of Percy Salomon, one of the founders of Salomon Brothers. ... the young man by Salomon, as the victim was walking back to his car, saying that he had the.
Automobile Driving And Aggressive Behavior Raymond W. Novaco June 1991 WorkingPaper No. 42
The University of California TransportationCenter University of California Berkeley, CA94720
The Univargily 0[Caiif0rnia Transportation Center The University of California
Center activities.
Transportation
at other universities within
Center (UCTC}
Researchers
is one of ten regional units
the region also have opportu-
mandated by Congress and
nities to collaborate on selec-
established in Fall 1988 to
ted studies. Currently faculty
support research, education, and training in surface trans-
at California State University,
portation.
State University,
The UCCenter
serves federal Region IX and
Long Beach, and at Arizona Tempe, are
active participants¯
is supported by matching grants from the U.S. Depart-
UCTC’s educational
ment of Transportation, the California State Department
research programs are focused
of Transportation (Caltrans),
improving metropolitan
and the University.
accessibility,
and
on strategic planning for with emphasis
on the special conditions in Based on the Berkeley
Region IX. Particular attention
Campus, UCTC draws upon
is directed to strategies for
existing capabilities
using transportation
and
resources of the Institutes
of
as an
Transportation Studies at
instrument of economic development, while also ac-
Berkeley, Davis, and Irvine;
commodating to the re-
the Institute
gion’s persistent
of Urban and
expansion
Regional Development at
and while maintaining and
Berkeley: the Graduate
enhancing the quality of
School of Architecture
and
life there.
Urban Planning at Los Angeles; and several aca-
The Center distributes
demic departments at the
on its research in working
reports
Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, and
papers, monographs, and in
Los Angeles campuses.
reprints of published arti-
Faculty and students on other
cles. For a list of publications
University of California
in print, write to the address
campuses may participate
in
below¯
Universityof California TransportationCenter 108 Naval Architecture Building Berkeley,California 94720 Tel: 4151643-7378 FAX:4151643-5456
Authors of papers reporting on UCTC-sponsored research are solely responsible for their content. This research was supportedby the U.S. Departmentof Transportation and the California State Departmentof TransDortation.neither of whichassumesliability for its content or use.
Automobile Driving and Aggressive Behavior
Raymond W. Novaco University of California at Irvine
Working Paper No. 42 June 1991 Chapter forthcoming in M. Waehs & M. Crawford (eds.), The Car and the City
The University of California Transportation Center University of California at Berkeley
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Preparation of this chapter was supported by the Drivetime Foundation, The Institute
of
Transportation Studies - Irvine, and the Public Policy Research Organization at the University of California, Irvine.
Abstract
Automobiledriving and aggressive behavior have had an extensive association. Themes of dominanceand territoriality
have long been part of automobiledriving, whichhas aLso involved
flagrant assaultive actions. Recent episodes of roadwayviolence in metropolitan areas have raised communityconcemabout aggressive behavior in driving, although commonbeliefs about why such violence occurs can be seen as pseudoexplanations. Various themes in the psychology of aggression are presented as they pertain to automobiledriving. Convergentfactors in contemporary urban life that influence roadwayaggression are discussed, and it is asserted that such behavior is more prevalem than commonlyrecognized.
AutomobileDriving and AggressiveBehavior
Episodicoccurrencesof roadway assaults that haveeruptedin recent years raise questions about anger and aggression and their relationship to driving. Oureverydaydiscussions about driving experiencesincorporateconsiderablelore about aggressionon the road, yet this subject has been been neglected academically. In common parlance, aggressive behavior on roadways is understoodin simplistic terms, suchas defectivepersonalities, "copy-cat"behavior,or traffic stress. Althoughsuch ideas have someplausibility, they are overly simplified accounts for incidents that vary considerablyin their formand causes. Contemporary manifestationsof roadwayassaults relate to several long-standingthemes in the psychologyof aggression literature whichthis chapter will explicate with regard to automobile driving. Territoriality, frustration, andenvironmental cues for aggressionare factors that heightenthe probability of aggressivebehavior, as broadlybasedresearch has shown,and they are very mucha part of driving. Althoughassaultive behavior and other forms of aggression on the road have many causes and dissimilarities, a broad rangeof aggressivebehaviorson roadwayscan be understood in termsof factors or conditionsthat disinhibit aggressivebehavior.Thatis, aggressivebehavior is very muchrestrained by inhibitory controls within the individual and society. However, personal and social control mechanismsare weakenedby various factors that operate in the context of driving. Physiological and emotional arousal, the anonymityof highways, the opportunityto escape, and the promulgationof scripts of "road warrior" behaviorby cinematic and massmediasourcescan override the personaland societal forces that otherwiseinhibit and regulate aggressivebehavior. Theweakening of controls of aggressionis indeeda matter pertaining to urban violence
generally, and automobiledriving is just one arena. Violenceon roadwaysdoes involve particular "activating" and "releasing" mechanisms,and the growingproblemof traffic congestion in urban areas mayadd to the violence risk. Before addressing those contextual matters, there are symbolic aspects of the car itself that are linked with aggression. In a variety of ways, the very imageof the car has beencast with aggressive features, and this symbolizationof the car is congruentwith some aggression-engendering conditions of the roadway.
