Aggressive Driving and Road Rage: A Driving Simulation Experiment.
- Conditions
- Aggression
- Interventions
- Behavioral: Video gameBehavioral: Bumper stickersBehavioral: Roadside vegetationBehavioral: VideosBehavioral: MusicBehavioral: Alcohol-related cues
- Registration Number
- NCT03430973
- Lead Sponsor
- Ohio State University
- Brief Summary
Driving a car is the most dangerous behavior most people engage in every day. According to the World Health Organization, about 1.25 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes, and they are the leading cause of death among 15 to 29 year olds. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 37,461 Americans were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2016 - about 103 per day. Although there are several causes of traffic crashes (e.g., texting, alcohol consumption, inclement weather), the leading cause is aggressive driving. In the United States, aggressive driving accounts for more than half of all traffic fatalities. Thus, aggressive driving is an important applied health topic, especially for young drivers.
- Detailed Description
Experimental studies are needed to draw inferences about the causes of aggressive driving. Only six driving simulation experiments have been conducted, and one of these experiment was conducted by the investigators (Bushman, Kerwin, Whitlock, \& Weisenberger, 2017).
The proposed research will test the effects of seven situational risk factors: (1) racing video games (Experiment 2), (2) racial bumper stickers (i.e., "Black Lives Matter" bumper stickers for white motorists vs. "All Lives Matter" bumper stickers for black motorists; Experiment 3), (3) political bumper stickers (i.e., "Donald Trump for President 2016" for Democrat motorists vs. "Hillary Clinton for President 2016" for Republican motorists; Experiment 4), (4) alcohol-related cues (i.e., a case of beer vs. water on the passenger seat; Experiment 5), (5) music with violent lyrics (Experiment 6), (6) music with an upbeat tempo (Experiment 6), and (7) roadside trash (Experiment 7). The proposed research will also test the effects of five situational protective factors: (1) racial bumper stickers (i.e., "Black Lives Matter" for black motorists vs. "All Lives Matter" for white motorists; Experiment 3), (2) political bumper stickers (i.e., "Donald Trump for President 2016" for Republican motorists vs. "Hillary Clinton for President 2016" for Democrat motorists; Experiment 4), (3) music with prosocial lyrics (Experiment 6), (4) music with a calm tempo (Experiment 6), and (5) roadside vegetation (Experiment 7).
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- RECRUITING
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 830
- Participants will be adults recruited from Central Ohio (Franklin County) through advertisements (e.g., newspaper, Internet).
- Participants' ages will vary depending on the experiment. 18 and older for Experiment 1; 18-21 for Experiments 2-4 and 6-7; 21+ for Experiment 5
- All participants must have a current driver license.
• Participants who have motion sickness will be excluded.
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- FACTORIAL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Experiment 2 Video game Experiment 2 tests whether participants actually drive more aggressively after a playing a violent or nonviolent racing video game. After giving their consent, participants (N=60, n=30 each group) will complete the same personal variables as in Experiment 1, and will report the video games they play. Next, participants will be randomly assigned to play one of two types of video games for 20 minutes: (1) violent racing video game, (2) nonviolent racing game, or (3) a neutral game. After participants complete the driving scenario, participants will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals. A debriefing will follow. Experiment 4 Bumper stickers Experiment 4 tests the effects of political bumper stickers on aggressive driving in Republicans versus Democrats. After giving their consent, participants (N=120; n=60 Republicans, n=60 Democrats) will complete the personal variables (see Experiment 1). Some cars in the driving scenario will contain bumper stickers. Experiment 4 has four conditions: (1) Republicans / "Donald Trump for President 2016" stickers, (2) Republicans / "Hillary Clinton for President 2016" stickers, (3) Democrats / "Donald Trump for President 2016" stickers, (4) Democrats / "Hillary Clinton for President 2016" stickers. After participants complete the driving scenario, they will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals, and will report their attitudes toward Trump and Clinton. A debriefing will follow. Experiment 7 Roadside vegetation Experiment 7 tests whether roadside vegetation can reduce aggression in frustrated drivers. After giving their consent, participants (N=90, n=30 per group) will complete the personality variables (see Experiment 1). Next, they will complete the Enjoyment of Nature Scale (Cheng \& Moore, 2012), which contains 7 items (e.g., "I like to see wild flowers in nature" and "Being in the natural environment makes me feel peaceful"; 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly disagree; Cronbach =.87). Next, participants will be randomly assigned to one of three driving scenarios: (1) roadside vegetation, (2) trash, or (3) control (no roadside vegetation / no trash). After participants complete the driving scenario, they will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals, and will be debriefed. Experiment 1 Videos The purpose of Experiment 1 is to develop a standardized measure of aggressive driving for driver simulation experiments. After giving their consent, participants (N=200) will complete several personal variables (i.e., gender, age, driving experience, driving frequency, trait anger, self-reported aggressive and prosocial driving). Next, participants will watch several short videos of aggressive driving (e.g., speeding, tailgating, driving on shoulder), and road rage (e.g., hitting another vehicle or pedestrian). Participants will indicate whether the driver's behavior was aggressive (yes, no), and will rate how aggressive it was on an 11-point scale (0=not at all aggressive to 10=extremely aggressive). A debriefing will follow. Experiment 6 Music Experiment 6 will test the effects of music with aggressive versus prosocial lyrics on aggressive driving. The tempo of the music will also be manipulated because it might influence arousal levels. After giving their consent, participants (N=150, n=30 per group) will complete the personal variables (see Experiment 1). Music will be played over the car's sound system. