Content uploaded by Céline Lemercier
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Céline Lemercier on Jun 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The influence of emotions on driving behavior
Christelle Pêcher*, Céline Lemercier, & Jean-Marie Cellier
Université de Toulouse, France
CLLE (Cognition, Langues, Langage et Ergonomie); UTM, EPHE, CNRS
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 0561 50 35 37; fax: +33 0561 50 35 33
E-mail address: cpecher@univ-tlse2.fr (C. Pêcher)
Address: Maison de la Recherche, Université de Toulouse le Mirail,
5 allée Antonio Machado, 31058 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
2
The influence of emotions on driving behavior
Abstract
The present chapter is a review of studies that emphasize the influence of emotions on driving
behavior. Within this area of research, studies principally focus on the role of negative emotions.
Anger has been showed to be highly related to the driving situation and to have deleterious
effects on driver’s behavior. Anxiety has been demonstrated to both deteriorate performances and
promote cautiousness. Finally, sadness and depression have been particularly associated with
degradation of performances due to rumination and self-focus. Negative emotions therefore have
moderated negative effects on driving and elicit implications for safety. Interestingly, nothing is
clear on the influence of positive emotions because of the lack of empirical evidence. This paper
also deals with benefits and the disadvantage of diverse methods used to investigate the
relationship between emotions and driving (questionnaires, self-reports, etc.). The discussion
focuses on the need to develop this area of research in further studies.
Keywords: Review, Emotion, Driving, Anger, Anxiety, Sadness, Ruminations
3
The influence of emotions on driving behavior
Introduction
Several lines of evidence suggest that human factors are worth considering in causal
attributions of road accidents. Human factors widely refer to driver’s physical, cognitive,
metacognitive and emotional characteristics which may influence driving behavior (Fuller, 2005).
These characteristics are comprised of attitude, motivation, drowsiness, fatigue, alcohol and drug
use, personality traits and emotional states. This chapter is devoted to reviewing the literature
which addresses the role of emotions on road performance efficiency. Within this area of
research, studies have principally focused on the effects of negative emotions such as anger,
anxiety and, more recently, sadness on driver’s behavior. Interestingly, the reviewed studies
provide a mixed representation of this emotion category’s effect on driver’s behavior.
In this chapter, we discuss, in separate sections, the influence of anger, anxiety and
sadness on driving performance. Firstly, the given emotion is defined on the basis of cognitive
theories before examining the causes and consequences of this emotion on driving behavior.
Secondly, we are interested in the methods that researchers used to establish a correlation or a
causal link between emotions and driving performance. The point being that one approach may
be relevant for one particular emotion but may be an obstacle in studying another emotion. We
consequently highlight the benefits, disadvantages and relevance of a variety of methods (i.e.
questionnaires, self-reports, driving simulations, emotional inductions etc.) used in this particular
area of study. Thirdly, we briefly question the neglect shown with regards to the influence of
positive emotions on driver’s behavior. Finally, we conclude the chapter by highlighting the role
of emotions on traffic safety.
1. Role of negative emotions on driving
4
In cognitive appraisal theories, emotion has been defined as a consequence of an
evaluation of the relevance of an event, in accordance with goals and motivations (Lazarus, 1991;
Schacter, & Singer, 1962; Oatley, & Johnson-Laird, 1987). This emotional experience is
characterized by physiological changes (e.g., cardiac and electrodermal activities), behavioral
changes (e.g., facial expressions, postures and gestures) and a specific mental state (e.g.,
motivations, thoughts, beliefs, causal attributions, etc.). Since the 1950s, researchers have
focused on two dimensions of emotion: arousal and valence. Arousal is a quantitative dimension
which characterizes the emotion’s intensity on a continuum from low to high arousal. Valence is
a hedonistic value which corresponds to the emotion’s nature on a continuum from negative to
positive emotion. Even though the dimensional structures have been debated (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988; Russell, & Carroll, 1999), arousal and valence help in distinguishing an emotion
from another within the negative and positive categories. Negative and positive emotions
influence cognitive processing mechanisms under appropriate conditions and guide action
tendencies in specific situations. In the area of driving research, studies have principally focused
on the role of three negative emotions, i.e. anger, anxiety and sadness.
Perhaps the majority of studies have dealt with anger and subsequent aggression because
of its direct relationship to the driving situation. It must be argued that anger is a cause as well as
a consequence of traffic violations and unsafe driving. Anxiety is also very common in driving.
Researchers, however, have emphasized that anxiety might be associated with a higher risk of
being involved in accidents as well as a contrary effect of cautiousness on the road. Finally, a
driver’s sadness seems to provoke not only psychomotor disturbance on driving control but also
attempts to compensate performance deterioration due to self-focus and rumination. In the
following part, we will define each of the three emotions and review the literature in order to
better understand specific effects of each emotion on driver’s behavior.
