- Email: [email protected]
The influence of roadway police justice on driver emotion
Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Part F journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf
The influence of roadway police justice on driver emotion James E.W. Roseborough ⇑, David L. Wiesenthal York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 September 2015 Accepted 30 March 2018
Keywords: Justice Injustice Driving Anger Aggression Happiness
a b s t r a c t Perceived justice occurs when good behaviour leads to a positive outcome, and when bad behaviour leads to a negative outcome. Punishment for offending motorists is a negative outcome resulting from a collision or police enforcement. Punishment of traffic law/norm violators may reduce recidivism and drivers who observe the punishment may be less likely to perform similar infractions. Punishment may also influence the emotions of witnesses and victimised drivers. This study examined the effect of various punishments on witnesses’ feelings of anger and happiness on roadways. 142 individuals were randomly assigned to one of five punishment conditions (i.e., police enforcement; collision with roadside object; collision with other vehicle; collision with roadside object and police enforcement; collision with other vehicle and police enforcement). Participants viewed four animated videos depicting unjust driving behaviours and were told that the violator in each scenario experienced one of the five forms of punishment. Participants indicated how angry and happy the each scenario made them, before and after learning of the punishment. Analyses indicated that perceived punishment by police reduced feelings of anger and increased feelings of happiness compared to the other four forms of punishment. In addition to increasing roadway safety, the current study demonstrated the importance of enforcement’s positive impact on the emotional states of witnesses of unjust driving behaviour. Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The driving experience may be pleasant or unpleasant depending on the purpose for driving or events experienced while driving. The specific car being driven, the scenery viewed en route to the destination, or the destination itself may contribute to an enjoyable driving experience (Hagman, 2010; Hallo & Manning, 2009). Similarly, driving at night may be enjoyable for drivers who enjoy the city lights or night skies. Other events such as traffic congestion or behaviours of other drivers may make the driving experience unenjoyable (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999; Roseborough & Wiesenthal, 2014; Wickens, Roseborough, Hall, & Wiesenthal, 2013). Creating a more pleasurable and safe driving environment is the goal of the current study, by examining factors that may influence driving emotion and driving aggression. Police enforcement may have several influences: (1) police enforcement punishes violators of laws; (2) witnessing police enforcement may decrease the likelihood of other individuals from violating the law; and (3) witnessing police enforcement may reduce negative feelings resulting from a perceived injustice. Witnesses or victims of unjust driving may experience stress and anger. Replacing angry moods with happy moods would make driving a more pleasurable experience. The goal ⇑ Corresponding author at: OCAD University, Department of Institutional Analysis, 230 Richmond St. West, Room 520, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 3E5, Canada. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.E.W. Roseborough). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.030 1369-8478/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
237
of the current study was to determine the influence of perceived justice on feelings of anger and happiness for witnesses of unjust driving behaviours. Specifically, this study examined the influence of the application of several forms of justice on feelings of anger and happiness in witnesses of unjust driving behaviours. 1.1. Driver emotion Two common emotions experienced by individuals are anger and happiness. Anger has been conceptualized as both a trait and an emotional state. Trait anger is defined as the predisposition to experience anger with increased frequency and intensity in a variety of situations (Spielberger, 1988). State anger is defined as an emotional state marked by subjective feelings varying in intensity from mild annoyance or irritation to intense fury and rage (Spielberger, Johnson, Russell, Crane, Jacobs, & Worden, 1985). Research has found that increased anger is related to hostile cognition, cardiovascular effects, and aggressive behaviour (Siegman, 1993; Tiedens, 2001). Related to the concepts of trait and state anger are trait driving anger and state driving anger. Trait driving anger is similar to trait anger, but it is more situation and context specific (Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994). State driving anger could be defined as an emotional state marked by subjective feelings ranging from mild annoyance to intense rage in response to factors or situations encountered while operating a motor vehicle. Driving anger is a likely contributing factor of aggression for several reasons. Anger can provide a justification for retaliation. Throughout development, individuals create interpretational and behavioural scripts that allow them to respond to situations more easily (Huesmann, 1988). If an individual develops a script where aggression is preceded by feelings of anger, then experiencing anger in the driving environment may result in driving aggression. Additionally, driving anger may interfere with higher-level cognitive processes inhibiting aggression. Increased driving anger has been associated with increased acts of aggressive driving in several studies using a variety of methodologies (Jovanovic´, Lipovac, Stanojevic´, & Stanojevic´, 2011; Roseborough, Wiesenthal, Flett, & Cribbie, 2011; Vallières, Vallerand, Bergeron, & McDuff, 2014; Wickens, Wiesenthal, Flora, & Flett, 2011). Such aggressive behaviours include driving too fast, tailgating, flashing high beams, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and using one’s automobile as a weapon (Deffenbacher et al., 1994). Happiness can also be conceptualized as a trait and state emotion. State happiness occurs when an event is goal congruent and does not involve blame or threat (Mesken, Hagenzieker, Rothengatter, & de Waard, 2007). Research has found that increased happiness is related to increased prosocial behaviour and physical health (Cunningham, 1988; Steptoe, Wardle, & Marmot, 2005; Veenhoven, 2008). The determinants and consequences of happiness have received relatively less attention from the driving research (Mesken et al., 2007; Roseborough & Wiesenthal, 2014). In-situ research has shown that driver happiness increases as a result of events that are congruent with the driver’s goals and events contributing to increased driver safety (Mesken et al., 2007). Due to the negative consequences of anger (e.g., aggression) and the positive consequences of happiness (e.g., prosocial behaviour) it is important identify the causal factors of these emotions in order to control them. 1.2. Justice, injustice, and driver emotion Perceptions of justice and injustice may lead to happiness and anger. Equity theory states that an individual will perceive a situation as just when their ratio of input to outcome is equivalent to the ratio of other individuals (Adams, 1965). Justice is important as it allows individuals to enter psychological contracts with society. Individuals behave positively because the existence of justice ensures positive outcomes. Individuals avoid behaving negatively because the existence of justice ensures behaving badly leads to negative outcomes. We may speculate that the human need for justice is so important that we possess a psychological barrier to reduce the effects of injustice, that is, the belief in a just world. The belief in a just world is the belief that people get what they deserve. Individuals are motivated to believe in a just world because it allows them to confront their physical and social environment as though it were stable and orderly, serving as an adaptive function (Lerner & Miller, 1978). Individuals with an increased endorsement of just world beliefs have been found to have reduced feelings of anger in anger-evoking situations on and off the road (Nesbit, Blankenship, & Murray, 2012; Dalbert, 2002). The evolution of this psychological mechanism suggests how important the perception of justice is to humans. Perceived injustice results when an event occurs leading an individual to believe they have not received what they deserve (Mikula, 1993). The perception of injustice can result in uncomfortable and distressing emotional and physiological states (Adams, 1965; Markovsky, 1988). The most common events that individuals consider to be unjust are those that are perceived to be disrespectful (Lupfer, Weeks, Doan, & Houston, 2000; Mikula, 1986; Mikula, Petri, & Tanzer, 1990). In the context of driving, an individual who cuts into a queue of vehicles may be seen as disrespecting those who lined up properly. An individual who believes he/she has been intentionally cut off may also feel disrespected. Similarly, an individual who uses a lane improperly (driving in a bus lane or on a road shoulder) may be perceived as disrespecting the laws or norms of society. Motorists abiding by the rules and norms of their society may perceive violations of these standards as a personal affront as well. The most common emotional response to disrespect or injustice is anger (Clayton, 1992; Mikula, 1986; Scher, 1997). Perceiving injustice may lead to feelings of anger leading to retaliation. Retaliation may be engaged in to inform the offender that he/she is worthy of injustice and not the victim, to inform the offender that his/her actions were unacceptable, or to cause the offender equal pain/inconvenience (Miller, 2001; Lennon & Watson, 2011).