ELEMENTS OF AGGRESSION IN THE AUTOMOBILE’S SYMBOLIZATION Far from being a contemporary phenomenon,aggressiveness has been fused with driving at least since chariots careened around the Circus Maximusin ancient Rome,generating clouds of dust and choruses of roars amongthe spectators (Hibbert, 1985). The association of aggression with automobile driving, however, has indeed been a recurrent element in the symbolization of the car. Car names,advertising themes, design features, and engineered capacities have often cast an imageof the car in aggressive terms. It is not incidental that cars have been called Chargers, Cougars, Jaguars, Stingrays, Thunderbirds,Cutlasses, Tornados,Firebirds, Challengers, etc. Such names fit
themes of power and excitement packaged by Madison Avenue, so as to induce
significant segments of the buying public to get behind the wheel of the latest ego-enhancing product. Aggressiveness blends with automobile excitement and with the sense of self-efficacy. Dominanceis the core concept of the high performance automotive machine. The car is frequently an instrument of competivenessin various forms of ritualized dueling, from hot rod drag racing to frenetic scampers through freeway traffic by hurried drivers jockeying for lane position. The car or truck can be a means of asserting dominance, and sometimes they are transformed from vehicles to weaponsin the hands of enraged drivers. The hood ornament, now
6 passe, mightwenhave been a metaphorfor a gun sight. Indeed, vehicles are used as weapons with tragic frequency.Thecar is an instrumentof the assertion of power,as manypeoplehave observed, such as Schmidt-Relenberg (1986) whodescribed the behaviorof Mercedesdrivers the autobahnin termsof "powertrials." Thecar is also a territorial entity, a highlypersonalizedspace,sensitized to crowding, jarring, and marring. Especially in circumstancesthat are otherwisearousing (such as driving under conditionsof time urgency,ambientdiscomfort,and travel impedance),being in a car is to inhabit a micro-environment that can be easily gearedfor frustration and anger. Thecar is an extensionof a personalspace zone, the encroachment of whichcan elicit aggressiveresponding. Moreover,ego-investmentin one’s automobileis associated with alarm about potential damage. Newcar ownerscan be found to be exceedinglyvigilant about preserving their car’s pristine condition, and somemaintainthis obsessionwell past the vehicle’s freshly minteddays. Eventhe slightest damagecan provokestrong antagonistic responses. Theseare aggressive themesin the symbolizationof the automobile,but they do not correspond to violence.Marketing images,arousal, ritualized competition,andterritoriality do not automaticallyconvert to assaultive, harm-doingbehavior. Human aggressivenessis not foreign to automobile driving, but violend is a significantly different matter than competitive acceleration,impatience withtraffic, andirritability aboutparkinglot dents. Hence,the association betweendriving and aggression musttherefore be mappedin a diffentiated way. In anotherwriting (Novaco,in press), I havedevelopeda typologyof roadwayaggression forms, differentiating six different types: (1) roadwayshootings/throwings, (2) assault with the vehicle, (3) sniper~robberattacks, (4) drive-by shootings, (5) suicide/murdercrashes, and (6) roadsideconfrontations. Thesevarious formswerealso arrayed in that typologywith regard to six contextualfactors, whichweretarget location, aggressorlocation, target identity, temporal
7 interval, intentional quality, and traffic relevance. A thoroughreviewof the literature pertaining to roadwayaggression was also undertaken in that work, and the disinhibition of aggression concept was articulated with a discussion of violence contagions. This chapter will discuss a number of long-standing themes in the psychology of aggression literature that pertain to automobile driving. These topical areas from research on aggression include territoriality,
frustration, and environmental cues. Before elaborating these
psychological themes, I will first discuss the highly publicized road aggression episode that prompted myinterest in this topic and examine some commonmisconceptions about its causes.
