem and want help with it. Such information may inform intervention design, Second, it tested five predictions from state-trait anger theory (Deffenbacher, Oetting, Thwaites, et al., 1996; Spielberger, 1988) adapted to driving anger, as well as the underlying notion of a Personality X Situation interaction. If trait driving anger reflects an underlying dimension of functioning, then, compared with low-anger drivers, high-anger drivers should be angered by more types of driving situations (elicitation hypothesis) and should experience more frequent and intense anger while driving (frequency and intensity hypotheses). Because anger may motivate and prompt aggression, high-anger drivers may also engage in more driving-related aggression (aggression hypothesis). Because elevated anger and aggressiveness may interfere with controlled information processing and disrupt driving performance, high-anger drivers may also show elevated rates of risky behavior, accidents, and accident-related variables (interference hypothesis). Third, support for the above hypotheses would provide evidence of construct validity for the Driving Anger Scale (DAS; Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994). To achieve these goals, we compared high- and low-anger drivers on (a) sources of driving anger; (b) anger in response to commonly occurring driving situations; (c) anger, aggression, and risky driving under normal day-to-day driving conditions; and (d) general reports of aggressive and risky driving behavior and accidents and accident-related processes. In addition, to explore other potentially important psychological characteristics, we compared groups on trait anger, anxiety, and general forms of anger expression.

yields subscales measuring anger in six different driving-related situations: (a) the 3-item Hostile Gestures subscale (a = .87; e.g., others gesture at you), (b) the 4-item Illegal Driving subscale (a .80; e.g., others driving over the speed limit), (c) the 4-item Police Presence subscale (a = .79; e.g., officer pulls you over), (d) the 6-item Slow Driving subscale (a = .82; e.g., a slow driver does not pull over to let others by), (e) the 9-item Discourtesy subscale (a ~ .81; e.g., someone cuts you off), and (f) the 7-item Traffic Obstructions subscale (a = .78; e.g., stuck in a traffic jam). Items are rated on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much) according to the amount of anger the item elicits when encountered. These subscales are, for the most part, moderately and positively correlated (rs range from .06 for Illegal Driving and Police Presence to .60 for Discourtesy and Traffic Obstructions, with a median r of .35; Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994). Validity for the DAS was cited (Lynch et al., 1995) in the introduction. The short form of the DAS was used as a quick screening device. Although 14 items overlap with the 33-item long form, the long form provides sufficient items to form subscales that assess anger in different types of situations and thus provides for a test of the elicitation hypothesis. The driving scenarios assessed anger in four common driving situations that vary in level of provocation (i.e., driving unimpeded on an open country road, driving in normal traffic, driving in rush hour traffic, and being yelled at by another driver). Participants rated the degree of anger experienced in each scenario on seven 5-point semantic differential scales (range = 7-35, with higher scores reflecting more anger). Inclusion of the driving scenarios allowed for an assessment of the intensity hypothesis as well as for testing the assumption of a Person X Situation interaction prediction (i.e., the person characteristic of driving anger should interact with environmental characteristics leading to no anger under conditions of minimal provocation, such as driving unimpeded on an open country road, but to greater amounts of anger as provocation increases, such as in heavy traffic or being yelled at by another driver). On the driving log, participants (a) recorded the number of times angry while driving that day, (b) described the event that led to the greatest amount of driving anger that day and rate the intensity of their anger on a 0- to 100-point scale (0 = no anger, 100 = maximal anger ever experienced), and (c) checked if they engaged in any of 14 risky behaviors (e.g., drove 10 or more miles over the speed limit, drank and drove) or any of 6 aggressive behaviors (e.g., cursed or called another a name, made an angry gesture). The log thus provided information relevant to the frequency, intensity, aggression, and interference hypotheses. The Driving Survey inquired generally about accident-related variables and driving-related risky and aggressive behaviors. One question asked about how often participants drove in the past year on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 2 = once or twice a month 3 = about once a week, 4 = two or three times a week, 5 = daily or nearly daily). Three questions asked about lifetime prevalence of nearly being in a car accident, being in a car accident, and being in an accident requiring hospitalization. Specifically, students circled a number from 0 to 5 or more in response to the stem, "When you were driving, how many times have you ever" (a) nearly had an accident, (b) been in a car accident, and (c) been in a car accident where someone was injured and had to be taken to the hospital. We asked two questions (response options ranged from " 0 " to "9 or more") about the number of times in the past year that they had been in (a) a minor or (b) a major accident. Three questions asked how often in the past 3 months (response options ranged from " 0 " to "9 or more") the person had (a) lost concentration while driving, (b) a minor loss of control of a vehicle he or she was driving, and (c) a "close call" but was not actually in

Method Participants
The client analogue consisted of 57 (23 men, 34 women) introductory psychology students who scored in the upper quartile of the college norms for the short form of the DAS (scores >53; Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994) and who also indicated a personal problem with driving anger and a desire for counseling for that problem. Low-anger drivers consisted of 57 (30 men, 27 women) students who scored in the lower quartile (scores <42) and who also indicated that they did not have a problem with driving anger. Participants (median age 19 years) received one of three required research credits for participation.

Instruments
Driving anger and behavior. Measures included the 14-item short form and the 33-item long form of the DAS (Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994), reports of anger in four driving scenarios, a driving log completed three times during a week, and reports of accident-related variables and of aggressive and risky behavior on the Driving Survey. The short form of the DAS (a = .80) forms a unidimensional measure of driving anger. It was constructed by forming the best single-cluster structure with the caveat that it include at least 1 item from each of the six subscales from the long form of the DAS. The short form correlates .95 with the long form {Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994). The long form of the DAS (a = .90)