238
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
Considerable driving research has examined the psychological and behavioural states of motorists who have been witnesses or victims of unjust/offensive driving behaviour. One consequence of unjust/offensive driving behaviour is driving stress. Driving stress can have negative psychological, physiological, and behavioural consequences. Driver stress can result in reduced concentration, and increased arousal, heart rate, blood pressure, aggressive driving, and increased automobile collisions (Matthews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991; Novaco, Stokols, Campbell, & Stokols, 1979; Selzer & Vinokur, 1974; Stokols, Novaco, Stokols, & Campbell, 1978; Gulian, Matthews, Glendon, & Davies, 1989; Hartley & El Hassani, 1994; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999). Stressful driving may contribute to a dispositional tendency to perceive all driving encounters more negatively (Gulian et al., 1989). Research has identified that perceiving unjust driving behaviour may lead to feelings of anger, resulting in retaliatory acts of aggression (Lennon & Watson, 2011; Roseborough et al., 2011). Driving anger may be expressed as driving too fast, tailgating, flashing high beams, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and using one’s automobile as a weapon (Deffenbacher et al., 1994; Lennon & Watson, 2011). A large body of driving research has supported the link between driving anger and driving aggression (Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher, 2001; Nesbit, Conger, & Conger, 2007; Wickens et al., 2011; Lennon & Watson, 2011). A recent study found that anger stemming from perceptions of unjust driving behaviour was related to retaliatory aggressive driving (Roseborough et al., 2011). Although there are positive consequences of perceiving justice and numerous negative consequences of perceiving unjust driving behaviours, only recently has research examined the influence of perceived punishment/justice on driver anger and happiness (Roseborough & Wiesenthal, 2014). Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014) examined the influence of police justice and poetic justice on feelings of anger and happiness for those witnessing unjust driving behaviour. Participants were exposed to four different unjust behaviours, an illegal left-turn, a four-way-stop violation, queuing violation, and a redlight violation. Participants were then told the left-turn driver was stopped by police, the 4-way-stop violator collided with another vehicle, the queue violator collided with another vehicle, and the red-light violation occurred at an intersection with a red-light camera. Participants reported their feelings of anger and happiness before and after being told about the application of justice. The study’s results suggested that applications of justice by law enforcement had the greatest influence on driver anger and happiness. Furthermore, poetic justice (a collision) influenced driver anger but had not influence on driver happiness. The results however were confounded as the study did not control for the nature of the unjust behaviour. 2. Purpose and hypotheses This study extended the research of Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014) by experimentally manipulating the type of justice/punishment experienced by offenders (seen by witnesses). The researchers examined the efficacy of five forms of punishment on the emotions of witness drivers. The five punishments were: police involvement only, a collision with a roadside object and police involvement, a collision with another vehicle and police involvement, a collision with a roadside object with no police involvement, and a collision with another vehicle with no police involvement. Based on the findings of Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014), the current study proposed the following hypotheses: H1. Police involvement compared to the four other forms of punishment would reduce driver anger and increase driver happiness. H2. A collision with a roadside object with, and without police involvement, compared to an automobile collision with and without police involvement, would reduce driver anger and increase driver happiness.
3. Methodology 3.1. Participants This study used a sample 142 (92 female) undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 47 years (Mdn = 20, M = 22.1, SD = 5.50). Participants had possessed a driver’s license ranging from 1.5 to 27 years (Mdn = 3.7, M = 4.9, SD = 4.07). Fifty-seven participants possessed a graduated license (i.e., G), and 85 participants possessed a level two graduated license (i.e., G2). A G-license allows drivers to operate any car, van or small truck or up to 11,000 kg, but it must not be a motorcycle, a bus carrying passengers, or an ambulance providing ambulance service. A G2-license allows drivers to operate G-class vehicles, but are subject to passenger restrictions (Licence Types, n.d.). Participants reported they drove an average of 7.4 (SD = 7.23) hours and 141.06 (SD = 161.35) kilometres per week. Approximately 30% of participants primarily drove on King’s/400-series highways (speed limit = 100 km/h), approximately 13% of participants primarily drove on secondary highways (speed limit = 80 km/h), and approximately 57% of participants primarily drove on city streets (speed limit = 50 km/h). Participation was voluntary and participants received course credit for study participation.