THE CALIFORNIA FREEWAYSHOOTING EPISODE Whenthe wave of "freeway shootings" erupted in California in the summerof 1987, it raised concerns about anger and aggression and their relationship to driving, Communitiesbecame alarmed about an allegedly newthreat of violence in California and elsewhere, signalling the further decay of the social fabric. Manypeople saw the shootings as a byproduct of the snarl of traffic congestion that has becomean increasing bothersomefeature of the southern California lanscape and of metropolitan areas, nationwide. The potential influence of the mass media as inducers of "copy-cat" behavior was discussed, and resemblances to gang-related drive-by shootings were also noted. Someobservers glibly viewed the spree of freeway shootings as a passing fad, while others saw the episode as indicative of the miserable condition of congested roads. During the summerof 1987, freeway shootings becamea daily news item in California, and the publicity spread nadonaUyand intemationally. Betweenmid-June and the end of August, there were approximately 70 shootings and one serious stabbing on southern California roads
reported innewspapers. OverI{30shootings werereported throughout thestate, based onmy tabulation ofnewspaper accounts. Theincidents weredistributed across daysofthewcck, with noparticular pattern fortime ofday, although most oftheshootings occurred during theafternoon orintheevening before midnight. Mostoftheincidents occurred onfreeways, butabout 25% took place onsurface streets. Thevictims werepredominantly males, andtheassailants were all malcs, withfemale companions in a fewcases. Thisdomain ofmaleexclusivity forCalifornia shootings maintained until March 5,1988, when a female passenger ina redHyundai punctuated her driver’s obscene handgestures byblasting a carofteenagers whohadpreviously passed them. Thevehicles used intheshootings varied considerably, asshots werefired from cars, trucks, andmotorcycles, although pick-up trucks wereinvolved disproportionately. Most "freeway shootings" were perpctrated bysolo drivers, although attimes there were three orfour assailants. Indeed, thisform ofroadway aggression istobedistinguished fromgang-related incidents known as"drive-by" shootings. Oncethewaveof shooting passed, thecommon tendency wasto viewwhathappened asa vanishing aberration. Driving onfreeways isingrained inourlifestyles, sowcarecommonly in theenvironments wherethehighly publicized assaults havetakenplace. Theapparent randomness oftheshootings certainly heightened thealarm. Yet,fewofuswant tothink thatour communities havebecome souncivilized thatwc mustworry about being bushwacked on theway to work. Theshootings were, however, lessrandom thancommonly believed. Themajority of incidents involved some prior dispute orconflict about road privilege, based onvictims’ accounts, which arelikely tobcunderestimates ofprior provocation. Death andserious injury victims have oftcn bccnpassengers, which should givedrivers pause inbecoming ensnared ina dispute about roadspace.
Far frombeingan aberration,the conditionsthat facilitate roadviolenceremain,and this manifestationof aggressionwasmorethan an episodicoccurrenceidiosyncratic to California. In fact, sequen~aloutbreaksof roadwayshootingshaveperiodically occurredin other metropolitan areas, and aggression on highwayshappensmorefrequently than is generally or officially recognized.Beforethe California episode, there wasa spree of freewayshootings in Houston during 1982.At that time, there wasa large influx of newcomers to that city, and its freeways were very congested. Therewere 12 traffic-related homicides.Anotherthirteen happenedover the next five years, Thosewere homicides-- shootings were muchmorenumerous.Following the Californiaepisodein the summer of 198"/, there wasa similar freewayshootingcontagionthat fall in St. Louis, involving 22 confirmed shootings betweenthe end of October through December.Also in Detroit, about a dozenroadwayshootings occcurred during the year after those in California. Thewaveof shootings in southern California, therefore, werenot at all unique.
Pseudo-Explanationsof FreewayShootings Theroad assault incidents had dissimilarities and manycauses. Whythe assaults occurred, and whythey "stopped"remaininteresting puzzles, althoughthe answerto the latter question has a twist -- they have not stopped. Roadway assaults taking the formof shootings, throwings,and brandishingsthat are not gang-relatedhavenot abatedat all -- whathas diminished is the thematic presence in the newsmedia. Fromdata tabulated by the California Highway Patrol, whichI haveacquired, "freewayviolence" has increased from1988to 1989.For example, after a rise anddeclinein the first half of 1988,the CHP tabulationsindicate 114and98 incidents in July and Augustof 1988and then showa steady rise to 250and 325for June and July of 1989. Thelatter figure wasan "all time high," accordingto Commander Cowen-Scott whohas provided
10 mewith the incident data; whichwill be scientifically analyzed.This respected police agency certainly does not consideraggressivebehavioron roadwaysto be a passing fad, althoughit is fortuitous (froma contagionstandpoint)that it has lost its topical valuefor the "news." Regardingwhythe freewayshootingsoccurred, this particular formof assault mustbe viewedin the larger contextof societal violenceand in relation to other formsof aggressionin automobile driving. Several explanations having colloquial appeal must be recognized as over-simplificationsthat fall to addressmultiplepathwaysof causation. Attemptsto accountfor freewayshootingsas beingdue to "wackos,""copycats,"or even"traffic stress" are too narrow and go astray. Personalitypathologyis certainly a relevantfactor in road shootingincidents, and it is likely that someof those whodid themwouldhave engagedin someother form of aggression, if this par’dcularscript had not beensalient. Acasein point is that of AlbertC. Morgan, whowas convicted of shooting Paul Gary Nussbaumon the freeway approaching the Costa Mesa Fairgrounds on July 18, 1987. Nussbaumis nowparalyzed from the neck down.Morganwas sentencedto ten years imprisonment.Duringthe trial, several significant facts emerged.When captured, Morgan had ammunition in both pockets(four bullets in one, and five in the other). wasdrinkingheavily prior to the shootingand had a bloodalcohol level of .10 four hoursafter the shooting. His past history had notable aggressivefeeatures, including archery huntingfor bears and a prior roadwayassault in whichhe fought with anotherdriver. Certainly, in this case and others, themis a conscipuousaggression-proneness factor operating. Theexpression, "Amandrives as he lives," is a themethat wasin effect pursuedby a numberof British researchers in the 1960sand 70s whowere investigating the relationship betweenaggressivenessas a personalitytrait and motoringoffenses, as well as accidentliability. This .research waspartly inspired by an early study by Tillmanand Hobbs(1949) on accidem
11 proneness, and includes monographsby Skillman (1965), Parry (1968), Whitlock (1971), MacMillan(1975), along with a variety of studies in the psychiatric and behavioral literature. This bodyof workis fully reviewedelsewhere (Novaco,in press), as previously indicated. Here, the point to be madeis that aggressive behavior has manycauses, some of which are personal dispositions and someare situational.
