Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 21162126

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The inuence of public self-consciousness and anger

on aggressive driving
Murray Millar

Department of Psychology University of Nevada, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154, United States
Received 6 March 2007; received in revised form 6 June 2007; accepted 26 June 2007
Available online 20 August 2007

Abstract
This study examined how anger interacted with public self-consciousness to inuence aggressive driving.
It was hypothesized that when people were angry, more aggressive driving behavior would occur when public self-consciousness was low than when public self-consciousness was high. To test this hypothesis the participants were required to complete measures of driving anger and public self-consciousness. Then
participants gave a retrospective self-report of aggressive driving behavior. Further, participants were
required to keep a log in which they recorded aggressive driving behavior. The results supported the prediction. Public self-consciousness interacted with anger to inuence aggression while driving.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Aggressive driving; Anger; Public self-consciousness

1. Introduction
Anger while driving an automobile is a common experience. Underwood, Chapman, Wright,
and Crundall (1999) reported that over the course of two weeks 85% of drivers became angry

Tel.: +1 702 895 0179; fax: +1 702 8950635.

E-mail address: millar@unlv.nevada.edu

0191-8869/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.037

M. Millar / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 21162126

2117

while driving. Similarly Neighbors, Vietor, and Knee (2002) found that drivers reported feeling
angry at least every day, and Joint (1995) found that 60% of drivers reported becoming angry
while driving. Further, anger is more common while driving than other activities (Parkinson,
2001). There are a number of situational and personality variables that may account for these
high levels of anger. For example, the driving situation may produce frustration because driving is usually a goal directed behavior that on many occasions is blocked (Novaco, Stokols, &
Milanesi, 1990). That is, most drivers are attempting to arrive quickly at a destination. Road
conditions and the behavior of other motorists often prevent or block drivers from attaining
this goal. This type of blocked behavior often results in feelings of frustration that produce anger (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; Gnepp, 1979; Hennessy & Wiesenthal,
1999; Shinar, 1998). In addition, driving is a situation where people are exposed to high levels
of provocation. Neighbors et al. (2002) found that in a 10 day period 24% of drivers reported
making rude gestures to other drivers. Further, the driving situation is one of the few situations
in which the behavior of another person can directly and immediately threaten physical well
being. This type of provocation reliably produces anger (Bettencourt & Norman, 1996). Beyond situational variables, a number of personality and individual dierences variables relate
to the experience of anger while driving. Most notably Deenbacher and his colleagues have
documented individual dierences in the tendency to become angry while driving (Deenbacher, Hu, Lynch, Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000; Deenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Yingling,
2001).
Even though anger is a common experience while driving, actual aggressive behavior while driving is relatively uncommon (Parker, Lajunen, & Summala, 2002). In retrospective self-reports
only moderate correlations between anger and aggressive actions have been found (Neighbors
et al., 2002). The modest relationship between anger and aggressive driving is not surprising. Anger is not considered a sucient condition to produce aggression in most of the inuential theoretical explanations of aggression, (e.g., the cognitive-neoassociation theory Berkowitz, 1989,
1993), the general aggression model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), and the social information
processing model (Huesmann, 1988, 1998). In these theoretical formulations, aggression is the
product of a complex interaction between anger and both situational and personality variables.
Consequently, it seems likely that the amount of aggressive behavior while driving would largely
be dependent on an interaction between the amount of anger experienced and the conditions that
enhance the expression of aggressive behavior. That is, aggressive behaviors while driving will be
the product of interactions between anger and both situational and personality factors that facilitate the expression of aggression.
A number of situational factors present while driving have been explored. For example, the
driving situation may create feelings of anonymity that increase the likelihood that anger will lead
to aggression. Feeling anonymous may cause the driver to perceive that there is a reduced risk of
detection and punishment from others for behaving aggressively (Lowenstein, 1997; Zimbardo,
1969). Ellison, Govern, Petri, and Figler (1995) and Ellison-Potter, Bell, and Deenbacher
(2001) have found evidence that anonymity increases aggression in the driving situation. The driving situation may also increase feelings of invulnerability and personal power. These feelings may
make people believe that they are immune from the consequences of aggressive behavior and consequently make them more likely to act aggressively when they become angry (Fineran & Bolen,
2006).