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
239
3.2. Procedure Participants completed the study during group testing sessions at York University. Initially, participants were provided an informed consent form, written scenario prompts, questionnaire booklets, and verbal instructions regarding the manner in which booklets were to be completed. There were five versions of the questionnaire booklet and participants received a version at random. Participants were then shown four animated driving scenarios. Before each scenario the written prompt was read aloud by the researcher to ensure all participants knew what would occur in the animated scenario. The animated video was then presented to the participants on a 72-in. high-definition television screen. After viewing each animated scenario, participants answered questions regarding thoughts, emotions, and behaviours related to the animated scenario. The study received ethics approval by the Human Participants Review Subcommittee (HPRC) of York University. 3.3. Measures and stimuli 3.3.1. Written prompts and animated video clips Participants watched four animated video clips depicting an unjust driving behaviour. The four unjust behaviours were, a queuing violation, a risky left-turn, misuse of a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, and a red-light violation. Participants were asked to picture themselves in each scenario, and imagine the thoughts, feelings, and behaviours they would exhibit. Before watching each clip, participants were prompted with a brief written description of the scenario depicted in the video clip. After hearing each scenario prompt, participants viewed the animated video. Animated videos were used to ensure participants understood the scenarios and to heighten the influence of the situation. The animated clips were created using AutodeskÒ 3ds MaxÒ, a 3-D animation modelling and rendering software. The videos ranged in length from 24 s to 56 s. Two written prompts and captions from their corresponding videos are in Fig. 1. The four videos are included with the electronic version of this manuscript. 3.3.2. Anger and happiness items Feelings of anger and happiness were assessed after each video was viewed. Anger was measured using a one-item 5point scale ranging from 0 (not angry at all) to 4 (extremely angry). Happiness was measured using a one-item 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not happy at all) to 4 (extremely happy). The use of a single-item measures of emotion is a potential limitation of this study. While single item measures may possess less reliability than multi-item measures, it has been argued that single-item measures are sufficient when the construct being measured if easily and uniformly imagined (Rossiter, 2002). This study proposes that anger and happiness, which are universal emotions, are two such constructs. After answering these questions, participants were asked to imagine the application of justice to each scenario and asked about their feelings (i.e., anger and happiness) upon witnessing the possible application of justice. As noted earlier, participants had been randomly given one of five questionnaire booklets. Each of the five versions contained a different form of justice. The five forms of justice were police involvement, a collision with a roadside object, a collision with another vehicle, a collision with a non-vehicular roadside object and police involvement, and a collision with another vehicle and police involvement. Participants then answered the same anger and happiness items indicating how the application of justice made them feel. 4. Analyses and results Each individual’s pre-justice anger scores for the four scenarios were collapsed to create a mean pre-justice anger score. The post-justice anger scores were also collapsed to create a mean post-justice anger score. Pre- and post-justice happiness scores were also created in the same manner. An anger difference score was then calculated by subtracting the mean prejustice anger score from the post-justice anger mean. A happiness difference score was also created using the pre- and posthappiness mean scores. To summarize, each participant had a difference score for anger and a difference score for happiness. 4.1. Anger An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to do determine if anger difference scores varied as a function of the type of justice witnessed. There was significant variation among conditions, Welch-F (4, 67.13) = 13.43, p < .05, g2 = 0.31. Post-hoc analysis using the Games-Howell test was used to compare the anger difference scores among the five conditions (Games & Howell, 1976). Results indicated the greatest decrease in anger occurred in the ‘‘police only” condition (M = 2.60, SD = 1.02) and it was significantly (p < .05) greater than the decrease in happiness due to a collision with a roadside object and police involvement (M = 0.81, SD = 1.37), a collision with another vehicle and police involvement (M = 0.52, SD = 1.10), a collision with a roadside object with no police involvement (M = 1.52, SD = 1.44), and a collision with another vehicle with no police involvement (M = 0.43, SD = 1.27). Furthermore, the decrease in anger due to a collision with a roadside object with no police involvement was significantly greater than the decrease resulting from a collision with another vehicle, with or without police involvement.
240
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
Queuing Violation: You are travelling North in your green car. You are in the designated left-turn lane. Traffic is moving well in the other Northbound lanes, but you have been waiting a while as there are a lot of vehicles waiting to turn left. As you near the intersection, in your side mirror you notice a red car travelling in the Northbound centre lane. As the red car arrives at the intersection, it begins to merge into the left-turn lane, ahead of your vehicle.
Risky Left-Turn: You are travelling North on a 2-lane road in your green car. You are driving in the right lane and at the upcoming intersection you plan on turning right. The lights at the intersection are amber and you come to a stop. Signs indicate no right-turns are allowed on a red light; so you must wait until the light turns green. East/West traffic flows through the intersection and eventually comes to a stop as the light turns red. While all the lights are red, a red vehicle travelling Southbound begins to creep into the intersection. When the North/South lights turn green, the red vehicle quickly turns left in front of the Northbound cars. You must stop your right-turn to avoid a collision with the red car.
Fig. 1. Written vignette and still-caption from unjust driving scenario 1.
4.2. Happiness An ANOVA was conducted to do determine if happiness difference scores varied as a function of the type of justice witnessed. There was significant variation among conditions, Welch-F (4, 67.13) = 12.94, p < .05, g2 = 0.28. Post-hoc analysis using the Games-Howell test indicated the greatest increase in happiness occurred in the ‘‘police only” condition (M = 2.44, SD = 1.38) and it was significantly (p < .05) greater than the increase in happiness due to a collision with a roadside object and police involvement (M = 0.73, SD = 0.96), a collision with another vehicle and police involvement (M = 0.75, SD = 1.30), a collision with a roadside object with no police involvement (M = 1.02, SD = 1.47), and a collision with another vehicle with no police involvement (M = 0.22, SD = 1.04). A graphical representation of the mean difference scores for anger and happiness is in Fig. 2. 5. Discussion The goal of the study was to determine if emotional changes in witnesses of unjust driving behaviours are a result of subsequently witnessing justice in general, or a specific form of justice. Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014) found that legal and poetic justice had inconsistent effects on driver anger and driver happiness in response to four driving scenarios. It could not
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
241
Fig. 2. Mean difference scores of anger and happiness scores by type of justice.
be determined if the inconsistencies were due to differences in the types of justice or differences among the scenarios. The current study experimentally controlled for nature of the unjust driving scenario and the type of justice. Justice applied solely by law enforcement, compared to all other forms of justice, reduced driver anger and increased driver happiness more than for the other scenarios. These results support both Hypothesis 1 and the results obtained by Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014). Justice applied by law enforcement may influence witnesses’ emotions for several reasons. Witnesses may believe that once an individual is punished, he/she will be less likely to behave in such ways in the future. Reducing recidivism may result from education about improper behaviours or the threat of future punishment, both of which may result from involvement of law enforcement. Participants may also believe that the offending motorist feels guilt or shame as he/she publically punished. Participants may feel happier believing the offender is experiencing the negative emotions and cognitions coinciding with public punishment. Additionally, observing police enforcement may enhance one’s belief in the efficacy of the justice system and enhance the credibility of having traffic regulations. Finally, law enforcement may have the greatest effect on emotion if participants believe that it represents the most just/appropriate form of justice, not too mild but not too severe. An unexpected result was that collisions involving police did not influence emotion more than collisions with no police involvement. Compared to scenarios involving one form of justice, the current study expected that collisions involving police would have stronger or additive influences on emotion as the offender experiences not one, but two types of justice. This result could be accounted for if police involvement and a collision did not lead to a balanced scale of justice. This would fit the equity theory of justice in that minor offences receive less punishment rather than more severe punishment which is out of line with the nature of the offence (Adams, 1965). Another possible explanation is that participants may have thought the police involvement was in response to the collision and not the preceding unjust behaviour. Additionally, participants may have believed the police officer may not have seen the unjust behaviour. As a result participants may have thought the offending driver would not receive legal justice for the unjust behaviour, only poetic justice. Hypothesis 2 proposed that collisions with a roadside object with and without police involvement would influence emotion to a greater degree than collisions involving other automobiles. Forms of justice involving a collision generally did not differ with respect to their influence on driver emotion. Justice in the form of a collision with a roadside object reduced driver anger to a greater degree than a collision with another vehicle. A collision with a roadside object versus a collision with another vehicle did not differ in their influence on feelings of happiness. Take, together the different results for anger and happiness provide only partial support for Hypothesis 2. These findings are also consistent with that of Roseborough and colleagues (2014) who found justice in the form of an automobile collision had less influence on emotion than justice applied by police. One possible explanation is that witnesses do not want anyone to be involved in a collision. Collisions may result in harm to those involved. Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014) suggested that witnesses of unjust behaviour may believe that few or no offensive behaviours warrant the physical harm that could result from a collision. While a collision may provide some warranted punishment (a damaged vehicle) which reduces anger, the potential physical harm to the driver may reduce the positive effects punishment has on happiness. This idea is supported by the finding that collision with a roadside object
242
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
had a larger influence on anger than a collision with another vehicle. Further support stems from the finding that levels of happiness did not differ between justice types that involved a collision. Only the police involvement with no collision differed significantly with regards to its influence on driver happiness. The results of this study are complex, and research into driver’s thoughts on appropriate forms of justice would provide clarity on the findings. The findings suggest that police enforcement of traffic laws reduces driver anger and increases driver happiness. Furthermore, police enforcement of traffic laws may have less of an effect on driver emotion when it occurs after a collision has occurred. While this hypothesis is supported by equity theory of justice, it must be confirmed by future research. 6. Limitations One important limitation of this study was that insight into participant’s opinions regarding the various forms of punishment were not obtained. Asking participants about their thoughts and feelings regarding the various forms of punishment might help explain the influence of justice/injustice on emotion and the results obtained by this study. Asking participants to indicate what they would like to see occur to the offending driver would also provide insight into effective and ineffective forms of justice/punishment. An additional limitation was the age of the current sample. While the sample ranged from 18 to 47 years of age, 50% of the sample was sample was 20 years of age or younger. Research has identified that driver age can influence emotional and behavioural response to offensive driving behaviour. As driver age increases the level of anger resulting from experienced offensive driving behaviours decreases (Parker, Lajunen, & Summala, 2002). Additionally, increases in driver age are related to reductions in aggressive driving behaviour (Wickens, Mann, Stoduto, Ialomiteanu, & Smart, 2011). It would be interesting to examine the influence of roadway justice on drivers possessing a larger age range. A final limitation is that it used vignettes and video clips to elicit emotion. Based on the results it is apparent that emotions were elicited, future research should examine justice and injustice on actual roadways, which may elicit more intense emotions. Participants could be equipped with instruments that measure physiological correlates of anger such as elevated heart rate or blood pressure. Participants could drive in a controlled environment in which they encounter confederate driver who performs an offensive behaviour. Such research could identify the long term physiological effects of injustice and justice on the road. 7. Possible applications Results from this study suggest that justice, specifically justice specifically applied by law enforcement has the greatest influence on feelings of anger and happiness experienced by witnesses of unjust/offensive driving behaviours. Therefore, it might be beneficial for police departments to encourage increased traffic enforcement. Ensuring that the public sees applications of justice may lead to a less stressful driving experience for motorists. It might also be useful to publicise statistics of traffic citations to the general public using newspapers or television news channels. These forms of media could also be used to inform the public about the efficacy of other forms of enforcement such as red-light cameras. If more motorists are informed as to how red-light cameras work they may be more willing to accept the cameras as a medium for justice. In the current study, participants were simply told that after witnessing a red-light runner they saw a sign indicating the presence of a red-light camera. It might be useful to increase the number of cameras, as well as signs indicating their presence. Signs could even possess an additional message such as ‘‘It’s OK we caught the redlight runner”, or something to that effect. Such a sign might have multiple effects. Informing motorists of the camera might reduce the likelihood that they violate the red-light. Furthermore, it would remind motorists who witness red-light violators that the authorities are watching and active. Radio, is another form of media perfectly suited for the driving environment. In Germany, radio ghosts have been used to reduce drink driving (MacLeod, 2012). Radio ghosts are small radio transponders placed within roadside memorials. When motorists drive by listening to the radio, the transponder interrupts their programme and substitutes the narrated story of what caused the roadside death of the victim at that location. Similar transponders could be placed at intersections equipped with red-light cameras or locations equipped with speed cameras. Brief messages regarding the equipment’s efficacy could be transmitted to motorists. The messages may alleviate negative emotions of victims/witnesses or make potential offenders think twice about their behaviour. The implementation of such devices should coincide with program evaluation research to determine their efficacy. 8. Conclusion Witnessing or falling victim to an unjust driving behaviour can lead to the psychological and physiological manifestations of stress and anger, one of which is aggressive driving. Previous research identified that police and poetic justice can influence driver emotion (Roseborough & Wiesenthal, 2014). The current study provided empirical evidence for the notion that justice applied solely by the police to offending drivers can significantly reduce anger and increase happiness in drivers wit-
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
243
nessing such events. Increased police enforcement or even adopting media campaigns developed for other safety issues may help influence driver emotions and create a more pleasant driving experience. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018. 03.030. References Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press. Clayton, S. D. (1992). The experience of injustice: Some characteristics and correlates. Social Justice Research, 5, 71–91. Cunningham, M. R. (1988). What do you do when you’re happy or blue? Mood, expectancies, and behavioral interest. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 309–331. Dalbert, C. (2002). Beliefs in a Just World as a buffer against anger. Social Justice Research, 15, 123–145. Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a Driving Anger Scale. Psychological Reports, 74, 83–91. 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. Games, P. A., & Howell, J. F. (1976). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal n’s and/or variances: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 1, 113–125. Gulian, E., Matthews, G., Glendon, A. I., & Davies, D. R. (1989). Dimensions of driver stress. Ergonomics, 32, 585–602. Hagman, O. (2010). Driving pleasure: A key concept in Swedish car culture. Mobilities, 5, 25–39. Hallo, J. C., & Manning, R. E. (2009). Transportation and recreation: A case study of visitors driving for pleasure at Acadia National Park. Journal of Transport Geography, 17, 491–499. Hartley, L. R., & El Hassani, J. (1994). Stress, violations, and accidents. Applied Ergonomics, 25, 221–234. Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1999). Traffic congestion, driver stress, and driver aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 409–423. Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13–24. Jovanovic´, D., Lipovac, K., Stanojevic´, P., & Stanojevic´, D. (2011). The effects of personality traits on driving-related anger and aggressive behaviour in traffic among Serbian drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 14, 43–53. Lennon, A., & Watson, B. (2011). ‘‘Teaching them a lesson?” A qualitative exploration of underlying motivations for driver aggression. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 2200–2208. Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051. Licence Types. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2014, from. Lupfer, M. B., Weeks, K. P., Doan, K. A., & Houston, D. A. (2000). Folk conceptions of fairness and unfairness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 299–346. MacLeod, D. (2012, November 13). Radio Ghosts – The Inspiration Room. Retrieved November 16, 2014, from
244
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