5
1.1. Anger and aggression
A definition of anger and aggression
Anger is a very common emotion experienced in advanced Western societies (Scherer, &
Wallbott, 1994). It is a response to frustration, interruption of a planned activity, violation of
social rules or personal expectations or an offense to oneself (Oatley, & Johnson-Laird, 1987;
Lazarus, 1991; Schacter, & Singer, 1962). Angry people often attribute failure to an external and
controllable cause (Weiner, 1985). This emotional state is associated with physiological changes,
i.e., increase of heart rate, blood pressure reactivity (e.g., Smith, & Allred, 1989; Suarez, &
Williams, 1990), and recognizable facial expressions and postures (Ekman, 1992).
In early theoretical research, Berkowitz (1962) formulated a hypothesis on the
relationship between frustration and aggression. According to him, frustration does not
necessarily lead to aggression but merely to anger. In other words, anger mediates the frustration-
aggression relationship. In a review of literature on the determinants of anger, Berkowitz and
Harmon-Jones (2004) pointed out that a full development of anger through appraisals and causal
attributions favored hostility and aggression. Both can unfairly be directed towards innocent
people who have not provoked it.
Causes and consequences of anger and aggression on road
Anger and aggression are prevalent on roads because of the large number of influencing
factors (e.g., heavy traffic, stress, hostile stimuli such as horn-honking, driver’s personality etc.).
In accordance with Berkowitz (1962) and Berkowitz et al. (2004), it has been hypothesized that
driver’s frustration and anger are highly related to aggression (also named “road rage”) and
traffic violation. Aggression refers to all inconsiderate and deliberate actions which intended to
injure physically and/or psychologically other users (Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher, 2001;
6
Shinar, 1998; Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994). Literature on the topic is important and
both the causes and consequences of anger/aggression have been developed.
On the road, the main cause of anger is the traffic situation itself. In other words, a
driver’s anger is a reaction to other users’ violations and offenses as well as the traffic
complexity. A study by Stephens and Groeger (2006) brought to light the notion that speed
reduction was the single important cause of anger and frustration. In a simulator, drivers
encountered diverse scenarios such as a crossing pedestrian, a slow moving lead car etc. While
driving, participants had to rate three emotions: frustration, anger and calmness. Results showed
that drivers reported higher anger when they had to reduce speed. Here, it is assumed that anger
due to speed reduction is indirectly attributed to other users’ responsibility. Other users’ behavior
does indeed affect your own behavior. Mesken et al. (2007) questioned the frequency, the
determinants and the consequences of happiness, anxiety and anger in an on-road study
combining self-reports, observed behavior and physiological measures. First, whilst driving,
anger was found to be the second most frequently occurring emotion after anxiety (and before
happiness). Second, anger was estimated as a consequence of other drivers’ violations. Lajunen
and Parker (2001) also found that others’ aggressiveness (i.e. verbal and physical) have distinct
effects on a driver’s anger. Correlations indicated that verbal aggressiveness was mediated by
anger whereas physical aggressiveness was directly related to aggressive behavior. Other’s
reckless driving was perceived as a legal violation which did not strongly affect behaviors
whereas other user’s hostility was a direct voluntary aggression and could lead to a more severe
response. The relationship between anger and aggression depended on the situation and was
modulated by age and gender. In a cross-cultural study including Finland, United Kingdom and
Netherlands, Parker, Lajunen and Summala (2002) observed that five main factors including
“reckless driving”, “impatient driving”, “progress impeded”, “direct hostility” and “inconsiderate
7
driving” caused anger and aggression. However, reactions varied between countries, modulated
by age and gender. For example, reckless driving and impatient driving led to more anger in
United Kingdom than in the two other countries whereas inconsiderate driving provoked the most
anger in Finland. In addition, males were more likely to react to these five sources of anger and
older drivers were less reactive to direct hostility but very sensitive to reckless driving. In regard
to all these results, it is argued that both anger and aggression while driving depend on the
situation, the driver’s characteristics and the social norms (Lawton, & Nutter, 2002; Schwebel et
al., 2006; Britt, & Garrity, 2006; Sullman, 2006; Underwood, et al., 1999).
A related line of research concerns the effects of anger and aggression on driving
performance. For instance, Stephens et al. (2006) found that drivers who reported anger
accelerated more after the impediment. Deffenbacher, et al. (2003) also found an increase of
speed with high anger drivers. They compared the effects of high and low anger on driving
behavior with questionnaires, driving survey, logs and the use of a simulator. (Driving Anger
Scale, Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 2003; Driving Anger Expression Inventory,
Deffenbacher et al., 2002). In questionnaires, survey and logs, high anger drivers reported more
intense anger, more aggression, more risks and more aggressive reactions in daily driving. In the
simulated task, compared to low anger drivers, high anger participants drove faster and closer to
the car in-front. Furthermore, high anger drivers were twice as likely to have aggressive reactions
and crash, especially in ‘high impede’ roads. In their on-road study, Mesken et al. (2007) also
reported that angry participants drove faster and exceeded speed limits regularly whereas there
were no effects of anger on heart rate and changes in facial expression.
In summary, the evidence that has been reviewed here suggests that anger is a very
common emotion in driving but it is a state influenced not only by the external environment but
also by drivers’ characteristics (e.g., age, education etc.). Anger particularly provokes speed
8
increases, risk-taking and maladaptive driving reactions towards other users. These conclusions
support the idea that anger and aggression play a major role in safety.