Whenaggression occurs on the road, we must examinethe
roadwaycontext as a containing someof the determinants, especially whenpatterns of aggression occur across individuals. Personality factors are only part of the picture. Someonesuch as Mr. Morganwould likely be violent off the road as well as on it. But traffic circumstances, the freeway shooting script, alcohol consumption, and the availability
of his weaponsurely boosted his aggression
potential on that Saturday afternoon, whenhe was stuck in a traffic jam, had a prior altercation with someonein a blue truck, and then leaned across in front of his wife’s face to shoot Gary Nussbaum. In contrast to being perpetrated by "pathological" types, someof the shootings mayhave involved ordinary people undergoing periods of stress wholost control of their impulses. They mayhave used a weaponfor attack that they were carrying for defense, despite the illegality. Alternatively, the victims mayonly t~ave expressed annoyancewith words of gestures but then provoked a more aggressive counter-reponse. Moretragically,
the victim maynot have been the
person whoinitially provokedthe assailant. The escalation process need not be confined to the original players. Various disinhibitory processes and cues for aggression can catalyze an angry emotional state into harm-doing behavior. Whensomeonegets very angry, they often do not consider the consequences,and they do not pick targets very carefully. Another commonexplanation for the freeway shootings is that they are "copy-cat" incidents.
There is some credence to this,
as modeling effects
are among the most
12 well-documented phenomena in psychological research on aggression (Bandura, 1973) andare discussed later asoneofthemajor themes pertaining toroadway aggression. However, the"copy cat"explanation plausibly accounts foronlypartof whathappened. Mostoftheincidents involved somedispute or altercation, so it wasnot a matter of sensation-seekers merely duplicating a newscast, moviescene, or newspaperstory. Millions of drivers were exposedto multimediacoverage,yet only abouta hundreddid the shooting. Imitative behaviorand modeling influences are certainly part of the diffusion or spread of road aggression throughoutsome geographicarea linked by the media, but the effects are morethan "copy-cat" phenomena. The escalation of manyincidents fromdisputes to assaults, and the fact that assaults whichbeginin cars sometimesculminateoutside of cars render the "copy-cat"idea as pseudoexplanation.Some examplesfrommyroadsideconfrontationcategorywill easily illustrate this point. Roadsideconfrontationsrefer to traffic disputes that havebeenextendedoutside the vehicle. Followinga dispute about road spaceor privilege, one driver mayforce another off the road or maysimply be in a position to impedethe other’s movement,setting the stage for confrontation. Duringthe California 1987summer episode, there wasa stabbingin NewportBeach that left a manin critical condition after twomenwhowerein a motorscooter beganto scuffle with two menwhohad been in a Corvette. ThefollowingJanuary, an irate motorist got out of his car to confront another motorist, whowasa pregnant woman.Hepushed her against the freewayrailing, punchedher, and tried to throwher over the railing but wasdeterred by six passing motorists whoreceived humanitarianawards.In the Detroit episode, whichoccurredin late 1988and early 1989, there weretworoadsideconfrontationsthat wereextensionsof freeway disputes and whichresulted in serious injuries, one of themfatal. Themanwhodied waspursued off the Interstate after he and his companions madeobscenegestures. Hedied fromkicks to the headand neck. In the other case, a driver wasforced off the road and then badly slashed with
13 a knife. These events surely indicate that there is more involved than "copying" of previously publicized shootings. A example that illustrates
the limitations of the "copy-cat" and the pathological
personality views is the case of Arthur Salomon,Wall Street investment banker and the grandson of Percy Salomon, one of the founders of Salomon Brothers. This prominent 52 year-old, seemingly model citizen, shot an unarmedcollege student on June 19, 1987 in a road dispute on the HUtchinsonRiver Parkway(Stone, 1987). The conflict began over the fight to pass on the freeway. It escalated to verbal exchangeson the side of the road and ended with the shooting of the young manby Salomon, as the victim was walking back to his car, saying that he had the license numberof Salomon’sMercedes. Mr. Salomonwas reported to be under strain at the time and was alos involved with law enforcement hobbies. Although he was knownto be stubborn, he was well-known for his generosity,
and he loved to work in his garden (Stone, 1987).