Wickens, C. M., Mann, R. E., Stoduto, G., Ialomiteanu, A., & Smart, R. G. (2011). Age group differences in self-reported aggressive driving perpetration and victimization. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14, 400–412. Wickens, C. M., Roseborough, J. E. W., Hall, A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2013). Anger-provoking events in driving diaries: A content analysis. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 19, 108–120. Wickens, C. M., Wiesenthal, D. L., Flora, D. B., & Flett, G. L. (2011). Understanding driver anger and aggression: Attributional theory in the driving environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 354–370.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Part F journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf
The influence of roadway police justice on driver emotion James E.W. Roseborough ⇑, David L. Wiesenthal York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 September 2015 Accepted 30 March 2018
Keywords: Justice Injustice Driving Anger Aggression Happiness
a b s t r a c t Perceived justice occurs when good behaviour leads to a positive outcome, and when bad behaviour leads to a negative outcome. Punishment for offending motorists is a negative outcome resulting from a collision or police enforcement. Punishment of traffic law/norm violators may reduce recidivism and drivers who observe the punishment may be less likely to perform similar infractions. Punishment may also influence the emotions of witnesses and victimised drivers. This study examined the effect of various punishments on witnesses’ feelings of anger and happiness on roadways. 142 individuals were randomly assigned to one of five punishment conditions (i.e., police enforcement; collision with roadside object; collision with other vehicle; collision with roadside object and police enforcement; collision with other vehicle and police enforcement). Participants viewed four animated videos depicting unjust driving behaviours and were told that the violator in each scenario experienced one of the five forms of punishment. Participants indicated how angry and happy the each scenario made them, before and after learning of the punishment. Analyses indicated that perceived punishment by police reduced feelings of anger and increased feelings of happiness compared to the other four forms of punishment. In addition to increasing roadway safety, the current study demonstrated the importance of enforcement’s positive impact on the emotional states of witnesses of unjust driving behaviour. Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The driving experience may be pleasant or unpleasant depending on the purpose for driving or events experienced while driving. The specific car being driven, the scenery viewed en route to the destination, or the destination itself may contribute to an enjoyable driving experience (Hagman, 2010; Hallo & Manning, 2009). Similarly, driving at night may be enjoyable for drivers who enjoy the city lights or night skies. Other events such as traffic congestion or behaviours of other drivers may make the driving experience unenjoyable (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999; Roseborough & Wiesenthal, 2014; Wickens, Roseborough, Hall, & Wiesenthal, 2013). Creating a more pleasurable and safe driving environment is the goal of the current study, by examining factors that may influence driving emotion and driving aggression. Police enforcement may have several influences: (1) police enforcement punishes violators of laws; (2) witnessing police enforcement may decrease the likelihood of other individuals from violating the law; and (3) witnessing police enforcement may reduce negative feelings resulting from a perceived injustice. Witnesses or victims of unjust driving may experience stress and anger. Replacing angry moods with happy moods would make driving a more pleasurable experience. The goal ⇑ Corresponding author at: OCAD University, Department of Institutional Analysis, 230 Richmond St. West, Room 520, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 3E5, Canada. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.E.W. Roseborough). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.030 1369-8478/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
237
of the current study was to determine the influence of perceived justice on feelings of anger and happiness for witnesses of unjust driving behaviours. Specifically, this study examined the influence of the application of several forms of justice on feelings of anger and happiness in witnesses of unjust driving behaviours. 1.1. Driver emotion Two common emotions experienced by individuals are anger and happiness. Anger has been conceptualized as both a trait and an emotional state. Trait anger is defined as the predisposition to experience anger with increased frequency and intensity in a variety of situations (Spielberger, 1988). State anger is defined as an emotional state marked by subjective feelings varying in intensity from mild annoyance or irritation to intense fury and rage (Spielberger, Johnson, Russell, Crane, Jacobs, & Worden, 1985). Research has found that increased anger is related to hostile cognition, cardiovascular effects, and aggressive behaviour (Siegman, 1993; Tiedens, 2001). Related to the concepts of trait and state anger are trait driving anger and state driving anger. Trait driving anger is similar to trait anger, but it is more situation and context specific (Deffenbacher, Oetting, & Lynch, 1994). State driving anger could be defined as an emotional state marked by subjective feelings ranging from mild annoyance to intense rage in response to factors or situations encountered while operating a motor vehicle. Driving anger is a likely contributing factor of aggression for several reasons. Anger can provide a justification for retaliation. Throughout development, individuals create interpretational and behavioural scripts that allow them to respond to situations more easily (Huesmann, 1988). If an individual develops a script where aggression is preceded by feelings of anger, then experiencing anger in the driving environment may result in driving aggression. Additionally, driving anger may interfere with higher-level cognitive processes inhibiting aggression. Increased driving anger has been associated with increased acts of aggressive driving in several studies using a variety of methodologies (Jovanovic´, Lipovac, Stanojevic´, & Stanojevic´, 2011; Roseborough, Wiesenthal, Flett, & Cribbie, 2011; Vallières, Vallerand, Bergeron, & McDuff, 2014; Wickens, Wiesenthal, Flora, & Flett, 2011). Such aggressive behaviours include driving too fast, tailgating, flashing high beams, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and using one’s automobile as a weapon (Deffenbacher et al., 1994). Happiness can also be conceptualized as a trait and state emotion. State happiness occurs when an event is goal congruent and does not involve blame or threat (Mesken, Hagenzieker, Rothengatter, & de Waard, 2007). Research has found that increased happiness is related to increased prosocial behaviour and physical health (Cunningham, 1988; Steptoe, Wardle, & Marmot, 2005; Veenhoven, 2008). The determinants and consequences of happiness have received relatively less attention from the driving research (Mesken et al., 2007; Roseborough & Wiesenthal, 2014). In-situ research has shown that driver happiness increases as a result of events that are congruent with the driver’s goals and events contributing to increased driver safety (Mesken et al., 2007). Due to the negative consequences of anger (e.g., aggression) and the positive consequences of happiness (e.g., prosocial behaviour) it is important identify the causal factors of these emotions in order to control them. 1.2. Justice, injustice, and driver emotion Perceptions of justice and injustice may lead to happiness and anger. Equity theory states that an individual will perceive a situation as just when their ratio of input to outcome is equivalent to the ratio of other individuals (Adams, 1965). Justice is important as it allows individuals to enter psychological contracts with society. Individuals behave positively because the existence of justice ensures positive outcomes. Individuals avoid behaving negatively because the existence of justice ensures behaving badly leads to negative outcomes. We may speculate that the human need for justice is so important that we possess a psychological barrier to reduce the effects of injustice, that is, the belief in a just world. The belief in a just world is the belief that people get what they deserve. Individuals are motivated to believe in a just world because it allows them to confront their physical and social environment as though it were stable and orderly, serving as an adaptive function (Lerner & Miller, 1978). Individuals with an increased endorsement of just world beliefs have been found to have reduced feelings of anger in anger-evoking situations on and off the road (Nesbit, Blankenship, & Murray, 2012; Dalbert, 2002). The evolution of this psychological mechanism suggests how important the perception of justice is to humans. Perceived injustice results when an event occurs leading an individual to believe they have not received what they deserve (Mikula, 1993). The perception of injustice can result in uncomfortable and distressing emotional and physiological states (Adams, 1965; Markovsky, 1988). The most common events that individuals consider to be unjust are those that are perceived to be disrespectful (Lupfer, Weeks, Doan, & Houston, 2000; Mikula, 1986; Mikula, Petri, & Tanzer, 1990). In the context of driving, an individual who cuts into a queue of vehicles may be seen as disrespecting those who lined up properly. An individual who believes he/she has been intentionally cut off may also feel disrespected. Similarly, an individual who uses a lane improperly (driving in a bus lane or on a road shoulder) may be perceived as disrespecting the laws or norms of society. Motorists abiding by the rules and norms of their society may perceive violations of these standards as a personal affront as well. The most common emotional response to disrespect or injustice is anger (Clayton, 1992; Mikula, 1986; Scher, 1997). Perceiving injustice may lead to feelings of anger leading to retaliation. Retaliation may be engaged in to inform the offender that he/she is worthy of injustice and not the victim, to inform the offender that his/her actions were unacceptable, or to cause the offender equal pain/inconvenience (Miller, 2001; Lennon & Watson, 2011).