DRIVING ANGER an accident. One question asked how often they used seat belts (1 = every time in car, 2 = some of the time, 3 = almost never, 4 - never). Two questions asked how wrong (1 = not at all, 5 = very much) it is to (a) have one or two drinks and drive and (b) get drunk and drive. Six questions asked the frequency (response options ranged from " 0 " to "9 or more") in the past year of driving-related aggression that was unrelated to an accident: (a) broken or damaged part of a vehicle (e.g., kicked and dented a fender), (b) injured him- or herself (e.g., slammed hand onto the wheel), (c) injured someone else in the vehicle he or she was driving (e.g., threw something at or hit a passenger), (d) argued with a passenger when he or she was driving, (e) argued with another driver, and (f) fought physically with another driver. Other measures. Measures of trait anger, anger expression, and trait anxiety were included to assess other emotional characteristics that might contribute to elevated stress and risk while driving. Trait anger was measured by the 10-item Trait Anger Scale (TAS; Spielberger, 1988), a 4-point (1 = almost never, 4 = almost always) Likert-type instrument on which a respondent rates how he or she typically feels or responds with anger. Alpha reliabilities range from .81 to .91, with highest reliabilities for college students (Spielberger, 1988). Two-week test-retest reliabilities range from .70 to .77 (Jacobs, Latham, & Brown, 1988), and 2-month retest reliability was .75 (Morris, Deffenbacher, Lynch, & Oetting, 1996). The TAS correlates positively with measures of anger, aggression, hostility (Deffenbacher, 1992; Deffenbacher, Oetting, Thwaites, et al., 1996; Spielberger, 1988), and anger consequences (Deffenbacher, Oetting, Lynch, & Morris, 1996; Morris, Deffenbacher, Lynch, & Oetting, 1996) and forms stronger correlations with anger variables than with other cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and personality measures (Deffenbacher, 1992; Deffenbacher, Oetting, Lynch, & Morris, 1996; Deffenbacher, Oetting, Thwaites, et al., 1996). Trait anxiety was assessed by the 20-item Trait Anxiety Inventory (TAJ; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970). Items are rated on the 4-point scale noted previously for the TAS. Alpha reliabilities range from .89 to .90, with test-retest reliabilities between .86 and .66 over intervals from 2 weeks to over 3 months (Jacobs et al., 1988; Spielberger et al., 1970). The TAI correlates with many indexes of anxiety and is a widely validated instrument (Spielberger et al., 1970). Anger expression was measured by 8-item Anger-In, Anger-Out, and Anger-Control scales from the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (AX; Spielberger, 1988). Items are rated on a 4-point (1 = almost never, 4 = almost always) scale of how often the individual expresses anger in the manner described. Anger-In assesses suppressing anger and harboring grudges and criticism. Anger-Out measures expressing anger outwardly in negative ways (e.g., yelling at or striking out at things that anger the person). Anger-Control assesses the individual's efforts to calm down and control anger. Alpha reliabilities for these scales range from .73 to .84 (Spielberger, 1988). Anger-In tends to be uncorrelated with Anger-Out and Anger-Control, which are inversely related to each other; construct validity for forms of anger expression is reflected in different patterns of correlation with measures of anger, personality functioning, and physiological variables (Deffenbacher, 1992; Deffenbacher, Oetting, Thwaites, et al., 1996; Spielberger, 1988). help with that problem, and indicate interest by leaving a name and phone number. Low-anger drivers had to score in the lower quartile, check a box indicating they did not have a problem with driving anger, and indicate interest in a study on driving. Students were called, and the conditions of the study were explained. If interested, they were read the informed consent form and scheduled. Three high-anger and 2 low-anger drivers declined at this point because of scheduling difficulties. Low-anger drivers were randomly drawn from the pool of low-anger drivers until their numbers matched the number of high-anger drivers. On arriving at a classroom accommodating approximately 75 students, participants read and signed informed consent forms and completed the long form of the DAS, driving scenarios, the Driving Survey, the TAS, the AX, and the TAI, in that order. This order was selected to move from driving to general anger and then to trait anxiety, reflecting the stated purposes of the study and preventing responses to general measures from influencing driving measures. They then received three driving logs with instructions to complete them on 3 days that they drove during the coming week. They were told that they would receive credit only when the logs were turned in. Students not turning in the logs in a week were called and reminded to do so.

Results
Unless otherwise noted, the basic analytic format was a 2 (gender) X 2 (anger level) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). To approximate MANOVA assumptions for numbers of measures and participants per cell, we performed MANOVAs on logical clusters of two or more variables. Significant multivariate effects were followed with univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs), and univariate effects refer to these. Newman-Keuls post hoc comparisons were used to explore interactions and other multiplegroup comparisons. Effect sizes throughout were etasquared (TT2) values, and a qualitative evaluation of effect sizes was based on Cohen's (1988) criteria, where T)2S from .01 to .04 are small, v\2s from .05 to .13 are moderate, and n2s greater than . 13 are large.

Reactions to Different Sources of Driving-Related Provocation

A MANOVA of the six DAS subscales revealed significant multivariate effects for gender and anger, Fs(6, 105) = 2.35 and 20.77, ps < .05 and .001, r\2 = .118 and .543, respectively, but not the interaction, F(6, 105) = 0.72. Univariate gender effects were due to men reporting greater anger to slow and discourteous drivers (Ms 16.64 and 34.43, respectively) than women (Ms = 15.25 and 32.57, respectively), Fs(l, 110) = 8.84 and 6.76, ps < .05, TT2 = .074 and .058, respectively. Anger effects (see Table 1) were found on all DAS subscales, demonstrating that those high in driving anger report anger in response to a number of situations, not just one or two sources of frustration and provocation. Anger effect sizes were all large, indicating that anger effects were sizable as well. A 2 (gender) X 2 (anger) X 4 (type of situation) ANOVA on the driving scenarios (see Table 1) revealed no significant effects for gender or the Gender X Anger interaction, Fs(l, 110) = 2.61 and 0.32, respectively, or for the triple

Procedure
In seven introductory psychology classes, 1,080 students completed the short form of the DAS and indicated whether or not they felt that they had a problem with driving anger and whether they wanted to participate in counseling for that problem or not. High-anger drivers had to score in the upper quartile, check a box indicating a personal problem with driving anger and a desire for

DEFFENBACHER. HUFF, LYNCH, OETT1NG, AND SALVATORE

Table 1 Reactions of High- and Low-Anger Drivers

Low-anger men Variable Hostile gestures Illegal driving Police presence Slow driving Discourtesy Traffic obstructions Anger frequency Anger intensity Risky behavior Aggressive behavior Country road Ordinary traffic Rush hour Yelled at Note. All/is <.001. a 3-day average. M 7.30 8.93 9.07 14.37 30.40 18.73 0.73 19.67 1.78 0.56 7.87 12.03 19.70 19.43 SD 2.79 3.11 3.99 3.61 5.16 4.27 0.74 20.65 1.54 0.84 3.14 3.94 5.85 5.98 Low-anger women M 6.67 9.15 9.04 11.48 26.22 17.56 0.68 11.34 1.48 0.37 7.40 11.74 18.96 18.26 SD 2.66 2.84 2.96 3.66 7.07 5.28 0.53 28.22 1.38 0.56 1.53 4.03 6.85 6.70 High-anger men M 13.35 11.13 13.61 19.61 39.70 26.48 2.15 61.46 4.22 2.59 8.57 18.13 27.74 29.04 SD 2.82 3.44 3.47 2.73 4.85 5.49 1.24 20.19 2.18 1.36 2.91 4.85 3.81 5.50 High-anger women M 11.94 11.79 13.12 18.24 27.62 25.38 2.34 54.24 3.66 1.61 8.32 17.65 26.41 25.62 SD 3.92 3.57 4.14 4.56 7.51 5.26 1.81 20.92 1.97 1.19 3.29 5.60 6.03 6.65 Univariate anger F(U 110) 90.02 15.40 43.32 70.13 73.89 65.74 44.44 139.74 46.52 70.82 Anger effect

Responses on the Driving Anger Scale .450 .123 .283 .389 .402 .374 .288 .560 .297 .392

Reports of anger, aggression, and risky behavior: Anger loga

Reactions to driving scenarios

interaction or the Gender X Situation interaction, Fs(3, 108) = 0.29 and 0.83, respectively. Significant effects were found for anger, F(l, 110) = 84.09, p < .001, r\2 = .433; situations, F(3,108) = 236.40, p < .001, -n2 = .868; and the Anger X Situation interaction, F(3,108) = 16.02, p < .001, V - .308. The main effect for situation was due to differences in the anger elicited in all but two situations. Driving unimpeded on an open country road (M = 8.04) elicited less anger than did driving in ordinary traffic (M = 14.87), driving in rush hour traffic (M = 23.15), or being yelled at by another driver (M = 22.94). Driving in ordinary traffic also elicited less anger than did driving in rush hour traffic and being yelled at by another driver. The latter two situations did not differ in the anger that they caused. The interaction (see Table 1) was due primarily to anger on the open country road, where anger was low and not significantly different for both groups, whereas highanger drivers reported significantly more anger in all other scenarios.

more frequent and intense anger and more aggressive and risky behavior (Ms = 2.26, 57.16, 2.01, and 3.88, respectively) than low-anger drivers (Ms = 0.70, 15.73, 0.47, and 1.64, respectively). Effect sizes for anger were consistently large, and high-anger drivers became angry 3.2 times more often, engaged in aggressive behavior 4.3 times more often, and engaged in risky behavior 2.4 times more often than did low-anger drivers.