1.2. Anxiety and fear
Definitional ambiguity between anxiety and fear
The research on anxiety and fear has increased over the last decade. From a theoretical
perspective, the distinction between the two concepts has created considerable debate. Fear has
emerged as a basic emotion associated with important bodily changes such as a high heart rate
and low skin temperature (Ekman, Levenson & Friesen, 1983). Actually, fear appears as an
uncontrollable reaction when individuals have to face a particular physical or social threat (e.g. a
spider, a snake, a car crash, a fall in a huge crowd, etc.), (Lazarus, 1991; Bradley, & Lang, 2000).
Because fear involves an external and definite stimulus, two outcomes are possible: fight or
flight. Anxiety is not so clear. According to Epstein (1972), anxiety is due to an unresolved fear-
related reaction (i.e., flight). In other words, the absence of reaction when facing a danger leads to
a latent tension and uneasiness associated to rumination and worry. Ohman (1993) proposed an
alternative definition in which anxiety is a response to an unrecognizable threatened stimulus,
interfering with processing of other tasks. Eysenck and Byrne (1992) demonstrated the influence
of anxiety on performance of a detection task. Low, medium and high trait-anxious groups were
required to respond to a single letter presented in an uncued location and to ignore word-
distractors. Valence of distractors was manipulated: neutral, positive, physically threatening and
socially threatening. Compared to the low and medium trait-anxious groups, high trait-anxious
participants were more susceptible to be distracted and this effect was higher for physically
threatening words. However, the variability between groups led Eysenck et al. (1992) to conclude
that the sensitivity to distraction in trait-anxiety is dependant on cognitive vulnerability factor for
9
generalized anxiety disorder. Attentional bias due to anxiety raises questions about the
consequences in a high attentional-demand task such as driving.
Causes and consequences of anxiety in driving
As with anger, anxiety has been found to be highly related to driving. In this sense,
anxiety is dependant on the complexity of the driving situation, traffic density and other users’
behavior. In regard to the conclusions drawn by Eysenck et al. (1992), it is also argued that
anxiety is reliant on driver’s personal characteristics (Taylor, Deane, & Podd, 2007). For
instance, Banuls Egeda et al. (1996) developed a questionnaire named the Inventory of Situations
provoking Anxiety in Traffic (ISAT) to assess anxious reactions to driving. They compared
answers to ISAT and self-reported accidents of novice and professional drivers. Novice drivers
reported anxiety when they had to evaluate a situation involving a higher risk of accidents
whereas professional drivers felt anxious when they had to face impediments or delays in their
journey. Shoham et al. (1984) also examined the relationship between anxiety and driving
performances using self-reported measures. They concluded that anxiety is an answer to the need
for rapid driving reactions on the road, leading anxious drivers to become traffic offenders. These
studies illustrate the fact that anxiety is not only a personality trait but also directly related to
driving.
Issues on the influence of anxiety on performances are ambiguous and not yet clarified.
Anxiety has been demonstrated to have deleterious effects on a driver’s behavior. Nevertheless,
these negative effects are contrasted because anxiety is also associated with cautiousness. In a
regression analysis, Shahar (2009) showed that high anxiety Israeli drivers adopted riskier
driving with a larger number of errors, lapses and ordinary violations. In contrast, Garrity and
Demick (2001) demonstrated, in a correlational study of 163 participants, that tension and
anxiety were related to cautiousness in driving.
10
Cautiousness while anxious has been confirmed but moderated by other laboratory-based
studies, indicating that anxiety effects varied as a function of the task complexity. For instance,
Stephens and Groeger (2009) analyzed the situational specificity of anxiety and anger trait
influences on driver’s evaluations and behaviors. During a simulated driving task, anxiety-prone
and anger-prone drivers rated the levels of danger, calmness and difficulty for 7 different driving
scenarios. Anxiety-prone drivers generally rated a higher level of difficulty for scenarios and
drove more cautiously with increased speed limit compliances. Interestingly, Ulleberg and
Rundmo (2003) surveyed 1932 Norwegian young drivers to predict risky driving behavior on the
basis of personality, attitudes and risk perception. Those who scored high on altruism and anxiety
were more inclined to have positive attitudes concerning traffic safety and were less likely to take
risks. The authors concluded that anxiety favored awareness of road accidents and promoted care
and defensiveness.
In summary, anxiety may deteriorate, help or may have no effect on driver’s behavior.
These differing conclusions may have resulted from the diversity of methodologies and the use of
variable definitions of anxiety. Again, the main conclusion is that anxiety affects information
processing and consequently driving performance, but its effects are dependant on the driving
situation and obviously on the driver’s anxiety level and coping strategies.