238
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
Considerable driving research has examined the psychological and behavioural states of motorists who have been witnesses or victims of unjust/offensive driving behaviour. One consequence of unjust/offensive driving behaviour is driving stress. Driving stress can have negative psychological, physiological, and behavioural consequences. Driver stress can result in reduced concentration, and increased arousal, heart rate, blood pressure, aggressive driving, and increased automobile collisions (Matthews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991; Novaco, Stokols, Campbell, & Stokols, 1979; Selzer & Vinokur, 1974; Stokols, Novaco, Stokols, & Campbell, 1978; Gulian, Matthews, Glendon, & Davies, 1989; Hartley & El Hassani, 1994; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999). Stressful driving may contribute to a dispositional tendency to perceive all driving encounters more negatively (Gulian et al., 1989). Research has identified that perceiving unjust driving behaviour may lead to feelings of anger, resulting in retaliatory acts of aggression (Lennon & Watson, 2011; Roseborough et al., 2011). Driving anger may be expressed as driving too fast, tailgating, flashing high beams, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and using one’s automobile as a weapon (Deffenbacher et al., 1994; Lennon & Watson, 2011). A large body of driving research has supported the link between driving anger and driving aggression (Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher, 2001; Nesbit, Conger, & Conger, 2007; Wickens et al., 2011; Lennon & Watson, 2011). A recent study found that anger stemming from perceptions of unjust driving behaviour was related to retaliatory aggressive driving (Roseborough et al., 2011). Although there are positive consequences of perceiving justice and numerous negative consequences of perceiving unjust driving behaviours, only recently has research examined the influence of perceived punishment/justice on driver anger and happiness (Roseborough & Wiesenthal, 2014). Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014) examined the influence of police justice and poetic justice on feelings of anger and happiness for those witnessing unjust driving behaviour. Participants were exposed to four different unjust behaviours, an illegal left-turn, a four-way-stop violation, queuing violation, and a redlight violation. Participants were then told the left-turn driver was stopped by police, the 4-way-stop violator collided with another vehicle, the queue violator collided with another vehicle, and the red-light violation occurred at an intersection with a red-light camera. Participants reported their feelings of anger and happiness before and after being told about the application of justice. The study’s results suggested that applications of justice by law enforcement had the greatest influence on driver anger and happiness. Furthermore, poetic justice (a collision) influenced driver anger but had not influence on driver happiness. The results however were confounded as the study did not control for the nature of the unjust behaviour. 2. Purpose and hypotheses This study extended the research of Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014) by experimentally manipulating the type of justice/punishment experienced by offenders (seen by witnesses). The researchers examined the efficacy of five forms of punishment on the emotions of witness drivers. The five punishments were: police involvement only, a collision with a roadside object and police involvement, a collision with another vehicle and police involvement, a collision with a roadside object with no police involvement, and a collision with another vehicle with no police involvement. Based on the findings of Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014), the current study proposed the following hypotheses: H1. Police involvement compared to the four other forms of punishment would reduce driver anger and increase driver happiness. H2. A collision with a roadside object with, and without police involvement, compared to an automobile collision with and without police involvement, would reduce driver anger and increase driver happiness.
3. Methodology 3.1. Participants This study used a sample 142 (92 female) undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 47 years (Mdn = 20, M = 22.1, SD = 5.50). Participants had possessed a driver’s license ranging from 1.5 to 27 years (Mdn = 3.7, M = 4.9, SD = 4.07). Fifty-seven participants possessed a graduated license (i.e., G), and 85 participants possessed a level two graduated license (i.e., G2). A G-license allows drivers to operate any car, van or small truck or up to 11,000 kg, but it must not be a motorcycle, a bus carrying passengers, or an ambulance providing ambulance service. A G2-license allows drivers to operate G-class vehicles, but are subject to passenger restrictions (Licence Types, n.d.). Participants reported they drove an average of 7.4 (SD = 7.23) hours and 141.06 (SD = 161.35) kilometres per week. Approximately 30% of participants primarily drove on King’s/400-series highways (speed limit = 100 km/h), approximately 13% of participants primarily drove on secondary highways (speed limit = 80 km/h), and approximately 57% of participants primarily drove on city streets (speed limit = 50 km/h). Participation was voluntary and participants received course credit for study participation.