General Reports ofAccidents and Accident-Related Behaviors and of Risky and Aggressive Behavior
Responses to the Driving Survey are summarized in Table 2. Frequency of driving. An ANOVA on reports of driving revealed no effects for gender, anger, or the interaction, Fs(l, 110) = 0.30,1.26, and 0.94, respectively. Everyone reported driving nearly every day (grand M = 4.81), suggesting equivalent, frequent driving in this sample. Accidents and accident-related variables. Reports of lifetime incidents of nearly being in an accident, being in an accident, or being in an accident with injuries requiring medical attention and reports of major and minor accidents in the past year revealed a significant multivariate effect for anger, F(5, 106) = 5.71, p < .001, rf = .212, but not for gender or the interaction, Fs(5, 106) = 0.99 and 0.85, respectively. Univariate anger effects (see Table 2) were found on lifetime prevalence of accidents and near accidents and rates of minor accidents in the past year; high-anger drivers reported more of all three (Ms = 1.29, 3.51, and 0.67, respectively) than did low-anger drivers (Ms 0.80, 2.09, and 0.16, respectively). High- (Ms = 0.17 and 0.18,

Reactions in Day-to-Day Driving

Significant multivariate effects on the driving log data averaged over 3 days (see Table 1) were found for gender and anger, Fs(4,107) = 3.14 and 34.86, ps < .05 and .001, T]2 = .105 and .566, respectively, but not for the interaction, F(4, 107) = 2.41. Multivariate gender effects were due to more intense anger and more aggressive behavior for men (Ms = 37.81 and 1.44, respectively) than for women (Ms = 35.26 and 1.06, respectively), -n2 = .041 and .076, respectively. Univariate anger effects were found on all the variables (see Table 1), with high-anger drivers reporting

DRIVING ANGER

Table 2 Reports of Accidents, Accident-Related Incidents, and Risky and Aggressive Behavior on Driving Survey
Low-anger men Variable How often drive Lifetime near accident Lifetime accidents Lifetime accident with serious injury Major accident (past year) Minor accident (past year) Close call (past year) Lost concentration (past 3 months) Minor loss of vehicular control (past 3 months) Moving violation (past year) Parking ticket (past year) Seat belt use Wrong to have 1-2 drinks and drive Wrong to get drunk and drive Argue with passenger Argue with other driver Physical fight with other driver Nonaccident damage to car Nonaccident injury to self Nonaccident injury to other M 4.73 3.07 0.93 0.03 0.13 0.07 1.57 3.07 1.23 0.40 0.86 1.33 3.23 4.87 1.43 0.63 0.03 0.83 0.13 0.03 SD 0.58 1.74 1.21 0.18 0.57 0.37 1.36 2.80 1.94 0.86 1.25 0.55 1.41 0.35 1.59 1.27 0.18 1.29 0.43 0.18 Low-anger women M 4.79 3.11 0.67 0.15 0.19 0.22 1.78 4.30 1.67 0.37 0.85 1.04 4.30 5.00 1.67 0.19 0.00 0.22 0.11 0.04 SD 0.42 1.45 0.90 0.36 0.40 0.58 1.16 3.41 1.75 0.57 1.35 0.19 0.99 0.00 2.39 0.48 0.00 0.64 0.58 0.19 High-anger men M 4.96 3.87 1.34 0.22 0.13 0.61 4.00 4.52 2.70 0.39 1.04 1.61 3.13 4.91 3.09 3.17 0.30 1.44 1.22 0.13 SD 0.21 1.39 1.40 0.67 0.34 0.99 2.68 3.19 2.82 0.78 1.36 0.66 1.46 0.29 2.41 2.71 0.64 1.93 1.98 0.46 High-anger women M 4.79 4.15 1.24 0.12 0.24 0.74 3.85 4.56 3.00 0.47 0.74 1.38 4.41 4.97 3.38 1.18 0.00 0.71 0.97 0.29 SD 0.77 1.65 1.28 0.41 0.43 1.16 2.61 3.17 2.94 0.79 1.11 0.74 0.93 0.17 3.10 2.11 0.00 1.12 1.77 0.80 Univariate anger F(l, 110) 1.26 22.47*** 4.60* 0.91 0.08 10.87*** 33.19*** 2.09 9.26** 0.10 0.02 7.97** 0.00 0.04 13.10*** 26.51*** 5.73* 4.98* 14.29*** 3.49 Anger effect .001 .170 .041 .008 .001 .090 .232 .019 .078 .001 .000 .068 .000 .000 .106 .194 .050 .043 .115 .031

*p<.05. **p<.01. ***/?<. 001. respectively) and low-anger (Ms = 0.09 and 0.16, respectively) drivers did not differ on lifetime prevalence of serious injury accidents or major accidents in the past year. Loss of concentration and loss of vehicular control in the past 3 months and close calls in the past year demonstrated a significant multivariate effect for anger, F(3, 108) = 11.42, p < .001, T|2 = .241, but not for gender or the interaction, Fs(3, 108) = 0.46 and 0.42, respectively. Multivariate anger effects were due to high-anger drivers reporting more loss of vehicular control and more close calls (Ms 2.85 and 3.93, respectively) than low-anger drivers (Ms = 1.45 and 1.67, respectively). No multivariate gender, anger, or interaction effects were found for parking tickets or moving violations, Fs(2, 109) = 0.24, 0.06, and 0.26, respectively. Risky behaviors and attitudes. A Gender X Anger ANOVA on seat belt use revealed significant gender and anger effects, Fs(l, 110) = 5.65 and 7.97, ps < .05 and .01, T)2 = .049 and .068, respectively, but no significant interaction, F(U HO) = 0.10. Although all the students tended to use seat belts frequently, men (M = 1.47) used them less frequently than women (M = 1.21) and high-anger drivers (M = 1.50) used them less frequently than low-anger drivers ( M = 1.19). Attitudes about drinking or being intoxicated and driving demonstrated a multivariate effect for gender, F(2,109) = 13.40, p < .001, T|2 = .197, but not for anger or the interaction, Fs(2, 109) = 0.02 and 0.65. Although both men and women were against drinking and driving, women felt that it was more wrong to drink and drive or be intoxicated and drive (Ms = 4.35 and 4.99, respectively) than men (Ms = 3.19 and 4.89, respectively), Fs(l, 110) = 26.73 and 4.47, ps < .001 and .05, T|2 = .196 and .039, respectively. Aggressive behavior. Reports in the past year of arguments with passengers and other drivers and of physical fights with other drivers revealed significant multivariate effects for gender, anger, and the interaction: Fs(3, 108) = 6.48, 11.17, and 3.02; ps < .001, .001, and .05; if = .077, .153, and .237, respectively. An interpretable univariate anger effect was found only for arguments with a passenger: High-anger drivers argued more with passengers in their car (M = 2.23) than did low-anger drivers (M = 1.55). Univariate gender and anger main effects on verbal and physical fights with other drivers were qualified by significant interactions on both, Fs(l, 110) = 5.10 and 5.73, ps < .05, r\2 = .044 and .050, respectively. Post hoc comparisons revealed that these interactions were due to high-anger male drivers (see Table 2), who argued and fought more with other drivers than all of the other groups, which did not differ significantly from one another. Physical injury to self and to others and damage to the car, resulting from the individual's anger rather than an accident, revealed significant multivariate effects for gender and anger, fs(3,108) = 3.34 and 4.82, ps < .05 and .01, T|2 -085 and .118, respectively, but not for the interaction, F(3, 108) = 0.53. The multivariate gender effect was due entirely to damage to the vehicle, F(\, 110) = 7.59, p< .01, TI2 = .065, for which men ( M = 1.13) reported more of such damage than did women (M = 0.46). Anger effects for nonaccident-related damage to vehicles and injury to self was due to high-anger drivers (Ms = 1.07 and 1.09, respectively) reporting more of these experiences than low-anger drivers (Ms = 0.53 and 0.12, respectively). The anger effect on nonaccident injury to others followed the same pattern (M = 0.21 vs. 0.04) but only approached significance (p < .07).