Apparently, the distinguished citizen becameensnared in a road dispute, whichescalated and then resulted in his using a gun for attack that he carried for protection. I doubt that he, his family, or his associates were inclined to account for his behavior in terms of a thrill-seeking wackofad, copy-cat behavior, or an anti-social personality. Lastly, viewing the mad shooting episode as a product of "traffic
stress" is also
misguided. The California summerincidents were evenly distributed across days of the week, with no distinct pattern for time of day, although most of the shootings occurred during the afternoons or in the evenings before midnight. The shooting were not done by rush hour commutersstick in traffic jams. A traffic jam is a rather unlikely place for a road shooting, presumingthat the person doing the shooting wishes to escape. It is precisely the anonymityand escape potential of freeways that provides for disinhibition. traffic
Albert Morgan,however, was in a
jam whenhe shot Gary Nussbaum,and indeed he was quickly apprehended at the Orange
14 County Fairgrounds. Morganwas the exception, and he also had several other disinhibitory processes operating -- i.e. readiness of gun and ammunition,alcohol consumption, and arousal from a prior altercation with another driver. Traffic conditions are not irrelevant. Someyears ago, mycolleague, Daniel Stokols, and I did several studies on commuter stress, whichpioneerednaturalistic field research on the effects of automobile commuting (Novaco, Stokols, CampbeU,& Stokols, 1979; Stokols,
Novaco,
CambeU,& Stokols, 1978; Stokols & Novaco, 1981). As psychologists, we were concerned with long-term exposureto traffic congestion, chronic health and behavior effects, individuals whowere most at risk, and conditions of the homeand job environment that influenced the stress of commuting.It is indeed true that continued exposureto traffic congestion elevates resting blood pressure, increases negative moodstates, lowers tolerance for frustration, and can lead to more impatient driving habits. Morerecently we have found additional negative effects on physical health, work absences, and moodat homein the evening (Novaco, Stokols, & Milanesi, in press). However,physiological arousal, irritability,
and impatience are qualitatively
different from
assaultive behavior. Theseinternal states can activate aggression, but aggression is a significantly different matter, because it requites an override of inhibitions about harm-doing. Traffic conditions mayaffect our moodand produce other stress consequences, but manyother factors operate in producing flagrant assaultive behavior. Tim convenient explanations for "freeway shootings" must be recognized as overly simplified, as the violent incidents were heterogenous and multi-causal. Moreover, freeway shootings are only one type of aggression that occurs on roadways. They are a relatively uncommon form, perhaps exceeded in novelty only by the veritable highwayrobbery spree that occurred in South Florida in 1985 when over 100 motorists were ambushed and robbed on Interstate 95 betweenFt. Lauderdale and Miami.Other violent behaviors, in addition to shootings
15 and robbery, involve the use of the vehicle as a weapon.That form has received somescholarly attention, as there is a study of vehicular homocidecases in Columbus,Ohio, by Michalowski (1975) and a British criminal law review by Spencer (1985). The more commonforms of aggression on roadwaysare the not-so-violent variety, such as verbal nastiness, threat displays, and various antagonistic driving behaviors. The community surveys that I have conductedindicate that these behaviors are moreprevalent than generally or officially recognized, however, the report of those findings remains for a subsequent work. What wiUbe presented here are a set of themesin the psychologyof aggression literature that pertain to automobiledriving. Theselong-standing themesare territoriality,
frustration, and environmental
cues for aggression.
THEMES IN THE PSYCHOLOGYOF AGGRESSION RELATED TO DRIVING Psychological research on aggressive behavior is voluminous,hence this presentation is only a cursory discussion of some primary topical areas that are related to driving. Roadway conditions that are conduciveto aggressive behavior are discussed in light of these psychological themes about which there is considerable consensus amongaggression researchers.
Territoriality The territoriality themewas mentionedearlier in conjunction with the symbolization of the car. Aggre~ionhas been linked with territorial in ethological research. The naturalistic
defense amongnumerousspecies of animals
observations of Lorenz (1966) are amongthe most
well-knownacademic works in this regard, and the writings of Ardrey (1966) are prominent the popular literature. As noted by Johnson(1972) in his reviewof scientific literature, territorial conflict is widespreadamonganimal species, but it is not universal -- in fact, most primates do
16 not defend territories. territorial.
Ardrcy himself notes that baboons, whoarc highly aggressive, are not
However, observations about territoriality
among animal species have been
extrapolated into argumentsfor an aggressive instinct. Whilethere is little quarrel about the fact that aggression occurs in the defense of space amonganimals and humans,the assertion of an "instinct" mechanismis another matter, and such claims have been strongly rebutted by so manyresearch scientists that it is no longer an issue. Yet, this idea of a territorial aggression literature,
instinct has appearedin the road
notably in the monographby Whitlock(1971) whoexaminedthe association
betweenroad deaths and general mortality statistics
in 26 countries. Whiflock’s proposition was
that road violence is an aspect of social violence in general, and he explained aggression on the road in terms of instinctive drive and territoriality.