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
239
3.2. Procedure Participants completed the study during group testing sessions at York University. Initially, participants were provided an informed consent form, written scenario prompts, questionnaire booklets, and verbal instructions regarding the manner in which booklets were to be completed. There were five versions of the questionnaire booklet and participants received a version at random. Participants were then shown four animated driving scenarios. Before each scenario the written prompt was read aloud by the researcher to ensure all participants knew what would occur in the animated scenario. The animated video was then presented to the participants on a 72-in. high-definition television screen. After viewing each animated scenario, participants answered questions regarding thoughts, emotions, and behaviours related to the animated scenario. The study received ethics approval by the Human Participants Review Subcommittee (HPRC) of York University. 3.3. Measures and stimuli 3.3.1. Written prompts and animated video clips Participants watched four animated video clips depicting an unjust driving behaviour. The four unjust behaviours were, a queuing violation, a risky left-turn, misuse of a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, and a red-light violation. Participants were asked to picture themselves in each scenario, and imagine the thoughts, feelings, and behaviours they would exhibit. Before watching each clip, participants were prompted with a brief written description of the scenario depicted in the video clip. After hearing each scenario prompt, participants viewed the animated video. Animated videos were used to ensure participants understood the scenarios and to heighten the influence of the situation. The animated clips were created using AutodeskÒ 3ds MaxÒ, a 3-D animation modelling and rendering software. The videos ranged in length from 24 s to 56 s. Two written prompts and captions from their corresponding videos are in Fig. 1. The four videos are included with the electronic version of this manuscript. 3.3.2. Anger and happiness items Feelings of anger and happiness were assessed after each video was viewed. Anger was measured using a one-item 5point scale ranging from 0 (not angry at all) to 4 (extremely angry). Happiness was measured using a one-item 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not happy at all) to 4 (extremely happy). The use of a single-item measures of emotion is a potential limitation of this study. While single item measures may possess less reliability than multi-item measures, it has been argued that single-item measures are sufficient when the construct being measured if easily and uniformly imagined (Rossiter, 2002). This study proposes that anger and happiness, which are universal emotions, are two such constructs. After answering these questions, participants were asked to imagine the application of justice to each scenario and asked about their feelings (i.e., anger and happiness) upon witnessing the possible application of justice. As noted earlier, participants had been randomly given one of five questionnaire booklets. Each of the five versions contained a different form of justice. The five forms of justice were police involvement, a collision with a roadside object, a collision with another vehicle, a collision with a non-vehicular roadside object and police involvement, and a collision with another vehicle and police involvement. Participants then answered the same anger and happiness items indicating how the application of justice made them feel. 4. Analyses and results Each individual’s pre-justice anger scores for the four scenarios were collapsed to create a mean pre-justice anger score. The post-justice anger scores were also collapsed to create a mean post-justice anger score. Pre- and post-justice happiness scores were also created in the same manner. An anger difference score was then calculated by subtracting the mean prejustice anger score from the post-justice anger mean. A happiness difference score was also created using the pre- and posthappiness mean scores. To summarize, each participant had a difference score for anger and a difference score for happiness. 4.1. Anger An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to do determine if anger difference scores varied as a function of the type of justice witnessed. There was significant variation among conditions, Welch-F (4, 67.13) = 13.43, p < .05, g2 = 0.31. Post-hoc analysis using the Games-Howell test was used to compare the anger difference scores among the five conditions (Games & Howell, 1976). Results indicated the greatest decrease in anger occurred in the ‘‘police only” condition (M = 2.60, SD = 1.02) and it was significantly (p < .05) greater than the decrease in happiness due to a collision with a roadside object and police involvement (M = 0.81, SD = 1.37), a collision with another vehicle and police involvement (M = 0.52, SD = 1.10), a collision with a roadside object with no police involvement (M = 1.52, SD = 1.44), and a collision with another vehicle with no police involvement (M = 0.43, SD = 1.27). Furthermore, the decrease in anger due to a collision with a roadside object with no police involvement was significantly greater than the decrease resulting from a collision with another vehicle, with or without police involvement.
240
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
Queuing Violation: You are travelling North in your green car. You are in the designated left-turn lane. Traffic is moving well in the other Northbound lanes, but you have been waiting a while as there are a lot of vehicles waiting to turn left. As you near the intersection, in your side mirror you notice a red car travelling in the Northbound centre lane. As the red car arrives at the intersection, it begins to merge into the left-turn lane, ahead of your vehicle.
Risky Left-Turn: You are travelling North on a 2-lane road in your green car. You are driving in the right lane and at the upcoming intersection you plan on turning right. The lights at the intersection are amber and you come to a stop. Signs indicate no right-turns are allowed on a red light; so you must wait until the light turns green. East/West traffic flows through the intersection and eventually comes to a stop as the light turns red. While all the lights are red, a red vehicle travelling Southbound begins to creep into the intersection. When the North/South lights turn green, the red vehicle quickly turns left in front of the Northbound cars. You must stop your right-turn to avoid a collision with the red car.
Fig. 1. Written vignette and still-caption from unjust driving scenario 1.
4.2. Happiness An ANOVA was conducted to do determine if happiness difference scores varied as a function of the type of justice witnessed. There was significant variation among conditions, Welch-F (4, 67.13) = 12.94, p < .05, g2 = 0.28. Post-hoc analysis using the Games-Howell test indicated the greatest increase in happiness occurred in the ‘‘police only” condition (M = 2.44, SD = 1.38) and it was significantly (p < .05) greater than the increase in happiness due to a collision with a roadside object and police involvement (M = 0.73, SD = 0.96), a collision with another vehicle and police involvement (M = 0.75, SD = 1.30), a collision with a roadside object with no police involvement (M = 1.02, SD = 1.47), and a collision with another vehicle with no police involvement (M = 0.22, SD = 1.04). A graphical representation of the mean difference scores for anger and happiness is in Fig. 2. 5. Discussion The goal of the study was to determine if emotional changes in witnesses of unjust driving behaviours are a result of subsequently witnessing justice in general, or a specific form of justice. Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014) found that legal and poetic justice had inconsistent effects on driver anger and driver happiness in response to four driving scenarios. It could not
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
241
Fig. 2. Mean difference scores of anger and happiness scores by type of justice.
be determined if the inconsistencies were due to differences in the types of justice or differences among the scenarios. The current study experimentally controlled for nature of the unjust driving scenario and the type of justice. Justice applied solely by law enforcement, compared to all other forms of justice, reduced driver anger and increased driver happiness more than for the other scenarios. These results support both Hypothesis 1 and the results obtained by Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014). Justice applied by law enforcement may influence witnesses’ emotions for several reasons. Witnesses may believe that once an individual is punished, he/she will be less likely to behave in such ways in the future. Reducing recidivism may result from education about improper behaviours or the threat of future punishment, both of which may result from involvement of law enforcement. Participants may also believe that the offending motorist feels guilt or shame as he/she publically punished. Participants may feel happier believing the offender is experiencing the negative emotions and cognitions coinciding with public punishment. Additionally, observing police enforcement may enhance one’s belief in the efficacy of the justice system and enhance the credibility of having traffic regulations. Finally, law enforcement may have the greatest effect on emotion if participants believe that it represents the most just/appropriate form of justice, not too mild but not too severe. An unexpected result was that collisions involving police did not influence emotion more than collisions with no police involvement. Compared to scenarios involving one form of justice, the current study expected that collisions involving police would have stronger or additive influences on emotion as the offender experiences not one, but two types of justice. This result could be accounted for if police involvement and a collision did not lead to a balanced scale of justice. This would fit the equity theory of justice in that minor offences receive less punishment rather than more severe punishment which is out of line with the nature of the offence (Adams, 1965). Another possible explanation is that participants may have thought the police involvement was in response to the collision and not the preceding unjust behaviour. Additionally, participants may have