1.3. Sadness, depression and ruminations
Definitions of sadness and associated ruminations
Within the field of emotions and driving, studies have focused particularly on road rage
(e.g., Deffenbacher et al., 2003; Schwebel et al., 2006; Sullman, 2006; Deffenbacher et al., 2004;
Ellison-Potter, et al., 2001) and on anxiety, fear and stress on the road (e.g., Stephens, & Groeger,
2009; Taylor et al., 2007; Garrick, & Demick, 2001; Shahar, 2009). A wide range of other
emotions, however, might put a driver at risk and affect his behavior. Among these emotions, the
11
effects of sadness and depression need to be explored.
Sadness and derived disorders such as depression are considered as negative emotions or
more precisely negative emotional states in which rapid oscillations between anger, nostalgia,
and happiness are possible. Lazarus (1991) and Oatley and Johnson-Laird (1987) described
sadness as a consequence of the appraisal of a non-permanent loss or failure (e.g., separation, loss
of an important gift, death of a close relative). This loss can concern self as well as others (e.g.,
your father, your favorite singer, your dog), within a large interval of time from childhood to now
(e.g., failure at a music exhibition when you were five, separation from your fiancé). Finally,
sadness can be more or less intensive, from a mild easiness to tears and shouts (Rottenberg et al.,
2002). When facing a negative event, some vulnerable individuals endure the feeling of lasting
guilt, low self-esteem, disturbance in appetite and sleep as well as a decrease in energy and
problems with thinking, indicating a more significant emotional disorder, depression (Champion,
& Power, 1995). Both sadness and depression promote self-focus and rumination in which an
individual’s attention is directed to the causes and consequences of the loss or failure (Nölen-
Hoeksema, 1991; Nölen-Hoeksema, et al., 2008).
Because, in such an emotional context, ruminations are intense and automatic it leads
individuals to a fixation on their problems, reactions and feelings, exacerbating their uneasiness
(Nölen-Hoeksema,et al., 2008). Additionally, self-focus and ruminations in depression have been
shown to bias generally cognitive processing and specifically attention. Crompton (2000)
demonstrated that negative emotion was associated with slowness in disengaging attention.
Participants were firstly induced via the presentation of a sad film on the Holocaust before
performing a classic covert attention orienting task (Posner, 1980). Results showed that those
who were slowest to disengage attention in invalid trials were likely to feel the highest sadness
after the negative induction. Joorman and Gotlib (2008) also demonstrated that ruminations
12
interfered with attention processes. They used a modified Sternberg task in which decision
latencies and intrusion effects were compared for three groups: neutral induced participants, sad
induced participants (without ruminations) and clinical depressed patients (with ruminations).
Results indicated that because of ruminations, depressed people exhibited greater interference
from negative irrelevant materials and had difficulties in delaying the update of working memory
contents. In many studies, attention deficits in sadness and depression have been attributed to
degradations of controlled processing due to self-focus and ruminations (Crompton, 2000; Gotlib,
et al., 2004).
Causes and consequences of sadness/depression and ruminations in driving
Only a small number of studies have examined the role of sadness in driving. Contrary to
anger and anxiety, sadness is not directly related to driving as traffic complexity is not sufficient
in provoking such an emotional reaction. Nevertheless, sadness can be indirectly induced whilst
driving (e.g., you are talking with a passenger about the death of a close relative, or you are
listening to poignant music). In a study using a driving simulator, Pêcher, Lemercier and Cellier
(2008) demonstrated that listening to sad music not only created sadness but also a withdrawn
attitude and a situation propitious to ruminations. Perhaps challenging the causes of
sadness/depression and ruminations could lead to a modification of the conclusion about the
indirect relationship between sadness and driving.
The question concerning consequences of sadness/depression and ruminations whilst driving
is also an emerging topic and results are not evident yet. For instance, Vassallo et al. (2008), in
their correlational study with young Australian drivers, did not find any relation between risky
driving and what they called “internalizing emotional problems” such as depression and anxiety.
In opposition, Dula and Scott Geller (2003) proposed in their literature review that negative
emotions whilst driving (including anger, dejection, frustration, sadness etc.) could be considered
13
as one of the major classes of dangerous driving. According to them, the intensity of the felt
emotion has deleterious impact on driver’s attentional behavior. The negative relation between
sadness-depression and driving behavior has been observed in correlational studies. Hilakivi et al.
(1989) found that depression in young people was one main personality factor which
significantly predicted the occurrence of road accidents. Later, Garrity and Demick (2001)
confirmed that depression-dejection was actually negatively related to cautiousness whilst driving
in a study on the relationship between personality traits, mood states and driving behaviors.
Interestingly, the effects of grief whilst driving have also been highlighted. Rosenblatt (2004)
analyzed interviews with 84 people whose relative died between 8 and 35 years ago. Among
those who reported grieving whilst driving, the majority stated they had completely forgotten or
did not recognize what they had done on the road. Some other drivers added that grieving
occurred because of a sad song, or a sad comment on the radio. Rosenblatt (2004) suggested that
not focusing on grieving while driving would be a mistake as grieving affects attention processes.