Hehypothesizedthat the inclination of young
mento be aggressive on the road was due to their lack of real estate ownershipand the transfer of aggressive instinct to the automobile. His ideas promptedRichman’s(1972) interview study with Manchestertraffic wardens concerning "errant motorists," which had disconfirming results for the Whiflockideas. There is no need to bind ideas about territorial
defense with the notion of aggressive
instinct in order to account for aggressive behavior on the road. The automobile surely can be understood as territory,
in terms of both property to be defended and as a personal space zone
not to be encroached. The automobile is a highly personalized property, and aggression can be elicited by the perceived need to defend it. Marshand CoUett(1986) wrote colorfully about the car as a special territory with personal space zones, the invasion of which provokes anger and aggression. Nearly everyone is irritated
to some degree by having another driver riding their
bumper. The antagonismexperienced maybe less a matter of threat to property than of threat to personal security, dependingon the speed of travel. In the animal kingdom,aggression is often
17 a responseto the proximityof motheranimal, and whensomeonefeels jammed,constrained, or trappedin a herd of automobiles,irritability and antagonism are potentiated. Lastly, the territorial behaviorof gangs,exhibitedin drive-byshootings,reflects both the economicand the security aspects of the defenseof turf. Suchshootingsalso havesymbolic causal dimensions.In southernCalifornia, drive-byshootingsare almostexclusivelyperpetrated by Latino gangs, althoughthere are manyBlackand Asiangangs. Theprototypewasestablished by predominantlyItalian mobsters in NewYorkand Chicagoin the 1920s. Suchshootings are often acts of retaliation executedon rival turf, hencethey are muchmorethan territorial defense, whichin this regional context occurs when,for example,someonewearingthe wrong"colors" in a particular neighborhoodis shot froma passing car. In the past few years, there has been a distinct increase in this formof roadwayaggression,and it begsfor systematicanalysis.
Frustration and Arousal Therelationshipbetweenfrustration and aggressionis the oldest themein the psychology of aggression.It has its ancestryin the writingsof Freud,but it wasbomas a researchtopic with the publication of the famousmonographby DoUard,Doob,Miller, Mowrer,and Sears (1939), and it prominentlyappearedin numerousstudies in the 1950sand 1960s. Aggressionwasviewed as alwaysbeing a consequenceof frustration. Theinstigation to aggression washeld to be a function of a numberof aspects of the frustration, including the degree of interference, the importanceof the goal, and the numberof frustrations. DoUardet al. developedelaborate propositions about the frustration-aggression relationship, including matters concerning displacement,inhibition, and catharsis. Thetheory receiveda majorreformulationby Berkowitz (1962), whoarguedthat angerand interpretation were importantmediators. Later, aggression theorists, notably Bandura(1973), movedawayfrom the term "frustration," whichhad become
18 an omnibusconcept, and lookedmoreextensively at varieties of aversive instigators andthe arousalstates that they producedwhichheightenedaggressiveresponding.Aninterrelated idea is Mandler’s(1984) "interruption" concept whichpertains to the blocking or delaying of organizedresponsesequence,the effect of whichis to activate arousal and emotion. Roadways in metropolitanareas are replete with frustrations and interruptions, whichare the essenceof traffic jams, as well as properties of various traffic control devices. Commuters learn to adapt to these aversiveconditionsin a variety of ways,cognitivelyand behaviorally,so indeedthe frustrative nature of suchconditionsis determinedby the driver’s appraisal of them. Nevertheless,someonewhohas otherwiseadaptedto existing levels of travel constraints may,on a particular day, be momentarilysensitized to traffic frustrations or be already agitated by preceedingevents (at homeor work)such that their capacity to copeis weakened. Traffic congestion has becomea conspicuous and bothersomefeature of the urban landscape.In our researchon commuting stress mentionedearlier, traffic congestionis understood as a stressor in termsof the conceptof impedance,a behavioralconstraint on movement and goal attainment. Thefmstrative and arousal-inducingproperties of travel constraints are assumedto be stressful. Wehaveoperationalized impedanceas a physical or objective dimensionin terms of the distance and time parametersof commuting and with regard to road exchangesas nodes of congestion. Wehave also examinedimpedanceas a perceptual or subjective dimensionin termsof perceivedaspects of travel constraints. Boththe physicaland the perceiveddimensions of impedance havebeenfoundto impairpersonalwell-being,job satisfaction, and quality of home life, and we havedevelopedan ecological modelfor understandingthese effects of commuting stress (Novaco et al., in press). The existing transportation environmentin southern California is predisposing to aggressive behaviorbecauseof increased impedanceconditions. The1988OrangeCountySurvey, \
19 a telephone interview samplingof 1000residents, only 5%of those surveyedreported being satisfied with existing freewayconditions, whichis downfrom 8%in 1987and 32%in 1982. Nearly50%of residents considertraffic congestionto be the county’s mostimportantproblem (Baldassare, 1987; Baldassare & Katz, 1988). Traffic congestion, based on CALTRANS measurements,has increased by a factor of 50 in OrangeCountyand had increased in Los AngelesCountyby 12-15%per twoyear interval since 1979. Thenational picture is also one of increased congestion.A recent report of the GeneralAccountingOffice (1989) states that the metropolitan-wide problemof traffic congestionhas becomemoresevere, showingmajorincreases in averagedaily traffic volumefor U.S. urban Interstate roads from1980to 1987,calculated in terms of volume/capacityratios. Thethwartings associated with increased traffic raise the probability of hostility and aggressionon the road. Frustrationand stress dueto traffic conditionsare by no meansautomaticallygenerative of aggressivebehavior, but they do present predisposingconditions. Theresearch that Stokols and I haveconductedwith regard to chronicexposureto traffic congestionhas foundsignificant increasesin baselinebloodpressure, loweringof frustration tolerance, increasesin negativemood, and aggressivedriving habits to be associated with exposureto high impedancecommuting. Such conditionspresentrisks for violent behavior,especiallywhenaggression-inhibitinginfluencesare reduced.