believed the police officer may not have seen the unjust behaviour. As a result participants may have thought the offending driver would not receive legal justice for the unjust behaviour, only poetic justice. Hypothesis 2 proposed that collisions with a roadside object with and without police involvement would influence emotion to a greater degree than collisions involving other automobiles. Forms of justice involving a collision generally did not differ with respect to their influence on driver emotion. Justice in the form of a collision with a roadside object reduced driver anger to a greater degree than a collision with another vehicle. A collision with a roadside object versus a collision with another vehicle did not differ in their influence on feelings of happiness. Take, together the different results for anger and happiness provide only partial support for Hypothesis 2. These findings are also consistent with that of Roseborough and colleagues (2014) who found justice in the form of an automobile collision had less influence on emotion than justice applied by police. One possible explanation is that witnesses do not want anyone to be involved in a collision. Collisions may result in harm to those involved. Roseborough and Wiesenthal (2014) suggested that witnesses of unjust behaviour may believe that few or no offensive behaviours warrant the physical harm that could result from a collision. While a collision may provide some warranted punishment (a damaged vehicle) which reduces anger, the potential physical harm to the driver may reduce the positive effects punishment has on happiness. This idea is supported by the finding that collision with a roadside object
242
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
had a larger influence on anger than a collision with another vehicle. Further support stems from the finding that levels of happiness did not differ between justice types that involved a collision. Only the police involvement with no collision differed significantly with regards to its influence on driver happiness. The results of this study are complex, and research into driver’s thoughts on appropriate forms of justice would provide clarity on the findings. The findings suggest that police enforcement of traffic laws reduces driver anger and increases driver happiness. Furthermore, police enforcement of traffic laws may have less of an effect on driver emotion when it occurs after a collision has occurred. While this hypothesis is supported by equity theory of justice, it must be confirmed by future research. 6. Limitations One important limitation of this study was that insight into participant’s opinions regarding the various forms of punishment were not obtained. Asking participants about their thoughts and feelings regarding the various forms of punishment might help explain the influence of justice/injustice on emotion and the results obtained by this study. Asking participants to indicate what they would like to see occur to the offending driver would also provide insight into effective and ineffective forms of justice/punishment. An additional limitation was the age of the current sample. While the sample ranged from 18 to 47 years of age, 50% of the sample was sample was 20 years of age or younger. Research has identified that driver age can influence emotional and behavioural response to offensive driving behaviour. As driver age increases the level of anger resulting from experienced offensive driving behaviours decreases (Parker, Lajunen, & Summala, 2002). Additionally, increases in driver age are related to reductions in aggressive driving behaviour (Wickens, Mann, Stoduto, Ialomiteanu, & Smart, 2011). It would be interesting to examine the influence of roadway justice on drivers possessing a larger age range. A final limitation is that it used vignettes and video clips to elicit emotion. Based on the results it is apparent that emotions were elicited, future research should examine justice and injustice on actual roadways, which may elicit more intense emotions. Participants could be equipped with instruments that measure physiological correlates of anger such as elevated heart rate or blood pressure. Participants could drive in a controlled environment in which they encounter confederate driver who performs an offensive behaviour. Such research could identify the long term physiological effects of injustice and justice on the road. 7. Possible applications Results from this study suggest that justice, specifically justice specifically applied by law enforcement has the greatest influence on feelings of anger and happiness experienced by witnesses of unjust/offensive driving behaviours. Therefore, it might be beneficial for police departments to encourage increased traffic enforcement. Ensuring that the public sees applications of justice may lead to a less stressful driving experience for motorists. It might also be useful to publicise statistics of traffic citations to the general public using newspapers or television news channels. These forms of media could also be used to inform the public about the efficacy of other forms of enforcement such as red-light cameras. If more motorists are informed as to how red-light cameras work they may be more willing to accept the cameras as a medium for justice. In the current study, participants were simply told that after witnessing a red-light runner they saw a sign indicating the presence of a red-light camera. It might be useful to increase the number of cameras, as well as signs indicating their presence. Signs could even possess an additional message such as ‘‘It’s OK we caught the redlight runner”, or something to that effect. Such a sign might have multiple effects. Informing motorists of the camera might reduce the likelihood that they violate the red-light. Furthermore, it would remind motorists who witness red-light violators that the authorities are watching and active. Radio, is another form of media perfectly suited for the driving environment. In Germany, radio ghosts have been used to reduce drink driving (MacLeod, 2012). Radio ghosts are small radio transponders placed within roadside memorials. When motorists drive by listening to the radio, the transponder interrupts their programme and substitutes the narrated story of what caused the roadside death of the victim at that location. Similar transponders could be placed at intersections equipped with red-light cameras or locations equipped with speed cameras. Brief messages regarding the equipment’s efficacy could be transmitted to motorists. The messages may alleviate negative emotions of victims/witnesses or make potential offenders think twice about their behaviour. The implementation of such devices should coincide with program evaluation research to determine their efficacy. 8. Conclusion Witnessing or falling victim to an unjust driving behaviour can lead to the psychological and physiological manifestations of stress and anger, one of which is aggressive driving. Previous research identified that police and poetic justice can influence driver emotion (Roseborough & Wiesenthal, 2014). The current study provided empirical evidence for the notion that justice applied solely by the police to offending drivers can significantly reduce anger and increase happiness in drivers wit-
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
243
nessing such events. Increased police enforcement or even adopting media campaigns developed for other safety issues may help influence driver emotions and create a more pleasant driving experience. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018. 03.030. References Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press. Clayton, S. D. (1992). The experience of injustice: Some characteristics and correlates. Social Justice Research, 5, 71–91. Cunningham, M. R. (1988). What do you do when you’re happy or blue? Mood, expectancies, and behavioral interest. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 309–331. Dalbert, C. (2002). Beliefs in a Just World as a buffer against anger. Social Justice Research, 15, 123–145. Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a Driving Anger Scale. Psychological Reports, 74, 83–91. 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. Games, P. A., & Howell, J. F. (1976). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal n’s and/or variances: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 1, 113–125. Gulian, E., Matthews, G., Glendon, A. I., & Davies, D. R. (1989). Dimensions of driver stress. Ergonomics, 32, 585–602. Hagman, O. (2010). Driving pleasure: A key concept in Swedish car culture. Mobilities, 5, 25–39. Hallo, J. C., & Manning, R. E. (2009). Transportation and recreation: A case study of visitors driving for pleasure at Acadia National Park. Journal of Transport Geography, 17, 491–499. Hartley, L. R., & El Hassani, J. (1994). Stress, violations, and accidents. Applied Ergonomics, 25, 221–234. Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1999). Traffic congestion, driver stress, and driver aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 409–423. Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13–24. Jovanovic´, D., Lipovac, K., Stanojevic´, P., & Stanojevic´, D. (2011). The effects of personality traits on driving-related anger and aggressive behaviour in traffic among Serbian drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 14, 43–53. Lennon, A., & Watson, B. (2011). ‘‘Teaching them a lesson?” A qualitative exploration of underlying motivations for driver aggression. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 2200–2208. Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051. Licence Types. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2014, from
244
J.E.W. Roseborough, D.L. Wiesenthal / Transportation Research Part F 56 (2018) 236–244
Wickens, C. M., Mann, R. E., Stoduto, G., Ialomiteanu, A., & Smart, R. G. (2011). Age group differences in self-reported aggressive driving perpetration and victimization. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14, 400–412. Wickens, C. M., Roseborough, J. E. W., Hall, A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2013). Anger-provoking events in driving diaries: A content analysis. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 19, 108–120. Wickens, C. M., Wiesenthal, D. L., Flora, D. B., & Flett, G. L. (2011). Understanding driver anger and aggression: Attributional theory in the driving environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 354–370.