In the same way, some epidemiological studies have stressed a relationship between being
concerned about a stressful event (e.g. death, separation etc.) and a higher risk of being involved
in a car crash (Selzer, & Vinokur, 1974; McMurray, 1970). Lagarde, et al. (2004) analyzed data
from a French cohort including 13,915 participants using a retrospective driving behavior
questionnaire. Results indicated that the hazard ratio for serious accidents increased (ratio = 3.5)
when participants were involved in a dramatic personal event (e.g. divorce, separation or death of
a close relative). Nevertheless, the nature of all these correlational and epidemiological studies
does not establish a causal link between sadness-depression and deteriorations on driver’s
behavior.
As a matter of fact, the known effects of sadness on driving performance are found in
empirical studies using simulators and laboratory tasks. Pêcher et al. (2009) demonstrated the
14
impact of self-focus when presenting sad music during a simulated driving task. A decrease of
speed and control of the lane trajectory were observed in order to ensure a safety margin for
actions and compensate for the negative effects of self-focus. Indeed, drivers explained in post-
interviews that their attention was devoted to processing lyrics and emotion of the music, thereby
inducing a withdrawn attitude and ruminations. In another study, Bulmash et al. (2006) assessed
psychomotor disturbance comparing depressed people with controls in a simulated driving task.
At 10:00 am, 12:00 pm, 2:00 pm and 4:00 pm, depressed and control participants performed 30-
min driving trials. No time-of-day effects were found. However, depressed people exhibited
slower steering reaction times and a higher number of accidents. These results were explained as
a consequence of both the indecision and the impaired attention due to depression.
Three important focus shifts concerning the influence of sadness on driver’s behavior have
been made. The first is from the consideration of negative emotions directly related to driving to
the consideration of negative emotions which are indirectly related to the same activity. Studies
on anger/aggression and anxiety provide evidence that strong emotional reactions can be
attributed to both the driving situation and the driver’s personal characteristics. In studies on
sadness/depression, the role of the driver’s past as well as personality is emphasized. In most
correlational studies, it was shown that a dramatic event could affect a driver for years (Lagarde
et al., 2004; Selzer et al., 1974). It suggests therefore that the causes of road accidents are not so
directly and clearly identifiable. The second shift is from the consideration of sadness to the
consideration of sadness and ruminations. Ruminations are repetitive negative thoughts that
attract attention to oneself which are highly associated with sadness and depression. Ruminating,
however, is obviously inappropriate while driving and it may explain a part of driving
deterioration. This point deserves to be developed in further research. The last focus shift is
methodological. In addition to the usual methods such as questionnaires and self-reports,
15
emotional inductions and driving simulations have been incorporated to provide a new viewpoint
and additional data.
2. Remarks on methods used to study emotions while driving
The few methods used to study the effects of emotions on driving behavior are fraught with
difficulties. Sadness as well as anger, frustration and anxiety are dynamic states which are
characterized by physiological, behavioral and cognitive changes. It is subsequently not easy to
grasp all these features in a complex situation such as driving. In many studies, researchers have
combined methods to have a more general approach. For instance, Stephens et al. (2006)
recorded behavioral data on a driving simulator (road position, speed, reaction times, number of
crashes etc.) and analyzed subjective ratings (Driving Anger Scale, Driving Behaviour
Questionnaire and Trait-Anxiety Scale) to assess situational specificity of trait on driver
evaluations and driver behavior. Among other results, it was shown that drivers with higher trait-
anger drove faster and had increased acceleration, throttle pressure and steering wheel use. Only
the multiplication of measures and methods had provided enough data to understand the
phenomenon.
Studies reviewed in this chapter were mainly concerned with questionnaires and self-reports
providing sufficient data for correlational and regression analysis. For instance, the assumption of
the relation between depressed-personality traits and the risk of being involved in road accidents
have been examined in correlational studies (e.g, Garrity, & Demick, 2001; Hilakivi, et al., 198;
Lagarde et al., 2004). One limitation is that results are determined on subjective ratings and on
perception of past events. It could be argued that the intensity, the nature and the causes of the
emotion may have been partially or completely forgotten. On the contrary, empirical studies
using laboratory tasks and simulated driving tasks try to focus on current emotions in order to
16
determine a causal link between sadness/ ruminations and driving deteriorations (e.g., Bulmash et
al., 2006; Stephens, & Groeger, 2006; Pêcher, et al., 2009). Nevertheless, factors are manipulated
in an artificial environment and transfer of results to a more complex real-driving environment is
subsequently debated.
Difficulties also arise in defining participants’ characteristics. When studying emotional
disorders such as depression or anxiety, clinical patient samples are a good alternative. For
instance, Bulmash, et al. (2006) investigated the psychomotor disturbance of depressed drivers.
The depressed sample was comprised of outpatients of a neuropsychiatric service featuring both
elevated depressive symptoms and current MDD (cut-off score of 15 or greater; determined with
the screening criteria and the DSM IV-TR for Axis-I disorders). Results indicated longer steering
wheel reaction times. Even if results are all the more valid because of the real symptomatology of
patients, authors had to make an effort to minimize the effects of anti-depressant medication on
performances. Results can not be generalized to medicated depressed patients. Actually, using a
clinical sample is expensive in terms of financial and staff requirements. Moreover, clinical
patients often suffer from other psychological disorders or neurological injuries and they also
receive medication. Taking into account all these conditions leads to a proposition to be very
selective in participant choices and to use only questionnaires, self-reports or driving simulations
to ensure safety.