2118

M. Millar / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 21162126

Less attention has been given to the moderating role of personality variables. This is
despite a wealth of evidence relating a variety of personality variables to aggression (e.g., impulsiveness Stanford, Greve, Boudreaux, & Mathias, 1996), locus of control, sensation seeking,
and emotional stability (Dahlen & White, 2006). The purpose of this study is to explore
the moderating role of personality variables. Specically, this study investigated how the
interaction between anger and public self-consciousness inuenced aggressive behavior while
driving.

2. Public self-consciousness
In the psychological literature, self-consciousness has been characterized as both a state and a
trait. Duval and Wicklund (1972) suggest that conscious attention can be directed toward the
self or toward the environment. They conceived of self-focused attention as a shifting state that
could be manipulated by environmental circumstances. That is, a persons attention shifts
between a focus on elements of the external world and a focus on the self. Alternatively, Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975) proposed a more stable trait dierence in the tendency to attend
to aspects of the self. Analysis of their original work prompted them to dierentiate between
private and public self-consciousness. Private self-consciousness is the tendency to focus attention upon the inner aspects of oneself such as thoughts, inner feelings, and physical sensations.
Public self-consciousness is the tendency to focus attention on the self as a social object. People
high in public self-consciousness are concerned about what other people think about them and
how they appear to others (Cheek & Briggs, 1982). For example, people high in public
self-consciousness indicate they use clothing and makeup to aect their public image (Miller
& Cox, 1982; Solomon & Schopler, 1982) and are more likely to have cosmetic surgery because
of appearance concerns (Culos-Reed, Brawley, & Martin, 2002). Further, high public self-consciousness people place great importance in adhering to societal norms (Doherty & Schlenker,
1991; Ybarra & Tramow, 1998). For example, high public self-conscious people alter their
opinions to make themselves appear socially desirable (Chang, Hau, & Guo, 2001) and control
public displays of emotion (Oshimi, 2002).
Public self-consciousness may moderate the relationship between anger and the expression
of aggressive behavior. People high in public self-consciousness are motivated to maintain a
positive public image and to adhere to societal norms prohibiting aggressive behavior. Consequently, people high in public self-consciousness might be less likely to act aggressively even
when they are experiencing anger. Alternatively, people low in public self-consciousness who
are less concerned about public presentation might be more likely to act aggressively when
angered. Consistent with this reasoning Russell (1995) found people low in public self-consciousness are more likely to escalate a disturbance into physical aggression. In the present
study, it was hypothesized that public self-consciousness and anger would interact. It was
expected that when people were angry, less aggressive driving behavior would occur when they
were high in public self-consciousness than when they were low in public self-consciousness.
Alternatively, when people were not angry low levels of aggressive behavior should occur
regardless of the amount of self-consciousness.

M. Millar / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 21162126

2119

3. Method
3.1. Participants
Ninety-seven females and 71 males who were active drivers were recruited from undergraduates
at a large university located in the southwest of the United States. Students were recruited on a
voluntary basis and were oered class credit for participating. Participants ranged from 18 to
47 years of age with the average age of the sample being 20 years. People between 18 and 24 years
of age were targeted for recruitment because of their relatively high rates of involvement in trac
accidents (Williams, 1985). Sixty percent of the participants were of European descent, 22% were
of Hispanic descent, 9% were of African descent, 8% were of Asian descent, and 1% were from
other groups.
3.2. Procedure
The subjects participated in the experimental conditions in groups of two to six people, and the
sessions were conducted by both male and female experimenters. When the participants entered
the experimental room, they were introduced to the experimental procedures and told that the
purpose of the study was to investigate general and specic reactions to a variety of driving behaviors. Participants were reassured that all their responses would be completely condential. The
experimenter then seated the participant at a microcomputer that presented the experimental
materials to the participant. Participants were asked to indicate their age, sex, and racial background. Following the demographic measures, the other measures were presented in a randomized order.
3.2.1. Measures of driving anger
Participants were asked to complete the Driving Anger Scale (Deenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch,
1994). The Driving Anger Scale (DAS) consists of fourteen situations encountered while driving
that often lead to anger (e.g., someone is weaving in and out of trac). The participant is asked to
indicate on ve-point scales with endpoints of 1 (not at all) and 5 (very much) if this happened to
you how much anger would be provoked. This scale has good inter-item correlations and good
test-retest reliability (Deenbacher, 2000). In addition, to the DAS, three nine-point scales with
endpoints of 1 (never) and 9 (often) were included to assess the participants overall anger while
driving. On the rst scale, participants were asked to indicate how often they felt anger at other
drivers, on the second scale, participants were asked how often they felt fury at other drivers, and
on the third scale, they were asked how often they felt outrage at other drivers. The participants
responses to the three questions were summed to form a single measure with a Cronbach Alpha of
.92.
3.2.2. Aggressive driving measure
The aggressive driving measure presented 12 aggressive behaviors that drivers can perform.
These behaviors included physical aggression (e.g., making visible obscene gestures at other drivers) and driving behavior (e.g., using your car to make threatening maneuvers), cf., Driving Anger
Expression Inventory (Deenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Swaim, 2002). Participants were asked to