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of five conditions: (1) violent lyrics / upbeat tempo, (2) violent lyrics / calm tempo, (3) prosocial lyrics / upbeat tempo, (4) prosocial lyrics / calm tempo, or (5) no music control. After participants complete the driving scenario, they will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals, and will be debriefed. Experiment 3 Bumper stickers Experiment 3 tests the effects of racial bumper stickers on black and white participants. After giving their consent, participants (N=120; n=60 black, n=60 white) will complete the personal variables (see Experiment 1), the race IAT, and report their political party. Some cars in the driving scenario will contain bumper stickers. Experiment 3 contains four conditions: (1) white participants / "All Lives Matter" stickers, (2) black participants / "All Lives Matter" stickers, (3) white participants / "Black Lives Matter" stickers, (4) black participants / "Black Lives Matter" stickers. After participants complete the driving scenario, they will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals, and will report their attitudes toward the #BLM and #ALM movements. A debriefing will follow. Experiment 5 Alcohol-related cues Experiment 5 tests whether alcohol-related cues can increase aggressive driving. After giving their consent, participants (N=40) will complete the personal variables (see Experiment 1). Next, participants will be randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) 12-pack of beer on passenger seat, or (2) 12-pack of sparkling water on passenger seat. Participants will be told that the object on the seat is part of a different experiment that the other experimenter forgot to clean up, which they should ignore it. After participants complete the driving scenario, they will complete measures of state and hostile appraisals, and will be debriefed.
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Aggressive driving behavior Observed in driving scenario during the experimental session The two primary measures of aggressive driving will be tailgating and speeding. Tailgating measures are based on the number of seconds between the participant's car and the car in front of them: (1) 4-second rule (recommended for speeds above 30 MPH, in heavy traffic, or when there are many obstacles, as in the present driving scenario), (2) 3-second rule (dangerous), and (3) 2-second rule (extremely dangerous). Average speed is a poor measure of speeding because it depends heavily on random influences. Instead, a relatively high-speed cutoff (e.g., 50 MPH) will be used before averaging because it removes the variability due to traffic. Other measures of aggressive driving include off-road driving (e.g., crossing the double solid yellow lines into oncoming traffic, driving on the shoulder), horn honking, verbal aggression, and aggressive gestures (e.g., giving another driver the middle finger). Measures of aggressive driving will be combined to reduce Type I errors.
Road rage Observed in driving scenario during the experimental session, up to one hour. The four primary measures of road rage will be colliding into other vehicles, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Acts of road rage are expected to occur far less frequently than acts of aggressive driving. Acts of road rage will be combined to reduce Type I errors.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Hostile attributions Immediately after completing driving scenario, during the experimental session, up to one hour. Research has shown that the hostile attribution bias can influence appraisal and decision processes. The hostile attribution bias is the tendency to perceive ambiguous actions by others as aggressive. For example, if a driver cuts you off, a hostile attribution would be that the driver did it purposely (not accidentally). Research has shown that attributing causality to an offending driver predicts aggressive driving. In the proposed research, we will measure whether people assign blame to other drivers using a measure successfully used in previous research. For each provocative event, participants will be asked whether the actions of the other driver were intentional or accidental. For example, "Do you think the other driver deliberately cut you off?" vs. "I think the other driver cut me off by accident" (1=Not at all to 7=Very much so). In Experiments 2-4, 6-7, we expect hostile appraisals to be positively related to aggressive driving. This measure is not included in Experiment 5.
State anger Immediately after completing driving scenario, during the experimental session, up to one hour. In the proposed research, state anger will be measured using the State Anger Scale (Spielberger, 1988), which contains 15 items (e.g., "I feel angry") that are rated on a 4-point scale (1 = Not at all; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Moderately so; 4 = Very much so; Cronbach = .93).
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
The Ohio State University Driving Simulation Laboratory
🇺🇸Columbus, Ohio, United States