The effects of emotions can be measured by self-report data. It is possible to interview people
about events occurring on roads during which they felt a specific emotion. They also can be
asked about their usual emotional reactions in a particular situation. For example, Taylor et al.
(2007) investigated the role of driving skills and anxiety on performance. Among other
techniques, they used self-reports to determine participants’ driving fear and driving history.
Participants were asked to estimate their own level of driving fear and to explain their driving
17
history including their age, learning, whether they had accidents or not, what are stressful
elements on road etc. This method is useful to contextualize the emotional reaction and the
effects on behavior. Because drivers have to put into words a very subjective experience, it also
leads to a consideration of new issues which were not initially investigated. One problem is that it
does not provide a direct measure of the emotional experience. It also appears to be sensitive to
situational factors such as change in affect, the level of intrusion of questions etc.
An alternative method, not yet commonly used, consists of provoking artificially an emotion
using laboratory induction procedures and maintaining this state during the experiment. Even
though this method has short-terms effects (lasting approximately 15 min) and may be intrusive,
it is easy to manipulate because its effects are very similar to those of natural emotions (Brewer,
Doughtie, & Lubin, 1980; Martin, 1990; Scherrer, & Dobson, 2009). Subjective ratings such as
the PANAS X (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) or the BMIS (Mayer, & Gaschke, 1988) easily
assess changes in emotional states.
Research suggests there are a wide variety of methods for analyzing both the causes and the
consequences of driver’s emotional experience. Each method has its benefits but also
disadvantages and the choice of a particular method clearly determines the nature of the
conclusions that one can draw.
3. A note on the impact of positive emotions
In the area of driving research, studies have surprisingly neglected the role of positive
emotional states (e.g., happiness, joy, love etc.). In appraisal cognitive theories, positive emotions
are interpreted in terms of goal achievement and satisfaction (Power, & Dalgleish, 2008). For
instance, joy has been defined as a reaction to the satisfying achievement of a specific goal in a
specific time whereas happiness is a reaction to a wider appraisal (Fredrickson, 2005). Positive
18
emotions also affect cognitive processing by facilitating the access to materials in working
memory (e.g., MacLeod, Anderson, & Davies, 1994), and by attempting to avoid unpleasant
tasks and opting for more pleasant materials (e.g., Isen, & Simmonds, 1978) and using heuristics
to face task demands (Boddenhausen, Kramer, & Susser, 1994). With regard to the literature, the
key question is the extent to which positive emotions may influence driver’s behavior.
To our knowledge, only studies using happy music whilst driving provide information on
the relationship between positive emotions and driving performances. For instance, Brodsky
(2002) investigated the role of tempo on driver’s performances in a simulated driving task. The
fact is that music with fast tempo activates arousal and provokes some kind of energy and
excitement on the listener. As the tempo increased, so did the mean speed, the number of crashes
and the number of road violations. This result gives indirect support to the idea that positive
emotions degrade driving behavior. In a recent study, Pêcher et al. (2009) compared the effects of
sad, neutral and happy music listening on performance in a simulated task. Results showed a
surprising decrease of mean speed and regular deviations to the hard shoulder. Authors
interpreted the results as a consequence of an induced dual-task situation. When listening to
happy music, participants felt good, excited, and joyful. They therefore tended to follow the
rhythm by tapping hands on the steering wheel, singing and whistling. These extra-activities
interfered with the attention they gave to the road.
Due to the small number of studies, evidence for the deleterious impact of positive
emotions on driver’s behavior is limited. Perhaps the lack of work on the topic is due to
definitional ambiguities or to methodological obstacles. Positive emotions are caused by a
transient satisfaction of specific goals and therefore only indirect methods (e.g. induction
procedures) help in studying its effects on driver’s behavior. We hope that this point will be
considered in further research.
19
Conclusion
In this chapter, we reviewed the literature to illustrate the relationship between emotions
and driving. The evidence that has been pointed out here suggests that negative emotions
influence drivers in terms of risk-taking, maladaptive reactions, compensatory behaviors and
cautiousness. Anger affects the most drivers’ reactions with tendencies to take risks and be
aggressive. The effects of anxiety are not clear as it may be associated to riskier driving as well as
defensiveness and cautiousness on road. Finally, sadness and ruminations tend to be related to a
higher risk of road accidents and performance disturbance. Therefore, it is concluded that, in
general, negative emotion affects driving behavior but specific effects are observed according to
the nature of the emotion.
We also listed the methods used to establish a correlation or causal link between emotions
and driving performance. We attempted to compile the benefits and disadvantages of
questionnaires, self-reports, driving simulations, emotional inductions etc. The main conclusion
is that studying emotions while driving requires the combination of different methods.
Finally, we questioned the impact of positive emotions such as joy and happiness on
driver’s behavior. Unfortunately, only indirect methods (use of music) provides evidence for the
deterioration of longitudinal and lateral controls. This point requires further testing in future
research programs.