10

DEFFENBACHER, HUFF, LYNCH, OETTTNG, AND SALVATORE

Table 3 Trait Anger, Anger Expression, and Trait Anxiety as a Function of Gender and Driving Anger
Low-anger men Measure TAS AX In Out Control TAI M 17.50 15.87 15.50 26.20 37.13 SD 2.96 4.67 3.32 4.00 10.38 Low-anger women U 16.11 15.15 14.48 26.26 37.48 SD 3.82 3.62 4.11 4.74 9.66 High-anger men High-anger women M 23.65 17.00 16.74 21.24 46.97 SD 5.94 4.05 3.99 5.00 10.41 Univariate anger F(l, 110) 88.50*** 5.35* 17.91*** 54.58*** 9.61** Anger effect *12 ,446 .046 .140 .332 .080

M
26.26 17.83 19.26 19.00 39.83

SD
4.80 5.11 3.49 3.23 11.14

Note. TAS - Trait Anger Scale; AX Anger Expression Inventory; TAI = Trait Anxiety Inventory.

*p<.05. **p<xn. ***p<.ooi.

Other Psychological Characteristics

Trait anger and anxiety and anger expression are summarized in Table 3. Trait anger and anxiety yielded significant multivariate effects for gender and anger, Fs(2, 109) = 6.75 and 43.84, ps < .01 and .001, r\2 = .110 and .446, respectively, but not for the interaction, F{2, 109) = 2.44. Multivariate gender effects were due to trait anger, for which women (M = 19.88) reported less trait anger than did men (M =21.88), F(l, 110) = 5.34, p < .05, tf = .046. Univariate anger effects were found for trait anger and anxiety (see Table 3), with high-anger drivers reporting greater trait anger and anxiety (Afs = 24.95 and 43.40, respectively) than low-anger drivers (Ms = 16.81 and37.31, respectively). Anger expression revealed a multivariate effect for anger, F(3, 108) = 20.00,/? < .001, i)2 = .357, but not for gender or the interaction, Fs(3,108) = 2.35 and 0.71, respectively. Anger effects were found on all forms of anger expression; high-anger drivers suppressed their anger more and expressed it more in outwardly negative and less controlled ways (Ms = 17.41, 18.00, and 20.12, respectively) than did low-anger drivers (Ms = 15.51, 14.99, and 26.23, respectively).

Discussion
The client analogue group of high-anger drivers did not differ from low-anger drivers in the frequency with which they drove. All the groups drove on a nearly daily basis, suggesting that observed differences were not purely a function of the degree of exposure to driving but rather reflect the characteristics of the individual in interaction with the environment. In fact, anger while driving appeared reactive to the environment. For example, logs of high-anger drivers revealed many times when they were not angered or when anger was relatively low. Moreover, their responses to the driving scenarios showed that when driving under unimpeded conditions, they reported minimal arousal and were not significantly different from low-anger drivers. Additionally, conditions such as normal traffic elicited less anger than rush hour traffic or being yelled at by another driver. These findings support the Person X Situation model

inherent in state-trait anger theory (Deffenbacher, Oetting, Thwaites, et al., 1996; Spielberger, 1988), wherein state anger is conceptualized to be a function of an individual's disposition to become provoked while driving (trait driving anger) and the presence and salience of provocative events. Other specific predictions of state-trait theory were also supported. For example, high-anger drivers were angered by several different types of driving events, not just a few (support for elicitation hypothesis). Frequency and intensity hypotheses were also supported. High-anger drivers reported greater anger in fairly frequent (normal traffic), stressful (rush hour traffic), and conflict-laden (being yelled at) circumstances than low-anger drivers. They were more frequently and intensely angry in day-to-day driving, with frequencies and intensities roughly three times higher than for low-anger drivers. Effects, however, are not related to anger alone as they are also more risky, aggressive, potentially accident-prone drivers as well (support for aggression and interference hypotheses). For example, although highanger drivers did not differ on attitudes about alcohol use and driving, they used their seat belts less often than did low-anger drivers. They experienced more anger-related property damage to vehicles and injury to self than lowanger drivers and were more likely to argue with passengers and to argue and fight other drivers, although the latter two forms of aggression were attributable only to high-anger male drivers. They reported more frequent lifetime accident and near-accident rates, more frequent minor accidents, and greater loss of vehicular control and close calls in the past year. Although differences in major accident rates were not found, continued engagement in risky and aggressive behaviors and exposure to these accident-related conditions suggest that, over time, high-anger drivers are likely to continue to be at high risk for auto accidents of all types. They also reported significantly more frequent risky and aggressive behavior in day-to-day driving. The practical meaning of these differences in rates of occurrence is striking when it is remembered that log data were collected for only 3 days. Over a year's time, the actual differences in frequency of anger incidents and of aggressive and risky behavior are quite remarkable. Assuming an average of 300 driving days

DRIVING ANGER

11

per year, low-anger drivers would experience 210 anger episodes, 142 aggressive behaviors, and 492 risky behaviors, whereas high-anger drivers would experience 678 anger episodes, 604 aggressive behaviors, and 1,164 risky behaviors that expose them, and potentially others, to greater occurrence of more emotional upset, aggression, and risky, potentially accident-engendering behavior. In summary, high-anger drivers reported more frequent and intense anger in more driving circumstances, engaged in more aggressive and risky behavior, and experienced more accidents and accident-related conditions, thereby supporting predictions from state-trait anger theory and providing construct validity for the DAS as a measure of trait driving anger. Moreover, findings suggest high-anger drivers expressing interest in counseling are at significant risk for frequent and intense anger arousal and for aggressive and risky driving behavior, putting them not only at greater risk for emotional problems but also for vehicular crashes, altercations, and the like. Tendencies of the high-anger drivers may be exacerbated by their other psychological characteristics. They were more generally angry and anxious and tended to suppress their anger and to express it in more outward, less controlled ways than did low-anger drivers. These findings suggest that they are more likely to be angered and stressed by, and handle less well, a wide range of nondriving situations, the effects of which may transfer to and increase the probability and intensity of anger on the road (Berkowitz, 1990; Zillman, 1971). These other characteristics may contribute to vicious circles of anger and stress, in and out of the car, each feeding on the other. Elevation of anxiety and anger suppression is also parallel to Donovan et al.'s (1988) dysphoric-covert hostility group, which was at the greatest accident risk. That is, increased trait anxiety and anger suppression suggest that at least some of the high-anger drivers are anxious and inhibit anger expression, which may increase their odds of displacing and acting out anger behind the wheel, a place where they are already at elevated risk of anger because of their high trait driving anger. A final issue is how gender is related to driving anger. Gender interacted with level of trait driving anger on only two variables: High-anger men engaged in more physical and verbal aggression with other drivers than did other groups. There were some gender main effects: Men reported more anger in response to slow and discourteous drivers, more frequent anger and aggressive behavior on their logs, more nonaccident-related damage to the vehicles, less use of seat belts, and more tolerance for drinking and driving. Greater aggressiveness for men is consistent with social psychological literatures ( e.g., Baron & Richardson, 1994; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Harris, 1995, 1996) showing that men are more aggressive in nondriving situations and that young male drivers are overrepresented in the most extreme cases of driving-related aggression (American Automobile Association, 1997). However, the tendency to highlight gender differences should be cautioned by several additional findings. First, there were many more nonsignificant than significant gender differences. Second, in general, gender effect sizes were small to moderate (Cohen, 1988), suggest-