2120

M. Millar / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 21162126

indicate how often they engaged in each of the behaviors on nine-point scales with endpoints of 1
(never) and 9 (often). The participants responses to the 12 questions asked about aggressive driving were summed to form a single measure with a Cronbach alpha of .88.
3.2.3. Public self-consciousness
To measure public self-consciousness the participant was asked to complete the public self-consciousness subscale of the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein et al., 1975). Many studies have
demonstrated the reliability of the public self-consciousness subscale (e.g., Fenigstein et al.,
1975; Hjelle & Bernard, 1994; McFarland & Sparks, 1985; Nasby, 1989).
3.2.4. Driving logs
Following the self-report measures, participants were oered additional class credit to keep a
record of their driving experience for the next four days. The participants were asked to ll out
a record sheet immediately after each driving trip. On the record sheet, they were asked to indicate
on a scale if they had become angry during the trip and to write down how they responded or
behaved during the incident. In an eort to reduce social desirability eects, participants were told
that when they returned with their logs they would be allowed to enter anonymously their responses on the logs into the computer.

4. Results
The hypothesis that angry participants would engage in less aggressive behavior when they were
high in public self-consciousness was examined in a three-step hierarchical regression analysis (Aiken & West, 1991). In this analysis three regression analyses were performed in which driving anger (DAS), public self-consciousness, and the interaction term (driving anger public selfconsciousness) were added into the equation used to predict the aggressive driving measure. As

Table 1
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis examining the ability of the Driving Anger Scale (DAS) and public selfconsciousness to predict aggressive driving
Variable

SE b

Step 1
DAS

.78

.08

.61*

Step 2
DAS
Self-consciousness

.77
.63

.08
.16

.60*
.23*

1.19
1.14
.05

.12
.45
.01

.94*
.41*
.75*

Step 3
DAS
Self-consciousness
DAS self-consciousness

Note. R2 = .371 for Step 1; DR2 = .05 (p < .01) for Step 2; DR2 = .06. (p < .01) for Step 3.
*
p < .01.

M. Millar / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 21162126

2121

expected, the addition of the interaction term (driving anger public self-consciousness) produced
a signicant increase in prediction over the main eects model (see Table 1). Further, the interaction term in the nal model was a signicant predictor, b = .75, t = 4.21, p < .001. When the
gender of the participant was added as a variable to this analysis, it was not involved in any signicant eects. In addition, when the three-item index of driving anger was used as a substitute for
the DAS in this analysis it produced a similar pattern of results.
To explore the nature of the interaction between driving anger and public self-consciousness,
points were plotted at one SD above and one SD below the means on each variable (see
Fig. 1). A simple slopes analysis revealed with angry participants (one standard deviation above
the mean), low public self-consciousness was more associated with aggressive driving than high
public self-consciousness, b = .64, t = 3.00, p = .003 (see Aiken & West, 1991 for a description
of this procedure). Alternatively, with less angry participants the dierence between high and
low public self-consciousness disappeared, p > .05.
4.1. Driving logs
Forty-three participants failed to return to the study with their driving logs. The DAS scores
and public self-consciousness scores of these 43 participants were not signicantly dierent
(p(s) < 1) from the remaining participants. To create an aggression index from the driving logs,
two raters (blind to the participants initial responses) independently read the written responses
in the driving logs and rated whether the driver had behaved aggressively. The raters were instructed that driving aggression is any behavior directed toward the goal of harming another driver. This is an adaptation of Berkowitzs (1965) standard denition of aggression. According to
this denition, aggressive driving behavior would include physical behaviors directed toward

65

Low Anger

Driving Aggression

60

High Anger

55
50
45
40
35
30
25

Low

High

Public Self-Consciousness

Fig. 1. The association of driving anger and driving aggression at low self-consciousness (one SD below the mean) and
high self-consciousness (one SD above the mean).