For years, researches have focused on the role of anger and anxiety while driving. But the
investigation of the role of sadness and ruminations, for instance, represent an emerging and
promising patch of research. We have also addressed the need to make the research area
comprehensive by increasing interest on the effects of positive emotion on driver’s behavior. On
20
a more general note, this review provides support for the importance of considering emotions as a
major factor in driver’s safety.
References
Arnold, M. (1960). Emotion and personality (2 vols). New York: Columbia University Press.
Bañuls Egeda, R. Carbonell Vaya, E., Casanoves, M., & Chisvert, M. (1996). Different emotional
responses in novice and professional drivers. In T. Rothengatter, & E. Carbonnell Vaya
(Eds.). Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Amsterdam:
Pergamon.
Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). Toward an understanding of the determinants of
anger. Emotion, 4, 107-130.
Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York : McGraw-Hill.
Boddenhausen, G.V., Sheppard, L.V., & Susser, K. (1994). Happiness and stereotypic thinking in
social judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 621-632.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P.J. (2000). Measuring emotion: Behavior, feeling, and physiology. In
R.D. Dane, & L. Nadel (Eds.), Cognitive neuroscience of emotion. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Brewer, D., Doughtie, E.B., & Lubin, B. (1980). Induction of mood and mood shift. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 36, 215-226.
Britt, T. W., & Garrity, M.J. (2006). Attributions and personality as predictors of the road rage
response. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 127-147.
21
Bulmash, E. L., Moller, H.J., Kayumov, L., Shen, J., Wang, X., Shapiro, C.M. (2006).
Psychomotor disturbance in depression: Assessment using a driving simulator paradigm.
Journal of Affective Disorders, 93, 213-218.
Champion, L. A., & Power, M.J. (1995). Social and cognitive approaches to depression: Towards
a new synthesis. British Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 34, 485-503.
Crompton, R.J. (2000). Ability to disengage attention predicts negative affects. Cognition and
Emotion, 14, 401-415.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Deffenbacher, D.M., Lynch, R.S., Richards, T.L. (2003). Anger, aggression,
and risky behavior: a comparison of high and low anger drivers. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 41, 701-718.
Deffenbacher, J.L., Lynch, R.S., Oetting, E.R., Swaim, R.C. (2002). The Driving Anger
Expression Inventory: a measure of how people express their anger on the road.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 717-737.
Deffenbacher, J.L., Oetting, E.R., & Lynch, R.S. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale.
Psychological Reports, 74, 83-91.
Dula, C. A., Scott Geller, E. (2003). Risky, aggressive, or emotional driving: Addressing the need
for consistent communication in research. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 559-566.
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 169-200.
Ekman, P., Levenson, R.W., and Friesen, W.V. (1983). Autonomic nervous activity distinguishes
among emotions. Science, 221, 1208-1210.
Ellison-Potter, P., Bell, P., Deffenbacher, J. (2001). The effects of trait driving anger, anonymity,
and aggressive stimuli on aggressive driving behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 31, 431-443.
22
Epstein, S. (1972). The nature of anxiety with emphasis upon its relationship to expectancy. In
C.D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research. New York:
Academic Press.
Eysenck, M.W., & Byrne, A., 1992. Anxiety and susceptibility to distraction. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13, 793–798.
Fredrickson, B.L. & Braningan, C. (2005).Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and
thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313-332.
Fuller, R. A. (2005). Toward a general theory of driver behaviour. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 37, 461-472.
Garrity, R. D., & Demick, J. (2001). Relations among personality traits, mood states, and driving
behaviors. Journal of Adult Development, 8, 109-118.
Gotlib, I. H., Krasnoperova, E., Neubauer, D. L., & Joormann, J. (2004). Attentional biases
fornegative interpersonal stimuli in clinical depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
113, 127–135.
Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D.L. (1999). Traffic congestion, driver stress, and driver
aggression. Aggressive Behaviour, 25, 409-423.
Hilakivi, I., Veilahti, J., Asplund, P., Sinivuo, J., Laitinen, L., Koskenvuo, K. (1989). A sixteen-
factor personality test for predicting automobile driving accidents of young drivers.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 21, 413-418.
Isen, A.M., & Simmonds, S.F. (1978). The effect of feeling good on a helping task is
incompatible with good mood. Social Psychology Quaterly, 41, 345-349.
Joorman, J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2008). Updating the contents of working memory in depression:
interference from irrelevant negative material. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117,
182-192.
23
La Sécurité Routière (2007). Les grands chiffres de l'accidentologie. Available at:
http://www2.securiteroutiere.gouv.fr/IMG/Synthese/dep_accidentologie.pdf
Lagarde, E., Chastang, J.F., Gueguen, A., Coeuret-Pellicer, M., Chiron, M., & Lafont, S. (2004).
Emotional stress and traffic accidents: The impact of separation and divorce.
Epidemiology, 15, 762-766.
Lajunen, T., & Parker, D. (2001). Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A study of the
relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness, driver anger and aggressive
driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 243-255.