ing that gender effects were not as large as those found for some other variables. Third, not all of the gender differences replicated. For example, whereas the finding that men were more angered by slow driving replicated the initial study (Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994), men and women did not differ on reactions to discourteous drivers in that study. Moreover, gender differences in the Deffenbacher, Oetting, and Lynch study, such as women being more angered by illegal driving and traffic obstructions, were not replicated in the present study. Thus, it would appear that men and women have many characteristics in common and that gender differences need to be carefully mapped across studies before reasonably clear conclusions about gender and driving anger can be drawn. Findings do, however, suggest that men and women are similar enough to be treated in mixed-gender groups, if a group intervention is chosen. This study, like all research, has limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, all of the data were self-report. In many ways, this is highly appropriate as many of the phenomena under study are subjective in nature and appropriately assessed by self-report (e.g., one's feelings, reaction tendencies, and the like). In fact, additional selfreport measures are needed (e.g., questionnaires of angry thoughts when driving and of forms of expression of driving anger). However, self-report should be supplemented by other methodologies. For example, reports of critical variables (e.g., aggressive and risky driving) could be gathered from key informants who have the opportunity to observe the individual (e.g., parents, significant others, and roommates). Physiological monitoring would add to the understanding of arousal when angry, and archival data (e.g., accident reports and traffic violation histories) could extend self-report. Second is the issue of social desirability. The relationship of the DAS and other measures with social desirability has not been established, and a portion of the variance in findings might be due to this form of reporting bias. Future research could include measures of social desirability to assist in the clarification of this issue. Finally, results are limited primarily to 18- to 20-year-old college students. This population is meaningful because auto crashes are the leading cause of death for individuals in this age range. Nonetheless, community samples with larger age ranges are needed to see how well findings generalize and to assess the risk patterns and needs for intervention in older populations. Study 2 Study 1 demonstrated that trait driving anger in a group that acknowledges problems of driving anger is a risk factor for emotional upset, risky and aggressive behavior on the road, anger-related injury and property damage, and accidents and accident-related conditions. Although some consequences may be relatively mild, others can be quite serious (e.g., accidents, altercations, and physical assaults), resulting potentially in injury or even death. Thus, there is a group of individuals who are at risk because of their elevated driving anger, yet little attention has been paid to the reduction of driving anger. Only one treatment study (Rimm,

12

DEFFENBACHER, HUFF, LYNCH, OETTING, AND SALVATORE

DeGroot, Boord, Heiman, & Dillow, 1971) was found in the literature. Systematic desensitization reduced driving anger, but the study was seriously flawed methodologically, given that the only outcome measure was pre-post change in intensity ratings of items from the desensitization hierarchy. Clients were repeatedly exposed to these items and had signaled the absence of anger on several occasions, which makes this measure highly sensitive to demand characteristics. The present study, therefore, undertook a controlled evaluation of two treatments for the reduction of driving angerself-managed relaxation coping skills (RCS) and a stress-inoculation-like combination of cognitive and relaxation coping skills (CRCS)and used an improved measurement. These interventions were chosen because of their empirical support with other types of anger (e.g., Deffenbacher, Demm, & Brandon, 1986; Deffenbacher, Oetting, Huff, Cornell, & Dallager, 1996; Deffenbacher & Stark, 1992; Deffenbacher, Thwaites, Wallace, & Oetting, 1994; Hazaleus & Deffenbacher, 1986; Novaco, 1975) and because social skills interventions were not relevant, given the physical and psychological distance involved in driving (i.e., few social communication skills are relevant to driving situations).

and Application Questionnaire asks participants to rate the overall helpfulness of the program (1 = not at all, 5 extremely helpful) and the frequency (1 = not at all, 5 = all the time) with which coping skills were applied to driving anger and to negative emotions not involving driving. Fidelity checks. To ascertain therapists' adherence to treatment protocols, sessions were audiotaped. A pair of trained raters, who were experimentally blind to conditions, independently rated all the tapes, except for the second session. The second session was excluded because both conditions were nearly identical, focusing primarily on relaxation training, making discrimination of conditions difficult and artificially lowering estimates of treatment adherence. Raters received 2 hr of training, during which they received written descriptions of treatments and reviewed sessions in which interventions were used with general anger. Raters indicated whether the tape reflected RCS or CRCS and the degree of certainty in their rating on an 11 -point scale (0 = very uncertain, 10 = very certain).

Procedure
Assessment. Assessments were completed on a pretreatment, posttreatment, and 4-week follow-up basis. Screening and pretreatment assessment are described in Study 1. Procedures were identical at each assessment except that (a) informed consent forms were not completed again, (b) driving logs were not completed posttreatment but were completed during the week prior to follow-up, and (c) therapist and treatment evaluation questionnaires were completed by RCS and CRCS participants at the 4-week follow-up. Interventions. Interventions consisted of eight weekly 1-hr group sessions (ns 7-10) conducted by two female advanced doctoral students. Each therapist conducted one RCS and one CRCS group. Therapists received extensive written treatment outlines and 2 hr of weekly supervision with Jerry L. Deffenbacher during which protocols were reviewed, discussed, modeled, and role-played. RCS. RCS adapted the procedures outlined by Deffenbacher and colleagues (Deffenbacher et al., 1986; Deffenbacher & Stark, 1992; Hazaleus & Deffenbacher, 1986) to driving anger. Sessions 1 and 2 provided a self-managed relaxation rationale (i.e., lower driving anger through application of relaxation to calm down) and training in progressive relaxation and the following four relaxation coping skills: (a) relaxation without tensing (relaxing by focusing on and releasing the tension in muscle areas without tensing muscles), (b) relaxation imagery (visualizing a personal relaxing image), (c) breathing-cued relaxation (relaxing on each breath out for three to five deep breaths), and (d) cue-controlled relaxation (relaxing more with each slow repetition of the word relax). In Sessions 1 and 2, participants also identified situations that angered them while driving (e.g., being cut off in traffic, having someone steal a parking space for which the individual has been waiting, and waiting behind someone who does not start up when the left-hand turn signal turns green). Homework consisted of self-monitoring of driving anger, practice of relaxation, and the detailed description of one scene selected from those discussed. In Session 3, homework was reviewed in the first 5-10 min. Then, the therapist initiated training in the application of relaxation skills. When participants were relaxed, the therapist instructed them to visualize the anger scene developed during homework and discussed earlier in the session. After participants experienced anger arousal for 20-30 s, the therapist terminated visualization of the scene and assisted them in relaxing with two relaxation coping skills. When all of the participants were relaxed again, the procedure was repeated using different combinations of relaxation skills. This was repeated as

Method Participants
Participants were the 57 (23 men, 34 women) high-anger drivers from Study 1. They scored in the upper quartile on the short form of the DAS, identified themselves as having a personal problem with anger when driving and sought help for anger reduction, and volunteered when the project was described over the phone (6% declined participation at this point). The sample represents 5% of the 1,080 students screened. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions, but 3 (2 from RCS and 1 from CRCS) were reassigned to the control because of unavoidable changes in class and work schedules that precluded attendance at the groups to which they had been assigned. Final ns per condition were 17 for RCS, 18 for CRCS, and 22 for control. Participants received three of three required research credits for participation.