2122

M. Millar / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 21162126

other drivers. For example, leaving the vehicle to ght the other driver, visible obscene gestures,
and rolling down the window and yelling at other drivers. In addition, aggressive driving behavior
would include any use of the vehicle to harm another driver, e.g., maneuvering the vehicle to prevent another driver from changing a lane or passing, chasing another vehicle, and bumping another vehicle. This denition of aggressive driving excludes thoughts, emotion, and behavior
not directed at other drivers, e.g., gripping the steering wheel, imagining violent actions, swearing
to oneself, and commenting to passengers about the other drivers. The ratings made by the raters
were highly related (r = .90) and disputes were settled by subsequent discussion between the
raters.
During the four-day recording period, participants drove an average of 11.97 trips. An index of
aggressive driving was created for each participant by dividing the number of aggressive driving
behaviors engaged in a considerable amount of aggressive driving behavior, i.e., on average participants engaged in an aggressive driving behavior on 12.23% of their trips. The aggression index
created from the driving logs was used to test the public self-consciousness hypothesis. The same
three-step hierarchical regression analysis used with the self-report index of aggression was employed. This analysis produced a similar pattern of results as the original analysis. The interaction
term (driving anger public self-consciousness) produced a signicant increase in prediction over
the main eects model (see Table 2). Further, the interaction term in the nal model was a significant predictor, b = .0003, t = 2.84, p = .005. The interaction was plotted at one SD above and
below the mean of driving anger and public self-consciousness (see Fig. 2). A simple slopes analysis indicated with angry participants low public self-consciousness was more associated with
aggressive driving than high public self-consciousness, b = .013, t = 2.26, p = .02. With less angry
participants the dierence between high and low public self-consciousness disappeared, p > .05.
When the gender of the participant was added as a variable to this analysis, it was not involved
in any signicant eects.

Table 2
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis examining the ability of the Driving Anger Scale (DAS) and public selfconsciousness to predict aggressive driving from logs
Variable

SE B

Step 1
DAS

.002

.001

.25*

Step 2
DAS
Self-consciousness

.002
.003

.001
.002

.26*
.14

Step 3
DAS
Self-consciousness
DAS self-consciousness

.006
.009
.0003

.001
.004
.001

.61*
.45
.76*

Note. R2 = .06 for Step 1; DR2 = .02 (p > .05) for Step 2; DR2 = .06 (p < .01) for Step 3.
*
p < .05.

Driving Aggression

M. Millar / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 21162126

0. 35

Low Anger

0. 3

High Anger

2123

0. 25
0. 2
0. 15
0. 1
0. 05
0

Low
High
Public Self-Consciousness

Fig. 2. The association of driving anger and driving aggression from the driving logs at low self-consciousness (one SD
below the mean) and high self-consciousness (one SD above the mean).

5. Discussion
The study provided support for the hypothesized interaction. The data from both the initial retrospective self-report and the immediate driving logs indicated that public self-consciousness
interacted with anger to inuence driving aggression. When participants were angry, low public
self-consciousness was associated with more aggressive driving than high public selfconsciousness.
Beyond supporting the hypothesis, the ndings are consistent with earlier work that indicated
young drivers are likely to have poor driving habits (e.g., Williams, 1985). In the present study, the
sample of young drivers (average age of 20) stated that they engaged in aggressive acts in 12% of
their trips. In addition, the present study conrms the ability of the DAS to predict aggressive
behaviors while driving, i.e., in all of the main analyses the DAS was signicantly related to
aggressive driving behaviors. Similar results have been found by Deenbacher and his colleagues
(Deenbacher et al., 2000, 2001, 2002).
Although the ndings are consistent with the hypothesis and past research, the current study
has limitations. First, the study relied on self-reports of aggression that would seem susceptible
to social desirability eects, i.e., participants might under report aggressive behavior in an eort
to appear more socially desirable. The relatively high level of aggression reported by the participants both on the aggressive driving measure and in the driving logs would argue against this
interpretation. However, it is possible that certain types of participants failed to report certain
types of behavior. Future research that incorporates a more objective measure of aggression is
needed to address this possibility. Second, in the study 43 of the participants failed to complete
the logs. Although, the participants that failed to return the logs were not signicantly dierent
in driving aggression and public self-consciousness from participants that completed the logs, it
is feasible that the work involved in keeping a log inuenced the participants responses. Fortunately, the aggression reported in the driving logs produced the same pattern of results as the
aggression reported in the 12 item aggressive driving measure taken in the rst session.

