Background/Purpose The cumulative impact of aggressive driving is detrimental to society. Approximately 65% of vehicular crashes involve some sort of aggression. College students are a special population of drivers as they have been operating vehicles for a short time. The purpose of the study was to discover what driving behaviors are perpetuated toward college students and what aggressive maneuvers are perpetuated by college students. Additionally, the researchers examined what behaviors were predictors of aggressive driving.
Method Traditionally-aged college students (N = 620) attending two different institutions completed the Propensity for Angry Driving (PADS) Scale. Participants also indicated whether they had incurred a variety of aggressive driving behaviors during the prior 30 days, as well as what aggressive driving behaviors they had both perpetrated and fantasized about completing in the last month.
Analysis/Results College students reported that they had encountered a variety of aggressive driving behaviors in the prior 30 days. For example, 75% reported being tailgated, 72% reported being cut-off by another driver, and 40% reported seeing another driver use rude gestures. Among the college students, males (M = 44.07, SD = 5.87, n = 214) were significantly more likely to report more aggressive driving than females (M = 41.88, SD = 4.65, n = 401). Age, frequency of driving during rush hour times, and annual mileage were not related to aggressive driving. Many behaviors participants indicated perpetrating in the prior 30 days, such as sudden acceleration, sounding horn, and shouting obscenities, were significant predictors of aggressive driving as measured by the PADS, with these behaviors describing 21.40% of the variance in aggressive driving, F (17, 619) = 9.66, p < .01. Two fantasy variables were significant predictors of an aggressive driver: wanting another driver to veer off the road and wanting another individual to become angry. Fantasizing behaviors described 10.5% of the variance in aggressive driving, F (9, 610) = 7.97, p < .01.
Conclusions College students are both perpetuators as well as victims of aggressive driving. College students are still in the process of forming driving habits and potentially could form positive, defensive, and courteous habits. Future interventions need to examine safe driving programs targeted toward college students. With the amount of aggression in the road environment young drivers need to understand potentially problematic situations. Greater comprehension of defensive driving strategies must be developed and accepted by young drivers.