Instruments
Driving anger. Driving anger (see Study 1 for description of instruments) was assessed by the long form of the DAS, the driving log, and the total of three scenarios differentiating high- from low-anger drivers on the driving scenarios in Study 1. Generalization measures. Measures of trait anger, general anger expression, and trait anxiety were included to assess generalization of treatment effects (see Study 1 for description of instruments). Manipulation checks. Quality of intervention implementation was assessed by attendance, the three-item Therapist Evaluation Questionnaire, and the three-item Treatment Evaluation and Application Questionnaire used in studies of general anger reduction (e.g., Hazaleus & Deffenbacher, 1986). Attendance was the number of sessions attended. The Therapist Evaluation Questionnaire has participants rate on 7-point scales (1 = highly uninterested, very unclear, or never, 1 highly interested, very clear, or always) the therapist's interest in members, clarity of communication, and expectations of treatment effectiveness. The Treatment Evaluation

DRIVING ANGER time allowed, generally for five to seven repetitions. Homework added coping skill application to driving anger. Sessions 4-8 followed the same general pattern except that (a) two scenes were used and were alternated, (b) anger arousing capacity of the scenes increased over sessions, (c) scenes for Session 8 were their "worst" sources of driving anger, (d) degree of therapist initiation of relaxation was decreased and shifted to client control as proficiency was gained, (e) application of relaxation coping skills to other anger and emotional distress was encouraged after Session 7, and (f) maintenance of gains was discussed in the last session. CRCS. CRCS followed an adaptation of CRCS procedures (Deffenbacher, Oetting, Huff, et al., 1996; Deffenbacher & Stark, 1992; Deffenbacher, Thwaites, et al., 1994) to driving anger. Sessions 1 and 2 paralleled RCS, except that a CRCS rationale (i.e., reduction of driving anger through application of relaxation and changed ways of looking and thinking about provocation) was provided. The first half of Session 3 focused heavily on the general notion of cognitive restructuring and introduced the specific cognitive error of catastrophization (i.e., labeling situations in exaggerated, more negative ways than they really are). Clients discussed this in light of the scene for Session 3 and developed a list of decatastrophizing thoughts for that situation. In the second half of the session, the therapist initiated relaxation and coping skill rehearsal parallel to the procedures in Session 3 for RCS. The one exception was that after clients were relaxed, but before the next visualization of the scene, the therapist instructed clients to rehearse three to five specific decatastrophizing thoughts identified earlier in the session. Homework paralleled that for RCS, except that clients were to pay attention to identifying and recording their anger-engendering thoughts during self-monitoring, to develop additional counterresponses for catastrophization, and to begin applying both cognitive and relaxation coping skills. Procedures for Sessions 4-8 of CRCS followed this general pattern of introducing a new distorted cognition each session, developing healthier cognitive counters for the two scenes for the day, and rehearsing them along with relaxation in the second half of the sessions. Scene presentation and fading of therapist control followed the procedures of RCS, except that cognitive responses were also incorporated at each step. The cognitive distortion for Session 4 was overgeneralization (i.e., exaggerating and drawing unwarranted conclusions from a single incident, often involving overinclusive Labels for time, such as always and never, and for people, such as incompetents and idiots). Session 5 involved demanding and absolutistic thinking (i.e., framing events in rigid, moralistic, and often arbitrary commandments of how things should, ought, or have to be and demanding that people and events be just a certain way). Session 6 involved an integration of the cognitions from the prior three sessions plus the addition of inflammatory labeling (i.e., labeling people in nonsensical or obscene ways, such as "jerk," "slime ball," and "ass"). Session 7 addressed misattributions, including personalization (i.e., attributing the cause of events to unfounded or unlikely sources, such as things being done on purpose to the individual or to harm the individual in some way). Homework involved the development of more personal counters to the cognitive distortion for that session, detailing scenes for the next session, and the external application of both cognitive and relaxation coping skills. No treatment control. Control participants were not given any expectancy of treatment. They agreed as part of informed consent that their odds of not receiving counseling were randomly one in three. No campus services were withheld or denied to participants in the control group. They completed questionnaires at the three assessment times for which they received research credit.

13 Results

Preliminary Analyses
Fidelity and manipulation checks. Raters correctly identified the treatment condition on all the tapes (KS = 1.00 for both treatments) and were also highly certain about their ratings (for RCS, M = 9.21, SD = 0.55; for CRCS, M = 9.14, SD = 0.75), which did not differ significantly, F(l, 26) = 0.23, The high accuracy and certainty of ratings suggested a high level of adherence to treatment protocols. A MANOVA comparing RCS and CRCS on therapist and treatment evaluations and attendance revealed no significant multivariate treatment effects, F("J, 27) = 0.87, suggesting no differences between RCS and CRCS in the participant's evaluations of therapists and therapy or in attendance. RSC (Ms = 6.51, 6.56, and 6.38, respectively) and CRCS (Ms = 6.66, 6.47, and 6.37, respectively) members perceived therapists as highly interested in the group, as communicating clearly, and as conveying positive beliefs in the effectiveness of respective treatments. They also felt the program was between moderately and very helpful (Ms = 3.38 and 3.58, respectively) and attended regularly (Ms = 7.03 and 7.13, respectively). Moreover, they reported using their new coping skills in driving situations somewhat more than half the time (Ms = 3.26 and 3.36, respectively) and to other issues about half of the time (Ms = 3.00 and 2.98, respectively). In all, fidelity and manipulation checks suggested that therapists adhered to treatment protocols and implemented them in a credible, high-quality manner. Possible pretreatment differences between groups. Pretreatment means and standard deviations are presented in Tables 4 and 5. One-way (treatments) ANOVAs on the driving scenario total score and DAS total scores revealed no significant pretreatment differences, Fs(2,54) = 0.27 and 0.32, respectively. Because DAS subscale scores are analyzed later, they were analyzed by a one-way (treatments) MANOVA that revealed no multivariate treatment effect prior to treatment, F(12, 98) = 0.66. Parallel MANOVAs revealed no significant multivariate pretreatment differences on the driving log, F(8, 102) = 0.46, or anger expression, F(6, 104) = 0.66. The MANOVA on trait anger and anxiety yielded a significant multivariate treatment effect, F(4, 106) = 2.55, p < .05, TI2 = .088, which univariate analyses showed was due to differences on trait anxiety only, F(2, 54) = 4.27, p < .05, r\2 = .137. This difference was due to the RCS group reporting more pretreatment anxiety than either the CRCS or control group, which did not differ from one another. In summary, there was only one pretreatment difference among groups, suggesting few meaningful differences between conditions prior to intervention.

Analysis of Treatment Effects

Treatment effects were analyzed by analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) in which pretreatment scores on a variable were covaried on posttreatment and follow-up scores. Measures assessed at three points in time were subjected to 3 (treatment) X 2 (trials) analyses, whereas measures assessed only at pretreatment and follow-up were analyzed by a