2124

M. Millar / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 21162126

The absence of gender eects in the present study may seem unexpected because many studies
examining aggression have found that males exhibit more overt aggression than females (e.g., Baron & Richardson, 1994). However, research examining gender and aggression while driving has
produced mixed results. Some research has found that while driving males were more likely to express aggression outwardly than females (Lawton & Nutter, 2002). Further, Krahe and Fenske
(2002) have found that males who endorse an exaggerated male stereotype report more aggressive
driving. Other research has found no gender dierences in driving aggression (Deenbacher et al.,
2001). More recently, Deenbacher, Lynch, Filetti, Dahlen, and Oetting (2003) found mixed results within the context of one study with one measure of aggression indicating a gender dierence
and another measure indicating no dierence. It is also worth noting that more general work on
gender eects and aggression has found a complex relationship between gender and aggression
(Richardson & Green, 2006).
The current research highlights the complex relationship between personality, emotion, and
behavior. Not only do personality variables inuence whether an emotion is experienced but other
personality variables may impact how the emotion is behaviorally expressed. In the present context, many researchers have found a relationship between a variety of personality variables and
the experience of anger, e.g., Kuppens and Tuerlinckx (2007) have explored the impact of self-esteem on anger. The current study indicates that when people are angry public self-consciousness
inuences whether anger leads to aggressive behavior. Overall, the relationship between personality and aggression is likely to involve a constellation of personality traits with some traits predisposing people to anger and other traits predisposing people to express anger as aggressive
behavior. At a practical level, the present study suggests that when attempting to reduce aggressive driving behaviors it might be useful to focus on variables that combine with anger to produce
aggression. For example, a combination of interventions aimed at reducing anger and increasing
public self-consciousness, at least while driving, may reduce the amount of aggressive driving
behavior.
References
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Anderson, C., & Bushman, B. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 2751.
Baron, R., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.
Berkowitz, L. (1965). The concept of the aggressive drive: Some additional considerations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.).
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustrationaggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106,
5973.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Pain and aggression: Some ndings and implications. Motivation & Emotion, 17, 277293, Special
Issue: The pain system: A multilevel model for the study of motivation and emotion.
Bettencourt, B., & Norman, M. (1996). Gender dierences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422447.
Chang, L., Hau, K., & Guo, A. (2001). The eect of self-consciousness on the expression of gender views. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 31, 340351.
Cheek, J., & Briggs, R. (1982). Self-consciousness and aspects of identity. Journal of Research in Personality, 16,
401408.
Culos-Reed, S., Brawley, L., & Martin, K. (2002). Self-presentation concerns and health behaviors among cosmetic
surgery patients. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 560569.