Environmental Cues Field studies on humanaggression haveoften beenconcernedwith stimuli in the environmentthat elicit aggressivebehavior. Berkowitz(1962)used the term "aggressive cues" to refer to these stimuli that enhancethe liklihood that someone whois amused(typically by anger) will attack an available target. Heattaches great importanceto such cues when
2O examiningimpulsive acts of aggression (Berkowitz, 1974, 1983). Aperson whois amused activatedmaggressmaystill be able to restrain himself, but efforts to control this arousalcan be short-circuited by aggressivecues in the situation (e.g. imultingwordsthat promptfighting, the availability of weapons,the presenceof other peoplewhorewardaggression, or the modelingof aggressivebehaviorby others). In the road aggressionliterature, there is a small set of studies on horn-honking that seemedto havebeeninspired by a combinationof the frustration-aggressionresearch tradition and Berkowitz’workon aggressive cues. These studies began with that of Dooband Gross (1968) and is best exempliedin the field experimentsby Turner, Layton, and Simons(1975). Theseare reviewedin Novaco (in press), alongwith an analysis of validity issues in social psychologyfield experimentson road aggression. Althoughthere are difficulties with the use of horn-honking as a criterion measurefor aggression,as it has beenused, there wouldbe little quarrel with understandingit as a cuefor aggressionin a contextof thwartingor frustration. Relatively little is knownaboutthe prevalenceof hostile reactions amongdrivers. A pioneering study done by Parry (1968) in a Londonboroughfound that 15%of the malesand 11%of the femalesstated that "At times, I felt that I couldgladly kill anotherdriver." That statement wasendorsedby 12%of the males and 18%of the females in a Salt LakeCity samplesurveyedby Turneret al. (1975)in preparation for their experimentalstudies. On morebehavioral level, Parry (1968) found that 27%of the malesand 12%of the females had given chase to another driver whohad annoyedthem. Theresults for Turneret al. (1975) this item were 12%for menand 4%for women.Marshand Collett (1986) report that a study in Scotlandfoundthat 25%of the drivers in the 17 to 35 years of age groupadmittedchasing drivers whohad offended them. Myownsurveys with two university student samplesand two community samplesin soutbemCalifornia have found the percentages to be over 40%for
21 males in each sample and from 11%to 21%for the female samples. Manyother provocative behaviors, such as throwing objects, shouting or yelling, deliberately riding someone’sbumper, and obscene gestures, were reported to occur with worrisome frequency. For example, 6%of the university sample and 9% of the communitysample report making obscene gestures on a weeklybasis. The carrying of weaponsin the automobile presents another cue for aggression. A prospective freeway shooter maybe someonewhois otherwise law-abiding and has a gun in their car for protection that they then use for attack. Althoughexperimental studies of the "weaponseffect" in the aggressive cue literature have often failed to replicate initial findings of Berkowitzand LePage(1967), the ethical limitations of research on humansubjects restrict a suitable test of the hypothesis. It is surely plausible that the presence of weaponsintensifies ideas of attack, and the prevalence of guns is not on the decline. A Los Angeles Times poll (Clifford, 1989) of 2,032 residents of southern California found that 5%of drivers carry a gun in their car, which is even higher than the 2.9% for mycommtmitysamples of 412 Orange Countydrivers on a self-report survey. To the extent that drivers engage in provoking behavior and carry weaponsin their vehicles, there is a troublesome potential for roadwayaggression to amplify. Somedrivers maybe quite inclined to persevere in a quarrel, and an antagonistic exchangebetween drivers can escalate to harm-doingconsequences. Indeed, it is surely a mistake, especially during a communitycontagion of road shootings, to be comeensnared in a road dispute. To do so is to engage in an ego-oriented script that has a very bad ending.
22 SUMMARY Aggressivebehavior has had a recurrent association with automobiledriving, as reflected in our symbolization of cars and trucks, as well as being linked to psychological experiences on congested roadways. Dramatic occurrences of violence, such as the Califomia freeway shooting episode in the summerof 1987, might be thought to be idiosycratic occurrences need to be understood in the historial
events. Instead, such
and phenomenological context. Freeway
shootings are only one type of aggression occurring on roadways and are in no way unique to California.