14

DEFFENBACHER, HUFF, LYNCH, OETTING, AND SALVATORE

Table 4 Unadjusted Pretreatment and Adjusted Posttreatment and Follow-Up Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Report Measures of Driving Anger and Aggressive and Risky Behavior
Measure and assessment Driving scenarios total Pre Post FU DAS Total Pre Post FU Hostile gestures Pre Post RCS M 73.53 61.34 60.14 123.59 88.35 96.59 12.47 9.32 9.44 12.59 8.72 8.90 13.35 9.33 8.39 19.29 13.97 14.67 38.77 29.88 30.85 27.12 17.09 19.43 2.53 1.34 60.24 46.11 2.39 1.23 4.49 3.18 SD 13.03 11.33 11.91 22.47 18.52 18.66 3.36 3.70 3.68 3.71 2.83 3.29 4.03 3.94 4.21 4.01 3.21 3.78 7.67 6.39 6.10 5.09 3.85 4.53 1.74 0.93 22.79 28.73 1.23 1.36 2.07 1.77 M 70.39 64.66 63.96 118.61 106.74 104.34 12.72 10.57 10.03 11.22 10.94 11.46 13.37 12.08 11.63 18.39 16.45 16.56 38.72 33.68 31.60 24.28 22.85 23.62 2.11 1.13 57.56 45.95 1.85 1.63 3.52 2.26 CRCS SD 10.10 14.36 16.86 12.48 17.10 22.16 3.43 3.73 4.08 3.35 1.93 3.09 2.74 3.39 3.70 3.40 3.69 4.84 5.00 5.31 6.68 5.32 4.56 6.52 1.48 0.48 22.17 30.09 1.41 1.37 1.95 1.51 M 71.59 70.58 70.44 119.46 123.83 121.35 12.36 13.17 12.67 10.96 12.20 12.99 13.32 13.54 13.14 18.73 19.18 19.09 38.00 39.31 38.18 26.09 26.42 25.89 2.18 1.86 54.46 52.98 1.83 1.60 3.71 3.54 Control SD 14.14 10.84 9.85 22.04 15.48 16.09 3.96 2.33 2.92 3.43 3.34 3.12 4.61 3.75 3.64 4.41 3.39 3.37 7.11 4.51 7.50 4.88 4.63 5.00 1.61 1.20 18.43 25.77 1.38 0.83 2.13 1.56 Univariate treatment F* Treatment 2
effect TT|

4.15*

.135

18.91**

.416

9.34**

.280

FU
Illegal driving Pre Post FU Police presence Pre Post FU Slow driving Post FU Discourteous driving Post FU Traffic obstructions Pre Post FU Driving log measures Anger frequency Pre FU Anger intensity Pre FU Aggressive behavior Pre FU Risky behavior Pre FU

14.00**

.369

10.87**

.312

Pre

11.94**

.332

Pre

16.31**

.405

18.69**

.438

4.08* 0.48 0.72 4.79*

.140 .019 .028 .161

Note. RCS = Relaxation Coping Skills; CRCS = Cognitive-Relaxation Coping Skills; DAS = Driving Anger Scale; Pre = pretreatment; Post = posttreatment; FU = 4-week follow-up. *df = 2, 52 for DAS total and Driving Scenarios total; df =2,4% for all of the DAS subscales; and df=2,50 for driving log measures. *p<.05. **/><.001.

one-way (treatments) approach. Multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) were followed by univariate ANCOVAs, and significant between-groups differences were explored through Newman-Keuls tests. Targeted driving anger reduction. A Treatment X Trials ANCOVA on the driving scenario total score (see Table 4) revealed a significant effect for treatment, F(2, 53) = 4.15, p < . 0 5 , - n 2 = .135, but not for trials, F(l, 54) = = 1.24, or the

interaction, F(2, 54) = 0.25. At posttreatment and follow-up assessments, the RCS group reported significantly less anger than did the control group (p$ < .05), whereas the CRCS group was not significantly different from either group at either point in time. A Treatment X Trials ANCOVA on the DAS total score (see Table 4) yielded a significant effect for treatment, F(2t 53) = 18.91, p < .001, -n2 = .416, but not for trials, F(l,

DRIVING ANGER

15

Table 5 Unadjusted Pretreatment and Adjusted Posttreatment and Follow-Up Means and Standard Deviations for Nontargeted Measures Control RCS CRCS Measure and SD SD M assessment M M SD Trait Anger Scale Pre 1AM 5.56 25.94 6.34 23.86 5.05 Post 21.38 4.63 23.62 7.38 23.30 4.30 FU 20.78 5.58 21.98 7.29 23.56 5.65 Anger expression
In Pre

Univariate treatment F a

1.27

Post
FU Out Pre

17.77 17.16 17.56 17.41 17.19 16.74 21.53 21.94 23.54

4.88 4.50 5.25 4.80 4.15 4.39 3.94 4.79 5.16

18.00 17.13 18.08 18.22 16.19 16.38 19.06 21.67 24.42

4.91 4.13 5.77 3.62 2.98 3.66 3.37 4.20 4.25

16.46 15.90 16.95 17.64 17.75 17.71 20.46 20.11 21.53

3.80 4.00 4.55 3.67 3.43 3.87 5.47 4.24 4.37

0.88

Post
FU

1.84

Control
Pre

Post
FU

3.45

Trait Anxiety Inventory 50.12 10.54 43.06 10.84 40.27 10.42 42.45 11.33 44.00 10.45 43.92 9.08 FU 42.32 10.31 40.58 8.86 42.80 9.25 0.19 Note. RCS = Relaxation Coping Skills; CRCS = Cognitive-Relaxation Coping Skills; Pre = pretreatment; Post = posttreatment; FU 4-week follow-up. a df 2, 52 for the Trait Anger Scale and the Trait Anxiety Inventory; df = 2,51 for the Anger expression measures. Post
Pre

54) = 0.38, or for the interaction, F(2, 54) = 2.99. At the posttreatment assessment, the CRCS group reported less driving anger than did the control group (p < .01), but the RCS group reported significantly less driving anger on the DAS than either the CRCS or control group (ps < .01). However, by the follow-up, the CRCS and RCS groups were not significantly different from each other on the DAS total score but reported significantly lower driving anger than did the control group (ps < .01). To explore how treatment may have affected different sources of driving anger, we subjected the DAS subscales (see Table 4) to a Treatment X Trials MANCOVA. Multivariate effects were found for treatment, F(12, 86) = 4.33, p < .001,1]2 = .376, and trials, F(6, 49) = 2.54, p < .05, i f = .237, but not for the interaction, F(12, 98) = 0.84. The only significant univariate trials effect was for Police Presence, F(l, 54) = 4.14, p < .05, TI2 = .071, because of a posttreatment-to-follow-up decrease. Significant univariate treatment effects were found on all the DAS subscales (see Table 4), but treatment effects differed across measures and time. For anger in response to hostile gestures, the RCS and CRCS groups, although not differing from one another, reported significantly less anger than did the control group at posttreatment and at follow-up (ps < .01). The RCS group reported significantly less anger in response to illegal driving of others and the presence of police at the posttreatment and follow-up assessments than did either the CRCS or control group (ps < .01), whereas the CRCS and control groups did not differ significantly from one another at either point in time. At posttreatment, the RCS group reported

significantly less anger in response to slow drivers (ps < .01), discourteous drivers (ps < .05), or traffic obstructions (ps < .01) than either the CRCS or control group, and the CRCS group also reported significantly less anger on these measures than did the control group (ps < .01, .05, and .01, respectively). At the follow-up, these measures revealed a different pattern. Anger in response to slow and discourteous drivers showed that die RCS and CRCS groups did not differ significantly from one another, and both reported significantly less anger than did the control group (ps < .01). However, for anger in response to traffic obstructions, the RCS group reported significantly less anger than did either the CRCS or control group (ps < .01), which did not differ from each other. A one-way (treatment) MANCOVA on driving log scores (see Table 4) revealed a significant multivariate treatment effect, F(8, 94) = 2.32, p < .05, i f = .165. Univariate analyses (see Table 4) revealed that the multivariate effect was due to significant differences in the frequency of anger and risky behavior, as no differences were found in intensity of anger or aggressive behavior. The CRCS group reported significantly fewer anger episodes than did the control group (p < .05), whereas the RCS group did not differ significantly from either group. The CRCS group reported significantly less risky driving than did either the RCS or control group (ps < .05), which did not differ from one another. Note also that treatment effect sizes for anger reduction (see Table 4) were consistently in the large range according to Cohen's (1988) criteria (i.e., r\2 > .13), suggesting that

16

DEFFENBACHER, HUFF, LYNCH, OETTING, AND SALVATORE

treatments led to meaningful reductions of driving anger as well. Nontargeted effects. A Treatment X Trials MANCOVA revealed no multivariate treatment, F(4, 102) = 0.76; trials, F(2, 53) = 2.32; or interaction, F(4,106) = 1.12, effects on trait emotion measures (see Table 5). No significant multivariate treatment, F(6, 98) = 1.62, or interaction, F(6, 104) = 0.53, effects were found for anger expression measures (see Table 5). The multivariate trials effect for anger expression was significant, F(3, 52) = 7.03, p < .001, -n2 = .288, because of a posttreatment-to-follow-up increase on AngerControl, F(l, 54) = 16.65, p < .001, -n2 = .236.