Lawton, R., & Nutter, A. (2002). A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in
everyday and driving situation. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 407-423.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
MacLeod, A.K., Andersen, A., & Davies, A. (1994). Self-ratings of positive and negative affect
and retrieval of positive and negative affect memories. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 483-
488.
Martin, M. (1990). On the induction of mood. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 669-697.
Martinez R. Testimony to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Surface
Transportation Subcommittee. Jul 17, 1997. Available at:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/testimony/aggres2.html.
Mayer, J.D., & Gaschke, Y.N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 102-111.
McMurray, L. (1970). Emotional stress and driving performance: the effect of divorce.
Behavioural Research on Highway Safety, 1, 100-114.
Mesken, J., Hargenzieker, M.P., Rotthengatter, T., de Waard, D. (2007). Frequency,
determinants, and consequences of different drivers’ emotions: An on-the-road study
24
using self-reports, (observed) behaviour, and physiology. Transportation Research Part
F, 10, 458-475.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of
depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 569-582.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400-424.
Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1987). Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition
and Emotion, 1, 29-50.
Ohman, A. (1993). Fear and anxiety as emotional phenomena: Clinical phenomenology,
evolutionary perspectives, and information processing mechanisms. In M. Lewis, J. M.
Haviland (Eds.), The Handbook of emotions. New York: Guildford Press.
Parker, D., Lajunen, T., Stradling, S. (1998). Attitudinal predictors of interpersonally aggressive
violations on the road. Transportation Research Part F, 1, 11-24.
Parker, D., Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (2002). Anger and aggression among drivers in three
european countries. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 229-235.
Pêcher, C., Lemercier, C., & Cellier, J.M. (Accepted). Emotions drive attention: Effects on
driver's attention. Safety Science. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2009.03.011.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. The Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
32, 3-25.
Power, M., & Dagleish, T. (2008). Cognition and emotion: From order to disorder. Hove and
New York: Psychology Press.
Rosenblatt, P. C. (2004). Grieving while driving. Death Studies, 28, 679-686.
Rottenberg, J., Gross, J.J, Wilhelm, F.H., Najmi, S., & Gotlib, I.H. (2002). Crying threshold and
intensity in major depressive disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 302-312.
25
Russell, J.A., & Carroll, J.M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 3-30.
Schacter, S., & Singer, J.E. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of
emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, 379-399.
Scherer, K. R., & Wallbott, H.G. (1994). Evidence for universality and cultural variation of
differential emotion response patterning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
66, 310-328.
Scherrer, M. C., & Dobson, K.S. (2009). Predicting responsiveness to a depressive mood
induction procedure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(1), 20-35.
Schwebel, D. C., Severson, J., Ball, K.K., & Rizzo, M. (2006). Individual differences factors in
risky driving: The role of anger/hostility, conscientiousness, and sensation-seeking.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 801-810.
Selzer, M.L., & Vinokur, A. (1974). Life events, subjective stress, and traffic accidents.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 903-906.
Shahar A., (2009). Self-reported driving behaviors as a function of trait anxiety. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 41, 241-245.
Shinar, D. (1998). Aggressive driving: The contribution of the drivers and the situation.
Transportation Research Part F, 1, 137-160.
Shoham, S.G., Rahav, G., Markovski, R., Chard, F., & Baruch, I. (1984). “Anxious” and
“reckless” drivers. Deviant Behaviour, 5, 181-191.
Smith, T. W., & Allred, K. D. (1989). Blood pressure responses during social interactionin high-
and low-cynically hostile males. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 135-143.
26
Stephens, A. N., Groeger, J.A. (2006). Do emotional appraisals of traffic situations influence
driver behaviour? Paper presented at the Behavioural Studies Seminar, 3-4 April, 2006,
Bath, UK.
Stephens, A. N., Groeger, J.A. (2009). Situational specificity of trait influences on drivers’
evaluations and driving behaviour. Transportation Research Part F, 12, 29–39.
Suarez, E.C., & Williams, R.B. (1990). The relationships between dimensions of hostility and
cardiovascular reactivity as a function of task characteristics. Psychosomatic Medicine,
52, 558-570.
Sullman, M. J. M. (2006). Anger amonst New Zealand drivers. Transportation Research Part F,
9(3), 173-184.
Taylor, J.E., Deane, F.P., & Podd, J.V. (2007). Driving fear and driving skills: Comparison
between fearful and control samples using standardised on-road assessment. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 45, 805–818.
Turner, C. W., Layton, J.F., & Simons, L.S. (1975). Naturalistic studies of aggressive behaviour:
Aggressive stimuli, victim visibility, and horn-honking. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, 1098-1107.
Ulleberg, P., & Rundmo, T. (2003). Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of
risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety Science, 41, 427-443.
Underwood, G., Chapman, P., Wright, S., & Crundall, D. (1999). Anger while driving.
Transportation Research Part F, 2, 55-68.
Vassallo, S., Smart, D., Sanson, A., Cockfield, S., Harris, A., McIntyre, A., Harrison, W. (2008).
Risky driving among young australian drivers II: Co-occurrence with other problem
behaviours. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 376-386.
27
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