M. Millar / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 21162126

2125

Dahlen, E., & White, R. (2006). The Big Five factors, sensation seeking, and driving anger in the prediction of unsafe
driving. Personality and Individual Dierences, 41, 903915.
Deenbacher, J. (2000). The driving anger scale. In J. Maltby, C. Lewis, & Y. A. Hill (Eds.), Commissioned Reviews of
300 Psychological Tests (pp. 287292). Lampeter, Wales, UK: Edwin Mellen Press.
Deenbacher, J., Hu, M., Lynch, R., Oetting, E., & Salvatore, N. (2000). Characteristics and treatment of high anger
drivers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 517.
Deenbacher, J., Lynch, R., Filetti, L., Dahlen, E., & Oetting, E. (2003). Anger, aggression, risky behavior, and crashrelated outcomes in three groups of drivers. Behavior Research and Therapy, 41, 333349.
Deenbacher, J., Lynch, R., Oetting, E., & Swaim, R. (2002). The Driving Anger Expression Inventory: A measure of
how people express their anger on the road. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 717737.
Deenbacher, J., Lynch, R., Oetting, E., & Yingling, D. A. (2001). Driving anger: Correlates and a test of state-trait
theory. Personality and Individual Dierences, 31, 13211331.
Deenbacher, J., Oetting, E., & Lynch, R. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological Reports, 74,
8391.
Doherty, K., & Schlenker, B. (1991). Self-consciousness and strategic self-presentation. Journal of Personality, 59, 118.
Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, O., & Sears, R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. (1972). A theory of objective self awareness. Oxford England: Academic Press.
Ellison, P., Govern, J., Petri, H., & Figler, M. (1995). Anonymity and aggressive driving behavior: A eld study. Journal
of Social Behavior & Personality, 10, 265272.
Ellison-Potter, P., Bell, P., & Deenbacher, J. (2001). The eects of trait driving anger, anonymity, and aggressive
stimuli on aggressive driving behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 431443.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M., & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522527.
Fineran, S., & Bolen, R. (2006). Risk factors for peer sexual harassment in schools. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
21, 11691190.
Gnepp, E. (1979). A theory of frustrationaggression. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 16, 110.
Hennessy, D., & Wiesenthal, D. (1999). Trac congestion, driver stress, and driver aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25,
409423.
Hjelle, L., & Bernard, M. (1994). Private self-consciousness and the retest reliability of self-reports. Journal of Research
in Personality, 28, 5267.
Huesmann, L. (1988). An information-processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14,
1324.
Huesmann, L. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and
maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In R. Geen & E. Donnerstien (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories,
research, and implications for social policy (pp. 73109). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press, Inc..
Joint, M. (1995). Road rage. London: Automobile Association.
Krahe, B., & Fenske, I. (2002). Predicting aggressive driving behavior: The role of macho personality, age, and power of
car. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 2129.
Kuppens, P., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2007). Personality traits predicting anger in self-, ambiguous-, and other caused
unpleasant situations. Personality and Individual Dierences, 42, 11051115.
Lawton, R., & Nutter, A. (2002). A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving
situations. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 407423.
Lowenstein, L. (1997). Research into causes and manifestations of aggression in car driving. Police Journal, 70,
263270.
McFarland, S. G., & Sparks, C. M. (1985). Age, education, and the internal consistency personality scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 16921702.
Miller, L., & Cox, C. (1982). For appearances sake: Public self-consciousness and makeup use. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 8, 748751.
Nasby, W. (1989). Private self-consciousness, self-awareness, and the reliability of self-reports. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56, 950957.

2126

M. Millar / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 21162126

Neighbors, C., Vietor, Nathaniel A., & Knee, C. (2002). A motivational model of driving anger and aggression.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 324335.
Novaco, R., Stokols, D., & Milanesi, L. (1990). Objective and subjective dimensions of travel impedance as
determinants of commuting stress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 231257.
Oshimi, T. (2002). The eect of public self-consciousness on forced laughter. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 73,
251257.
Parker, D., Lajunen, T., & Summala, S. (2002). Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 229235.
Parkinson, B. (2001). Anger on and o the road. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 507526.
Richardson, D. R., & Green, L. R. (2006). Direct and indirect aggression: Relationships as social context. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 36, 24922508.
Russell, G. (1995). Personalities in the crowd: Those who would escalate a sports riot. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 91100.
Shinar, D. (1998). Aggressive driving: The contribution of the drivers and situation. Transportation Research Part F, 1,
137160.
Solomon, R., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8,
508514.
Stanford, M., Greve, K., Boudreaux, J., & Mathias, C. (1996). Impulsiveness and risk-taking behavior: Comparison of
high-school and college students using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Personality & Individual Dierences, 21,
10731107.
Underwood, G., Chapman, P., Wright, S., & Crundall, D. (1999). Anger while driving. Transportation Research Part F,
2, 5568.
Williams, A. (1985). Nighttime driving and fatal crash involvement of teenagers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 17,
15.
Ybarra, O., & Tramow, D. (1998). How priming the private self or collective self aects the relative weights of
attitudes and subjective norms. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 362370.
Zimbardo, P. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 237307.