Discussion
Using 1-month follow-up as the best estimate of lasting treatment effects, both interventions lowered reported driving anger. However, effects somewhat favored the RCS condition, as it led to greater driving anger reduction on three DAS subscales (i.e., Illegal Driving, Police Presence, and Traffic Obstructions) than did the CRCS condition and, compared with the control condition, led to significant reductions of all sources of driving anger on the DAS and in the driving scenarios. However, somewhat reverse effects were found on the driving log. Although no differences between groups were found for intensity of anger reactions or aggressive behavior, effects favored the CRCS condition, especially in its significant reduction of risky behavior compared with the RCS and control conditions. Although the findings of differential treatment effects are at odds with many studies of general anger reduction (e.g., Deffenbacher, Oetting, Huff, et al., 1996; Deffenbacher & Stark, 1992; Deffenbacher, Thwaites, et al., 1994; Hazaleus & Deffenbacher, 1986), in which interventions generally show equivalent results, the present study suggests potential differential treatment effects. Until these effects are replicated, it is premature to speculate on their basis. However, they do suggest that as research moves to the reduction of more situation- or context-specific anger problems, such as driving anger, differential treatment effects may be found and should be explored carefully. If consistent patterns of differential results are found across studies, then theoretical models accounting for them can be more clearly postulated and recommendations for intervention can be made. A disappointing finding was the absence of generalization effects. Although participants reported applying new skills to issues other than driving anger approximately half the time, and application of skills to other sources of anger and emotional distress was encouraged in the latter stages of both interventions, there was no evidence of generalization of effects to general anger, anger expression, or trait anxiety. These findings suggest greater attention should be paid to generalization, especially because high-anger drivers showed elevations on these measures (see Study 1). This might be achieved by greater discussion of skill generalization, specific rehearsal for generalization (e.g., visualization of scenes involving other sources of anger or other emotions), and more specific homework for generalization in the late

stages of therapy. Such efforts may require an increase in the length or number of sessions. Another clinical suggestion deals with the way in which the cognitive portion of CRCS was approached. In the present study, a methodology from the treatment of general anger was adapted, namely the introduction of a different type of cognitive distortion every session. That cognitive distortion was the primary focus of discussion and rehearsal for the situations involved in that session. Given the more specific context of driving anger, cognitive elements might be approached in a different manner. Clients could focus on the specific sources of driving anger (e.g., anger in response to rude gestures) for the session and generate lists of less angry, more adaptive cognitions for those situations. This could be done without regard to the specific type of cognitive distortion or biased information processing involved. More adaptive cognitions could then be rehearsed for that session's provocations. Across sessions, participants would strengthen a variety of cognitive strategies with which to handle anger while driving, and over time, general cognitive themes could be abstracted and summarized for clients. Such an approach to the cognitive portion of CRCS might prove easier and more effective and should be evaluated in future research. In summary, this study suggests that trait driving anger, a significant risk factor for dysfunctional emotional and behavioral reactions on the road, can be reduced by shortterm, cost-effective groups focusing on RCS or a combination of cognitive and relaxation skills.

References
American Automobile Association. (1997). Aggressive driving: Three studies. Washington, DC: American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety. Arnett, J. J., Offer, D., & Fine, M. A. (1997). Reckless driving in adolescence: "State" and "trait" factors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 57-63. Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Plenum. Berkowitz, L. (1990). On information and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45, 494-503. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Deffenbacher, J. L. (1992). Trait anger: Theory, findings, and implications. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 177-201). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Deffenbacher, J. L., Demm, P. M., & Brandon, A. D. (1986). High general anger: Correlates and treatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 24, 481^89. Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Huff, M. E., Cornell, G. R., & Dallager, C. J. (1996). Evaluation of two cognitive-behavioral approaches to general anger reduction. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20, 551-573. Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological Reports, 74,83-91. Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Lynch, R. S., & Morris, C. D. (1996). The expression of anger and its consequences. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 575-590.

DRIVING ANGER Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Thwaites, G. A., Lynch, R. S., Baker, D. A., Stark, R. S., Thacker, S., & Eiswerth-Cox, L. (1996). State-trait anger theory and the utility of the Trait Anger Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 131-148. Deffenbacher, J. L., & Stark, R. S. (1992). Relaxation and cognitive-relaxation treatments of general anger. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 158-167. Deffenbacher, J. L., Thwaites, G. A., Wallace, T. L., & Oetting, E. R. (1994). Social skills and cognitive-relaxation approaches to general anger reduction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 386-396. Donovan, D. M., Queisser, H. R., Salzberg, P. M., & Umlauf, R. L. (1985). Intoxicated and bad drivers: Subgroups within the same population of high-risk drivers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46, 375-382. Donovan, D. M , Umlauf, R. L., & Salzberg, P. M. (1988). Derivation of personality subtypes among high-risk drivers. Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving, 4, 233-244. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309-330. Harris, M. B. (1995). Ethnicity, gender, and evaluations of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 343-357. Harris, M. B. (1996). Aggressive experiences and aggressiveness: Relationship to ethnicity, gender, and age. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 843-870. Hazaleus, S. L., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1986). Relaxation and cognitive treatments of anger. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 222-226. Jacobs, G. A., Latham, L. E., & Brown, M. S. (1988). Test-retest reliability of the State-Trait Personality Inventory and the Anger Expression Scale. Anxiety Research, 1, 363-365. Lynch, R. S., Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Tingling, D. A. (1995, August). Driving anger as a health risk factor. Paper presented at the 103rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY. Mayer, R. E., & Treat, J. R. (1987). Psychological, social, and

17

cognitive characteristics of high-risk drivers: A pilot study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 9, 1-8. McMillen, D. L., Pang, M. G., Wells-Parker, E., & Anderson, B. J. (1992). Alcohol, personality traits, and high-risk driving: A comparison of young, drinking driver groups. Addictive Behaviors, 77,525-532. Morris, C. D., Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., & Oetting, E. R. (1996, August). Anger expression and its consequences. Paper presented at the 104th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Novaco, R. W. (1975). Anger control. Lexington, MA: Heath. Novaco, R. W., Stokols, D., Campbell, J., & Stokols, J. (1979). Transportation, stress, and community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7, 361-380. Novaco, R. W, Stokols, D., & Milanesi, L. (1990). Objective and subjective dimensions of travel impedance as determinants of commuting stress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18,231-251. Rimm, D. C , DeGroot, J. C , Boord, P., Heiman, J., & Dillow, P. V. (1971). Systematic desensitization of an anger response. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 9, 273-280. Selzer, M. L., & Vinokur, A. (1974). Life events, subjective stress, and traffic accidents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131,

903-906.
Spielberger, C D . (1988). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R., & Lushene, R. (1970). Manual for the StateTrait Anxiety Inventory (Self Evaluation Questionnaire). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Zillman, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-

ogy, 7, 419-434. Received January 5, 1999 Revision received February 24,1999 Accepted March 10,1999