Overly simplified
views of the California
summercontagion as being due to
"pathological personalities," "copy-cats," and "traffic stress" wereshownto be pseudoexplanations. Although research on humanaggression has neglected the roadwaycontext as a field of investigation, there are several major themesin the psychologyof aggression literature that offer hypotheses for analysis. The themes of territoriality,
frustration,
and environmental cues were
presented and discussed as they pertain to roadwayaggression. A numberof surveys and field experimentscan be found in the existing literature whichare either based on these themesor are convergent with them. While it would be an exaggeration to say that antagonism and aggression are a routine part of automobiledriving, various lines of evidence indicate that such behavior is not uncommon amongAmericanand British drivers. The stereotyped form of road aggression knownas "drive-by shootings" is muchin need of a thorough anaysis of its historical,
cultural, and sub-cultural
underpinings. Since aggression on roadwaysexists in manyforms and since conditions that are predisposing to such aggression are not diminishing, this topic merits concerted attention.
23 REFERENCES Ardrey, R. (1966). The temtorial imperative. New,York: Dell. Baldassare, M. (1987). Orange County Annual Survey: 1987 Final Report. Public Policy ResearchOrganization, University of California, Irvine. Baldassare, M. & Katz, C. (1988). Orange County Annual Survey: 1988 Final Report. Public Policy ResearchOrganization, University of California, lrvine. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social Learning analysis. EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice Hall. Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. NewYork: McGraw-Hill. Berkowit.z, L. (1974). Somedeterminants of impulsive aggression:
Role of mediated
associations with reinforcements for aggression. Psychological Review, 81, 165-176. Berkowitz, L. (1983). The experience of anger as a parallel process in the display impulsive "angry" aggression. In R. G. Geen& E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews. Volume1. NewYork: AcademicPress, pp. 103-133. Berkowitz, L. & LePage, A. (1967). Weaponsas aggression- eliciting stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 202-207. Clifford, F. (1989). Traffic or no, we love our autos. Los Angeles Times, October 4, 1-3. Dollard, J., Doob,L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer,O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and azm’ession. NewHaven: Yale University Press. Doob, A. & Gross, A. E. (1968). Status of frustrator as an inhibitor of horn-honking responses. Journal of Social Psychology, 76, 213-218. General AccountingOffice (1989). Traffic congestion: Trends, measures, and effects. Report to the Chairman, Subcommitteon Transportation and Related Agencies, Committeeon Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
24 Hibbert, C. (1985). Rome:The biography of a city. Middlesex: Penguin Books. Johnson, R. (1972). Affm, ession in manand animals. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company. Lomriz, K. (1966). On aggression. NewYork: Bantam Books. MacMillan, J. (1975) Deviant drivers. Westmead,U.K.: Saxon House, D. C. Heath. Marsh, P. & Collett, P. (1986). Driving passion: The psychologyof the car. London:Jonathan Cape. Michalowski, R. J. (1975). Violence in the road: The crime of vehicular homocide. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12, 30-43. Novaco, R. W. (in press). Aggression on roadways. In R. Baenninger (Ed.), Targets of aff~,ression. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science Publications, BV. Novaco,R. W., Stokols, D., Campbell,J., & Stokols, J. (1978). Transportation, stress, and communitypsychology. American Journal of CommunityPsycholog?/, 7, 361-380. Novaco,R. W., Stokols, D., & Milanesi, L. (in press). Objective and subjective dimensions travel impedance as determinants of commutingstress. American Journal of Community Psycholo~. Parry, M. (1968). AK~essionon the road. London: Tavistock. Richman,J. (1972). The motor car and the territorial
aggression thesis: Someaspects of the
sociology of the ~teet. Sociological Review,20, 5-25. Schmidt-Relenberg,N. (1986). Onthe sociology of car traffic in towns. In E. deBoer(Ed.), Tram[x~sociolo~p[. Oxford: PergamonPress, pp. 121-132. Skillman, T. S. (1965) Roadsafety. London: Reappraisal Society. Spencer, J. R. (1985). Motor vehicles as weaponsof offence. Criminal LawReview, January, 29-41.
25
Stokols, D. & Novaco,R. W. (1981). Transportation and weU-being:In I. Altman, J. Wohlwill, & P. Everett (Eds.), Transportati6n and behavior. NewYork: PlenumPress. Stokols, D., Novaco,R. W., Stokols, J., & Campbell, J. (1978). Traffic congestion, Type-A behavior, and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 467-480. Stone, M. (1987). Incident at Exit 20. NewYork, October 5, 50-56. Tillman, W. A. & Hobbs, G. E. (1949). The accident prone automobile driver. American Journal of Psychiatry, 106, 321-331. Turner, C., Layton, J. F., & Simons,L. S. (1975). Naturalistic studies of aggressive behavior: Aggressivestimuli, victim visibility,
and born-honking.Journal of Personalit), and Social
Psvcholo~v, 31, 1098-1107. Whitlock, F. A. (1971). Death on the road: A study in social violence. London:Tavistock.
